PSI - Issue 81

Roman Samchuk et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 81 (2026) 184–191

189

3.2. Fatigue verification results

The main comparison is the change in accumulated fatigue damage when horizontal actions are included. For the evaluated case, the governing damage increases by approximately 22% when passing from Scenario V to Scenario VH.

Table 3. Summary of fatigue damage results at the web–flange connection. Standard Weld type ScenarioV

Scenario VH

Change (V → VH)

EN13001 EN13001

Double fillet weld Full penetration weld Double fillet weld Full penetration weld

0.93 0.66 1.83 0.93

1.13 0.80 2.23 1.13

+ 22% + 22% + 22% + 22%

EN 1993-1-9 EN 1993-1-9

Figure 3 complements Table 3 by visualising the fatigue damage distribution at the web–flange connection and the corresponding UF > 1 zones. Table 3 demonstrates a clear dependency of the verification outcome on the selected standard framework, weld detail category and loading scenario. For the fillet-welded web–flange joint according to EN 13001, Scenario V remains below the limit ( D = 0 . 93), whereas Scenario VH increases the damage by about 22% ( D = 1 . 13) and leads to non-compliance. A similar shift is observed for the full-penetration weld assumption within the Eurocode fatigue framework, which appears acceptable under vertical-only actions but becomes non-compliant once horizontal actions are included. These results indicate that neglecting cyclic horizontal actions may produce unconservative fatigue-life estimates and may change the engineering decision from “acceptable” to “end-of-life” for details that are close to the utilisation limit.

Fig. 3. Web–flange connection: local fatigue damage contours (rows 1–2) and UF > 1 highlight views (rows 3–4) for double fillet and full penetration welds. Columns compare Scenario V (vertical only) and Scenario VH (vertical + inertial / horizontal) for each weld type; rows compare EN 13001 and EN 1993-1-9. Areas with UF > 1 are highlighted in orange or red.