M Ogle, S Chakrabarti

THE UK NATIONAL ANNEX TO BS EN 1993-1-9:2005 AND PD 6695-1-9:2008

Martin Ogle, consultant to TWI, Cambridge, UK Sibdas Chakrabarti, consultant, London, UK

Abstract
The paper gives a brief summary of the development of UK fatigue codes up to and including BS EN 1993-1-9 with particular reference to the Nationally Determined Parameters (NDPs) in its National Annex (NA) and the background to the choice of the UK parameters in BS EN 1993-1-9 and the supporting Non-Contradictory Complementary Information (NCCI) in PD 6695-1-9.

Background to Development of Bridge Fatigue Codes

Fatigue has been recognised as an important consideration in BS bridge design codes for nearly half a century. The widespread use of welding during and after World War II led to an urgent programme of fatigue testing in the UK in the 1950s. This resulted in the publication of the first comprehensive set of fatigue strength data for bridge design in an amendment to BS 153 Part 3B[1] in 1962. Fatigue testing of structural details continued during the 1960s and 1970s, both in the UK and aboard. The BS fatigue design rules for bridges were further refined as a result of the new data and those in BS 153 were replaced by BS 5400-10[2] in 1980, which also contained comprehensive rules for highway and railways fatigue loading. BS 5400-10 has been used as the basis for design of road and rail bridges in the UK and internationally for the last thirty years. It was probably the most comprehensive fatigue code for bridges in the world and in its early period was used as the basis for fatigue design in other structural applications. At about the time of publication of BS 5400-10 work was initiated by the European Commission on the development of the Draft Eurocodes. In 1992 the draft steel Eurocode ENV 1993-1-1 was published to enable designers throughout Europe to test the new code on design projects for a two year trial period. BSI published the UK version as DD ENV 1993-11[3] together with a UK National Application Document which gave guidance on how to link with other British Standards for which European Standards did not yet exist. Fatigue was covered in Chapter 9 of DD ENV 1993-1-1. This mainly consisted of a new set of stress range endurance curves based very much on the existing fatigue recommendations published by the European Convention for Structural Steelwork (ECCS). The latter also included fatigue curves for hollow section joints based on the CIDECT work. Chapter 9 was intended to cover all steel structures, not just bridges. It did not include any data for fatigue loading, which was to appear eight years later in DD ENV 1991-3:2000. The work of preparing ENV 1993-1-1 was undertaken by a Project Team (PT) funded by the European Commission. The experts had to cover all the technical subjects covered in ENV 1993-1-1, so the PT was very much reliant for fatigue input on the previous work of the ECCS.

M Ogle, S Chakrabarti

The comments received from the CEN members, including BSI, on ENV1993-1-1 were considered by a new PT set up by CEN/TC 250 for drafting the final Eurocode 3 for steel. A decision was taken to remove a number of chapters from the ENV 1993-1-1, including the chapter on Fatigue which was transferred to a new part EN 1993-1-9, later to become BS EN 1993-1-9[4] in the UK. During this period work by the UK bridge committee had been preparing revisions to BS 5400-10 and BS 5400-6 to link the fatigue requirements to the new workmanship standards. Revisions to both these British standards were published in 1999. The basic fatigue curves in the draft EN 1993-1-9 had been updated from those in the ENV, and a new section with hot spot data added. The concept of design using damage tolerance principles and two levels of consequences of failure were included. The many comments received from CEN members on the ENV reflected a wide range of differing views around Europe. In order to accommodate this diversity and for acceptance by the CEN members it was decided to introduce a number of NDP options into the pr EN. The UK view was that it contained some key deficiencies in comparison with BS 5400 Part 10 (see below). Their comments identifying the deficiencies were sent to the CEN committee who maintained that there were sufficient NDP options provided in the document to allow for the UK to include its requirements in the NA. The final published version of EN 1993-1-9 contained eleven separate items with NDP options. Work started on the preparation of the UKs NA and associated NCCI material. Both were published in 2008, the latter by BSI as PD 6695-1-9[5]. The other significant development in 2008 was the publication of EN 1090-2, later to become BS EN 1090-2[6] in the UK, which is the construction specification on which the validity of the design rules depends. This was produced under the direction of CEN/TC135, and contained important clauses concerning fatigue, with particular reference to the influence of workmanship. The significant changes made to EN 1993-1-9 using the NDP options in the NA should ensure that the resulting fatigue design is similar to that using BS 5400-10. It is hoped that the CEN committee considers the NA and PD 6695-1-9 in revising the Eurocode which is expected in about five years time.

Important Differences Between BS EN 1993-1-1 and BS 5400-10

The most important differences between the old and new standards, in so far as they affect bridges, are summarised below: a) b) BS EN 1993-1-9 covers fatigue of all structural steelwork whereas BS 5400-10 was written specifically for bridges. BS 5400-10 is a self-contained document for fatigue design, covering all the necessary data for resistance and traffic fatigue loading. BS EN 1993-1-9 only covers resistance, not loading which is covered in BS EN 1991.

M Ogle, S Chakrabarti

c)

d)

e)

f)

g)

h)

i)

j)

k)

BS 5400-10 is based on safe-life principles, ie an in-service inspection regime for detection of fatigue cracking is not a prerequisite. EN 1993-1-9 offers an alternative damage tolerant option which does depend on in-service inspection. The fatigue stress ranges in BS 5400-10 are based on principle stresses, with a cut off where maxima and minima are in directions differing by more that 45o. EN 1993-1-9 uses normal and shear stress range whose damages are calculated and added together. BS 5400-10 gives detailed information on what range parameters are to be used, where the initiation sites and crack propagation paths are for which the stresses are to be calculated, and when gross stress concentrations need to be included in the calculations. BS EN 1993-1-9 is not very clear on these matters. BS EN 1993-1-9 recommends that the design strength is varied according to the consequence of failure. BS 5400-10 had no such recommendation, although it did provide information on probability of failure, which BS EN 1993-1-9 does not. BS EN 1993-1-9 gives resistance data for certain hollow sections joints and certain orthotropic deck details. Whilst these are not specifically listed in BS 5400-10 the principles could be used to obtain conservative values. The stress-range-endurance curves have the following differences: The range of strengths is slightly wider in BS EN 1993-1-9. The curves increase in steps of about 12% in BS EN 1993-1-9 compared with typically between 13 and 20% in BS 5400-10. 2 The BS EN 1993-1-9 curves are designated by their fatigue strength in N/mm at 2 million cycles which is the detail category, as opposed to the alphabetical fatigue class in BS 5400-10. The BS EN 1993-1-9 basic curves are all parallel on the log-log plot with an inverse exponent of 3, whereas the BS 5400-10 higher strength curves have a flatter slope with a higher inverse exponent. Both sets of curves have a bend for variable amplitude purposes, whereby the exponent increases by 2. However the BS EN 1993-1-9 curves bend at 5 million cycles compared with 10 million in BS 5400-10. The BS EN 1993-1-9 variable amplitude curves have a horizontal cut-off at 100 million cycles, whereas BS 5400-10 has no cut-off (ie the fatigue strength continues to decrease for higher endurances). The BS EN 1993-1-9 design curves are notionally based on a 5% probability of failure. The BS 5400-10 design curves are based on a notionally 2.3% probability. The BS EN 1993-1-9 detail category tables involving many more figures and text than was found necessary in BS 5400-10. Fields of parameters are laid out differently, for example dimensional information appears in columns 2, 3 and 4 and manufacturing information in both 3 and 4. BS 5400-10 classification tables give warnings on the difficulty of assessing the necessary workmanship quality on the higher detail categories but there is none in EN 1993-1-9. BS 5400-20 gives guidance to the designer on how to indicate the severity of fatigue stressing for the purposes of selecting the appropriate quality and inspection requirements to BS 5400-6 but no such guidance is available in EN 1993-1-9. There is however a very detailed informative annex in BS EN 1993-2:2006 which gives extensive dimensional and manufacturing information for a specific type of bridge

M Ogle, S Chakrabarti

l)

m)

deck, The information does not appear to be dependent on the level of fatigue stressing, only static stressing. Whilst both standards provide assessment methods based on limiting stress range and on damage summation, BS EN 1993-1-9 does not give tables of ready made values of these parameters for rapid fatigue checking of rail and road bridges. However values are given in BS EN 1993-2 which enable certain components to be checked by the first method. Two methods of cycle counting are listed in BS EN 1993-1-9. The reservoir method is illustrated but the procedure is not explained. The rainflow method is referred to, but no information is given.

National Annex Decisions and NCCI in PD 6695-1-9

The differences between the BS EN 1993-1-9 and old fatigue codes described above, as they impact on bridges, have a major bearing on the decisions on the NPDs and the need for additional explanatory guidance. The bases of these decisions are explained below, with reference to the NA clauses in BS EN 1993-1-9. NA.2.1.1 Material and execution tolerances This clause made it clear that BS 5400-6[7] is an appropriate material and execution standard when designing to BS EN 1993-1-9, pending its final withdrawal following the publication of BS EN 1090-2. However, in order to select the relevant weld quality level, which is defined by the minimum class requirement in BS 5400-6 in terms of the alphabetically designated stress range endurance curves in BS 5400-10, the nearest equivalent numerically designated curves from BS EN 1993-1-9 are given for this purpose (see h) third bullet point). PD 6695-1-9, Sections 2.1 and 2.2 give further explanation of the relationship between BS EN 1993-1-9 and BS 5400-6. PD 6695-1-9 Section 2.3 gives provisional guidance on how the required quality level might be indicated on drawings when using the future BS EN 1090-2. This uses the system in ISO 10721[8] which is compatible with the BS EN 1993-1-9 detail category designation system. ISO 10721 uses the same FAT symbol as in BS 5400-10 but with the numerical as opposed to alphabetical level designation (see Figure 1 in PD 6695-1-9). Following eventual publication of BS EN1090-2 in 2008, the BSI bridge committee resolved to publish PD 6705-2[9] which gives guidance on the use of that standard for execution of bridges. PD 6705-2 recommends a similar method of determining production quality but uses the EN 1090-2 term service category which is equivalent to fatigue class requirement in principle, but extends Table 2 in PD 6695-1-9 to include different static stress levels. The designation F is used in place of FAT in the new context. As the co-existence period is now finished and BS 5400-6 and BS 5400-10 have now been withdrawn by BSI the NA and PD 6695-1-9 will be amended in due course to reflect this. NA.2.1.2 Information on inspection requirements for fabrication This draws attention to the limiting fatigue strength levels that can be assured by normal commercial inspection procedures (see j) above). In Tables 17a, b and c in the 1999 revision to BS 5400-10 many of the higher strength fatigue details from the 1980 version were

M Ogle, S Chakrabarti

bracketed and lower classes added without brackets. The bracketed values indicated that particularly high workmanship levels were required which would be beyond capability of normal inspection procedures to assess. Table NA.1 in the National Annex effectively provides the same information but in terms of the BS EN 1993-1-9 detail category designation, PD 6695-1-9 Section 2.4 discusses this matter in more detail. NA.2.2.1 Sources of fatigue loading The determination of specific fatigue load models is not likely to be of interest in the case of normal road and rail bridges, where the main source of fatigue loading is from traffic which is covered in BS EN 1991-2[10] (see b) above). In cases where other sources of loading have to be derived from first principles, the guidance given in NA.2.2.1 and PD 6695-1-9 may be useful. The recommended values of Ff in Table NA.2 are taken from BS EN 1999-1-3[11] (fatigue of aluminium structures). The recommended Mf factors are to ensure that the low level of probability of exceeding the stress spectrum is achieved over the full life. (See NA.2.5.3 below). NA.2.3 Determination of fatigue strength from tests PD 6695-1 Section 4 gives general guidance on the main considerations for setting up specific fatigue tests. This is derived to some extent from the guidance in BS EN 1999-1-3, Annex C. NA.2.4 Provisions for in-service inspection programmes This is only applicable when a damage tolerant method of design is adopted (see c) above). This requires a very well defined regular in-service inspection programme to be maintained during the life of the structure together with a detailed method statement of repair of cracks and/or strengthening/repair of the member(s). The advice given in NA.2.4 has been based on that in BS EN 1999-1-3:2007, which has extensive guidance including fracture mechanics formulae used for estimating crack growth rates. Items a) to h) in NA.2.4 of BS EN 1993-1-9 list the most important factors to be considered. It is essential that these are fully addressed and that the life time economic cost and practicality of using a damage tolerant approach is realistically quantified before any decision is made not to use the safe life method (see also NA.2.5.1 below). NA.2.5.1 Assessment method BS 5400-10 and BS 153 before it, has always been based on safe life principles (see c) above). In order words the design method is intended to provide an acceptability low risk of fatigue failure during the whole design life. Routine inspection of bridges for fatigue damage is far more costly and time consuming than routine in inspection for other forms of damage or deterioration. It is normally only necessary when problems have been encountered on old bridges which may not have been designed or manufactured to adequate standards. The whole life cost of regular fatigue inspection programmes, including provision of access, restriction of use, possible paint removal, repair and/or strengthening, is potentially enormous. There are very few exceptions to this practice in the UK. Military bridges, where minimum weight is an over riding requirements and which spend a lot of their life in storage (and hence are readily accessible and have replaceable components) are a case in point.

M Ogle, S Chakrabarti

PD 6695-1-9 Sections 5.1 to 5.3 give further guidance on this subject. NA.2.5.2 Classes of consequences The question of varying the margin of safety according to the consequence of failure was discussed by the BS bridge committee at the time of drafting BS 5400-10, particularly in the context of redundancy of members. At the time a distinction was made between redundant and non-redundant members in the US structural fatigue design codes. Whilst it was accepted that better prior warning of catastrophic collapse of a structure might exist if fatigue failures occurred in redundant members, the overriding concern was to avoid all fatigue failures. Any evidence of fatigue failures would almost certainly give rise to substantial costs to the bridge owner, arising from loss of serviceability, repair/strengthening and the need to implement a regular fatigue damage monitoring programme. NA.2.5.2 recommends that the basis of selecting a suitable consequence class should be as recommended in EN 1990[12] Annex B and that the norm should be Consequence Class 2 (CC2). This is associated with Reliability Class 2 (RC2) which is what has been assumed in determining all UK M and F factors in BS EN 1993, BS EN 1990 and BS EN 1991 respectively. PD 6695-1-9 Section 5.4 gives more background to the use of BS EN 1990 Annex B in deriving the NA.2.5.2 recommendations. In the event that a particular case for changing the safety margin is agreed with the client, it has been recommended that this is done via kFI on loading in accordance with BS EN 1990. NA.2.5.3 Partial factor for fatigue strength The recommended single value of MF =1.1 is intended to provide a similar level of materials reliability to that used in BS 5400-10. PD 6695-1-9 Section 5.5 indicates the main differences in the stress range/endurance curves which have been taken into account in this process (see h) above). It should be noted that BS EN 1993-1-9 Table 3.1 effectively recommends increasing the design stress ranges by about 15% for damage tolerant designs, which is slightly more than one detail category. This is not acceptable in the UK; it is considered that such a design method should be based on a totally different procedure from that for safe life (see NA.2.4). NA.2.6 Stress limitations for Class 4 sections This guidance in BS EN 1993-2, 7.4 is considered appropriate to avoid web-breathing. It should be noted that a similar formula to (7.7) in 7.4.(3) is given in BS EN 1999-1-3:2007, D.3(2), but is for general plate elements. This phenomenon is not confined only to web plates. Slender compression and tension flanges may also be susceptible. NA.2.7 Use of nominal, modified nominal, and geometric stress ranges PD 6695-1-9 Sections 6 and 7 give comprehensive guidance on this subject. This has made use of information provided in BS EN 1999-1-3:2007 which made use of material obtained from BS 5400-10 and BS 7608[13]. Guidance on the use of finite elements for fatigue analysis can be obtained from BS EN 1993-1-3:2007 Annex D.

M Ogle, S Chakrabarti

NA.2.8 Design value of nominal stress range Derivation of generalised data is a very specialised procedure, requiring extensive damage calculations based on a range of stress histories. Where values are not available from BS EN 1993-2 it is recommended in NA.2.8 that the specific member is assessed using the damage calculation method in Annex A (see also NA.2.11 below). NA.2.9 Verification of fatigue strength category The method of analysis of fatigue test data recommended in BS EN 1993-1-9 7.1(3) NOTE 1 is considered acceptable. For further guidance on fatigue testing see BS EN 1999-1-3 Annex C. NA.2.10 Fatigue strength categories for details not covered by Tables 8.1 to 8.10 or Annex B The fatigue strength categories in BS EN 1993-1-9 are normative and cannot be amended. They are considered to cover the most common details in steel bridges. NA.2.11 Use of Annex A PD 6695-1-9 Section 8 gives additional guidance on conducting the fatigue assessment using the damage calculation method, including the reservoir method as defined in BS 5400-10.

Conclusions
BS EN 1993-1-9 represents a very significant change from its predecessor BS 5400-10 as far as fatigue design of bridges is concerned, in terms of principles, scope, completeness, clarity and user friendliness. The recommendations given in the National Annex and PD 6695-1-9 should ensure that bridges designed to the Eurocode will have a similar level of reliability and economy as those designed to BS 5400-10.

Acknowledgements
Acknowledgements are made to the members of the Working Group WG3 for their contributions to the developments of the NA and the Highways Agency for releasing the background materials to the working group.

References
[1] BS153:1958: Specification for steel girder bridges, Part 1: Materials and workmanship (including Amendment No. 4 [PD 5786] August 1962, British Standards Institution, London. BS 5400-10, 1980: Steel, concrete and composite bridges: Part 10: Code of practice for fatigue, subsequently incorporating Amendment No.1, 1999, British Standards Institution, London. DD ENV 1993-1-1, 1992: Eurocode 3: Design of structures, Part 1.1: General rules and rules for buildings (together with United Kingdom National Application Documents), British Standards Institution, London.

[2]

[3]

M Ogle, S Chakrabarti

[4]

BS EN 1993-1-9, 2005: Design of steel structures: Part 1-9 Fatigue, British Standards Institution, London. PD 6695-1-9, 2008: Recommendations for the design of structures to BS EN 1993-19, British Standards Institution, London. BS EN 1090-2, 2008: Execution of steel and aluminium structures: Part 2 Technical requirements for the execution of steel structures, British Standards Institution, London. BS 5400-6, 1999: Steel, concrete and composite bridges: Part 6 Specification for materials and workmanship, steel, British Standards Institution, London. ISO 10721: Steel structures: Part 1: Materials and design (1997); Part 2: Fabrication and erection (1999), International Organization for Standardization, Geneva PD 6705-2: Structural use of steel and aluminium. Part 2. Recommendations for the execution of steel bridges to BS 1090-2, (due for publication 2010), British Standards Institution, London. BS EN 1991-2, 2003: Eurocode 1: Actions of structures: Part 2: Traffic loads on bridges, British Standards Institution, London. BS EN 1999-1-3, 2007: Eurocode 9: Design of aluminium structures: Part 1-3: Structures susceptible to fatigue (including UK National Annex), British Standards Institution, London. BS EN 1990, 2002: Eurocode - Basis of structural design (including UK National Annex for Eurocode 0), British Standards Institution, London. BS 7608, 1993: 'Code of practice for fatigue design and assessment of steel structures', British Standards Institution, London.

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]