4.7 Article

Experimental study on the root-deck fatigue crack on orthotropic steel decks

Journal

MATERIALS & DESIGN
Volume 203, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.matdes.2021.109601

Keywords

Orthotropic steel deck; Fatigue crack growth; Weld root crack; Beach mark; S-N curve

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51908423, 51678437,51978514, 51878493]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The root-deck crack is a significant fatigue issue on OSDs, impacting bridge serviceability and being challenging to detect. Fatigue testing and microscopic examination identified lack of penetration at the weld root and high stress as key factors in crack initiation and propagation. Comparing with other fatigue test results, differences between root-deck crack and toe-deck crack failures were highlighted, providing insights for improved fatigue design of OSDs.
The root-deck crack is one of the most concerned fatigue issues on orthotropic steel decks (OSDs) as it is unfavorable for the serviceability of the bridge while being difficult to detect. In this paper, the fatigue test was designed and carried out by using beach marking method to record the crack propagation process. By conducting microscopic examination on the fracture surface, it shows that the lack of penetration (LOP) at the weld root, combined with the high stress at that site, results in the fatigue crack initiation and propagation to penetrate the deck. Additionally, the fatigue assessment in terms of the S-N curves for such a failure mode was carried out. With comparison to other fatigue test results from the literature, it manifests the differences between the specimens failed due to root-deck crack and toe-deck crack, which can benefit the fatigue design of OSDs by giving a more specific and process-oriented results. (c) 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available