215R 74
215R 74
215R 74
* * EXAMPLES: 42m.3- = 42 cubic meters * * CO+2, = carbon dioxide * * * * 2. All table notes (letters and numbers) have been enclosed in square* * brackets in both the table and below the table. The same is * * true for footnotes. * .))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))-
Reported by ACI Committee 215 John M. Hanson, Chairman; Craig A. Ballinger, Secretary; Paul W. Abeles; John D. Antrim; Earl I. Brown, II; John N. Cernica; Carl E. Ekberg, Jr.*; Neil M. Hawkins; Hubert K. Hilsdorf; Cornie L. Hulsbos; Don A. Linger; Edmund P. Segner, Jr.; Surendra P. Shah; Laurence E. Svab; William J. Venuti * Chairman of ACI Committee 215 at the time preparation of this report was begun. Committee members voting on the 1992 revisions: David W. Johnston, Chairman; Craig A. Ballinger, Secretary; M. Arockiasamy; P.N. Balaguru; Mark D. Bowman; John N. Cernica; Luis F. Estenssoro; John M. Hanson; Neil M. Hawkins; Thomas T.C. Hsu; Ti Huang; Lambit Kald; Michael E. Kreger; Basile G. Rabbat; Raymond S. Rollings; Surendra P. Shah; Luc R. Taerwe; William J. Venuti This report presents information that is intended to aid the practicing engineer confronted with consideration of repeated loading on concrete structures. Investigations of the fatigue properties of component materials--concrete, reinforcing bars, welded reinforcing mats, and prestressing tendons--are reviewed. Application of this information to predicting the fatigue life of beams and pavements is discussed. A significant change in Section 3.1.2 of the 1992 revisions is the increase in the allowable stress range for prestressing steel from 0.04 f+pu, to 0.06 f+pu,. Keywords: beams (supports); compressive strength; concrete pavements; cracking (fracturing); dynamic loads; fatigue (materials); impact; loads (forces); microcracking; plain concrete; prestressed concrete; prestressing steel; reinforced concrete; reinforcing steels; specifications; static loads; strains; stresses; structural design; tensile strength; welded wire fabric; welding; yield strength. ACI Committee Reports, Guides, Standard Practices, and Commentaries are intended for guidance in designing, planning, executing, or inspecting construction and in preparing specifications. Reference to these documents shall not be made in the Project Documents. If items found in these documents are desired to be part of the Project Documents they should be phrased in mandatory language and incorporated into the Project Documents.
CONTENTS Chapter 1--Introduction 1.1--Objective and scope 1.2--Definitions 1.3--Standards cited in this report Chapter 2--Fatigue properties of component materials 2.1--Plain concrete 2.2--Reinforcing bars 2.3--Welded wire fabric and bar mats 2.4--Prestressing tendons Chapter 3--Fatigue of beams and pavements 3.1--Beams 3.2--Pavements Notation References Appendix ACI 215R-74 (Revised 1992) became effective Nov. 1, 1992. Copyright 1992, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved including rights of reproduction and use in any form or by any means, including the making of copies by any photo process, or by any electronic or mechanical device, printed or written or oral, or recording for sound or visual reproduction or for use in any knowledge or retrieval system or device, unless permission in writing is obtained from the copyright proprietors. CHAPTER 1--INTRODUCTION In recent years, considerable interest has developed in the fatigue strength of concrete members. There are several reasons for this interest. First, the widespread adoption of ultimate strength design procedures and the use of higher strength materials require that structural concrete members perform satisfactorily under high stress levels. Hence there is concern about the effects of repeated loads on, for example, crane beams and bridge slabs. Second, new or different uses are being made of concrete members or systems, such as prestressed concrete railroad ties and continuously reinforced concrete pavements. These uses of concrete demand a high performance product with an assured fatigue strength. Third, there is new recognition of the effects of repeated loading on a member, even if repeated loading does not cause a fatigue failure. Repeated loading may lead to inclined cracking in prestressed beams at lower than expected loads, or repeated
loading may cause cracking in component materials of a member that alters the static load carrying characteristics. 1.1--Objective and scope This report is intended to provide information that will serve as a guide for design for concrete structures subjected to fatigue loading. However, this report does not contain the type of detailed design procedures sometimes found in guides. Chapter 2 presents information on the fatigue strength of concrete and reinforcing materials. This information has been obtained from reviews of experimental investigations reported in technical literature or from unpublished data made available to the committee. The principal aim has been to summarize information on factors influencing fatigue strength that are of concern to practicing engineers. Chapter 3 considers the application of information on concrete and reinforcing materials to beams and pavements. Provisions suitable for inclusion in a design specification are recommended. An Appendix to this report contains extracts from current specifications that are concerned with fatigue. 1.2--Definitions It is important to carefully distinguish between static, dynamic, fatigue, and impact loadings. Truly static loading, or sustained loading, remains constant with time. Nevertheless, a load which increases slowly is often called static loading; the maximum load capacity under such conditions is referred to as static strength. Dynamic loading varies with time in any arbitrary manner. Fatigue and impact loadings are special cases of dynamic loading. A fatigue loading consists of a sequence of load repetitions that may cause a fatigue failure in about 100 or more cycles. Very high level repeated loadings due to earthquakes or other catastrophic events may cause failures in less than 100 cycles. These failures are sometimes referred to as low-cycle fatigue; however, this report does not specifically deal with these types of loadings. 1.3--Standards cited in this report The standards and specifications referred to in this document are listed below with their serial designation, including year of adoption or revision. These standards are the latest effort at the time this document was revised. Since some of the standards are revised frequently, although generally only in minor details, the user of this document may wish to check directly with the committee if it is correct to refer to the latest revision. ACI 301-89 ACI 318-89 Specifications for Structural Concrete for Buildings Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete
ASTM A 416-90 ASTM A 421-90 ASTM A 615-90 ASTM 722-90 AWS D1.4-79
Standard Specification for Uncoated Seven Wire Stress Relieved Steel Strand for Prestressed Concrete Standard Specification for Uncoated Stress Relieved Steel Wire for Prestressed Concrete Standard Specification for Deformed and Plain Billet Steel Bars for Concrete Reinforcement Standard Specification for Uncoated High Strength Steel Bar for Prestressing Concrete Structural Welding Code-Reinforcing Steel
CHAPTER 2--FATIGUE PROPERTIES OF COMPONENT MATERIALS The fatigue properties of concrete, reinforcing bars, and prestressing tendons are described in this section. Much of this information is presented in the form of diagrams and algebraic relationships that can be utilized for design. However, it is emphasized that this information is based on the results of tests conducted on different types of specimens subjected to various loading conditions. Therefore, caution should be exercised in applying the information presented in this report. 2.1--Plain concrete* 2.1.1 General--Plain concrete, when subjected to repeated loads, may exhibit excessive cracking and may eventually fail after a sufficient number of load repetitions, even if the maximum load is less than the static strength of a similar specimen. The fatigue strength of concrete is defined as a fraction of the static strength that it can support repeatedly for a given number of cycles. Fatigue strength is influenced by range of loading, rate of loading, eccentricity of loading, load history, material properties, and environmental conditions. __________________________ * Dr. Surendra P. Shah was the chairman of the subcommittee that prepared this section of the report.
Fatigue is a process of progressive permanent internal structural change in a material subjected to repetitive stresses. These changes may be damaging and result in progressive growth of cracks and complete fracture if the stress repetitions are sufficiently large.[1,2] Fatigue fracture of concrete is characterized by considerably larger strains and microcracking as compared to fracture of concrete under static loading.[3,4] Fatigue strength of concrete for a life of ten million cycles-for compression, tension, or flexure--is roughly about 55 percent of static strength. 2.1.2 Range of stress--The effect of range of stress may be illustrated by the stress-fatigue life curves, commonly referred to as S-N curves, shown in Fig. 1. These curves were developed from tests on 6 x 6 in. (152 x 152 mm) plain concrete beams[5] loaded at the third points of a 60 in. (1.52 m) span. The tests were conducted at the rate of 450 cycles per min. This concrete mix with a water-cement ratio of 0.52 by weight provided an average compressive strength of 5000 psi (34.5 MPa) in 28 days. The age of the specimens at the time of testing ranged from 150 to 300 days. In Fig. 1, the ordinate is the ratio of the maximum stress, S+max,, to the static strength. In this case, S+max, is the computed flexural tensile stress, and the static strength is the modulus of rupture stress, f+r,. The abscissa is the number of cycles to failure, plotted on a logarithmic scale. Curves a and c indicate that the fatigue strength of concrete decreases with increasing number of cycles. It may be observed that the S-N curves for concrete are approximately linear between 10 and 10.7- cycles. This indicates that concrete does not exhibit an endurance limit up to 10 million cycles. In other words, there is no limiting value of stress below which the fatigue life will be infinite. The influence of load range can be seen from comparison of Curves a and c in Fig. 1. The curves were obtained from tests with loads ranging between a maximum and a minimum which was equal to 75 and 15 percent of the maximum, respectively. It is evident that a decrease of the range between maximum and minimum load results in increased fatigue strength for a given number of cycles. When the minimum and maximum loads are equal, the strength of the specimen corresponds to the static strength of concrete determined under otherwise similar conditions. The results of fatigue tests usually exhibit substantially larger scatter than static tests. This inherent statistical nature of fatigue test results can best be accounted for by applying probabilistic procedures: for a given maximum load, minimum load, and number of cycles, the probability of failure can be estimated from the test results. By repeating this for several numbers of cycles, a relationship between probability of failure and number of cycles until failure at a given level of maximum load can be obtained. From such relationships, S-N curves for various probabilities of failure can be plotted. Curves a and c in Fig. 1 are averages representing 50 percent probability of failure. Curve d represents 5 percent probability of failure, while Curve b corresponds to an 80 percent chance of failure.
The usual fatigue curve is that shown for a probability of failure of 50 percent. However, design may be based on a lower probability of failure. Design for fatigue may be facilitated by use of a modified Goodman diagram, as illustrated in Fig. 2. This diagram is based on the observation that the fatigue strength of plain concrete is essentially the same whether the mode of loading is tension, compression, or flexure. The diagram also incorporates the influence of range of loading. For a zero minimum stress level, the maximum stress level the concrete can support for one million cycles without failure is taken conservatively as 50 percent of the static strength. As the minimum stress level is increased, the stress range that the concrete can support decreases. The linear decrease of stress range with increasing minimum stress has been observed, at least approximately, by many investigators. From Fig. 2, the maximum stress in tension, compression, or flexure that concrete can withstand for one million repetitions and for a given minimum stress can be determined. For example, consider a structural element to be designed for one million repetitions. If the minimum stress is 15 percent of the static ultimate strength, then the maximum load that will cause fatigue failure is about 57 percent of static ultimate load.
2.1.3 Load history--Most laboratory fatigue data are idealized, since in these tests the loads alternated between constant minimum and maximum values. Concrete in structural members may be subjected to randomly varying loads. Currently, no data are available[6] showing the effect of random loading on fatigue behavior of concrete. Effects of different values of maximum stress can be approximately, although not always conservatively, estimated from constant stress fatigue tests by using the Miner hypothesis.[7] According to this rule, failure occurs if E(n+r,/N+r,) = 1, where n+r, is the number of cycles applied at a particular stress condition, and N+r, is the number of cycles which will cause fatigue failure at that same stress condition. The effect of rest periods and sustained loading on the fatigue behavior of concrete is not sufficiently explored. Laboratory tests have shown that rest periods and sustained loading between repeated load cycles tends to increase the fatigue strength of concrete.[5] In these tests, the specimens were subjected to relatively low levels of sustained stress. If the sustained stress level is above about 75 percent of the static strength, then sustained loading may have detrimental effects on fatigue life.[3] This contradictory effect of creep loading may be explained from test results which show that low levels of sustained stress increase the static strength, whereas high levels of sustained stress resulted in increased microcracking and failure in some cases. 2.1.4 Rate of loading--Several investigations indicate that variations of the frequency of loading between 70 and 900 cycles per minute have little effect on fatigue strength provided the maximum stress level is less than about 75 percent of the static strength.[8] For higher stress levels, a significant influence of rate of loading has been observed.[9] Under such conditions, creep effects become more important, leading to a reduction in fatigue strength with decreasing rate of loading. 2.1.5 Material properties--The fatigue strength for a life of 10 million cycles of load and a probability of failure of 50 percent, regardless of whether the specimen is loaded in compression, tension, or flexure, is approximately 55 percent of the static ultimate strength. Furthermore, the fatigue strength of mortar and concrete are about the same when expressed as a percentage of their corresponding ultimate static strength.[10] Many variables such as cement content, water-cement ratio, curing conditions, age at loading, amount of entrained air, and type of aggregates that affect static ultimate strength also influence fatigue strength in a similar proportionate manner.[11] 2.1.6 Stress gradient--Stress gradient has been shown to influence the fatigue strength of concrete. Results of tests[12] on 4 x 6 x 12 in. (102 x 152 x 305 mm) concrete prisms under repeated compressive stresses and three different strain gradients are shown in Fig. 3. The prisms had a compressive strength of about 6000 psi (41.4 MPa). They were tested at a rate of 500 cpm at ages varying between 47 and 77 days. For one case, marked e = 0, the load was applied concentrically, producing uniform strain throughout the cross section. To simulate the compression zone of a beam, load was applied eccentrically in the other two cases, marked e = 1/3 in. (8.5 mm)
and e = 1 in. (25.4 mm). The loads were applied such that during the first cycle of fatigue loading the maximum strain at the extreme fiber was the same for all three sets of specimens. For the two eccentrically loaded cases, the minimum strain was zero and half the maximum strain, respectively. The stress level, S, was defined as the ratio of the extreme fiber stress to the static compressive strength f'+c,. The extreme fiber stress in eccentrically loaded specimens was determined from static stress strain relationships and the maximum strain at the extreme fiber as observed during the first cycle of fatigue loading. From the mean S-N curves shown in Fig. 3, it can be seen that the fatigue strength of eccentric specimens is 15 to 18 percent higher than that for uniformly stressed specimens for a fatigue life of 40,000 to 1,000,000 cycles. These results are in accord with the results of static tests where it was shown that the strain gradient retards internal microcrack growth.[13] For the purpose of design of flexural members limited by concrete fatigue in compression, it is safe to assume that fatigue strength of concrete with a stress gradient is the same as that of uniformly stressed specimens. 2.1.7 Mechanism of fatigue fracture--Considerable research is being done to study the nature of fatigue failure in concrete.[1-4,14-17] Researchers have measured surface strains, changes in pulse velocity, internal microcracking and surface cracking to understand the phenomenon of fracture. It has been observed that fatigue failure is due to progressive internal microcracking. As a result, large increase in both the longitudinal and transverse strains and decrease in pulse velocity have been reported preceding fatigue failure. External surface cracking has been observed on test specimens long before actual failure. Progressive damage under fatigue loading is also indicated by reduction of the slope of the compressive stress-strain curve with an increasing number of cycles. In addition to
internal microcracking, fatigue loading is also likely to cause changes in the pore structure of the hardened cement paste. Creep effects must also be considered. They become more significant as the rate of loading decreases. 2.1.8 Concrete strain--Similar to the behavior of concrete under sustained loads, the strain of concrete during repeated loading increases substantially beyond the value observed after the first load application,[2] as shown in Fig. 4. The strain at fatigue failure is likely to be higher if the maximum stress is lower. 2.2--Reinforcing bars* 2.2.1 General--Fatigue of steel reinforcing bars has not been a significant factor in their application as reinforcement in concrete structures. However, the trend in concrete structures toward use of ultimate strength design procedures and higher yield strength reinforcement makes fatigue of reinforcing bars of more concern to designers. It is noteworthy, though, that the lowest stress range known to have caused a fatigue failure of a straight hot-rolled deformed bar embedded in a concrete beam is 21 ksi (145 MPa). This failure occurred after 1,250,000 cycles of loading on a beam containing a #11, Grade 60 test bar, when the minimum stress level was 17.5 ksi (121 MPa).[26] A typical fatigue fracture of a reinforcing bar is shown in Fig. 5. This is also a #11, Grade 60 bar which at one time was embedded in a concrete beam that was subjected to repeated loads until the bar failed. In this figure, the orientation of the bar is the same as it was in the beam; the bottom of the bar was adjacent to the extreme tensile fibers in the beam. The smoother zone, with the dull, rubbed appearance, is the fatigue crack. The remaining zone of more jagged surface texture is the part that finally fractured in tension after the growing fatigue crack weakened the bar. It is noteworthy that the fatigue crack did not start from the bottom of the bar. Rather it started along the side of the bar, at the base of one of the transverse lugs. This is a common characteristic of most bar fatigue fractures.
Quite a number of laboratory investigations of the fatigue strength of reinforcing bars have been reported in recent years from the United States,[18-26] Canada,[27,28] Europe,[29-34] and Japan.[35-39] In most of these investigations, the relationship between stress range, S+r,, and fatigue life, N, was determined by a series of repeated load tests on bars which were either embedded in concrete or tested in air. There is contradiction in the technical literature as to whether a bar has the same fatigue strength when tested in air or embedded in a concrete beam. In an investigation[31] of hot-rolled cold-twisted bars, it was found that bars embedded in beams had a greater fatigue strength than when tested in air. However, in another investigation,[29] the opposite conclusion was reached. More recent studies[28,32] indicate that there should be little difference in the fatigue strength of bars in air and embedded bars if the height and shape of the transverse lugs are adequate to provide good bond between the steel and concrete. The influence of friction between a reinforcing bar and concrete in the vicinity of a crack has also been considered.[32] In laboratory tests, an increase in temperature is frequently observed at the location where the fatigue failure occurs. However, rates of loading up to several thousand cycles per minute and temperatures up to several hundred degrees C are normally not considered to have a significant effect on fatigue strength.[40] In a statistical analysis[41] of an investigation of reinforcing bars,[26] differences in fatigue strength due to rates of loading of 250 and 500 cycles per minute were not significant. It is therefore believed that most of the data reported in investigations in North America and abroad is directly comparable, even though it may have been obtained under quite different testing conditions. A number of S+r,-N curves obtained from tests on concrete beams containing straight deformed bars made in North America[18,21,24-28] are shown in Fig. 6. These curves are for bars varying in size from #5 to #11, with minimum stress levels ranging from -0.10 to 0.43 of the tensile yield strength of the bars.
_____________________ * Dr. John M. Hanson was the chairman of the subcommittee that prepared this section of the report. Although only about one-third of the total number of S+r,-N curves reported in the indicated references are shown in Fig. 6, they include the highest and lowest fatigue strength. The varying characteristics of these curves suggest that there are many variables in addition to stress range that influence the fatigue strength of deformed reinforcing bars. Most of the curves in Fig. 6 show a transition from a steeper to a flatter slope in the vicinity of one million cycles, indicating that reinforcing bars exhibit a practical fatigue limit. Fatigue strengths associated with the steeper or flatter part of the S+r,-N curves will be referred to as being in the finite life or long life region, respectively. Because of the lack of sufficient data in the long life region, it is noted that many of the S+r,-N curves in this region are conjectural. The fatigue strength of the steel in reinforcing bars depends upon chemical composition, microstructure, inclusions, and other variables.[40] However, it has been shown[26,28] that the fatigue strength of reinforcing bars may be only one-half of the fatigue strength of coupons machined from samples of the bars. In addition, reinforcing bar specifications are based on physical characteristics. Consequently, the variables related to the steel composition are of limited concern to practicing structural engineers. The variables related to the physical characteristics and use of the reinforcing bars are of greater concern. The main variables that have been considered in the technical literature are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Minimum stress Bar size and type of beam Geometry of deformations Yield and tensile strength Bending Welding
Each of these is discussed in the following sections. 2.2.2 Minimum stress--In several investigations,[18,21,29] it has been reported that the fatigue strength of reinforcing bars is relatively insensitive to the minimum stress level. However, in two recent investigations,[26,28] it was concluded that minimum stress level does influence fatigue strength to the extent approximately indicated by a modified Goodman diagram with a straight line envelope. This indicates that fatigue strength decreases with increasing minimum stress level in proportion to the ratio of the change in the minimum stress level to the tensile strength of the reinforcing bars. 2.2.3 Bar size and type of beam--These two factors are related because bars embedded in concrete beams have a stress gradient across the bar. In design, it is only the stress at the midfibers of the bar that is generally considered. Large bars in shallow beams or slabs may have a significantly higher stress at the extreme rather than the midfibers of the bar. The effect of bar size is examined in Table 1 using data from
three investigations.[28,32,36] Since #8 bars or their equivalent were tested in each of these investigations, the fatigue strength of other bar sizes was expressed as a ratio relative to the fatigue strength of the #8 bars. For each comparison, the bars were made by the same manufacturer, and they also were tested at the same minimum stress level. The fatigue strength is the stress range causing failure at 2 million or more cycles. Table 1--Effect of bar size
644444444444444444L44444L444444444444444444444444444444447 5 * * Fatigue strength relative to 5 5 Tests *Grade* fatigue strength of No. 8 bars 5 5 reported * of /))))))))0)))))))0))))))0))))))))M 5 in * bar * No. 5 * No. 6 * No. 8* No. 10 5 K)))))))))))))))))3)))))3))))))))3)))))))3))))))3))))))))M 5 * 40 * 1.06 * -* 1.00 * 0.99 5 5 * * * * * 5 5Reference 28 * 60 * 1.08 * -* 1.00 * 0.96 5 5 * * * * * 5 5 * 75 * 1.20 * -* 1.00 * 0.95 5 K)))))))))))))))))3)))))3))))))))3)))))))3))))))3))))))))M 5 * 40 * 1.11 * -* 1.00 * -5 5 * * * * * 5 * 40 * 1.05 * -* 1.00 * -5 5 5Reference 32 * * * * * 5 5 * 60 * 1.05 * -* 1.00 * -5 5 * * * * * 5 5 * 75 * 1.10 * -* 1.00 * -5 K)))))))))))))))))3)))))3))))))))3)))))))3))))))3))))))))M 5 * 40 * -- * 1.12 * 1.00 * -5 5 * * * * * 5 * 60 * -- * 1.04 * 1.00 * -5 5Reference 36 5 * * * * * 5 5 * 60 * -- * 1.10 * 1.00 * -5 944444444444444444N44444N44444444N4444444N444444N444444448
The tests reported in Reference 32 were on bars subjected to axial tension. Therefore, there was no effect of strain gradient in this data, yet the fatigue strength of the #5 bars was about 8 percent greater than that of the #8 bars. Tests in Reference 28 were on bars in concrete beams. The strain gradients in these beams resulted in stresses at the extreme fibers for the different size bars that were about the same. Still, an effect of bar size was found that was of about the same order of magnitude. In the tests in Reference 36 the strain gradient was greater across the #8 bars than the #6 bars. Therefore, part of the difference in fatigue strength should be attributed to the higher stress at the extreme fibers of the #8 bars. However, the differences, compared to the other test results, are about the same. In another investigation[26,41] where both bar size and type of beam were controlled variables, the former was found to be significant and the latter was not significant. This investigation included bars of 5 different sizes--#5, 6, 8, 10, and 11--made by a major United States manufacturer. These bars
were embedded in rectangular or T-shaped concrete beams having effective depths of 6, 10, or 18 in. (152, 254, or 457 mm). In this investigation, the fatigue life of #8, Grade 60 bars subjected to a stress range of 36 ksi (248 MPa) imposed on a minimum stress of 6 ksi (41.4 MPa) was 400,000 cycles. Under identical stress conditions, the fatigue life of the #5, 6, 10, and 11 bars were found to be 1.22, 1.30, 0.76, and 0.85 times the life of the #8 bars, respectively. This trend is the same as that for the data shown in Table 1. The irregular variation was attributed to differences in surface geometry. 2.2.4 Geometry of deformations--Deformations on reinforcing bars provide the means of obtaining good bond between the steel and the concrete. However, these same deformations produce stress concentrations at their base, or at points where a deformation[20,21,23] intersects another deformation or a longitudinal rib. These points of stress concentrations are where the fatigue fractures are observed to initiate. Any evaluation of the influence of the shape of the deformations on fatigue properties of the bar must recognize that the rolling technique and the cutting of the rolls necessarily requires specific limitations and variations in the pattern. This applies to the height of the deformations, the slopes on the walls of the deformations, and also to the fillets at the base of the deformations. An analytical study[42] has shown that stress concentration of an external notch on an axially loaded bar may be appreciable. This study indicated that the width, height, angle of rise, and base radius of a protruding deformation affect the magnitude of the stress concentration. It would appear that many reinforcing bar lugs may have stress concentration factors of 1.5 to 2.0. Tests on bars having a base radius varying from about 0.1 to 10 times the height of the deformation have been reported.[25,26,28,36] These tests indicate that when the base radius is increased from 0.1 to about 1 to 2 times the height of the deformation, fatigue strength is increased appreciably. An increase in base radius beyond 1 to 2 times the height of the deformation does not show much effect on fatigue strength. However, Japanese tests[36] have shown that lugs with radii larger than 2 to 5 times the height of the deformation have reduced bond capacity. Tests have indicated[30,31,39] that decreasing the angle of inclination of the sides of the deformations with respect to the longitudinal axis increases the fatigue strength of a reinforcing bar. This increase occurs for bars with lugs having abrupt changes in slope at their bases. It has been noted[43] that the base radius should be determined in a plane through the longitudinal axis of the bar, since this is the direction of the applied stress. The base radius determined in this plane will be substantially larger than a base radius determined in a plane perpendicular to a sharply inclined lug. In two experimental investigations,[23,34] it was found that the condition of the rolls, whether new or worn, had little effect on fatigue strength. However, a conflicting opinion has been expressed in Reference 32. Tests[32] also show a substantial effect on the fatigue resistance of reinforcing bars due to brand marks. The brand
marks cover the identification of the bar as to size, type of steel (billet, rail, or axle), mill that rolled the steel, and yield strength (Grade 40, 60, or 75).[44] The stress concentration at a bar mark is similar to that caused by bar deformations. It has also been demonstrated[24] that the fatigue strength of a reinforcing bar may be influenced by the orientation of the longitudinal ribs. In that study, an increased fatigue life was obtained when the longitudinal ribs were oriented in a horizontal position rather than a vertical position. This phenomenon is apparently associated with the location at which the fatigue crack initiates. In other words, if there is a particular location on the surface of a bar which is more critical for fatigue than other locations, then the positioning of that location in the beam will influence the fatigue strength. 2.2.5 Yield and tensile strength--In three investigations, [21,27,28] the fatigue strength of different grades[44] of bars made by the same North American manufacturer were compared. The results of these comparisons, all of which are in the long life region of fatigue life, are shown by the bar graphs in Fig. 7. It was concluded in References 21 and 28 that the fatigue strength of the bars was relatively insensitive to their yield or tensile strength. References 21 and 28 include 157 and 72 tests, respectively. Reference 27, which includes 19 tests, indicated that fatigue strength may be predicted for grade of steel as a function of the stress range.
In another investigation[26,41] on bars made by a major United States manufacturer, the fatigue life of Grade 40, Grade 60, and Grade 75 #8 bars, subjected to a stress range of 36 ksi (248 MPa) imposed on a minimum stress of 6 ksi (41.4 MPa), varied linearly in the ratio of 0.69 to 1.00 to 1.31, respectively. The ratio of 1.0 corresponds to a fatigue life of 400,000 cycles, and is therefore in the finite life region.
Axial tension fatigue tests[32] on unembedded reinforcing bars made in Germany were carried out on four groups of bars having yield strengths of 49, 53, 64, and 88 ksi (338, 365, 441, and 607 MPa). All of the bars were rolled through the same stand for elimination of variation in the deformed surfaces. When tested with a minimum stress level of 8.5 ksi (58.6 MPa), the stress ranges causing failure in two million cycles were determined to be 28, 28, 28, and 31 ksi (193, 193, 193, and 214 MPa), respectively. In a Japanese investigation,[36] bars of the same size and made by the same manufacturer but with yield strengths of 50, 57, and 70 ksi (345, 393, and 483 MPa) were tested. The stress range causing failure in two million cycles was between 30 and 31.5 ksi (207 and 217 MPa) for all three groups of bars. 2.2.6 Bending--The effect of bends on fatigue strength of bars has been considered in two investigations.[21,29] In the North American investigation,[21] fatigue tests were carried out on both straight and bent #8 deformed bars embedded in concrete beams. The bends were through an angle of 45 deg around a pin of 6 in. (152 mm) diameter. The fatigue strength of the bent bars was a little more than 50 percent below the fatigue strength of the straight bars. In one test, a bent bar embedded in a reinforced concrete beam failed in fatigue after sustaining 900,000 cycles of a stress range of 18 ksi (124 MPa) imposed on a minimum stress of 5.9 ksi (40.7 MPa). In another test, application of 1,025,000 cycles produced a failure when the stress range and minimum stress were 16.4 ksi and 19.1 ksi (113 and 132 MPa), respectively. Tests[29] have also been reported from Germany on both plain and deformed hot-rolled bars bent through an angle of 45 deg. However, these bars were bent around a pin having a diameter of 10 in. (254 mm). Compared to tests on straight bars, the fatigue strength of the plain bars was reduced 29 percent by the bend, while the fatigue strength of the deformed bars was reduced 48 percent. 2.2.7 Welding--In an investigation[24] using Grade 40 and Grade 60 reinforcement with the same deformation pattern, it was found that the fatigue strength of bars with stirrups attached by tack welding was about one-third less than bars with stirrups attached by wire ties. The results of the tests on the Grade 60 reinforcement are shown in Fig. 8. For both grades of steel, the fatigue strength of the bars with tack welding was about 20 ksi (138 MPa) at 5 million cycles. All of the fatigue cracks were initiated at the weld locations. It should be cautioned that tack welds that do not become a part of permanent welds are prohibited by AWS D1.4[109] unless authorized by the Engineer. Full penetration welds are permitted by AWS D1.4. Investigations[19,22] have also been carried out to evaluate the behavior of butt-welded reinforcing bars in reinforced concrete beams. In tests conducted at a minimum stress level of 2 ksi (13.8 MPa) tension, the least stress range that produced a fatigue failure was 24 ksi (165 MPa). It was observed that minimum stress level in the butt-welded joint was not a significant factor affecting the fatigue strength of the beams.
2.3--Welded wire fabric and bar mats* Welded wire fabric may consist of smooth or deformed wires while bar mats usually consist of deformed bars. Often fabric and bar mats are not used in structures subject to significant repeated loads because of concern that the welded intersections will create significant stress concentrations. This feeling has been heightened by experience from abroad[45] and the relatively poor performance of smooth wire fabric in continuously reinforced concrete pavements.[46,47,48] In some cases, pavements reinforced with this fabric performed adequately in service for 3 to 5 years. Then several wide cracks occurred, necessitating extensive repairs. While most of this cracking was caused by inadequate detailing of splices, field studies in Connecticut[47] have revealed failures at the welds in a significant number of instances. Any assessment of welded wire fabric or bar mats based primarily on their performance in pavements is unrealistic. In any given length of pavement, wide variations are possible in the stress spectrum for the reinforcement. The average stress level in the reinforcement is strongly dependent on the pavement's age, its thermal and moisture history, and the longitudinal restraint offered by the subgrade. The stress range in the reinforcement caused by the traffic depends on the support offered by the subgrade as well as the magnitude of the loading. Several recent investigations have examined the fatigue characteristics of fabric and bar mats in air.[45,48,49] For smooth wire fabric[45,49] the disturbance due to the welded intersection dominated over all other influences, so that failures were confined to the heat affected zone of the weld. For bar mats, the disturbance due to the welded intersection dominated only if the stress concentration caused by the intersection was greater than the concentration caused by the deformation. The available evidence does not indicate that these effects are additive. _________________________ * Dr. Neil M. Hawkins prepared this section of the report. Results for "cross-weld" tests conducted in air are summarized in Fig. 9. In the German investigation[45] 15 tests were made on a smooth wire fabric consisting of 0.236 in. (6 mm) diameter wires welded to 0.315 in. (8 mm) diameter wires. ln one American investigation[49] 59 "cross-weld" tests were made on a 2 x 2-6 x 6 (0.263 in. or 6.7 mm diameter) smooth wire
fabric, and in the other investigation[48] 22 "cross-weld" tests and 30 between weld tests were made on #5 Grade 60 deformed bars with #3 deformed bars welded to them. The University of Washington[49] investigation was intended to provide a statistically analyzable set of test data for three stress ranges. It was observed that when the penetration across the weld was less than one-tenth of the diameter of the wire, there was incomplete fusion of the wires and the formation of a cold joint. For a greater penetration, the molten metal squirted into the intersection between the wires causing a marked stress concentration so that the fatigue life for a hot joint was about half that for a cold joint. The result shown in Fig. 9 is the median fatigue life value for the penetration considered as a random variable. In those tests the fatigue life values for a given stress range and a 95 percent probability of survival exceeded the life values obtained in tests on high yield deformed bars.[25] In the tests[48] on the bar mats it was found that the welded intersection reduced the fatigue life for a given range by about 50 percent throughout the short life stress range. Tests on slabs reinforced with smooth wire mats have been reported in References 49 and 50. The results are summarized in Fig. 10, where it is apparent that there is reasonable correlation between the two sets of data. In the Illinois test,[50] the 12 in. (305 mm) wide, 60 in. (1.52 m) long slabs
were reinforced with #0 gage wires longitudinally with #8 gage wires welded to them at 6 or 12 in. (152 or 305 mm) spacings.
In the University of Washington tests,[49] the 54 in. (1.37 m) square slabs were reinforced with two layers of the same 2 x 2-6 x 6 fabric as that tested in air. In the slab tests, it was observed that there was a rapid deterioration of the bond between the smooth wires and the concrete under cyclic loading, so that after 10.4- cycles of loading, all anchorage was provided primarily by the cross wires. Fatigue life values for fracture of the first wire in those slabs could be predicted using the results for the wire tested in air and a deterministic assessment of the appropriate probability based on the number of approximately equally stressed welds in the slab. The appropriate probability level for these slabs was about 98 percent, indicating a need for a design approach for welded reinforcing mats based on a probability of survival greater than the 95 percent commonly accepted for reinforcing bars and concrete. The fatigue life values for collapse were about double those for fracture of the first wire. The values for collapse could be predicted from the results of the tests conducted in air using a deterministic procedure for assessment of the appropriate probability level and Miner's theory[7] to predict cumulative damage effects. A comparison of the S-N curves for wire fabric and bar mats with those for deformed bars indicates that an endurance limit may not be reached for the fabric and mats until about 5 x 10.6cycles, whereas a limit is reached for the bars at about 1 x 10.6- cycles. However, the total amount of data in the long life range for fabric and mats is extremely limited and insufficient for reliable comparison. 2.4--Prestressing tendons* 2.4.1 General--If the precompression in a prestressed concrete member is sufficient to ensure an uncracked section throughout the service life of the member, the fatigue characteristics of the prestressing steel and anchorages are not likely to be critical design factors. Further, in a properly designed unbonded member, it is almost impossible to achieve a condition for which fatigue characteristics are important.[51] Consequently, fatigue considerations have not been a major factor in either the specification of steel for prestressed concrete[52] or the development of anchorage systems.
* Dr. Neil M. Hawkins was chairman of the subcommittee that prepared this section of the report. No structural problems attributable to fatigue failures of the prestressing steel or anchorages have been reported in North America. However, in the near future fatigue considerations may merit closer scrutiny due to: 1. The acceptance of designs[53] which can result in a concrete section cracked in tension under loads, and 2. The increasing use of prestressing in marine environments, railroad bridges, machinery components, nuclear reactor vessels, railroad crossties, and other structures subject to frequent repeated loads which may involve high impact loadings or significant overloads. In the United States, the growing concern with the fatigue characteristics of the prestressing system is reflected in several design recommendations developed recently. As a minimal requirement appropriate for unbonded construction, ACI-ASCE Committee 423,[54] ACI Committee 301,[55] and the PCI Post-Tensioning Committee[56] have recommended that tendon assemblies consisting of prestressing steel and anchorages be able to withstand, without failure, 500,000 cycles of stressing varying from 60 to 66 percent of the specified ultimate strength of the assembly. Abroad, standards specifying fatigue characteristics for the tendons have been published in Germany[57] and Japan.[58] This report does not consider conditions where unbonded prestressing steels and their anchorages are subjected to high impact, low cycle, repeated loadings during an earthquake. ACI-ASCE Committee 423[54] and the PCI Post-Tensioning Committee[56] have developed design recommendations for that situation. Many factors can influence the strength measured in a fatigue test on a tendon assembly. The tendon should be tested in the "as delivered" condition and the ambient temperature for a test series maintained with 3 F ( 1.7 C). The length between anchorages should be not less than 100 times the diameter of the prestressing steel, eight times the strand pitch or 40 in. (1.02 m). Test conditions must not cause heating of the specimen, especially at the anchorages, so that a frequency of 200 to 600 cpm is desirable.[59] Many variables affect the fatigue characteristics of the prestressing system. Within commercially available limits, the designer can specify the following: 1. 2. 3. 4. Type of prestressing steel (wire, strand, or bar) Steel treatment Anchorage type Degree of bond
Seven-wire strand was developed in the United States, while most other prestressing systems are of European origin. Therefore, in the United States, attention has been focused mainly on the fatigue characteristics of seven-wire strand.
Recent data on the fatigue characteristics of foreign systems has been summarized by Baus and Brenneisen.[59]
2.4.2 Type of prestressing steel--Prestressing steels can be classified into three basic types: wire, strand, and bars. Wires are usually drawn steels and strands are manufactured from wires. Bars are usually hot-rolled alloy steels. Wires are usually made from a steel whose principal alloying components are about 0.8 percent carbon, 0.7 percent manganese, and 0.25 percent silicon. Hot-rolled alloy steels contain about 0.6 percent carbon, 1.0 percent manganese and 1.0 percent chromium. Typically, hot-rolled steels have a tensile strength of 160 ksi (1100 MPa) while drawn wires have strengths ranging between about 250 and 280 ksi (1720 and 1930 MPa). Drawing increases the tensile strength of the wire. It produces a grain structure which inhibits crack nucleation and provides a smooth surface which reduces stress concentrations. Consequently, the fatigue strengths of wires for a given number of cycles are higher than those of rolled steels. However, the differences are small for stress ranges expressed as percentages of the ultimate tensile strengths. Wires--Wires of United States manufacture conform to ASTM Designation: A 421,[60] "Specifications for Uncoated Stress Relieved Wire for Prestressed Concrete." This specification covers plain wires only. Ribbed varieties are in common use abroad. The fatigue characteristics of wires vary greatly with the manufacturing process, the tensile strength of the wire, and the type of rib. In Fig. 11, fatigue strengths are shown for 2 x 10.6- cycles for tests performed in Germany, Czechoslovakia, and Belgium,[59] and Japan.* The solid circle in Fig. 11 is the result of a limited series of tests on 0.25 in. (6.3 mm) diameter wires of United States manufacture.[61] These tests showed a fatigue strength at 4 x 10.6- cycles in excess of 30 ksi (207 MPa). The squares are results for tests on 4 and 5 mm (0.157 and 0.197 in.) diameter wires performed by the Shinko Wire Company. .197 in.) diameter wires performed by the Shinko Wire Company. _________________ * Personal communication from Dr. A. Doi, Shinko Wire Co., Ltd.Amagasaki, Hyogo, Japan
Also shown in Fig. 11 are likely ranges in stress for bonded beams designed in accordance with the ACI Code. The lower value is about the maximum possible when the tensile stress in the precompressed zone is limited to 6 f'+c, psi (0.5 f'+c, MPa) (1.6 f'+c, kgf/cm), so that the section is uncracked. The upper value is about the maximum possible when the tensile stress is limited to 12 f'+c, psi (1.0 f'+c, MPa) (3.18 f'+c, kgf/cm) so that the section may contain a crack as wide as 0.005 in. (0.125 mm). It can be seen that although the characteristics of wires vary widely, all could probably be justified for use with a limiting stress of 12 f'+c, psi (1.0 f'+c, MPa). In Czechoslovakia, tests on plain wires of 3, 4.5, and 7 mm (0.076, 0.114, and 0.127 in.) diameter have shown that within 5 percent, the fatigue characteristics of these wires were independent of the wire diameter. The effects of ribbing and indentations on fatigue characteristics have been studied in Great Britain,[62] Germany,[59] Russia,[59] and Japan.[63] These tests have shown that the characteristics depend on the height of the rib, its slope and, most of all, the sharpness of the radii at the base of the rib. With a 0.3 mm (0.012 in.) rib height, a 45 deg slope, and no radius at the base of the rib, the theoretical stress concentration factor was 2.0, and there was a 57 percent reduction in the fatigue strength.[59] This reduction decreased with a decreasing stress concentration factor until for the same rib height obtained using a circular cut out of 10 mm (0.4 in.) radius, the stress concentration factor was 1.36, and there was no reduction in the fatigue strength. Wires crimped[62] with a pitch of 2 in. (51 mm) and a crimp height of at least 15 percent of the wire diameter in the unstressed condition, showed a fatigue strength 20 percent lower than that of the plain wire. Strand--Strands of United States manufacture up through 0.6 in. (15.24 mm) diameter conform to ASTM A 416[64] "Specifications for Uncoated Seven Wire Stress-Relieved Strand for Prestressed Concrete." This specification covers strand used for prestressing in the United States, and foreign suppliers conform to these requirements. In the United States, several series of tests[65-69] have been made on seven-wire strand of either 7/16 or 1/2 in. (11.1 or 12.7 mm) diameter. Fatigue data compiled from these studies[68] are shown in Fig. 12. These data are shown along with data obtained from tests on Russian,[59] Belgian,[59] and Japanese[63] strand, in Fig. 13.
The Japanese tests[63] indicated by squares were conducted on 3 mm (0.118 in.) diameter plain wires. Tests on similar size strand made from deformed wires showed strengths about 15 percent lower. Comparison of Fig. 11 and 12 and the results of the Belgian tests indicate the stress ranges available with strand are less than those for wire. The United States and Russian tests indicate a decrease in fatigue strength with increasing size for the wires in the strand. Several writers[59] have hypothesized that for strands the successive lengthening and shortening of the cables produces alternating tensions in the individual wires. Failures initiate where the neighboring wires rub together under this alternating load. Bars--Bars of United States manufacture conform to the requirements of the PCI Post-Tensioning Committee. Although fatigue tests on such bars have been made (Personal communication from E. Schechter, Stressteel Corp., Wilkes-Barre, Pa.), most published information is for European bars less than 0.7 in. (18 mm) in diameter. Bars manufactured in the United States range between 3/4 and 1-3/8 in. (19 and 35 mm) in diameter. Tests on bars ranging between 1 and 1-3/8 in. (25 and 35 mm) in diameter have shown that the fatigue limits of these bars are in excess of 0.1 times the tensile strength of the bar for 1 x 10.6- cycles of loading at a minimum stress of 0.6 times the tensile strength. As with other post-tensioning systems, the characteristics of the anchorage and not the prestressing system control the fatigue characteristics of the unbonded tendon. German and Russian tests[59] have shown that the fatigue characteristics for their bars, expressed as a percentage of their ultimate tensile strength, are similar to those of their strand. Tests in Russia on bars with tensile strengths of about 150 ksi (1030 MPa) have shown the fatigue characteristics to be independent of bar size for bar diameters ranging between 0.4 and 0.7 in. (10 and 18 mm). In Great Britain tests[70] have been made on bonded and unbonded beams post-tensioned with 1/2 in. (12.7 mm) diameter bars anchored by nuts on tapered threads. There were no fatigue failures of either the bar or the anchorage for 2 x 10.6- cycles of a loading for which the stress range in the bonded bar was about 12 ksi (83 MPa) at a minimum stress equal to at least 60 percent of the bar's static strength. 2.4.3 Statistical considerations--Reliable design information
requires the collection of the test data in such a manner that statistical methods can be used to define the properties of the material and to investigate the effects of differing parameters.[71,72] At least six and preferably 12 tests are necessary at each stress level to establish fatigue strengths for survivals ranging from 90 to 10 percent. To establish the finite-life part of the S-N diagram for a constant minimum stress, tests should be made at a minimum of three stress levels, one near the static strength, one near the fatigue limit, and one in between. Special techniques are needed to establish the fatigue limit. The overall scatter of fatigue data is of paramount importance in defining the quality of the prestressing steel. For United States strand, a modified Goodman diagram has been developed by Hilmes and Ekberg[68] for three discrete probability levels. As shown in Fig. 14, these levels correspond to survival probabilities of 0.1, 0.5, and 0.9, and they were developed from data with minimum stress levels of 0.4, 0.5, and 0.6 times the static tensile strength. For the desired minimum stress and probability level, vertical intercepts within Fig. 14 define permissible stress ranges for failure for strands tested in the United States at 5 x 10.6-, 1 x 10.6-, 5 x 10.6-, 2 x 10.5-, 1 x 10.5-, and 5 x 10.4- cycles. 2.4.4 Steel treatment--While all United States prestressing steels are stress-relieved, some of those manufactured abroad are not. Czechoslovakian and Russian tests[59] have shown that stress relieving increases the fatigue limit significantly. For applications external to a member, the prestressing steel is sometimes protected by hot dip galvanizing. Galvanizing can result in hydrogen embrittlement[73] and therefore its use in structures where fatigue is a consideration is not recommended. For wires and strand, galvanizing reduces the ultimate and yield strength significantly and therefore also reduces the fatigue limit. For bars, galvanizing does not alter the static properties, but it does reduce the fatigue limit. 2.4.5 Anchorage type--For unbonded construction, stress changes in the prestressing steel are transmitted directly to the anchorage. Although most anchorages can develop the static strength of the prestressing steel, they are unlikely to develop its fatigue strength. Further, bending at an anchorage can cause higher local stresses than those calculated from the tensile pull in the prestressing steel. Bending is likely where the prestressing steel is connected to the member at a few locations only throughout its length or where there is angularity of the prestressing steel at the anchorage. Fatigue characteristics based on tests of single wire or strand anchorages are likely to overestimate the strength of multi-wire or multistrand anchorages. Tests on single wire anchorages have been conducted in the United States,[61] Great Britain (Test reports supplied by A.H. Stubbs, Western Concrete Structures, Inc., Los Angeles, CA), Japan and Switzerland.[59] The types of anchorages tested and the results are shown in Fig. 15. In each case the ratio of the minimum stress to the nominal tensile strength of the wire was about 0.6. The broken line indicates the fatigue characteristics of the wire used in the Japanese tests, as estimated from the results of rotating beam tests. It corresponds also to the fatigue characteristics of the weakest wire in Fig. 11.
at two million cycles] All anchorages shown in Fig. 15 developed the full strength of the wire for static loading. However, most resulted in a fatigue strength for the tendon of less than 50 percent of the fatigue strength of the wire. The exceptions are the conical anchorages for the Swiss, British, and American wires. If failures did not occur due to the fatigue loading, the static strength was not impaired. In the case of the American wire, five specimens out of seven took more than 10.7- cycles of the stress range shown without failure. The lowest life was 3.5 x 10.6- cycles for a specimen which failed at the button head fillets. For the Swiss and British wires, ranges are shown on the bar charts in Fig. 15 to indicate the variation in results for different characteristics for the button head. The characteristics of a button head are influenced by the wire cutoff method, the type of heading equipment, the geometric characteristics of the head, the properties of the seating block, and the type of wire. Successive improvements have led to button heads showing no failures even after 10.7- cycles of a stress range equal to 0.13 times the tensile strength at an average of 0.6 times this strength. British tests on 0.276 in. (7 mm) diameter button-headed wires have shown that defects in the button head have little effect on the fatigue strength. For a wire with an ultimate tensile strength of 244 ksi (1680 MPa) tested at an average stress of 0.6 times that strength, the stress range for 2 x 10.6- cycles dropped from 0.15 times the tensile strength for a defect free head to a minimum of 0.12 times that strength for a diagonal split in the head. In contrast, a soft steel seating block for a defect free head resulted in a marked decrease in the fatigue life. The life dropped to 2 x 10.5- cycles for a stress range of 0.15 times the tensile strength, and the failure was due to fretting between the tendon and the soft steel. The Japanese investigation showed that, to a limited extent, the strength increased as the ratio of the radius at the base of the head to the wire diameter increased. In these tests the fatigue crack usually developed where the shoulder for the head
and the wire met. Clearly, the reduced fatigue capacity of the anchorage is due to the stress concentration caused by the change in section. The conically shaped anchorage forces the fatigue crack to develop at a section 50 to 80 percent larger in diameter than the wire.
Results for the fatigue tests conducted in the United States,* and Japan[74] on anchorages for bars are shown in Fig. 16. Arrows indicate specimens for which failures did not occur. The dotted line is a lower bound to the test results. The ratio of the minimum stress to the tensile strength of the bar was about 0.6 for all tests. It is apparent that the stress range was insensitive to bar diameter or country of origin, and that all anchorages comply with the requirements of Section 7.2 of Reference 56. The reduction in the fatigue strength of the system for cut threads with couplers is less than for cut threads with nuts, and the reduction for both these systems is markedly more than for bars with grip nuts or wedges. In the American tests on grip nuts and wedges, a stress range of 0.1 times the tensile strength at a minimum stress of about 0.6 times that strength did not cause failure even after 3 x 10.6- cycles of loading. Tests on single strand anchorages have been reported by several organizations.*3O For 1/2 in. (12.7 mm) seven-wire strand anchored in S7 and S9 C. C. L. spiral units,3 cast in small concrete blocks, failure did not occur within 1 x 10.6- cycles of a loading varying between 0.6 and 0.65 times the tensile strength of the strand. For 1/2 in. (12.7 mm), seven-wire strand anchored by 5-1/2 x 2 in. (140 x 51 mm) cast steel anchors,O failures have not occurred within 0.5 x 10.6- cycles of loadings varying between 0.6 and 0.65, and between 0.56 and 0.64 times the tensile strength of the strand. Ten tests* on Stressteel S-H 1/2 in. (12.7 mm) Monostrand wedges have shown that for a 10 or 7 deg angle, this system can take without failure at least 5 x 10.5cycles of a load varying between 0.6 and 0.66 times the strength of a 270 ksi (1860 MPa) seven-wire strand. For a load varying between 0.5 and 0.7 times the strength of the strand, failures occurred in the grips when one wire of the strand ruptured. Average fatigue _________________________ * Personal communication from E. Schechter, Stressteel Corp.,
Wilkes-Barre, Pa.3 Test reports supplied by L. Gerber, The Prescon Corp., Corpus Christi, Tex. O Test reports supplied by K. B. Bondy, Atlas Prestressing Corp., Panorama City, Calif. lives were 57,100 and 54,700 cycles for 10 and 7 deg wedge angles. Results of foreign tests on proprietary anchorages for strand and multiple wire tendons are shown in Fig. 17. The sources of the data are indicated on the legend accompanying that figure. For all tests the minimum stress was about 0.56 of the tensile strength of the tendon. From a comparison of Fig. 17 and 13 it is apparent that anchorages for strand result in a fatigue strength of about 70 percent of the potential strength of the strand. The strength with a rope socket is only about 50 percent of the strength of the strand. For multiple wire anchorages it is apparent from a comparison of Fig. 17 and 11 that the reduction is of the same order as that for strand. Several organizations in the United States have conducted tests on multiple wire or strand anchorages. A tendon* consisting of 90 one-quarter in. diameter, (6.35 mm), 240 ksi (1660 MPa) wires, anchored by button heads on an 8-3/4 in. (222 mm) diameter donut washer with fabrication blunders purposely incorporated in the washer, withstood, without failure, 55,100 cycles of a loading varying between 0.70 and 0.75 times the tensile strength of the wire. A tendon3 consisting of nine 1/2 in. (12.7 mm) strands, anchored with three 3-strand S/H 10 deg wedges with the wedges on 1-1/4 in. (32 mm) (3.2 cm) radius at one end and 2-1/2 in. (57 mm) radius at the other end, withstood, without failure, 5 x 10.5- cycles of a load varying between 0.6 and 0.66 times the minimum guaranteed tensile strength of the tendon. _____________________________ * Test reports supplied by L. Gerber, The Prescon Corp., Corpus Christi, Tex. 3 Personal communication from E. Schechter, Stressteel Corp., Wilkes-Barre, Pa. 2.4.6 Degree of bond--Bond and cracking effects dominate differences between the fatigue characteristics of the prestressing steel in air and those of the same steel in a prestressed member. Prestressing steel can be characterized as unbonded, partially bonded, or well bonded to the concrete. When partially bonded, the steel is forced to follow the deformations of the member due to either the restrictions of the duct wall or the use of positioning devices. Cracking of the concrete usually develops at a maximum load intensity less than that resulting in a stress range in the steel sufficient for fatigue failure. The
stronger the bond, the greater the local variation in stress in the steel due to cracking and the greater the effects of the distribution of the loading on the stress range. There is contradictory evidence on whether prestressing steel has the same strength in air as it does in concrete. A statistically analyzable set of beam tests has yet to be conducted in conjunction with a comprehensive and statistically analyzable test series in which the prestressing steel in the beam is stressed in air. In the most rigorous study to date,[32] close agreement was found between bond effects for 8 mm (0.315 in.) ribbed prestressing wires and those for reinforcing bars. For reinforcing bars, there was little difference in the fatigue strengths of embedded and nonembedded bars when the proportions of the transverse lug met bond requirements for static loading conditions. In contrast, for the poorer bond developed by prestressing wires, embedded wire had a fatigue strength about 15 percent lower than the strength of the wire in air. This reduction was attributed to effects caused by abrasion at the concrete-to-steel interface. CHAPTER 3--FATIGUE OF BEAMS AND PAVEMENTS Design of beams and pavements to resist fatigue is discussed in this chapter. Both reinforced and prestressed concrete beams are considered in Section 3.1. A summary of current design criteria relating to fatigue of pavements is presented in Section 3.2. 3.1--Beams* Beams designed in accord with the ACI Building Code[53] are generally proportioned to meet strength and serviceability requirements. In order to insure adequate performance at service load levels, beams subjected to repeated loads should be checked for the possibility of fatigue distress. Checking a design for safety in fatigue requires the following three steps: 1. Projection of a load histogram for the structural member; 2. Select of locations where fatigue stresses may be critical; and 3. Determination of critical fatigue stresses and comparison of these stresses with permissible values. Projection of a load histogram requires study of many factors relating to the nature of the repetitive loading, and is considered to be beyond the scope of this report. Furthermore, in many instances the matter may be inconsequential, because the question will be whether or not the concrete member is on the threshold of fatigue distress. Hence, it will be mainly important to project the number of cycles of maximum repeated loading which the member must resist during its design life. Fatigue distress may develop from excessive flexural, shear, or bond stresses. A view of a prestressed concrete I-beam in the process of a fatigue failure is shown in Fig. 18a. In this case, there are 5 strands in the bottom flange of the beam, 3 of which are in a lower layer. All of the wires in 2 of the 3 lower
strands were fractured, and 3 in the third strand, after 570,000 cycles of an "above-design" loading. The first evidence of damage was observed about 120,000 cycles before this point, when the flexural crack at this location began to widen noticeably. Another similar I-beam that developed a shear fatigue failure after 400,000 cycles of an "above-design" loading is shown in Fig. 18b. Note that the dark vertical lines on the web indicate stirrups. All of the stirrups crossed by the shear crack have sustained fatigue fractures. More details on these tests are presented in Reference 78. ____________________________ * Dr. Carl E. Ekberg, Jr. was the chairman of the subcommittee that prepared this section of the report. Any location where high stress ranges occur may be critical for fatigue. Locations of stress concentrations in steel reinforcement, such as at tendon anchorages or at points where auxiliary reinforcement is attached to deformed bar reinforcement by tack welding, are especially critical for fatigue. Bends in reinforcement may also be critical if they are located in regions of high stress. Concrete is a notch insensitive material.[79] Hence, geometric discontinuities in the concrete due to holes or changes in section are not considered to affect its fatigue strength, although stress calculations must be based on the net section for large discontinuities. Determination of critical fatigue stresses requires calculation of a minimum and maximum stress for specified loadings. In general, it is the stress range, which is the difference between the minimum and maximum stress, that is most critical for fatigue. Typically, the minimum stress is due to dead load, and the maximum stress is due to dead plus live load. Calculation of critical stresses is considered in more detail in the following sections on nonprestressed and prestressed members, as well as other special aspects which affect the behavior of these members. 3.1.1 Nonprestressed members--In this discussion, nonprestressed members are restricted to concrete beams reinforced with hot rolled deformed bars meeting the requirements of ASTM A 615.[44] Flexural stresses in the concrete and reinforcement may be computed in accord with the provisions of ACI 318.[53] To determine if these stresses may possibly produce fatigue distress, the Committee recommends that the following criteria be used:
1. The stress range in concrete shall not exceed 40 percent of its compressive strength when the minimum stress is zero, or a linearly reduced stress range as the minimum stress is increased so that the permitted stress range is zero when the minimum stress is 0.75 f'+c,. 2. The stress range in straight deformed reinforcement shall not exceed the value computed from the following expression: S+r, = 23.4 - 0.33 S+min, or (S+r, = 161 - 0.33 S+min,) where = stress range, in ksi (or MPa); and S+r, S+min, = algebraic minimum stress, tension positive, compression negative, in ksi (or Mpa) but S+r, need not be taken less than 20 ksi (138 MPa). For bent bars or bars to which auxiliary reinforcement has been tack welded, the stress range computed from the above equation should be reduced by 50 percent. The above expression is based on an approximation of an equation[26] derived from statistical analysis at 95 percent probability that 95 percent of the specimens will not fail. It should be cautioned that tack welds are prohibited by AWS D1.4[109] while full penetration welds are permitted. Concrete is not believed to exhibit a fatigue endurance limit. The first criterion gives a conservative prediction of fatigue strength at a fatigue life of 10 million cycles. Deformed bar reinforcement does exhibit a fatigue limit. However, the second criterion is a conservative lower bound of all available test results on bars. If the calculated fatigue stresses are higher than values indicated permissible by Criteria 1 or 2, the design should not necessarily be rejected. In these cases, evidence based on information in Sections 2.1 and 2.2 and elsewhere may provide a basis for allowing higher stresses. Since most of the information included in Section 2.2 is based on fatigue tests of bars embedded in concrete beams, it is believed to be directly applicable to design. However, except for stress range, most of the variables which designers can readily control bar size, type of beam, minimum stress, bar orientation, and grade of bar--do not have a large effect on fatigue strength. Other variables related to manufacturing and fabrication-deformation geometry, bending, and tack welding--are much more significant. One factor not considered in Section 2.2 is that a structure is a composite of many members, each of which generally contain many reinforcing elements. As the results of the AASHO Road Test[20] indicated, fatigue fracture of one or more reinforcing elements does not necessarily result in failure of the structure. Rather there is evidence of distress due to increased deflections and wide cracks and hence there is opportunity to repair and strengthen the structure. Unpublished research results at the University of Washington* indicate that special attention should be given to the shear fatigue strength of beams subjected to high nominal shearing
stresses. Inclined cracking is a prerequisite for a shear fatigue failure. However, it is known that web shear cracks will form under repetitive loads at appreciably lower stresses than those assumed for static loading conditions. For highly repetitive loading,[80] it is recommended that the range in nominal shear stress that is assumed to cause inclined cracking under a zero to maximum loading be taken as one-half the value of nominal shear stress carried by the concrete, v+c,, specified in the ACI Code.[53] For other loadings, the range in nominal shear stress shall be linearly reduced from one-half of v+c, to zero as the minimum stress is increased to v+c,. Where the nominal shear stress under service loads exceeds the values of v+c, specified in the ACI Code, and the shear stress due to the repetitive live load plus impact exceeds 25 percent of the total nominal shear stress, it is further recommended that the shear carried by the concrete v+c, be taken as zero for calculations of the required area of shear reinforcement. This recommendation will reduce the risk of a shear fatigue failure at bends in stirrup reinforcement. 3.1.2 Prestressed members--In this discussion, prestressed members are restricted to concrete beams reinforced with strand, wires, or bars that are prestressed to at least 40 percent of the tensile strength of the reinforcement. This reinforcement is presumed to meet the requirements of ASTM A 416,[64] A 421,[60] and A 722,[81] respectively. ________________________ * Personal communication from Dr. Neil M. Hawkins, University of Washington, Seattle, Wash. Whereas the determination of critical flexural stresses in nonprestressed members is relatively straightforward, the determination of critical flexural stresses in the concrete and tendons of prestressed members is quite complex. The reason is that flexural cracking must have occurred before fatigue of reinforcement can be critical. Hence an analysis which considers cracking must be employed. Stress computations should be made using the basic assumptions of equilibrium and compatibility given in the ACI Code,[53] although this procedure is lengthy. A simplified method of analysis has been presented,[82,83] but the results may be too conservative to be useful. Other design alternatives have also been presented.[84,85,86] As far as the fatigue strength of the concrete is concerned, the first criterion previously given in Section 3.1.1 is applicable. However, criteria for the fatigue strength of the prestressing steel and the anchorages are not as easy to establish. Most of the information included in Section 2.3 is based on fatigue tests of prestressing tendons in air. Concern has been expressed[87] over the applicability of the information to full sized members. Where comparisons[67,78] have been made, it was found that the observed life of test beams could be substantially less than that expected from S-N curves of the tendons alone.
Differences were attributed to the difficulty of accurately determining stress in a tendon in a beam, and also to the local effects in the vicinity of a crack. In addition, the probability of a wire fracture in a tendon due to fatigue may be greater in a large beam than in a small specimen tested in air. The effect of cyclic creep[112,113] and other factors such as differential shrinkage between girder and deck, determination of losses, and temperature effects also complicates assessment of results from laboratory tests of members. Under the high frequency of loading typical in laboratory tests, creep of concrete, in compression and tension, gradually leads to an increase in the steel stress range and beam deflection. For most practical applications, the comparatively low frequency encountered in service would not normally result in cyclic load induced creep. Although no in-service fatigue failures of members have been reported, failures have been induced in laboratory tests of precracked full size members with pretensioned strand. In one study[110] reporting failures as early as 3 million cycles under a nominal tensile stress of 6 f'+c, psi (0.5 f'+c,), the initial stress range was as low as 8.5 to 12.3 ksi (58 to 85 MPa) [0.031 to 0.045 f+pu,]; however, by 2.5 million cycles, the stress range had increased to 18 to 20 ksi (124 to 138 MPA) [0.066 to 0.074 f+pu, and was higher by the time of failure. The increase in stress range can probably be attributed to cyclic creep and other factors. In another study,[111] a failure was reported at 9.4 million cycles where the stress range was typically maintained at 11.7 ksi (80.7 MPa) [0.043 f+pu,]; however; the beam was subjected to periodic overloads increasing the stress range to 16 ksi (110 MPa) [0.059 f+pu,]. In each study, the investigators conservatively assumed that all prestress losses had occurred at the start of the test. However, additional losses occurring during the test would have increased the stress range. Thus the Committee recommends that the following criteria be used for the fatigue design of beams with prestressed reinforcement: 1. The stress range in prestressed reinforcement that may be imposed on minimum stress levels up to 60 percent of the tensile strength shall not exceed 0.06 f+pu, based on cracked section analysis if the nominal tensile stress in the precompressed tensile zone exceeds 3 f'+c, psi (0.25 f'+c, MPa) under a realistic estimate of service loadings. 2. In prestressed members containing unbonded reinforcement, special attention shall be given to the possibility of fatigue in the anchorages or couplers. Unbonded reinforcement is particularly vulnerable to fatigue if corrosive action occurs. Where information based on tests is not available, the fatigue strength of wire, strand, or bar at anchorage shall not be taken greater than one-half of the fatigue strength (maximum stress range) of the prestressing steel. Lesser values should be used at anchorages with multiple elements. Tests have shown that fretting fatigue[114-117] can cause
failures of bonded post-tensioning wires and strands in curved regions of plastic and metal ducts. The lower bound on most of these data appears to be a stress range of 0.054 f+pu,. The need for statistical considerations in evaluating fatigue life of prestressed beams has also been cited.[67,88] Other information on the flexural fatigue behavior of large members[89-91] and bridges[92] is available. Regarding the shear fatigue strength of prestressed concrete members, the discussion in Section 3.1.1 for nonprestressed members is also applicable to prestressed members. The mode of shear fatigue failure has been documented in research,[78,93] which demonstrated that prestressed beams have a remarkably high shear fatigue strength under very severe loading conditions. 3.2--Pavements3 Portland cement concrete pavements for airports and highways are subjected to repetitive loadings caused by traffic and cyclic environmental conditions. Although the resulting stresses may eventually cause cracking, localized distress does not necessarily terminate the pavement's useful life. Pavements normally are serviceable as long as load transfer across cracks and joints is effective, and the subgrade continues to support the slabs without excessive deflection. It is therefore necessary to design pavements to resist the expected repetitive traffic and environmental stresses for the predetermined service life. __________________________
3 Mr. Craig A. Ballinger was the chairman of the subcommittee that prepared this section of the report.
Currently three types of concrete pavements are used in the United States: a) plain pavements, with frequent joints and no reinforcement (with and without dowels); b) reinforced concrete pavements, consisting of long slabs with distributed reinforcing and doweled joints;[94,95] and c) continuously reinforced pavements (CRCP), consisting of very long slabs with more reinforcement than a reinforced concrete pavement and no transverse joints.[95] Prestressed pavements may eventually be a fourth type. However, they are presently in a developmental stage. The majority of highway pavements are either of the plain or the reinforced concrete type. Hence, the following discussion will deal mainly with these types of pavements, although some of the comments will apply to the others. Highway pavements are commonly designed by using either the Portland Cement Association (PCA) method,[97] or variations of the American Association of State Highway Officials (AASHO) method.[98] The PCA method is based on a modification of the Westergaard theory, and the AASHO method is based on the results of a comprehensive field study at the AASHO Road Test. For airports, the U.S. Corps of Engineers procedure is based on pavement performance and full-scale test track studies.[99] The following is a brief description of some of the factors which affect the service life of concrete pavements.
1. Traffic--The volume and axle weights of the expected traffic must be predicted. For highways, these are predicted from highway department truck weight studies, and for airports they are based on aircraft manufacturers' data on the loads and configurations of existing and projected future aircraft. 2. Environment--Nonuniform stress gradients are created in pavement slabs because of restraint to slab movement induced by changes in temperature and moisture conditions. Temperature and moisture gradients also affect the performance of the slabs because they change the shape of the slabs and hence alter the degree of subgrade support.[100-102] 3. Boundary conditions--The stress state in the pavement is affected by subgrade friction, the type and efficiency of load transfer at joints, and the position of loads with respect to the joints and pavement edges. 4. Support conditions--Several phenomena may affect the underlying subgrade, and reduce the support which it provides to the concrete slab. These include loss of material by pumping, densification, and displacement of the subgrade, as well as soil volume changes due to moisture changes and frost. In the following section, the PCA, AASHO, and Corps of Engineers methods are briefly reviewed. Other design methods are not specific in their evaluation of repeated loads. It is expected that the PCA, AASHO, and Corps of Engineers approaches will continue to be the basic models for design. Refinements in design methods are expected as more sophisticated analysis and computer techniques are developed.[103] 3.2.1 PCA design method--The PCA design procedure for highways is based on an extension of the Westergaard theory[104] which permits stress computations for multiple wheeled vehicles and relates support, axle load, and slab thickness to the stress created in the concrete. Only the heavy axle loads which stress the concrete to greater than 50 percent of its modulus of rupture are considered; i.e., the effects of passenger cars and light trucks are not considered significant. The criteria for the fatigue life of the pavement is the appearance of the first structural crack in the slab. The basic tool of the designer using this method is a set of flexural design stress charts for highway vehicles and for aircraft. The charts are the result of analysis of exact wheel configurations involving influence charts[105] or computer programs.[106] Computed stresses are normalized by dividing by the design flexural strength of the concrete, and compared against a "standard" S-N curve to determine the allowable number of repetitions of load at each level. A percent damage is obtained by dividing the predicted number of loads by the number indicated to cause failure. These values are then accumulated in accordance with the Miner hypothesis, to determine whether the design life is satisfactory. The PCA method for airport pavement design[107] is similar to the highway design method.
3.2.2 AASHO design method--The philosophy associated with the AASHO design procedure is different than that of the PCA method, in that failure is considered to occur when pavement has deteriorated to a minimum tolerance level of serviceability.[108] Serviceability is a unique concept which is directly related to the pleasantness of ride experienced by the driver traveling over the roadway. The serviceability index of a pavement is affected by cracking, joint faulting, etc., only to the extent that it affects rider comfort. The serviceability index scale is linear from 5.0 down to 0.0. New pavements generally have an index between 4.2 and 4.6, and pavements are ready for resurfacing when the index drops to a value of 2.0 or 2.5 depending on the facility. To apply this design method, all levels of axle loading are converted to equivalent 18 kip (80 kN) single axle loads, by using a table of equivalency factors derived from the Road Test. As an example, the effect of one passage of an 18 kip axle load equates to 5000 repetitions of a 2 kip (8.9 kN) axle load. The thickness of the required pavement is determined directly by using a nomograph relating the thickness to the predicted number of equivalent axle loads to reach the minimum serviceability, the underlying subgrade support, and the allowable working stress in the concrete. 3.2.3 Corps of Engineers method--For this design procedure[99] load stresses are computed for the aircraft that are expected to use the pavement. Design charts indicate required pavement thicknesses for specific aircraft depending on concrete flexural strength, subgrade support and aircraft gear loads. The thickness so determined is for a fixed amount of traffic--5000 coverages of the design aircraft. The term "coverage" is used to convert the number of traffic operations to the number of full stress repetitions; i.e., a coverage occurs when each point of the pavement surface has been subjected to one maximum stress by the operating aircraft. An equation to convert operations to coverages considers the wheel configuration and transverse wander width of the aircraft passes on taxiways and runways. To recognize levels of traffic other than the fixed 5000 coverage level, the following increases in pavement thickness are specified; an increase of 5 percent for 10,000 coverages and up to 12 percent for 30,000 coverages. NOTATION f'+c, f+pu, f+r, n+r, N = = = = compressive strength of concrete ultimate strength of prestressing steel modulus of rupture of concrete number of cycles applied at a particular stress condition = fatigue life, i.e., number of cycles at which 50 percent of a group of specimens would be expected to have failed, or the number of cycles causing failure in a given specimen = number of cycles which will cause fatigue failure at the same stress condition as n+r, = probability of failure = the stress calculated on the net section by simple theory such as S = P/A, Mc/I, or Tc/J without taking into account the variation in stress conditions caused by geometrical discontinuities
N+r, P S
= = =
the stress having the highest algebraic value in the stress cycle, tensile stress being considered positive and compressive stress negative the stress having the lowest algebraic value in the stress cycle, tensile stress being considered positive and compressive stress negative stress range, i.e., the algebraic difference between the maximum and minimum stress in one cycle, S+max, - S+min,
REFERENCES [1] Shah, Surendra P., and Chandra, S. "Fracture of Concrete Subjected to Cyclic Loading" ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 67, No. 10, Oct. 1970, pp. 816-824. [2] Raju, N.K., "Small Concrete Specimens Under Repeated Compressive Loads by Pulse Velocity Technique," Journal of Materials, V. 5, No. 2, June 1970, pp. 262-272. [3] Shah, Surendra P., and Chandra, S., "Mechanical Behavior of Concrete Examined by Ultrasonic Measurements," Journal of Materials, V. 5, No. 3, Sept. 1970, pp. 550-563. [4] Beres, L., "Relationship of Deformational Processes and Structure Changes in Concrete," Proceedings, International Conference on Structures, Solid Mechanics and Engineering Design in Civil Engineering Materials, University of Southampton, Apr. 1969. [5] Hilsdorf, Hubert K., and Kesler, Clyde E., "Fatigue Strength of Concrete Under Varying Flexural Stresses," ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 63, No. 10, Oct. 1966, pp. 1059-1076. [6] Kesler, Clyde E., "Fatigue and Fracture of Concrete," Lecture No. 8, Stanton Walker Lecture Series on the Materials Sciences, National Sand and Gravel Association/National Ready Mixed Concrete Association, Silver Spring, Maryland, Nov. 1970, 19 pp. [7] Miner, M.A., "Cumulative Damage in Fatigue," Transactions, ASME, V. 67, 1945. [8] Murdock, John W., "A Critical Review of Research on Fatigue of Plain Concrete," Bulletin No. 475, Engineering Experiment Station, University of Illinois, Urbana, 1965, 25 pp. [9] Awad, M.E., and Hilsdorf, H.K., "Strength and Deformation Characteristics of Plain Concrete Subjected to High Repeated and Sustained Loads," Structural Research Series No. 373, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Illinois, Urbana, Feb. 1971. [10] Raju, N.K., "Comparative Study of the Fatigue Behavior of Concrete, Mortar, and Paste in Uniaxial Compression," ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 67, No. 6, June 1970, pp. 461-463. [11] Nordby, Gene M., "Fatigue of Concrete--A Review of Research," ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 55, No. 2, Aug. 1958, pp.
191-220. [12] Ople, F.S., and Hulsbos, C.L., "Probable Fatigue Life of Plain Concrete with Stress Gradient," ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 63, No. 1, Jan. 1966, pp. 59-82. [13] Sturman, Gerald M.; Shah, Surendra P.; and Winter, George, "Effects of Flexural Strain Gradients on Microcracking and Stress-Strain Behavior of Concrete," ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 62, No. 7, July 1965, pp. 805-822. [14] Shah, Surendra P., and Winter, George, "Response of Concrete to Repeated Loading," Proceedings, RILEM International Symposium on Effects of Repeated Loading of Materials and Structures (Mexico City, Sept. 1966), Instituto de Ingenieria, Mexico City, 1967, V. 3, 23 pp. [15] Gaede, V.K., "Experiments on the Strength and Deformation Characteristics of Concrete Subjected to Repeated Compressive Stresses (Versuche uber die Festigkeit und die Verformung von Beton bei Druck-Schwellbeanspruchung)," Bulletin No. 144, Deutscher Ausschuss fur Stahlbeton, Berlin, 1962, pp. 1-48. [16] Glucklich, Joseph, "Fracture of Plain Concrete," Proceedings, ASCE, V. 89, EM6, Dec. 1963, pp. 127-138. [17] Diaz, S.I., and Hilsdorf, H.K., "Fracture Mechanism of Concrete Under Static, Sustained and Repeated Compressive Loads," Structural Research Series No. 383, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Illinois, Urbana, 1972. [18] Fisher, J.W., and Viest, I.M., "Fatigue Tests of Bridge Materials of the AASHO Road Test," Special Report No. 66, Highway Research Board, 1961, pp. 132-147. [19] Sanders, W.W.; Hoadley, P.G.; and Munse, W.H., "Fatigue Behavior of Welded Joints in Reinforcing Bars for Concrete," The Welding Journal, Research Supplement, V. 40, No. 12, 1961, pp. 529-s to 535-s. [20] "The AASHO Road Test, Report 4, Bridge Research," Special Report No. 61D, Highway Research Board, Washington, D.C., 1962, 217 pp. [21] Pfister, J.F., and Hognestad, Eivind, "High Strength Bars as Concrete Reinforcement, Part 6, Fatigue Tests," Journal, PCA Research and Development Laboratories, V. 6, No. 1, Jan. 1964, pp. 65-84. Also, Development Department Bulletin No. D74, Portland Cement Association. [22] Walls, J.C.; Sanders, W.W. Jr.; and Munse, W.H., "Fatigue Behavior of Butt-Welded Reinforcing Bars in Reinforced Concrete Beams," ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 62, No. 2, Feb. 1965, pp. 169-192. [23] Burton, Kenneth T., "Fatigue Tests of Reinforcing Bars," Journal, PCA Research and Development Laboratories, V. 7, No. 3, Sept. 1965, pp. 13-23. Also, Development Department Bulletin No. D93, Portland Cement Association. [24] Burton, K.T. and Hognestad, Eivind, "Fatigue Test of
Reinforcing Bars Tack Welding of Stirrups," ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 64, No. 5, May 1967, pp. 244-252. Also, Development Department Bulletin No. D116, Portland Cement Association. [25] Hanson, J.M.; Burton, K.T.; and Hognestad, Eivind, "Fatigue Tests of Reinforcing Bars Effect of Deformation Pattern," Journal, PCA Research and Development Laboratories, V. 10, No. 3, Sept. 1968, pp. 2-13. Also, Development Department Bulletin No. D145, Portland Cement Association. [26] Helgason, T.; Hanson, J.M.; Somes, N.F.; Corley, W.G.; and Hognestad, E., "Fatigue Strength of High Yield Reinforcing Bars," NCHRP Bulletin 164, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1976. [27] Lash, S.D., "Can High-Strength Reinforcement be Used for Highway Bridges?," First International Symposium on Concrete Bridge Design, SP-23, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1969, pp. 283-299. [28] MacGregor, James G.; Jhamb, I.C.; and Nuttall, N., "Fatigue Strength of Hot-Rolled Reinforcing Bars," ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 68, No. 3, Mar. 1971, pp. 169-179. [29] Rehm, Gallus, "Contributions to the Problem of the Fatigue Strength of Steel Bars for Concrete Reinforcement," Preliminary Publication, 6th Congress of the IABSE (Stockholm, 1960), International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering, Zurich, 1960, pp. 35-46. [30] Kobrin, M.M., and Sverchkov, A.G., "Effect of Component Elements of Deformation Patterns on the Fatigue Strength of Bar Reinforcement," Experimental and Theoretical Investigations of Reinforced Concrete Structures, edited by A.A. Gvozdev, Scientific Research Institute for Plain and Reinforced Concrete, Gosstroiizdat, Moscow, 1963, pp. 45-63. [31] Soretz, Stefan, "Fatigue Behavior of High-Yield Steel Reinforcement," Concrete and Constructional Engineering (London), V. 60, No. 7, July 1965, pp. 272-280. [32] Wascheidt, H., "On the Fatigue Strength of Embedded Concrete Reinforcing Steel (Zur Frage der Dauerschwingfestigkeit von Betonstahlen im einbetonierten Zustand)," Doctoral Thesis, Technical University of Aachen, Germany, 1965. Also, abbreviated version, Technische Mitteilungen Krupp-Forschungsberichte, V. 24, No. 4, 1966, pp. 173-193. [33] Snowdon, L.C., "The Static and Fatigue Performance of Concrete Beams with High Strength Deformed Bars," Current Paper No. CP 7/71, Building Research Station, Garston, Watford, Mar. 1971, 31 pp. [34] Gronqvist, Nils-Ove, "Fatigue Strength of Reinforcing Bars," Second International Symposium on Concrete Bridge Design, SP-26, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1971, pp. 1011-1059. [35] Yokomichi, Hideo; Ota, Toshitaka; and Nishihori, Tadanobu, "Fatigue Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Beams," Proceedings, 17th General Meeting of the Japan Cement Engineering Association
(Tokyo, May 1963), V. 12, pp. 474-478. Also, English synopsis in Review of the Seventeenth General Meeting, Japan Cement Engineering Association, Tokyo, 1965, p. 202. [36] Kokubu, Masatane, and Okamura, Hajime, "Fundamental Study on Fatigue Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Beams Using High Strength Deformed Bars," Transactions, Japan Society of Civil Engineers (Tokyo), No. 122, Oct. 1965, pp. 1-28. (in Japanese with English Summary) [37] Kokubu, Masatane; Tada, Yoshiaki; Tachibana, Ichiro; and Matsumoto, Yoshiji, "Fatigue Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Beams with High-Strength Deformed Bars," Transactions, Japan Society of Civil Engineers (Tokyo), No. 122, Oct. 1965, pp. 29-42. (in Japanese with English Summary) [38] Nakayama, Norio, "Fatigue Test on T-Shaped Concrete Beams Reinforced with Deformed Bars," Transactions, Japan Society of Civil Engineers (Tokyo), No. 122, Oct. 1965, pp. 43-50. (in Japanese with English Summary)[39] Kokubu, Masatane, and Okamura, Hajime, "Fatigue Behavior of High Strength Deformed Bars in Reinforced Concrete Bridges," First International Symposium on Concrete Bridge Design, SP-23, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1969, pp. 301-316. [40] Forrest, P.G., Fatigue of Metals, Pergamon Press, Elmsford, New York, 1962. [41] Helgason, Th., and Hanson, J.M., "Investigation of Design Factors Affecting Fatigue Strength of Reinforcing Bars-Statistical Analysis," Abeles Symposium on Fatigue of Concrete, SP-41, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1974, pp. 107-138. [42] Derecho, A.T., and Munse, W.H., "Stress Concentration at External Notches in Members Subjected to Axial Loadings," Bulletin No. 494, Engineering Experiment Station, University of Illinois, Urbana, Jan. 1968, 51 pp. [43] Hanson, John M., and Helgason, Thorsteinn, Discussion of "Fatigue Strength of Hot-Rolled Deformed Reinforcing Bars" by James G. MacGregor, I.C. Jhamb, and N. Nuttall, ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 68, No. 9, Sept. 1971, pp. 725-726. [44] "Standard Specification for Deformed and Plain BilletSteel Bars for Concrete Reinforcement," (A 615), American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia. See Section 1.3 for current reference. [45] Rusch, H., and Kupfer, H., Criteria for the Evaluation of Reinforcing Bars with High-Quality Bond (Kriterien zur Beurteilung von Bewehrungsstaben mit hochwertigem Verbund), Wilhelm Ernst and Sons, Munich, 1969. [46] Lee, Allen, "Maryland's Two Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavements--A Progress Report," Highway Research Record, Highway Research Board. No. 5, 1963, pp. 99-119. [47] Sternberg, F., "Performance of Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement, I-84 Southington," Connecticut State Highway Department, June 1969.
[48] Pasko, T.J., "Final Report on Effect of Welding on Fatigue Life of High Strength Reinforcing Steel Used in Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavements," Pavement Systems Group, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., Nov. 1971. [49] Hawkins, N.M., and Heaton, L.W., "The Fatigue Characteristics of Welded Wire Fabric," Report No. SM 71-3, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, Sept. 1971. [50] Bianchini, Albert C., and Kesler, Clyde E., "Interim Report on Studies of Welded Wire Fabric for Reinforced Concrete," T & AM Report No. 593, Department of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics, University of Illinois, Urbana, Nov. 1960. [51] Bondy, K.B., "Realistic Requirements for Unbonded Post-Tensioning Tendons," Journal, Prestressed Concrete Institute, V. 15, No. 2, Feb. 1970, pp. 50-59. [52] "Les Armatures Speciales de Beton Arme et les Armatures de Precontrainte," Proceedings, RILEM Symposium (Liege, July 1958), RILEM, Paris, 1958. [53] ACI Committee 318, "Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete," (ACI 318), American Concrete Institute, Detroit. See Section 1.3 for current reference. [54] ACI-ASCE Committee 423, "Tentative Recommendations for Concrete Members Prestressed with Unbonded Tendons," ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 66, No. 2, Feb. 1969, p. 85. [55] ACI Committee 301, "Specifications for Structural Concrete for Buildings," (ACI 301), American Concrete Institute, Detroit. See Section 1.3 for current reference. [56] PCI Committee on Post-Tensioning, "Tentative Specification for Post-Tensioning Materials," Journal, Prestressed Concrete Institute, V. 16, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 1971, pp. 14-20. [57] "Tentative Specifications for Testing of Prestressing Steel According to DIN 4227 for Their Acceptance, Manufacturing and Supervision (Vorlaufige Richtlinien fur die Prufung bei Zulassung, Herstellung und Uberwachung von Spannstahlen fur Spannbeton nach DIN 4227)," Department of Transportation, Federal Republic of Germany, Dec. 1965. [58] "Design and Engineering Code for Prestressed Concrete Railway Bridges," Japanese National Railway. [59] Baus, R., and Brenneisen, A., "The Fatigue Strength of Prestressing Steel," Steel for Prestressing, FIP Symposium (Madrid, June 1968), Cement and Concrete Association, London, 1969, pp. 95-117. [60] "Standard Specification for Uncoated Stress-Relieved Wire for Prestressed Concrete," (A 421), American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia. See Section 1.3 for current reference. [61] Ball, C.G., "Tensile Properties of Fatigue-Cycled USS
High-Tensile-Strength, Stress-Relieved, Button-Anchoring- Quality 0.250-in. Diameter Wire," Report, Project No. 57.019- 901 (11), Applied Research Laboratory, U.S. Steel Corporation, Mar. 1963, 18 pp. Also, Part II, Western Concrete Structures, Technical Report No. 6, "Investigation of Button- Head Efficiency," July 1968. [62] Bennett, E.W., and Boga, R.K., "Some Fatigue Tests of Large Diameter Deformed Hard Drawn Wire," Civil Engineering and Public Works Review (London), V. 62, No. 726, Jan. 1967, pp. 59-61. [63] Iwasaki, I., and Asanuma, H., "Quality Tests of Deformed Prestressing Wires for Prestressed Concrete Railroad Ties," Report No. 7, Japanese National Railways Research Laboratories, 1969, p. 346. Also, Structural Research Laboratory Report No. 42, Technical Research Institute for Railroads, Feb. 1969, 20 pp. [64] "Standard Specification for Uncoated Seven-Wire Stress-Relieved Strand for Prestressed Concrete," (A 416), American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia. See Section 1.3 for current reference. [65] Lane, R.E., and Ekberg, C.E. Jr., "Repeated Load Tests on 7-Wire Prestressing Strands," Progress Report No. 223.21, Fritz Engineering Laboratory, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, 1959. [66] Fisher, J.W., and Viest, I.M., "Fatigue Tests of Bridge Materials of the AASHO Road Test," Special Report No. 66, Highway Research Board, Washington, D.C., 1961, pp. 132-147. [67] Warner, R.F., and Hulsbos, C.L., "Probable Fatigue Life of Prestressed Concrete Beams," Journal, Prestressed Concrete Institute, V. 11, No. 2, Apr. 1966, p. 16-39. [68] Hilmes, J.B., and Ekberg, C.E. Jr., "Statistical Analysis of the Fatigue Characteristics of Under-Reinforced Prestressed Concrete Flexural Members," Iowa Engineering Experiment Station, Iowa State University, Ames, 1965. [69] Tide, R.H.R., and Van Horn, D.A., "A Statistical Study of the Static and Fatigue Properties of High Strength Prestressing Strand," Report No. 309.2, Fritz Engineering Laboratory, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, 1966. [70] Eastwood, W., and Rao, R.M., "Fatigue Tests on Lee- McCall Prestressed Concrete Beams," Civil Engineering and Public Works Review (London), V. 52, No. 613, July 1957, pp. 786-787. [71] 1958 Tentative Guide for Fatigue Testing and the Statistical Analysis of Fatigue Data, STP-91A, 2nd Edition, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1963. [72] Brenneisen, A., and Baus, R., "Statistics and Probabilities," Steel for Prestressing, FIP Symposium (Madrid, June 1968), Cement and Concrete Association, London, 1969, pp. 119-138. [73] Moore, D.G.; Klodt, D.T.; and Hensen, R.J., "Protection of
Steel in Prestressed Concrete Bridges," NCHRP Report No. 90, Highway Research Board, Washington, D.C., 1970, 86 pp. [74] Research Group for Steel for Prestressed Concrete, "Tests of Prestressing Steel," Prestressed Concrete (Japan), V. 3, No. 3, June 1961, pp. 46-53. [75] Mamada, K.; Naito, K.; and Mogami, T., "Tests on Anchorages for VSL Tendons," Prestressed Concrete (Japan), V. 13, No. 4, Aug. 1971, pp. 42-48. [76] Leonhardt, Fritz, Prestressed Concrete--Design and Construction, translated by V. Amerongen, 2nd Edition, Wilhelm Ernst and Sons, Berlin, 1964, pp. 136-141. [77] Seki, M.; Yamamoto, S.; Shimbo, E.; and Toyokawa, T., "Pulsating Tension Fatigue Strength of PC Steel Strand," Journal, Japan Society for Materials Science (Kyoto), V. 18, No. 190, July 1969, pp. 12-16. [78] Hanson, John M.; Hulsbos, Cornie L.; and Van Horn, David A., "Fatigue Tests of Prestressed Concrete I-Beams," Proceedings, ASCE, V. 96, ST11, Nov. 1970, pp. 2443-2464. [79] Shah, Surendra P., and McGarry, Fred J., "Griffith Fracture Criteria and Concrete," Proceedings, ASCE, V. 97, EM6, Dec. 1971, pp. 1663-1676. [80] Chang, Tien S., and Kesler, Clyde E., "Fatigue Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Beams," ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 55, No. 2, Aug. 1958, pp. 245-254. [81] "Standard Specification for Uncoated High-Strength Steel Bar for Prestressing Concrete," (A 722), American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia. See Section 1.3 for current reference. [82] Ekberg, C.E. Jr.; Walther, R.E.; and Slutter, R.G., "Fatigue Resistance of Prestressed Concrete Beams in Bending," Proceedings, ASCE, V. 83, ST4, July 1957, pp. 1304-1 to 1304-17. [83] Hilmes, J.B., and Ekberg, C.E., "Statistical Analysis of the Fatigue Characteristics of Underreinforced Prestressed Concrete Flexural Members," Iowa Engineering Experiment Station, Iowa State University, Ames, 1965. [84] Abeles, Paul W.; Barton, Furman W.; and Brown, Earl I. II, "Fatigue Behavior of Prestressed Concrete Bridge Beams," First International Symposium on Concrete Bridge Design, SP-23, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1969, pp. 579-599. [85] Abeles, Paul W., and Brown, Earl I. II, "Expected Fatigue Life of Prestressed Concrete Highway Bridges as Related to the Expected Load Spectrum," Second International Symposium on Concrete Bridge Design, SP-26, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1971, pp. 962-1010. [86] Abeles, Paul W.; Brown, E.I. II; and Hu, C.H., "Fatigue Resistance of Under-Reinforced Prestressed Beams Subjected to Different Stress Ranges, Miner's Hypothesis," Abeles Symposium on Fatigue of Concrete, SP-41, American Concrete Institute, Detroit,
1974, pp. 279-300. [87] Tachau, Herman, Discussion of "Fatigue Tests of Prestressed Concrete I-Beams" by John M. Hanson, Cornie L. Hulsbos, and David A. Van Horn, Proceedings, ASCE, V. 97, ST9, Sept. 1971, pp. 2429-2431. [88] Venuti, William J., "A Statistical Approach to the Analysis of Fatigue Failure of Prestressed Concrete Beams," ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 62, No. 11, Nov. 1965, pp. 1375-1394. [89] Magura, Donald C., and Hognestad, Eivind, "Tests of Partially Prestressed Concrete Girders," Proceedings, ASCE, V. 92, ST1, Feb. 1966, pp. 327-350. [90] Rosli, Alfred, and Kowalczyk, Ryszard, "Fatigue Tests and Load Test to Failure of a Prestressed Concrete Bridge," Proceedings, 4th Congress of the FIP (Rome-Naples, 1962), Federation Internationale de la Precontrainte, Paris, V. 1, pp. 136-140, (Published by Cement and Concrete Association, London, 1963). [91] Abeles, Paul W., "Some New Developments in Prestressed Concrete," Structural Engineer (London), V. 29, No. 10, Oct. 1951, pp. 259-278. [92] Fisher, J.W., and Viest, I.M., "Behavior of AASHO Road Test Bridge Structures Under Repeated Overstress," Special Report No. 73, Highway Research Board, Washington, D.C., 1962, pp. 19-51. [93] Hanson, John M., and Hulsbos, C.J., "Fatigue Tests of Two Prestressed Concrete I-Beams with Inclined Cracks," Highway Research Record, Highway Research Board, No. 103, 1965, pp. 14-30. [94] Fordyce, Phil, and Yrjanson, W.A., "Modern Design of Concrete Pavements," Proceedings, ASCE, V. 95, TE3, Aug. 1969, p. 407. [95] ACI Committee 325, "Recommended Practice for Design of Concrete Pavements (ACI 325-58)." Withdrawn as an ACI standard June 1976. [96] ACI Committee 325, "A Design Procedure for Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavements for Highways," ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 69, No. 6, June 1972, pp. 309-319. [97] "Thickness Design for Concrete Pavements," Publication No. IS010P, Portland Cement Association, Skokie, 1966, 32 pp. [98] "AASHO Interim Guide for the Design of Pavement Structures," American Association of State Highway Officials, Washington, D.C., 1972. [99] Hutchinson, R.L., "Basis for Rigid Pavement Design for Military Airfields," Miscellaneous Paper No. 5-7, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Ohio Division Laboratory, Cincinnati, May 1966, 74 pp. [100] Yoder, E.J., Principles of Pavement Design, John Wiley
and Sons, Inc., New York, 1959, 569 pp. [101] Thomlinson, J., "Temperature Variations and Consequent Stresses Produced by Daily and Seasonal Temperature Cycles in Concrete Slabs," Concrete and Constructional Engineering (London), V. 35, June-July 1940. [102] Nagataki, Shigeyoshi, "Shrinkage and Shrinkage Restraints in Concrete Pavements," Proceedings, ASCE, V. 96, ST7, July 1970, pp. 1333-1358. [103] Hudson, W. Ronald, and Matlock, Hudson, "Analysis of Discontinuous Orthotropic Pavement Slabs Subjected to Combined Loads," Highway Research Record, Highway Research Board, No. 131, 1966, pp. 1-48. [104] "State of the Art: Rigid Pavement Design, Research on Skid Resistance, Pavement Condition Evaluation," Special Report No. 95, Highway Research Board, Washington, D.C., 1968, 68 pp. [105] Pickett, Gerald, and Ray, G.K., "Influence Charts for Concrete Pavements," Transactions, ASCE, V. 116, 1951, pp. 49-73. [106] Packard, R.G., "Computer Program for Airport Pavement Design," Portland Cement Association, Skokie, 1967. [107] "Design of Concrete Airport Pavements," Publication No. EBO5OP, Portland Cement Association, Skokie, 1972, 48 pp. [108] "The AASHO Road Test--Report No. 5, Pavement Research," Special Report No. 61E, Highway Research Board, Washington, D.C., 1962, 352 pp. [109] "Structural Welding Code--Reinforcing Steel," AWS D1.4, American Welding Society, Miami, Florida. See Section 1.3 for current reference. [110] Rabbat, B.G., Kaar, P.H., Russell, H.G., and Bruce, Jr., R.N., "Fatigue Tests of Pretensioned Girders with Blanketed and Draped Strands," Journal, Prestressed Concrete Institute, V. 24, No. 4, Jul./Aug. 1979, pp. 88-115. [111] Overman, T.R., Breen, J.E., and Frank, K.H., "Fatigue Behavior of Pretensioned Concrete Girders," Research Report 300-2F, Center for Transportation Research, The University of Texas at Austin, November 1954, 354 pp. [112] Brooks, J.J., and Forsyth, P., "Influence of Cyclic Load on Creep of Concrete," Magazine of Concrete Research V. 38, No. 136, Sept. 1986, pp. 139-150. [113] Cornelissen, H.A.W., and Reinhart, H.W., "Fatigue of Plain Concrete in Uniaxial Tension and in Alternating Tension-Compression Loading," Proceedings, International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering Colloquium, Lausanne, 1982, pp. 273-282. [114] Muller, H.H., "Fatigue Strength of Prestressing Tendons," Betopwerk und Fertigteiltechnik, Dec. 1986, pp. 804-808. [115] Oertle, J., "Reibermundung einbetonierter Spannkabel
(Fretting Fatigue of Post-Tensioning Tendons)," Dissertation ETH Nr.8609, ETH Zurich (Swiss Federal Institute of Technology), 1988. [116] Rigon, C., and Thurlimann, B., "Fatigue Tests of PostTensioned Concrete Beams," Report 8101-1, Institute fur Baustatik und Konstruktion, ETH Zurich (Swiss Federal Institute of Technology), May 1985. [117] Wollmann, G.P., Yates, D.L., Breen, J.E., and Kreger, M.E., "Fretting Fatigue in Post-Tensioneed Concrete," Research Report 465-2F, Center for Transportation Research, The University of Texas of Austin, Nov. 1988, 148 pp. APPENDIX--SUMMARY OF SELECTED SPECIFICATIONS RELATING TO FATIGUE* A.1--Manual for Railway Engineering, American Railway Engineering Association; Chapter 8 Concrete Structures and Foundations, 1990 Chapter 8 of the AREA Manual of Railway Engineering includes provisions to protect against fatigue of reinforcing bars and requires checking tendon couplers against fatigue. For reinforcing steel, the stress range is limited to values computed using the equation given in Section 3.1.1 of this report. Tendon couplers located in areas of high stress range should be investigated for fatigue. Fatigue of concrete in compression is unlikely since allowable concrete stresses for reinforced and prestressed concrete members should not exceed 0.40 f'+c,. Fatigue of tendons is unlikely since no concrete tensile stresses are allowed in prestressed concrete members; therefore, concrete should remain uncracked thus limiting the tendon stress range to very low values. A.2--Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete (ACI 318-89) The provisions for prestressed concrete related to repetitive loads contain the following requirement: 18.19.3 In unbonded construction subject to repetitive loads, special attention shall be given to the possibility of fatigue in the anchorages or couplers. A.3--Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Fourteenth Edition, 1989 Fatigue considerations in this design specification include the following provisions for reinforcement: In AASHTO article 8.16.8.3, the range of stress in straight reinforcement caused by live load plus impact at service load level, is limited to: f+f, = 21 - 0.33 f+min, + 8 (r/h) where: f+f, = stress range in kips per square in.; f+min, = algebraic minimum stress level, tension positive,
r/h
compression negative in kips per square in.; = ratio of base radius to height of rolled-on transverse deformations; when the actual value is not known, use 0.3.
In bent bars, the fatigue limit of the bend is considerably reduced. Thus, bends in primary reinforcement are to be avoided at sections having a high range of stress. Fatigue stress limits need not be considered for concrete deck slabs with primary reinforcement perpendicular to traffic and designed in accordance with the approximate methods given under AASHTO Article 3.24.3, Case A. In AASHTO Article 10.58.2.1, for composite construction with concrete slabs and steel girders, the range of slab reinforcement stress in negative moment regions is limited to 20,000 psi. A.4--Japanese National Railway Design Code for Reinforced Structures and Prestressed Concrete Railway Bridges (April 1983) In this code, the allowable stresses in structures subjected to fatigue loading are given. Allowable stresses for straight portions, lapped splices and pressure welded joints of nonprestressed reinforcing steel are given by a formula with coefficients for these conditions. The formula is derived from the Goodman diagram with the fatigue strength determined experimentally only for the case of F+min, = 0. A simplified formula for the allowable stresses is also given. The allowable stress for concrete was determined considering the effect of fatigue, thus it is not specifically limited further. Fatigue of prestressing steel is discussed but not specifically limited. Since fatigue strengths of anchorages and connectors may be less than that of prestressing steel itself, they are to be located at sections where variable stresses are small. ______________________ * Contributions to this section were made by Thorsteinn Helgason, Hubert K. Hilsdorf, David W. Johnston, Basile G. Rabbat, Tamon Uedo, and William J. Venuti A.5--Japan Society of Civil Engineers, Standard Specification for Design and Construction of Concrete Structures 1986, Part I (Design) In the Standard Specification, the limit state design method is applied. One of the three limit state categories is the fatigue limit state. Suggested values for partial safety factors are given to the fatigue limit state. Fatigue strengths of concrete and steel are given by empirical formulas. For prestressing steel, however, it is not given because of lack of experimental data. Computation of forces for the fatigue limit state is based on linear analysis. Examination of the fatigue limit state is based on comparison of applied stress in materials with fatigue strength or comparison of applied force at the section with fatigue capacity of the section. Computation methods for stress due to variable load are given for reinforcement and concrete subjected to flexure and axial force and for shear reinforcement. The shear fatigue capacity of concrete beams without shear
reinforcement and the punching shear fatigue capacity of concrete slabs are given by experimentally obtained formulas. A.6--The West German Code for Prestressed Concrete (DIN 4227, Part I, July 1988) Only such prestressing steels and prestressing systems are to be used which have obtained approval by the governmental building authorities. This approval is based upon the results of proof testing which includes the determination of fatigue characteristics. However, no generally applicable requirements are set up with regard to fatigue characteristics of prestressing steels. A.7--The West German Code for Reinforced Concrete (DIN 1045, 1988) For reinforcing steel III S (f+y, = 420 N/mm; 59500 psi) and IV S (f+y, = 500 N/mm; 70800 psi) the stress range under working load is not to exceed the following values: straight or slightly bent bars, pin diameters for bending d $ 25 d+s,, where d+s, = diameter of reinforcing bar: 180 N/mm; 25500 psi bent sections, pin diameters 25 d+s, > d > 10 d+s,: 140 N/mm; 19800 psi bent sections, pin diameter d < 10 d+s,: 100 N/mm; 14200 psi
For welded reinforcing mats IV M (f+y, = 500 N/mm; 59500 psi) and for welded splices, the stress range generally is not to exceed 80 N/mm (11300 psi). Welded reinforcing mats with bar diameters d+s, < 4.5 mm are not to be used in structures subjected to fatigue loading. The standard contains additional provisions for shear reinforcement. A.8--Denmark: DS 411:1984 The code gives procedures for the evaluation of reinforced concrete structures that are subject to fatigue loading. Fatigue strength is defined as that stress range which loads to fatigue fracture in 2 million cycles. The characteristic fatigue strength is defined as the 50 percent fractile at 2 million cycles. For reinforcement, the fatigue strength may be determined from a Modified Goodman-Smith diagram, using tabulated values for various types of steel. The fatigue strength of concrete is similarly determined from a Modified Goodman-Smith diagram. A.9--Finland: B4:1987 Structures subjected to variable loading causing considerable fatigue effects are analyzed as for static loading but with reduced material capacity. The design strength of concrete subjected to compressive fatigue loading is 0.6 times the static design strength plus 0.4 the minimum cyclic stress, the sum being less than the static design strength. The design strength of reinforcement subjected to fatigue loading is obtained from a similar formula except that the static strength factor varies according to reinforcement bend radius and welding conditions.
Detailing recommendations include limitations on the maximum spacing of parallel bars, the anchorage, splicing and bundling of reinforcing bars. A.10--Iceland: IST 14:1989 The fatigue provisions of this code are identical with those of the Danish Code. A.11--Sweden: BBK 79-1:1979 The maximum concrete design stress is reduced in accordance with a maximum-minimum stress diagram when the concrete is subjected to fatigue loading. No risk is considered to be at hand when the stresses fall inside the appropriate curve. Reference curves are provided in multiples of 10 for N = 1,000 to N = 1,000,000. Reinforcement design stress is similarly reduced when fatigue conditions arise. No risk of fatigue fracture is considered to exist if the stress range for N cycles is less than or equal to a tabulated stress range value divided by a safety factor. The tabulated value depends on bending and splicing conditions. A.12--CEB-FIP Model Code Draft The first draft of the CEB-FIP Model Code 1990 was published as CEB-Bulletin D'Information No. 196, March 1990. Fatigue provisions are provided for plain concrete, reinforced concrete and prestressed concrete based upon fatigue as an ultimate limit state. The draft may undergo some changes before it is finalized. This report was submitted to letter ballot of the committee and approved according to Institute balloting procedures.