Research Article

Advances in Mechanical Engineering

2023, Vol. 15(3) 1–15
Ó The Author(s) 2023
Fatigue experimental study on DOI: 10.1177/16878132231155271
journals.sagepub.com/home/ade
full-scale large sectional model
of orthotropic steel deck of urban
rail bridge

Yong Zeng1,2 , Zhou Qiu1,2, Changchun Yang3, Su Haozheng1,2,

Zhongfu Xiang1,2 and Jianting Zhou1,2

Abstract
The fatigue problem of orthotropic steel bridge decks of urban rail transit steel bridges has gradually become one of the
hot research topics. And it is also a key problem that restricts the further development of rail transit steel bridges. In this
paper, the orthotropic steel bridge deck structure of a long-span urban rail transit cable-stayed bridge is studied. Based
on the segmental finite element model and full-scale model, the fatigue details of the joint weld between an orthotropic
steel bridge deck and U-rib were studied theoretically and experimentally. The theoretical model of the segment is ana-
lyzed to obtain the hot spot stress characteristics. On this basis, the full-scale model fatigue test and the fatigue perfor-
mance evaluation are completed based on the S-N curve. The results show that the fatigue performance of the bridge
deck and U-rib joints of the orthotropic steel bridge deck structure model meets the design requirements and has a cer-
tain safety reserve. The joint fatigue details of the bridge deck, the U-rib joint weld, and the diaphragm plate are the sen-
sitive areas that are most likely to occur fatigue failure first and need to be paid attention to in the later bridge
maintenance and inspection.

Keywords
Orthotropic steel bridge deck, full-scale model, fatigue test, fatigue performance

Date received: 14 August 2022; accepted: 6 January 2023

Handling Editor: Chenhui Liang

Urbanization is the mainstream development trend in
the world today. Urban rail transit is undoubtedly a
very competitive transportation mode. Rail transit
can transport many passengers with low travel time,
less energy consumption, and light environmental
impacts.1,2 With the unstoppable development trend of
rail transit on a global scale, reasonable route planning
is bound to have an extremely far-reaching impact on
the development and management of future cities. It
can be seen that the performance of the rail transit steel
bridge, which is the key control node of the route, is
closely related to the sustainable development of urban
rail transit.
Urban rail transits are the backbone of urban public
transportation systems in many cities around the world.
1
State Key Laboratory of Mountain Bridge and Tunnel Engineering,
Chongqing Jiaotong University, Chongqing, China
2
Mountain Bridge and Materials Engineering Research Center of Ministry
of Education, Chongqing Jiaotong University, Chongqing, China
3
Guangxi Communications Investment Group Co., Ltd., Guangxi, China
Corresponding author:
Yong Zeng, State Key Laboratory of Mountain Bridge and Tunnel
Engineering, Chongqing Jiaotong University, No.66 Xuefu Avenue, Nan’an
District, Chongqing 400074, China.
Email: zycquc@126.com

Creative Commons CC BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work
without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages
(https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
2 Advances in Mechanical Engineering
Figure 1. The fatigue load range of the single load/mm.
Its inherent characteristics, such as exclusive way, high
capacity, automated guidance, and electric propulsion,
allow it to carry a large number of commuters with
speed, convenience, and safety.3 It is not only different
from highway traffic, but also railway traffic. The fati-
gue load models of highway and railway steel bridges
have been studied extensively throughout the world
and many research results have also been obtained.4–15
In terms of railway steel bridges. An innovative steel-
concrete joint was applied to long-span railway hybrid
box girder cable-stayed bridges to achieve favorable
force transfer and deformation performance train.16 In
terms of highway steel bridges, the literature evaluated
the fatigue performance of rib-to-deck welded joints in
orthotropic steel decks with thickened edge U-ribs.17,18
Moreover, the fatigue performance of rib-to-floorbeam
welded connection in orthotropic steel decks reinforced
by using ultra-high-performance concrete (UHPC)
overlay is also studied.19
Compared with rail transportation, highway trans-
portation has diversified vehicle types,20–27 but the load
effects are relatively small. Railway transportation and
urban rail transits have certain similarities, that is the
load type is single with strong regularity, but the load
effect is larger. At the same time, there are relatively
few studies on the fatigue performance of orthotropic
steel decks of bridges in urban rail transit. The full-scale
fatigue test data that can be used as a reference for engi-
neering design, are relatively limited.
The fatigue performance test of the large full-length
orthotropic steel bridge deck structure model is per-
formed, to provide the technical basis for the rational
design of the orthotropic steel bridge deck of the urban
rail transit bridge.
Theoretical analysis of fatigue test model
Fatigue load of urban rail transit bridge
The fatigue load model based on the highway or rail-
way traffic can not be directly used in rail transit, so it
can be considered that the amount of change is only the
passenger flow and the number of train marshals, which
is reflected in the size and number of axle load changes.
The number of axle loads can be determined through
specific traffic management planning, and the number
of train formations is adopted in different periods.
Therefore, the choice of the distribution and size of the
axle loads of the fatigue load model is very critical.
For the determination of axle loads, if the prediction
calculation of the actual traffic volume is time-
consuming and has regional limitations, the direct use
of the designed axle loads is not conducive to the devel-
opment of material performance, resulting in a waste
of resources. It is not easy to calculate the length of the
influence line of the component and the probability of
the most unfavorable situation when reducing accord-
ing to the highway industry norms. Therefore, the fati-
gue load reduction factor multiplied by the designed
train axle load is selected as the value of the axle loads
of the fatigue load model of the urban rail transit
bridge. The fatigue load reduction factor is finally
determined to be 0.8,3,24,25 in accordance with the lin-
ear fatigue cumulative damage theory and the corre-
sponding train design axle load.
Because of the characteristics of urban rail transit
vehicles running on fixed guide rails, which are differ-
ent from common road traffic, the calculation of the
load range is also different. The loads caused by the
axle loads of the train can be distributed on three adja-
cent rails along the rail, and the distribution width of
the vertical line direction can be calculated. Therefore,
the fatigue load range is distributed along the rail:
L = 0.925 + 0.275 = 1.2 m, along the vertical line:
B = 2.3 + 0.275 + 0.275 = 2.85 m. The specific uni-
axial fatigue load range is shown in Figure 1.
Establishment of theoretical model
A long-span urban rail transit cable-stayed bridge is
taken as the research object. The mid-span girder of
the cable-stayed bridge adopts a streamlined flat steel
box girder, and the deck structure is an orthotropic
Zeng et al.
Figure 2. The sectional layout of a long-span urban rail transit cable-stayed bridge/mm.
Figure 3. Size of diaphragm plate structure (unit: mm).
steel deck. The cross-sectional layout of the bridge, the
size of the diaphragm plate structure, and the standard
Figure 4. The standard layout of A-type rail transit trail/m.
3
design diagram of an A-type rail transit car are shown
in Figures 2 to 4.
A finite element model of the orthotropic steel deck
(OSD) of the steel box girder of the special cable-stayed
bridge for urban rail transit is established. The height of
the diaphragm plate of the theoretical research model is
800 mm. The middle section of the longitudinal span of
the deck structure is intercepted for 14 m, including five
diaphragm plates. The distance between diaphragm
plates is 3 m. There are five diaphragm plates in total,
with a spacing of 3 m in pairs. A total of 10 U-ribs, two
adjacent U-ribs’ center line spacing is 0.6 m. Both ends
of all diaphragm plates in the finite element model are
all constrained, and the center line of the external load
range is consistent with the center line of the roadway.
Uniaxial load is applied along the center line of the
roadway. The time required for each load movement of
0.25 m is taken as a one-time step. The loading process
4 Advances in Mechanical Engineering
Figure 5. The finite element model of OSD of the urban rail
transit bridge.
took 49-time steps. The steel elastic modulus of the
model is E = 2.06 3 1011 Pa, Poisson’s ratio m = 0.3,
and the density is 7.85 g/cm3. The finite element model
has 509,265 elements in total, and the mesh division of
the grid encryption region is analyzed by the hot spot
stress method. The mesh size of the research area (The
area of mesh encryption) is 0.5 t (t is the thickness of
the component). The area of grid encryption is 0.6 m
around the middle diaphragm, and the width is 6 m.
The finite element model the segmental model is shown
in Figure 5.
Theoretical model analysis
TDP1 (the first diaphragm plate) as the starting point
and TDP5 (the fifth diaphragm plate) as the end point,
the fatigue load will move along the centerline of the
carriageway in the direction of the rail within this range,
as shown in Figure 6.
The method of moving loading and hot spot stress
analysis is adopted. During the movement of single-line
uniaxial, biaxial, and four-axis fatigue loads, the stress
history relationship curves of each key fatigue detail of
the bridge deck and the U-rib joints at the middle dia-
phragm plate (TDP3) of the finite element model of this
section were analyzed. It can provide the theoretical
basis for fatigue loading of a large section of the bridge.
From the analysis of stress history curves in the
above figures (Figures 7–9), it can be concluded that:
(1) Under uniaxial, biaxial, or four-axis fatigue
loads, the stress changes of each key fatigue
detail of the deck and the U-rib joints weld at
the middle diaphragm plate have certain sym-
metry in the direction along the line.
Figure 6. Schematic diagram of fatigue load moving along the
line.
(2) The stress history curve of each fatigue detail
under uniaxial fatigue load can be concluded
that the contribution of the fatigue load to its
stress value outside the space range of two
adjacent diaphragm plates on the left and right
sides is less than 5%, and the effect is very
small. So the stresses of the key fatigue detail
can satisfy the characteristic of ‘‘adjacent load
availability.’’
(3) The stress history curve of each fatigue detail
under the biaxial fatigue load constituted only
one stress cycle, and the maximum stress value
under the biaxial fatigue load was about 1.4
times that under the uniaxial fatigue load.
(4) The stress history curve of each fatigue detail
under a four-axis fatigue load can have two
stress cycles in total. The difference between
the maximum stress and the biaxial fatigue load
is only about 1%, which can be regarded as the
‘‘Repetition’’ of the stress history curve under
the biaxial fatigue load two times.
According to the stress history curves under the
four-axis fatigue load and the Miner linear fatigue
cumulative damage theory, the equivalent stress ampli-
tude of each fatigue detail can be calculated according
to the formula (1).
P m1
ni ðDsi Þm
Ds0 = P ð1Þ
ni
For the fatigue details on the diaphragm plate,
Ds1 = 33.9 MPa, Ds2 = 17.5 MPa, Ds0 = 29.7 MPa.
For fatigue details corresponding to the bottom of
the bridge deck, Ds1 = 20.3 MPa, Ds2 = 10.1 MPa,
Ds0 = 17.8 MPa.
For fatigue details on the outside of the U-rib web,
Ds1 = 26.4 MPa, Ds2 = 14.2 MPa, Ds0 = 23.1 MPa.
According to the traffic volume, the total number of
the train is up to 8,723,500, and the number of axles is
Zeng et al.
Figure 7. Stress history curves of the key fatigue details of the
diaphragm plate.
Figure 8. Stress history curves of key fatigue details of the
deck.
about 235 million. However, due to the limitations of
the existing experimental equipment, it is almost impossi-
ble to carry out such an order of magnitude of cyclic
loading times. According to the conversion method of
linear cumulative damage theory (as shown in Figure
10), formula (2) below is obtained. The equivalent stress
amplitude of each fatigue detail of the deck and U-rib
joint is converted into the equivalent stress amplitude of
2 million times of constant stress cycles, and then the
equivalent fatigue load amplitude is obtained.
 1=5  1=3
nk 107
Dss = Ds0   ð2Þ
107 2 3 106
5
Figure 9. Stress history curves of the key fatigue details of the
U-rib web.
Figure 10. Schematic diagram of stress amplitude calculation.
In the above formula, Dss is the equivalent stress
amplitude used in the fatigue test; Ds0 is the equivalent
stress amplitude calculated in theory; nk is the total
number of stress cycles of Ds0 during the structural
design service life.
Therefore, the equivalent stress amplitude and fati-
gue equivalent load amplitude of each fatigue detail of
the bridge deck and the U-rib joints weld during the 2
million cycles of constant amplitude stress cycles are
summarized in Table 1 below.
Fatigue test and result analysis
Design of fatigue test
Test model. The materials of the model test pieces are
all Q345qD steel, and the welding materials are selected
6 Advances in Mechanical Engineering

Table 1. Fatigue equivalent stress amplitude and load amplitude of each fatigue detail.

Serial number Fatigue details Equivalent stress Equivalent fatigue

amplitude (MPa) load amplitude (kN)

1 Connecting the position of Bottom of the bridge deck 43.4 150

the bridge deck and U rib Outside of U rib web 56.4 161
On the diaphragm plate 72.4 325

Figure 11. Front view of the test model (unit: mm).

Figure 12. Side view of test model (unit: mm).

according to the results of the welding process test eva-
luation. The flux, welding wire, and manual welding
rod used in the model meet the requirements of the cor-
responding standards. The length of the test model is
3000 mm, the width is 3000 mm, and the end is sealed
with a steel plate with a height of 300 mm and a thick-
ness of 12 mm. Two steel boxes of 3000 3 150 3 280
mm3 are made to be used as the longitudinal supports
of the test model. 5 U ribs are arranged horizontally,
the size of which is 300 3 280 3 8 mm3, and the U-rib
center distance is 600 mm. There are three diaphragm
plates arranged longitudinally, and the U ribs pass
through the diaphragm plate continuously and uninter-
ruptedly. The specific dimensions of the test model are
shown in Figures 11 and 12.
Test model installation and fatigue test plan. In the test
model, the bottom bearing of the model is directly
connected with four 450 3 300 3 35 mm3 steel plates by
welding, and the steel plates and the ground anchors
are prefixed connected by 42 mm diameter fine rolled
rebars. The full-size model is placed on the steel box
girder support and welded to the top of the steel box
girder support within 150 mm of the left and right seal-
ing plates at both ends. The fatigue load of the test
model is vertically acted on the top of the model by a
50 t MTS actuator, under which a load-sharing beam is
installed to realize biaxial loading, and a rubber pad of
300 3 300 mm2 is placed between the load-sharing
beam and the top of the test model to simulate uniform
load. The specific test model installation is shown in
Figure 13.
The loss of load transfer process and the difference
between theoretical simulation and practical test are
considered in combination with the requirements of the
fatigue test site. The final fatigue equivalent load ampli-
tude is 175 kN and the loading frequency is 4 Hz.
Zeng et al.
Figure 13. Detail drawing of test model installation: (a) elevation of test model installation (b) installation floor plan of the test
model, and (c) actual installation of the test model.
Static load test process. The static load test is carried
out in a graded manner. That is, starting from zero,
increasing step by step according to a certain load
increment until the fatigue loading value, until to the
maximum value of 185 kN. The loading history is
0 kN!15 kN!35 kN!65 kN!95 kN!125 kN!155
kN!185 kN, and then symmetrical and gradual
unloading is performed. After completing the first
level of loading or unloading, it is stabilized for a
few minutes, and then the reading and recording of
the strains and displacements of the model are com-
pleted. After all, unloading is completed, the resi-
dual strain and displacement are read.
When the number of fatigue cycles reaches every
250,000 times, it is necessary to stop the machine for
7
the static load test. Before the first static load test, it is
necessary to complete the preloading work more than
three times, and then formally start without abnormal
conditions. The changes in the strain and displacement
measurement points under the static load test are moni-
tored to verify whether there is any abnormality.
Fatigue test process. In order to prevent the separation
of the steel block and the full-scale model during the
loading process and the stability of the model, the lower
load limit of the fatigue test is 10 kN, and the upper
load limit is 185 kN. After every 250,000 cycles of fati-
gue loading are completed in sequence, a static load test
is performed to check whether the model is damaged or
has other abnormal conditions.
8 Advances in Mechanical Engineering

Table 2. Specific test load amplitude.

Cycle load Test load upper and Load amplitudes Increase

times (10,000 times) lower limits P(kN) DP(kN) multiples

0–200 10–185 175 1.00

200–225 10–202.5 192.5 1.10
225–250 10–211.25 201.25 1.15
250–275 10–220 210 1.20
275–300 10–228.75 218.75 1.25

Figure 14. Detailed layout of measuring points: (a) arrangement of strain measuring points and (b) horizontal arrangement of
displacement measuring points.

After the 2 million fatigue cycle loading times are
completed, if there are no fatigue cracks in the model,
the load loading amplitude is increased, as shown in
Table 2. After the 3 million fatigue cycle loading times
are completed, the test is stopped, if the model still has
no fatigue cracks.
Arrangement of measuring points. The purpose of the rea-
sonable arrangement of the measuring points of the test
model is to fully and comprehensively reflect the
structural stress characteristics of the orthotropic steel
deck. The strain measuring points are mainly arranged
in the key parts of each fatigue detail to obtain the
distribution law of strains. In order to observe the
effect of asymmetric loading, strain gauges were pasted
at symmetric and fatigue details of the same type on
the full-scale model. At the same time, the paste posi-
tion is about 10 mm away from the weld toe. The verti-
cal displacement measuring point is installed at the
position of the middle diaphragm plate (TDP2), and
there are three vertical displacement measuring points
horizontally. On the one hand, it can inspect the actual
stiffness of the fatigue test model, on the other hand, it
can ensure the accuracy and safety of the fatigue test
loading process. Due to the paper’s limitations, only
the typical strain measuring points and displacement
measuring points of the bridge deck (TBD) and U-rib
connecting weld position are listed here. The corre-
sponding measuring point positions and numbers are
shown in Figure 14.
Zeng et al. 9

Result analysis 15 and 16 below. Comparison between theoretical anal-

In the entire model test process, after every 250,000
cycles of loading, the machine stops for a static load test
to obtain the strain or vertical displacement data of each
point after different cycles of loading. Due to the paper’s
limitation, the von-Mises stress and displacement results
of some key measurement points at the weld joint posi-
tion between the bridge deck and U-rib of the test model
under different cycles of loading were plotted in Figures
ysis results and actual full-scale test results at each mea-
surement point are shown in Table 3.
By analyzing the above figures and tables, it can be
concluded that:
(1) The theoretical calculation results of each mea-
surement point are roughly consistent with the
test results, indicating that the full-scale model

(a) (b)
Von-Mises (MPa)

Von-Mises (MPa)

Loading/Unloading (kN) Loading/Unloading (kN)

(c) (d)
Von-Mises (MPa)

Von-Mises (MPa)

Loading/Unloading (kN) Loading/Unloading (kN)

(e) (f)
Von-Mises (MPa)

Von-Mises (MPa)

Loading/Unloading (kN) Loading/Unloading (kN)

Figure 15. (continued)

10
(g)
Von-Mises (MPa)
Loading/Unloading (kN)
(i)
Von-Mises (MPa)
Loading/Unloading (kN)
Figure 15. Stress-load history curves of some key measuring points: (a) TBD-measuring point 2, (b) TDP2-Measuring point 8, (c)
TBD-Measuring point 3, (d) TBD-Measuring point 12, (e) U-rib-Measuring point 4, (f) U-rib-Measuring point 13, (g) U-rib-Measuring
point 5, (h) TDP2-Measuring point 18, (i)TDP2-Measuring point 9, and (j) TDP2-Measuring point 17.
can well simulate the fatigue characteristics of
the actual bridge structure’s vulnerable parts.
(2) The stress values of the measuring points of dif-
ferent components in the same fatigue-
vulnerable parts are often different to some
extent. The results show that the load transfer
process of fatigue vulnerable parts is different
due to the different constraint settings, which
affects the actual fatigue performance and fati-
gue life.
(3) The stress-load or displacement-load curves of
key measurement point do not appear obvious
mutation, all numerical size only in the accepta-
ble range fluctuations, and is basically linear
with the test load, with symmetry and good
recoverability showing that fatigue damageable
parts in the linear elastic state, and no fatigue
failure occurs.
(4) In the process of 200 million times fatigue load-
ing tests, no abnormal conditions and no fati-
gue crack initiation were observed in the model,
Advances in Mechanical Engineering
(h)
Von-Mises (MPa)
Loading/Unloading (kN)
(j)
Von-Mises (MPa)
Loading/Unloading (kN)
indicating that the fatigue performance of the
vulnerable parts of the model meets the design
requirements.
More than 2 million fatigue test results
Based on the completed 2 million fatigue cycle loading
tests, the load amplitude continues to increase and more
than 2 million fatigue tests were carried out in accor-
dance with the test plan described above. The Von-
Mises stress results of some measuring points under the
fatigue cycle loading test of more than 2 million times
are summarized in Figure 17.
The analysis of the data listed in Figure 17 shows
that: in the whole process of over 2 million fatigue tests,
the stress value of each measuring point changes line-
arly with the linear increase of the fatigue loading
amplitude, and no obvious stress mutation occurs, and
no fatigue crack is found. That is to say, under the con-
ditions of high stress amplitude and long service life,
the fatigue details at the weld joint of bridge deck and
Zeng et al. 11

(a)
Displacement (mm) (b)

Displacement (mm)
Loading/Unloading (kN)
Loading/Unloading (kN)

(c)
Displacement (mm)

Loading/Unloading (kN)

Figure 16. Displacement-load variation curves of some key displacement measuring points: (a) measuring point F1, (b) measuring
point F2, and (c) measuring point F3.

Table 3. Table of comparison between model test results and theoretical calculation results.

Number of measuring The measured value of Von-mises stress under certain fatigue cycle loading times (MPa) Theoretical
points Von-Mises
0 500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 1,750,000 2,000,000 stress value
times times times times times times (MPa)

TBD-measuring point 2 90.5 91.8 85.0 84.0 83.9 84.4 87.0

TBD-measuring point 3 75.4 77.5 72.4 71.2 71.4 71.3 73.3
TBD-measuring point 12 41.6 43.8 40.9 40.4 40.4 40.8 41.7
U-rib-measuring point 4 52.8 51.7 53.4 53.4 54.9 53.1 56.8
U-rib -measuring point 13 38.9 37.8 38.3 36.2 36.9 40.5 40.8
U-rib -measuring point 5 70.3 70.4 70.0 68.4 68.4 66.7 68.4
TDP2-measuring point 9 33.9 34.5 32.2 31.9 31.8 31.9 31.6
TDP2-measuring point 18 24.2 23.5 23.7 24.6 23.4 23.2 25.7
TDP2-measuring point 8 44.0 45.8 43.8 43.5 43.5 43.1 42.8
TDP2-measuring point 17 33.9 33.9 34.8 35.9 36.2 33.5 35.4
12 Advances in Mechanical Engineering

traffic management planning, in the early 10 years, the

total number of daily train groups is 200, and each
group adopts the form of six trains; in the middle
20 years, the total number of daily train groups is 220,
and each group adopts the form of six trains; in the
future 70 years, the total number of trains running daily
is 250 groups, and each group adopts the form of seven
trains. That is, the total number of train sets in
100 years was 58,723,500, and the total number of cor-
responding axles was about 235 million. In the case of
the adjacent four-axis loads described in section 1.3,
the N value of fatigue details is 58,728,500.

Determine the allowable fatigue stress amplitude of the struc-

tural detail category. As for the fatigue details of the
bridge deck and U-rib joints, the structural details can
be classified into C structural categories to complete
the evaluation. The allowable stress amplitudes of type
C structural details under two different fatigue design
states are listed respectively.
Fatigue design state I – infinite life design:
Figure 17. Stress results of test points after fatigue loading
over 2 million times. ½Ds = ðDsÞTH = 68:90MPa
Fatigue design status II – 100 years finite life design:
U-rib in the structure have good fatigue performance  13  1
and relatively high safety reserve. A 1439 3 109 3
½Ds = = = 29:04MPa
At the same time, based on the linear fatigue cumu- N 58728500
lative damage criterion, that is, formula (3) is used to
estimate the fatigue life of the test model for the num- Determine the actual design fatigue stress amplitude of each
ber of cyclic loading and the corresponding load ampli- fatigue detail for verification. The following formulas are
tude during the entire fatigue test process. obtained to calculate the actual design fatigue stress
X DPi m amplitude of the bridge deck and the U-rib connection
0 weld for the fatigue details for verification.
N = ni ð3Þ
i=1
DP0
Considering the fatigue design state I, we can
Among them, N 0 is the fatigue life (number of get:½Ds, = 1:15  gI  Ds
cycles), DPi is the load amplitude of the model test, ni is Considering the fatigue design state II, we can
the design load amplitude, and is the number of cycles get:½Ds, = 1:15  gII  Ds
corresponding to the actual model load amplitude.
" 3      3   #
0 175 192:5 3 201:25 3 210 218:75 3
N = 3 20 + 3 2:5 + 3 2:5 + 3 2:5 + 3 2:5 3 105
175 175 175 175 175
= 2000, 000 + 332, 750 + 380, 220 + 432, 000 + 488, 280
= 3633, 250 ’ 3:63million

Fatigue performance evaluation based on

S-N curves
Fatigue performance evaluation of steel bridge deck
in the design stage
Determine the total number of fatigue actions N within the
design life of 100 years. Depending on the number of line
Fatigue results verification. Check calculations in accor-
dance with the requirements of the specification, and
the summary results are shown in Table 4 below.
According to the analysis results in Table 4, the
design stress amplitudes of fatigue details meet
the requirements of infinite life design, except that the
Zeng et al. 13

Table 4. Summary of fatigue performance evaluation in the design stage.

Fatigue details Actual design fatigue Allowable fatigue Whether to meet

stress amplitude (MPa) stress amplitude (MPa) the design life
Design I Design II Design I Design II Infinite life 100-year
lifespan

The bridge deck and Bottom of the bridge deck 46.09 15.36 68.90 29.04 Satisfying Satisfying
U-rib joint weld Outside of U rib web 59.89 19.96 Satisfying Satisfying
On the diaphragm plate 76.90 25.63 Dissatisfied Satisfying

Table 5. Summary of uncracked fatigue performance evaluation in service.

Fatigue details Fatigue stress Fatigue design status II – prediction Prediction of total Remaining fatigue
amplitude (MPa) of total fatigue life (years) damage SD (1023) life (years)
The bridge deck and
U-rib joint weld

Bottom of the bridge deck 15.36 676.14 1.479 Corresponding to the

Outside of U rib web 19.96 308.13 3.245 total fatigue life minus
On the diaphragm plate 25.63 145.53 6.871 the service life

design stress amplitudes of fatigue details correspond- N0

ServicelifeY = 3 100ðyearsÞ ð5Þ
ing to the bridge deck and U-rib joint position on the N
diaphragm plate are 11.6% larger than the allowable
stress amplitudes. The design stress amplitudes of all Determine cumulative damage degree D. Based on the
concerned fatigue details meet the requirements of miner criterion, the cumulative fatigue damage degree
100 years of finite life design. D of the bridge structure in service can be calculated by
analyzing the different stress amplitudes and the match-
ing total number of cycles ni under the load of the
Fatigue life prediction of uncracked steel bridge deck actual rail train within the service life.
in service
X
i
ni
Determine the fatigue-checking details. The corresponding D= ð6Þ
fatigue life prediction is still carried out around the fati- 1
Ni
gue details of the bridge deck and the U-rib joint weld. X X 1
D= Di \1, Y = P ð7Þ
i
D
Determine the actual stress amplitude. The actual variable
amplitude track train load during the service period is Determine the remaining fatigue life Nuse and the remaining
equivalent to the constant amplitude fatigue load by service life Yuse of the in-service bridge structure
using the discharge counting method. The stress ampli-
tude of fatigue details is obtained by analyzing and cal- Nuse = ð1  DÞN 0 , Yuse = ð1  DÞY ð8Þ
culating the constant amplitude of the fatigue load.
Based on the above steps, the total predicted service
life and predicted total damage of the fatigue details of
Determine the number of fatigue loads N# and service life the bridge deck and the U-rib joint weld can be calculated
Y. Based on the S-N curve and equation (5), the fatigue in turn. The results are now summarized in Table 5.
details are obtained to predict the fatigue load action According to the data in Table 5, the predicted total
times and the corresponding service life. fatigue life of all listed fatigue details in fatigue design
state II is greater than 100 years (the normal service life
1 of the bridge), and the predicted total damage degree is
lgðDsÞ = ðlg A  lg N 0 Þ , lg N 0
3 ð4Þ far less than 1, which is consistent with the calculation
= lg A  3 lgðDsÞ , N 0 = 10lg A3 lgðDsÞ results in the design stage of subsection 3.2. Meanwhile,
14
by comparing the total fatigue life of each fatigue detail,
it can be found that: If the factors such as initial defects,
train overload and overclocking times, and material
performance differences are considered, the most likely
place for fatigue failure in the future is the correspond-
ing fatigue detail of the bridge deck and U-rib connec-
tion weld on the diaphragm plate (the total fatigue life
is 145.53 years). The stress amplitudes of other fatigue
details are relatively low, and the total fatigue life is
much longer than the design service life. In addition, it
also provides some references for sensitive areas that
need to be focused on by bridge management and detec-
tion in the later stage.
Conclusion
(1) Through the finite element simulation analysis,
the hot spot stress history curves of each fati-
gue detail under the single line adjacent four-
axis fatigue load are symmetric and the adja-
cent load is effective. The stress history curves
produce two stress cycles in total, which can be
regarded as the ‘‘repetition’’ of the time history
curve under the action of two single-line and
biaxial loads. In addition, the maximum stress
value of the fatiguing detail of the bridge deck
and U-rib joint weld is about 1.4 times that of
that under the action of single-line and biaxial
loads.
(2) Within 2 million cycles of fatigue loading, the
stress or displacement-load curves of the key
measuring points of the model show a linear
relationship with good symmetry and recover-
ability, there is no obvious strain mutation, and
the stress or displacement value only fluctuates
within an acceptable small range. In the 1 mil-
lion times of fatigue cyclic loading with the
increase of load amplitude, the measured point
still did not show stress or displacement muta-
tion and no fatigue crack was found. The fati-
gue detail of the model has good fatigue
performance and high safety reserve under the
condition of high-stress amplitude and long ser-
vice life.
(3) For the fatigue performance evaluation in the
design stage, the fatigue details all meet the
requirements of the infinite life design, except
that the design stress amplitude of the corre-
sponding fatigue detail on the diaphragm plate
of the bridge deck and the U-rib joint is 11.6%
larger than the allowable infinite life stress
amplitude. For the fatigue life prediction of the
in-service uncracked stage, the total fatigue life
of the fatigue details of the bridge deck and the
Advances in Mechanical Engineering
U-rib joint weld is greater than 100 years, and
the predicted total damage is far less than 1.
(4) If considering the actual possible initial defects,
train overload or over-frequency, material per-
formance differences, and other factors, the
most likely part of fatigue failure is the fatigue
details of the deck and the U-rib joint weld on
the diaphragm plate.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
ORCID iD
Yong Zeng https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6652-2424
References
1. Kim M, Schonfeld P and Kim E. Comparison of vertical
alignments for rail transit. J Transp Eng 2013; 139:
230–238.
2. Álvarez AG. Energy consumption and emissions of high-
speed trains. Transp Res Rec 2010; 2159: 27–35.
3. Hu H, Gao Y, Yu J, et al. Planning Bus Bridging eva-
cuation during Rail Transit Operation Disruption.
J Urban Plan Dev 2016; 142: 04016015–04016015.
4. Shi Z, Sun Z, Yang S, et al. Fatigue performance of
butt-welded tensile plate cable-girder anchorages of long-
span cable-stayed steel box girder railway bridges.
J Bridge Eng 2021; 26: 04020108.
5. Cheng B, Cao X, Ye X, et al. Stringer longitudinal
bending–induced fatigue failure of stringer-to-floor beam
welded connections in orthotropic steel railway bridge
decks. J Bridge Eng 2019; 24: 04019055.
6. Cheng B, Cao X, Ye X, et al. Fatigue tests of welded
connections between longitudinal stringer and deck plate
in railway bridge orthotropic steel decks. Eng Struct
2017; 153: 32–42.
7. Ya S, Yamada K and Ishikawa T. Fatigue evaluation of
rib-to-deck welded joints of orthotropic steel bridge deck
J Bridge Eng 2011; 16: 492–499.
8. Pu Q, Yang S, Shi Z, et al. Fatigue Performance of an
innovative steel–concrete joint in long-span railway
hybrid box girder cable-stayed bridges. J Bridge Eng
2021; 26: 04020129.
9. Tan H, Qian D, Xu Y, et al. Analysis of vertical
temperature gradients and their effects on hybrid girder
cable-stayed bridges. Sustainability 2023; 15: 1053.
10. Zhang H, Li H, Zhou J, et al. A multi-dimensional
evaluation of wire breakage in bridge cable based on self-
magnetic flux leakage signals. J Magn Magn Mater 2023;
566: 170321.
Zeng et al.
11. Chen R and Miao C. Fatigue performance evaluation for
welded details in orthotropic steel deck bridges using
multi-scale finite element method Struct Durab Health
Monit 2020; 14: 205–228.
12. Xin J, Jiang Y, Zhou J, et al. Bridge deformation prediction
based on SHM data using improved VMD and conditional
KDE[J]. Engineering Structures, 2022, 261: 114285.
13. Su Q, Dai C and Xu C. Full-scale experimental study on
the negative flexural behavior of orthotropic steel–Con-
crete Composite Bridge Deck. J Bridge Eng 2018; 23:
4018097.1–4018097.14.
14. Jian Z, Yong-heng M and XinZhe Y. Lifetime seismic risk
assessment of bridges with construction and aging consid-
eration. Structures 2013; 47: 2259–2272.
15. Liu Y, Zhang Q, Bao Y, et al. Fatigue behavior of ortho-
tropic composite deck integrating steel and engineered
cementitious composite. Eng Struct 2020; 220: 111017.
16. Zeng Y, He H, Qu Y, et al. Numerical simulation of fati-
gue cracking of diaphragm notch in orthotropic steel deck
model. Materials 2023; 16: 467.
17. Tan H, Zeng Y, Zhang Q. Optimization method of
fatigue maintenance for cable-beam anchorage zone of
suspension bridge. Sci Prog 2020; 103: 1–12.
18. Zheng K, Feng X, Heng J, et al. Fatigue reliability analy-
sis of rib-to-deck joints using test data and in-situ mea-
surements. Applied Sciences 2019; 9: 48209.
19. Abdelbaset H, Cheng B, Tian L, et al. Enhancing fatigue
resistance of rib-to-floorbeam welded connections in
orthotropic steel bridge decks by using UHPC layer: an
experimental study. Structures 2022; 36: 153–167.
15
20. Abdelbaset H, Cheng B, Tian L, et al. Reduce hot spot
stresses in welded connections of orthotropic steel bridge
decks by using UHPC layer: Experimental and numerical
investigation. Eng Struct 2020; 220: 110988.
21. Lu H, Shang T, Bao J, et al. Traffic safety optimization
strategy of mountainous highway tunnel based on GA-
SVR visual load model. J Adv Transport 2022; 2022:
1–15.
22. Lu H, Zhang C, Jiao L, et al. Analysis on the spatial-
temporal evolution of urban agglomeration resilience: a
case study in Chengdu-Chongqing Urban Agglomera-
tion, China. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 2022; 79:
103167.
23. Zeng Y, Qu Y, Tan Y, et al. Analysis of fatigue cracking
of orthotropic steel decks using XFEM. Eng Fail Anal
2022; 140: 106536.
24. Zeng Y, Zheng H, Jiang Y, et al. Modal analysis of a steel
truss girder cable-stayed bridge with single tower and sin-
gle cable plane. Appl Sci 2022; 12: 7627.
25. Zeng Y, Li Y, Yu T, et al. Analysis of mechanical perfor-
mance of steel-concrete composite girder bridge with
V-shaped piers. Adv Civil Eng 2022; 2022: 1–11.
26. Xin JZ, Jiang Y, Zhou JT, et al. Bridge deformation pre-
diction based on SHM data using improved VMD and
conditional KDE. Eng Struct 2022; 261: 114285.
27. Li SJ, Xin JZ and Jiang Y. Temperature-induced deflection
separation based on bridge deflection data using the
TVFEMD-PE-KLD method. J Civ Struct Health. Epub
ahead of print 1 February 2023. DOI: 10.1007/s13349-023-
00679-4.