EN 1999-1-3:2007/A1:2011

SLOVENSKI STANDARD
01-februar-2012
(YURNRG3URMHNWLUDQMHNRQVWUXNFLML]DOXPLQLMHYLK]OLWLQGHO.RQVWUXNFLMH
REþXWOMLYHQDXWUXMDQMH
Eurocode 9: Design of aluminium structures - Part 1-3: Structures susceptible to fatigue
Eurocode 9: Bemessung und Konstruktion von Aluminiumtragwerken - Teil 1-3:
Ermüdungsbeanspruchte Tragwerke
Eurocode 9: Calcul des structures en aluminium - Partie 1-3: Structures sensibles à la
fatigue
Ta slovenski standard je istoveten z: EN 1999-1-3:2007/A1:2011
ICS:
91.010.30 7HKQLþQLYLGLNL Technical aspects
91.080.10 Kovinske konstrukcije Metal structures
2003-01.Slovenski inštitut za standardizacijo. Razmnoževanje celote ali delov tega standarda ni dovoljeno.

EUROPEAN STANDARD
EN 1999-1-3:2007/A1
NORME EUROPÉENNE
EUROPÄISCHE NORM
August 2011
ICS 91.010.30; 91.080.10
English Version
Eurocode 9: Design of aluminium structures - Part 1-3:
Structures susceptible to fatigue
Eurocode 9: Calcul des structures en aluminium - Partie 1- Eurocode 9: Bemessung und Konstruktion von
3: Structures sensibles à la fatigue Aluminiumtragwerken - Teil 1-3: Ermüdungsbeanspruchte
Tragwerke
This amendment A1 modifies the European Standard EN 1999-1-3:2007; it was approved by CEN on 26 May 2011.

CEN members are bound to comply with the CEN/CENELEC Internal Regulations which stipulate the conditions for inclusion of this
amendment into the relevant national standard without any alteration. Up-to-date lists and bibliographical references concerning such
national standards may be obtained on application to the CEN-CENELEC Management Centre or to any CEN member.

This amendment exists in three official versions (English, French, German). A version in any other language made by translation under the
responsibility of a CEN member into its own language and notified to the CEN-CENELEC Management Centre has the same status as the
official versions.
CEN members are the national standards bodies of Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia,
Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland,
Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and United Kingdom.

EUROPEAN COMMITTEE FOR STANDARDIZATION
COMITÉ EUROPÉEN DE NORMALISATION

EUROPÄISCHES KOMITEE FÜR NORMUNG

Management Centre: Avenue Marnix 17, B-1000 Brussels
© 2011 CEN All rights of exploitation in any form and by any means reserved Ref. No. EN 1999-1-3:2007/A1:2011: E
worldwide for CEN national Members.

Contents
Foreword . 3
1  Modification to Foreword . 4
2  Modification to 1.5.2.34 . 4
3  Modification to 1.6 . 4
4  Modification to Clause 2 . 6
5  Modification to 5.8.1 (2) . 10
6  Modification to 5.8.2 (1) . 10
7  Modifications to 6.2.1 (2) . 10
8  Modification to A.2.1 (5) . 11
9  Modification to A.3.1 . 12
10  Modifications to A.3.2 . 12
11  Addition of Annex L . 13
L.1  Safe life method . 13
L.2  Damage tolerant design method . 13
L.3  Start of inspection and inspection intervals . 15
L.4  Partial factors γγγγ and the values of D . 16
Mf Lim
L.5  Parameters for execution . 17
L.5.1 Service category . 17
L.5.2 Calculation of utilisation grade . 18
Foreword
This document (EN 1999-1-3:2007/A1:2011) has been prepared by Technical Committee CEN/TC 250
“Structural Eurocodes”, the secretariat of which is held by BSI.
This Amendment to the European Standard EN 1999-1-3:2007 shall be given the status of a national
standard, either by publication of an identical text or by endorsement, at the latest by August 2012,
and conflicting national standards shall be withdrawn at the latest by August 2012.
Attention is drawn to the possibility that some of the elements of this document may be the subject of
patent rights. CEN [and/or CENELEC] shall not be held responsible for identifying any or all such
patent rights.
According to the CEN/CENELEC Internal Regulations, the national standards organizations of the
following countries are bound to implement this European Standard: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria,
Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary,
Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal,
Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.
1 Modification to Foreword
At the end of the Foreword, in the list of clauses where national choice is allowed,
replace “2.1(1)” with “2.1.1(1)”, “2.2.1(3)” with “2.2.1(4)” and “2.3.1(3)” with “2.3.1(2)” and
delete “6.2.4(1)” and “A.3.1(1)”
2 Modification to 1.5.2.34
Replace 1.5.2.34 with the following: "
1.5.2.34
safe life
period of time for which a structure is estimated to perform safely with an acceptable probability that
failure by fatigue cracking will not occur, when using the safe life design method".
3 Modification to 1.6
For the definition of symbol m, delete “constant”
Replace
“N endurance under stress range ∆σ”
i i
with
“N predicted number of cycles to failure of a stress range ∆σ”
i i
and replace
“T inspection interval”
i
with
“T inspection interval
i
T recommended time after completed erection for the start of fatigue inspection, where the
F
fatigue inspection comprises the inspection of areas with high probability for cracks
T recommended time after completed erection for start of general inspection, where the
G
general inspection comprises checking that the structure is as it was when it was completed
and approved, i.e. that no deterioration has taken place, such as deterioration caused by
adding detrimental holes or welds for additional elements, damage due to vandalism or
accidents, unexpected corrosion etc.”
and replace
"γ partial factor for fatigue load intensity
Ff
γ partial factor for fatigue strength
Mf
∆σ nominal stress range (normal stress)
∆τ effective shear stress range
∆σ reference fatigue strength at 2x10 cycles (normal stress)
C
∆σ constant amplitude fatigue limit
D
∆σ equivalent constant amplitude stress range related to N
E max
∆σ equivalent constant amplitude stress range related to 2x10 cycles
E,2
∆σ cut-off limit
L
∆σ fatigue strength (normal stress)
R
σ , σ maximum and minimum values of the fluctuating stresses in a stress cycle
max min
σ mean stress."
m
with
"λ damage equivalent factor depending on the load situation and the structural
i
characteristics as well as other factors
γ partial factor for fatigue load intensity
Ff
γ partial factor for fatigue strength
Mf
∆σ nominal stress range (normal stress)
NOTE ∆σ refers either to action effects or to fatigue strength depending on context.
∆τ effective shear stress range
∆σ constant stress range for the principal stresses in the construction detail for n cycles
i i
∆σ reference fatigue strength at 2 × 10 cycles (normal stress)
C
∆σ constant amplitude fatigue limit
D
∆σ nominal stress range from fatigue actions
E
∆σ equivalent constant amplitude stress range related to N
E,Ne max
∆σ equivalent constant amplitude stress range related to 2 × 10 cycles
E,2e
∆σ cut-off limit
L
∆σ fatigue strength (normal stress)
R
recommended maximum time interval for general inspection
∆T
F
∆T recommended maximum time interval for fatigue inspection
G
σ , σ maximum and minimum values of the fluctuating stresses in a stress cycle
max min
σ mean stress."
m
and add
"D design fatigue damage value calculated for the full design life".
L.d
4 Modification to Clause 2
Replace Clause 2 with the following: "
2 Basis of design
2.1 General
2.1.1 Basic requirements
(1) P The aim of designing a structure against the limit state of fatigue is to ensure, with an acceptable
level of probability, that its performance is satisfactory during its entire design life, such that the
structure shall not fail by fatigue nor shall it be likely to require undue repair of damage caused by
fatigue during the design life. The design of aluminium structures against the limit state of fatigue may
be based on one of following methods:
a) safe life design (SLD) (see 2.2.1);
b) damage tolerant design (DTD) (see 2.2.2).
Either of methods a) and b) may be supplemented or replaced by design assisted by testing (see
2.2.3).
NOTE The national annex may specify conditions for the application for the above methods of design.
(2) The method for design against fatigue should be selected taking the use of the structure into
account, considering the consequence class fixed for the components of the structure. In particular the
accessibility for inspection of components and details where fatigue cracks are likely to occur should
be considered.
(3) Fatigue assessment of components and structures should be considered in cases where the loads
are frequently changing, particularly if reversing. Common situations where this may occur are e.g.:
 members supporting lifting appliances or rolling loads;
 members subjected to repeated stress cycles from vibrating machinery;
 members subjected to wind-induced oscillations;
 members subject to crowd-induced oscillations;
 moving structures (structures subject to inertia forces);
 members subjected to fluid flow induced oscillations or wave action.
NOTE The rules for fatigue resistance given in this standard apply generally to high cycle fatigue. For low cycle fatigue,
guidelines are given in Annex F.
(4) The design rules in the other parts of EN 1999 apply.
2.2 Procedures for fatigue design
2.2.1 Safe life design (SLD)
(1) The safe life design method is based on the calculation of damage accumulation during the
structure's design life or comparing the maximum stress range with the constant amplitude limit, using
standard lower bound endurance data and an upper bound estimate of the fatigue loading, all based
on design values. The approach provides a conservative estimate of the fatigue strength and does not
normally depend on in-service inspection for fatigue damage.
NOTE Options considering in-service inspection are given in L1 for use when Annex J resistance data is adopted.
(2) The fatigue design involves prediction of the stress histories at potential crack initiation sites,
followed by counting of load cycles with the associated stress ranges and compilation of stress
spectra. From this information an estimate of the design life is made using the appropriate stress
range endurance data for the construction detail concerned. This method is given in A.2.
(3) The safe life design method may be based on one of two procedures to ensure sufficient
resistance of the component or structure. The procedures are respectively based on that
a) the linear damage accumulation calculation is used, see (4);
b) the equivalent stress range approach is used, see (5)
NOTE A third procedure, for the case where all design stress ranges are less than the design constant amplitude fatigue
limit, is given in L.1(4).
(4) For safe life design based on the assumption of linear damage accumulation (Palmgren-Miner's
summation) the damage value D for all cycles should fulfill the condition:
L
D ≤ 1 (2.1 a)
L,d
where
D = Σn /N is calculated in accordance with the procedure given in A.2.
L,d i i
or
D ≤ D (2.1 b)
L lim
where:
D = Σn /N is calculated in accordance with the procedure given in A.2 with γ = γ = 1,0.
L i i Mf Ff
NOTE The national annex may specify values for D , see L.4. Recommended values of D are given in L.4 for use
lim lim
when resistance data in Annex J is adopted.
(5) In case the design is based on the equivalent stress range approach (∆σ ) the following condition
E,2e
should be fulfilled:
γ ∆σ
Ff E,2e
≤ 1 (2.2)
∆σγ/
C Mf
NOTE Recommended values for γ are given in L.4. For γ , see 2.4.
Mf Ff
2.2.2 Damage tolerant design (DTD)
(1) P A damage tolerant design requires that a prescribed
...