Previous | Next | Contents

ESDEP WG 12

FATIGUE

Lecture 12.8: Basic Fatigue Design

Concepts in Eurocode 3
OBJECTIVE/SCOPE:

This lecture contains the background information of the basis of the Eurocode 3 rules
concerning the fatigue design of structural elements.

PREREQUISITES

None.

RELATED LECTURES

Lecture 12.1: Basic Introduction to Fatigue

Lecture 12.2: Advanced Introduction to Fatigue

SUMMARY

The lecture discusses the main fatigue design rules contained in Eurocode 3 [1]. These
fatigue design rules are based on fatigue test results obtained mainly under constant
amplitude loading. The classification of a given detail, either welded or bolted, results
from a statistical evaluation of the fatigue test data with a 95% probability of survival
for a 75% confidence interval. The evaluation is compared with a set of equally
spaced S-N curves with a slope constant of m = 3.

Explanation is given on the choice of a normalised double-slopes S-N curve. Then

several factors, introduced in Eurocode 3 [1], affecting the fatigue strength are also
discussed.

1. INTRODUCTION
The principal objective of this lecture is to review the main rules which are the basis
for Chapter 9 of Eurocode 3 [1] concerning the fatigue strength assessment of steel
structural details.

The main provisions of Eurocode 3 [1] rely upon a set of fatigue resistance curves,
equally spaced, upon which are classified a set of constructional details. The concept
for fatigue strength design follows the Recommendations of the European Convention
for Constructional Steelwork (ECCS). The Recommendations [2] define a set of
equally spaced fatigue strength curves with a constant slope of m = 3 (for normal
stress), or m = 5 (for shear stress, hollow section joints, and some particular details).

In addition to this approach another concept supported mainly by recent developments

and research in the field of fatigue for "offshore" structures is referred to in Eurocode
3 as the geometrical stress concentration concept (also called the "hot spot stress"
method).

To determine the fatigue strength provisions given in Eurocode 3, a compilation of

fatigue data of various sources was carried out. This work has provided an opportunity
to re-evaluate existing fatigue test data and allowed for a more consistent approach to
the classification of detail categories.

2. PRACTICAL IMPLICATION OF DESIGN CRITERIA

2.1 Main Factors Affecting the Fatigue Strength

Fatigue of steel structural components, especially welded steel details, is a particularly

complex problem, and many factors may exert an influence on the fatigue life. Table 1
lists a non-exhaustive inventory of these various factors and those which are taken
into account either explicitly or implicitly in Chapter 9 of Eurocode 3 are indicated.

Whilst some factors are dealt with in Chapter 9 of Eurocode 3, other factors,
particularly those related to fabrication are considered in an implicit manner through
defined discontinuities or weld defects acceptance criteria and quality control
requirements. These general requirements will be defined in a standard concerning the
"Execution of steel structures".

Table 1 The main factors affecting fatigue strength

Designation of the factors affecting the fatigue Taken into

strength account in
Eurocode 3
Stress
 Stress or strain range *
 Stress sequence
 Frequency (no significant effect when < 40 Hz in
a non corrosive environment)
 Mean stress (no effect in heat affected zone due to *
residual stresses) *
 Residual stresses
Geometry
 Nominal or geometrical stress
 Local stress concentration *
 Small discontinues *
- scratches *(implicit)
- grinding marks
- surface pittings
- weld defects or misalignments
 Size effect (or scale effect)
*
Material Properties and Fabrication
 Stress-strain behaviour of materials
 Hardness
 Chemical composition of steels
 Metallurgical homogeneity
 Electrical potential
 Micro structural discontinuities (grain size, grain
boundaries)
 Welding process
 Weld heat treatment
 Weld surface treatment
Environment
 Corrosive atmosphere *(implicit)
 Temperature *(implicit)
 Humidity (hydrogen embrittlement)
 Irradiation

2.2 Fatigue Failure Criteria

In the preparation of Eurocode 3, classification into detail categories was established
from a statistical analysis of fatigue test data obtained from various laboratory
sources. To obtain more homogeneous samples of the test results, particular attention
was paid to failure criteria considered in these tests.

Several failure criteria may be adopted to characterize the experimental failure

condition at the end of a fatigue test in the laboratory. Three criteria are generally
considered:

 First appearance of a crack either detected visually or detected by means of a

physical measure, e.g. by the record of a change in the local strain condition.
 Through-thickness crack: the fatigue crack starts from the front surface and
grows through the thickness of the test piece and reaches the back surface.
 Complete fracture of the tested specimen or large displacement of the tested
structural element such that the displacement becomes so important that the
applied "jack load" cannot be maintained. When performing a fatigue test on a
beam, the failure may be conventionally defined as the point when the mid-
span deflection reaches a certain limit.

Generally for small scale specimens, the difference between the fatigue life at
complete fracture and at a more realistic tolerable fatigue crack size is negligible.
However, in a large scale structural element tested in fatigue the difference may be
highly significant.

In Eurocode 3, the fatigue strength refers to the complete failure of the structural
element. This condition corresponds, usually, to the criterion generally adopted by
structural laboratories or reported in literature.

2.3 Design Stresses for Fatigue Assessment

Different stresses may affect the fatigue strength classification of a structural detail.
For a particular detail, the various origins of stresses have to be identified in order to
define more precisely the design stresses for the fatigue assessment concepts involved
in Chapter 9 of Eurocode 3.

a. Nominal Stress

Consider a uniform structural member subjected to a simple axial force or to a

bending moment. The nominal stress is the stress resultant calculated according to the
basic strength of material (Figure 1).
The nominal stress of a member under uni-axial stress is:

N = (2.1)

where N is the normal force and A the gross section area.

For a prismatic member section under a bending moment, the stress resultant is:

M = (2.2)

where:

M is the applied bending moment

I is the moment of inertia of the section

v is the distance from the neutral axis to the outmost fibre.

b. Stress concentration effect due to geometrical discontinuities

There are three main sources which can create a state of stress concentration in a
structural detail:

 The global geometry of the structural element which contains the structural detail,
e.g. attachments on a beam web or gusset plates on a beam flange.

 The local stress concentration due to local disturbance of the weld geometry, bolt
holes, local variation in stiffness, etc... For example, if a hole is drilled in a plate, the
stress distribution across the section containing the hole will be different from the
nominal stress distribution existing in the plain plate cross-section. An important
stress gradient will occur in the vicinity of the hole. This geometrical stress
concentration is due to both the decrease from the gross section to the net section and
to the stress "raiser" (concentrator) caused by the presence of the hole (Figure 1).

 The local stress concentration due to local discontinuities occurring during

fabrication (misalignment, surface scratch, pitting, weld defect, etc).

In many cases, and by simplification, the geometric stress concentration is usually

calculated on the basis of the nominal stress applied to the gross section area and the
stress concentration factor kG, as:

G = kG . nom (2.3)

This structural geometrical stress concentration, which is defined as the maximum

principal stress existing in the vicinity of the detail, may be evaluated from
experimental tests or from finite element methods.

The local stress concentration is present in addition to the structural geometric stress
concentration and may be due to local disturbances of the local geometry of the detail
such as:

 local cross-section change (geometry of welds for example).

 local geometrical imperfections such as misalignment.

 small local discontinuities inherent to the action of the environment or of the
fabrication process such corrosion pits, surface scratches, drag lines due to flame
cutting, grinding marks, welding process defects such as undercut, lack of penetration,
lack of fusion, slag inclusions, porosities, hydrogen-induced cracking, etc. These very
small discontinuities are present in every element of engineering structures. Their
presence determines a potential location for initiation of a fatigue crack.

Local stress concentrations are taken into account in an implicit manner in the
derivation of the S-N curve from fatigue test results. Great care must be taken when
assessing fatigue strength from tests on small scale specimens instead of large scale
specimens. The scale effect due to weld geometry may have a greater influence on the
fatigue strength in small test specimens than in large test specimens.

Usually, fatigue specimens have been tested with inherent discontinuities, and fatigue
strength curves, so derived, make allowance for tolerable defects. The acceptance
criteria for weld discontinuities which will be proposed in the "Execution of steel
structures" standard would guarantee the fitness for purpose of the fatigue strength
design rules of Eurocode 3. In other words, the quality assurance system which covers
the fabrication process should ensure that the fabricated constructional detail complies
with the relevant quality requirement specified in the standard for the "Execution of
steel structures".

When assessing the fatigue strength by the so-called geometric stress range method,
according to Clause 9.5.3 of Eurocode 3, the geometric stress concentration as defined
by Equation (2.3) must be properly evaluated. The local geometry of the weld must
not be taken into account in the calculation procedure of the design stress range, since
the local discontinuity effect is already introduced in the derivation of the S-N curves.
However, when determining the design stress, secondary stresses arising from joint
eccentricity or due to joint stiffness, stress redistribution due to buckling or shear lag,
and effects such as prying action, should be taken into account.

3. DESIGN STRESS SPECTRUM

3.1 Stress History

A fluctuating stress to which a structural detail is subjected may have a stress history
of constant amplitude or of variable amplitude (Figures 2 and 3).
For cumulative damage analysis, the stress history is split up into individual cycles
and related stress ranges which are summed up to a distribution of stress ranges. This
distribution of stress ranges is called a stress spectrum, see Lecture 12.2.

For a variable amplitude stress history, there is a need to define such a stress cycle
associated with a particular stress range. There are several procedures for cycle
counting methods. Eurocode 3 refers to the "reservoir method" which gives a sound
representation of the stress variation characteristic by allowing a proper contribution
of each stress range to the fatigue damage process. This stress range counting method
is the most commonly accepted. This counting method is somewhat similar to the well
known "rainflow counting method". The "rainflow" and the "reservoir" counting
methods do not lead to exactly the same result. However, in terms of fatigue damage
both counting procedures give very close results, and for "long" stress histories they
give nearly the same result.

3.2 Stress Histogram

The most common way of representing irregular stress histories for fatigue analysis is
to sum up the stress ranges of equal amplitude, and to obtain a distribution of stress
range blocks which is called a stress histogram (or a stress spectrum) consisting of a
number of constant stress range blocks. Each block is characterized by its number of
cycles ni and stress range i (Figure 4). The ordering of the different blocks does not
make any difference since the damage calculation rules specified in Eurocode 3 refers
to the linear cumulative damage rule of Palmgren-Miner. However for convenience
the stress histogram is commonly presented with stress blocks ranked in decreasing
order (Figure 5) which often can be approximated by a two-parameters Weibull
distribution such as:
 = 0 (2.4)

4. FATIGUE DESIGN CURVES CLASSIFICATION

CONCEPT
The classified fatigue design curves adopted in Eurocode 3, are the same as proposed
in the "European Convention for Construction Steelwork Fatigue Recommendations"
[2]. The ECCS Fatigue Recommendations were one of the first attempts to provide
uniformity to the determination of the fatigue strength design curves.

The ECCS Recommendations define a set of equally spaced S-N curves plotted on a
log-log scale. Reference to these curves allows a detail category to be classified
(representative) of a particular structural detail which corresponds to a notch effect or
a characteristic geometrical discontinuity). This classification has been determined by
a series of fatigue test results, from which a statistical and a probabilistic evaluation is
performed, see Lecture 12.7.
Each individual fatigue strength curve is defined in a conventional way (Figure 6) by
a slope constant of m = 3 (slope = -1/3). The constant amplitude limit is set at 5
million cycles. The slope constant m = 3 was a best fit for a large number of different
structural details tested in fatigue. The figure of 5 million cycles for the constant
amplitude fatigue limit is a compromise between 2 million cycles for "good" details
and 10 million cycles for details which create a severe notch effect. For any stress
range of constant amplitude below this limit, no fatigue damage is expected to occur.

When a detail is subjected to variable stress ranges, which is generally the case in
reality, several options may occur:

 If no stress range of variable amplitude exceeds the fatigue limit, no fatigue

damage assessment has to be carried out.
 If at least one stress range block exceeds this fatigue limit, a damage
calculation has to be performed on the basis of the linear cumulative damage
rule, referred as the Palmgren-Miner's rule.

In this last option, two cases have to be considered for the cumulative damage
calculation when some stress ranges are below the constant amplitude fatigue limit:
  Either the damage calculation is made simply assuming that the S-N curve of
slope constant m = 3 is extended beyond the constant amplitude fatigue limit.
 Or the damage calculation is made assuming that beyond the constant
amplitude fatigue limit, the S-N curve of slope constant m = 3 is extended by a
straight line of slope constant m = 5. The intercept of this straight line with the
vertical line at 10 million cycles provides a cut-off limit. The reason for using
an S-N curve with two slopes to cumulative damage calculations is that it is an
approximate way to take into account the progressive reduction of the constant
amplitude fatigue limit as a result of the damage caused by the stress ranges
above that limit. In this way, eventually all stress ranges in the spectrum
become damaging. Fracture mechanics confirm this decrease of the slope of the
S-N curve in the long fatigue life range.

In both cases, all cycles below cut-off limit can be ignored when evaluating the
fatigue damage. It should be noted that Eurocode 3 leaves the design engineer free to
use either the single-slope S-N curve or the double-slope S-N curve.

Experimental results have indicated that within the range of high numbers of cycles, a
change in the slope of the fatigue strength occur due to a decrease of the crack growth
rate. The introduction of a double-slope concept and a constant amplitude fatigue limit
at 5 million cycles is still a matter of controversy. Despite a number of criticisms,
particularly concerning the increase in complexity of the analysis, Eurocode 3 has
kept the double-slope curve because this rule may, for some detail categories, improve
the accuracy of the fatigue check. However, this improvement can not expected for all
types of structural detail, and all stress spectra. In some cases, especially for those
details with a very severe notch effect, the double-slope curve may not lead to a
conservative result.

Some details, for example, cover-plated beams, have shown a constant amplitude
fatigue limit of almost 10 million cycles. To avoid non-conservative conditions, some
details (which generally have severe notch effect) have been classified in categories
slightly lower than their fatigue strength at 2 million cycles would have required. The
concept of the specified ECCS fatigue design curves, which consists of 14 equally
spaced curves, a new design fatigue strength curve is not required for each new
structural detail.

The "grid system" of S-N curves has been established as follows. The vertical distance
of the ordinate log-scale between each fatigue strength curves has been obtained by
dividing the difference between one order of magnitude into 20 equal spaces (Figure
7). For example, taking two reference values as c=100MPa and c = 1000 MPa at
2 million cycles, the calculation of the spacing is determined from the following:
The general S-N curve equation may be written as:

log N = log a - 3 log  (4.1)

so with c = 100 MPa (log 2 000 000 = 6,30103)

log a = 6,30103 + 3 log 100 = 12,301 (4.2)

and for c = 1000 MPa

log a = 6,30103 + 3 log 1000 = 15,301 (4.3)

The spacing between two contiguous curves represents

 log a = (15,301 - 12,301)/20 = 0,15 (4.4)

So starting from the reference values of c = 100 MPa, with log a = 12,301, the
subsequent values of c may be obtained from Equation (4.1) as given in Table 2.

Table 2 Characteristic fatigue strength at 2 million cycles

log a  c (rounded value)
... ...

12,601 125

12,451 112

12,301 100

12,151 90

12,001 80

... ...

Table 2 shows that the number defining the characteristic fatigue strength at 2 million
cycles, used as a detail category identification, is a rounded value.

5. FATIGUE TEST RESULTS

Generally fatigue strength curves are evaluated from series of fatigue tests performed
on specimens which typically reproduce the detail to be studied. The fatigue strength
curves (S-N curves) can be most accurately determined when a group of fatigue
specimens are tested at different stress range levels. However, there is no recognized
standard method for fatigue testing and design experiments. As a result, the fatigue
test data found in the literature are somewhat non-homogeneous.

It is clear that, under such circumstances, a review of existing fatigue data and their
statistical evaluation, even when limited to the same detail category, may lead to large
discrepancies in the results. Such differences may be attributed, not only to the fatigue
testing practice in each laboratory, but also to the detailed fabrication procedure and
quality achieved in the preparation of the specimens. Discontinuities play a major role
in fatigue strength, particularly for welded details and careful consideration must be
given to the weld quality which may considerably affect the variation in fatigue
strength.

Fatigue specimens are fabricated with certain inherent discontinuities which are not
fully known or may not be properly evaluated in laboratory reports. In such cases, it is
generally rather difficult to appreciate if the fabrication quality of specimens is
representative of current workshop practice. Moreover, when performing a statistical
analysis on fatigue test data from different origins, a rather large variation of fatigue
strength may result. Careful attention must be paid to the homogeneity of the fatigue
resistance.

These considerations were borne in mind during the preparation of Eurocode 3. The
fatigue test results which were statistically analyzed and then classified according to
the procedure described fulfil certain requirements:

 Priority was given to test results from full size specimens compared to small
scale specimens simulating the same structural detail. For a comparable quality
of weldments, smaller welded test specimens exhibit a higher fatigue strength
(and a higher constant slope) than full size test specimens. This difference in
fatigue behaviour is mainly due to the fact that full size specimens lock in more
residual welding stresses than small size specimens do. This difference is
residual stress magnitude is the result of variations in mechanical constraints
during welding.
 In welded specimens the stress range () and the number of cycles to failure
(N) were considered as the main parameter controlling the fatigue strength
curve.
 A minimum of 12 fatigue test results were required to reach a certain
significance level and to lead statistically to a confident interpretation of the
test results.

6. CUMULATIVE DAMAGE RULE, EQUIVALENT

STRESS RANGE CONCEPT
6.1 Palmgren-Miner Summation

In real life, structural elements are subjected to varying fatigue loads, and not to
constant amplitude fatigue loadings. Eurocode 3 refers to the Palmgren-Miner
summation to evaluate the cumulative damage (Figure 8). This rule is based on the
assumption that the total damage accumulated by a structural element under varying
stress ranges, is obtained by the linear summation of the damage of each individual
stress range, i.e:
D= (6.1)

where:

ni is the number of cycles of constant amplitude stress ranges i

Ni is the total number of cycles to failure under constant amplitude stress range i.

The structural element is designed safely against fatigue if:

D  1 (6.2)

No account of the damage is taken for any varying stress ranges falling below the cut-
off limit.

6.2 Equivalent Stress Range

The concept of equivalent stress range has been introduced in the ECCS
Recommendations [2] and is also referred to in Eurocode 3. The definition of the
equivalent stress range is conventional. It can be said that the equivalent stress range
concept is simpler than a direct Palmgren-Miner summation when the S-N curve is of
unique slope (-1/m). The expression is, in this case, quite simple and the recalculation
of the damage for each S-N curve is therefore avoided:

equ = (6.3)

with m = 3 or m = 5 as appropriate.

The equivalent stress range equ depends only on the fatigue load spectrum and the
slope constant m. In such a case, knowing equ evaluated according to Equation
(6.3), it is easy to choose directly a detail category which will have an adequate
fatigue resistance.

6.3 Equivalent Stress Range for an S-N Curve with a double Slopes Constant

When the basic S-N curve is of double slope, the expression of the equivalent stress
range becomes more unwieldy. The practicability of its application is questionable,
except if using the limit state function as defined by the following equation:

f . equ  Rd / f (6.3)

The derivation of equ when the S-N curve has a double slope is given below:

a. Damage calculation for a double slope S-N curve when the stress range is
below and above D

Suppose there are some stress range blocks where the range is below the value
of D and some above D (Figure 9); it is assumed that the proper partial safety
coefficients have introduced in i and j.
 block i when i > D

 block j when j > D

From the definition the damage is given by:

D= (6.5)

taking into account the S-N curve slope for each set of stress range blocks:

D= (6.6)

Equation (6.6) may be written as:

D= (6.7)
From Figure 9:

ND = a D-3 = b D-5

ND corresponds to the fatigue limit of the S-N curve at 5 million cycles.

a/b = 1/D2 (6.8)

Hence:

D= (6.9)

where:

Q =  ni i3 +  nj j3 (j /D)2

The damage may be calculated using either Equation (6.5) or Equation (6.9) directly.

b. Calculation of the equivalent stress range equ for a double slope S-N curve

In this particular case, a decision must be made as to which slope the definition
of equ refers. The choice of a slope constant of 3 or 5 makes absolutely no
difference to the final result of the calculation of equ when the load spectrum
straddles both parts of the double slope S-N curve. The calculation of the equivalent
stress range equ is derived below from a slope constant of m = 3 of the double slope
S-N curve (noted as equ.3). The same demonstration holds for a slope constant of m
= 5. By definition:

D= (6.10)

where:

Nequ is the equivalent number of cycles at failure under the equivalent stress
range equ

N is equal to  ni +  nj

Evaluating Nequ on the basis of the S-N curve of slope constant m=3:
D= (6.11)

by equating Equations (6.6) and (6.11), the damage is:

D= (6.12)

then Equations (6.11) and (6.12) give:

equ3 = (6.13)

therefore:

equ.3 = (6.14)

Rd.3 is defined as the fatigue resistance corresponding to equ.3 on the S-N curve of
constant slope m = 3.

Rd.3 = D (ND / N)1/3 (6.15)

From Equations (6.14) and (6.15):

= = (6.16)

This expression is equal to the damage as given by Equation (6.9):

= (6.17)

Remarks:

1. Both fatigue assessment formats, the Palmgren-Miner summation, and the

equivalent stress range concept, are rigorously equivalent in terms of damage.
 2. Reference in the above demonstration is made to D and ND corresponding to
the "knee" point of the double slope S-N curve. Since the S-N curve is written
as:

N (Rd)m = a = constant

another reference value may be taken, for example:

D3 ND = C3 NC = constant

C, being the stress range at NC = 2 million cycles.

3. Special care must be taken when calculating equ.3 and Rd.3: both
expressions must be evaluated with the same slope constant.
4. The values of equ.3 and Rd.3 are clearly different and may not be used
indiscriminately when plotting fatigue test results on a log  versus log N
diagram. Generally when fatigue tests have been performed under variable
stress range amplitude, the equivalent stress range as given by Equation (6.3)
has been used to plot the experimental results.

7. RESIDUAL STRESS EFFECT

Welded joints in structural details contain tensile residual stresses in the vicinity of the
weld bead. Figure 10 shows that their magnitude may be as high as the yield stress of
the weldment metal. Figure 10 also shows high tensile residual stresses near the edges
which were flame-cut.
It is well established that the presence of residual stresses of such magnitude makes
the fatigue strength of a welded joint independent of the applied load ratio, and
dependent only on the applied stress range. The full significance of the tensile residual
stresses due to welding was not appreciated originally, since many fatigue test results
were obtained from welded specimens which were too small to retain the major part
of the welding residual stresses such as would occur in large structural components.
It is evident that tensile stresses play a significant role in the propagation of a crack,
since they tend to act as a opening mode due to tensile stresses applied at the crack
lips. The crack propagation rate is likely to be reduced, when the crack grows into a
zone of compression residual stress.

It is in recognition of this physical crack propagation behaviour that the R ratio (R

= min/max) has been considered in Eurocode 3 Chapter 9 for non-welded or stress
relieved details. Figure 11 shows the comparison between fatigue test results and two
"bonus factor" rules which were studied when drafting Chapter 9. The rule which was
finally selected takes into account of the effect of compressive stress ranges by
multiplying the part of the stress range in compression by a factor of 0,6. The validity
of this rule has been compared with fatigue test results performed on non-load
carrying weld cruciform joints for various R ratios ranging from -3,0 to 0,8. These
fatigue tests were carried out on small specimens.
8. CONCLUDING SUMMARY
 Fatigue behaviour of structural details is governed by many factors which are
by nature random.
 The present state of knowledge provides sufficient information for reasonably
comprehensive and safe fatigue design rules. It is recognized that the extreme
life region of the fatigue strength curve is not well established. The current
availability test data in this region are very sparse.
  The quality of fatigue design is closely related to the attention given to
structural details, i.e. not only to the geometrical shape and the dimensions, but
also to the quality of fabrication and the acceptable defects, etc.
 In carrying out the fatigue assessment of structures, the designer must, first,
carry out a proper fatigue load analysis in order to evaluate correctly the stress
resultants acting on details.
 The designer must then select the proper fatigue strength curve related to each
of these details.
 Both the analysis and curve selection require skill in recognition and
interpretation of the main design factors affecting fatigue resistance.

9. REFERENCES
[1] Eurocode 3: "Design of Steel Structures": ENV1993-1-1: Part 1.1, General rules
and rules for buildings, CEN, 1993.

[2] European Convention for Constructional Steelwork: Recommendations for the

Fatigue Design of Steel Structures. ECCS Publication 43, 1985.

[3] Eurocode 1: "Basis of Design and Actions on Structures", CEN (in preparation).