Professional Documents
Culture Documents
* Chairman of ACI Committee 215 at the time preparation of this report was begun.
M. Arockiasamy Ti Huang
P.N. Balaguru Lambit Kald
Mark D. Bowman Michael E. Kreger
John N. Cernica Basile G. Rabbat
Luis F. Estenssoro Raymond S. Rollings
John M. Hanson Surendra P. Shah
Neil M. Hawkins Luc R. Taerwe
Thomas T.C. Hsu William J. Venuti
This report presents information that is intended to aid the practicing engineer 1.1-Objective and scope
confronted with consideration of repeated loading on concrete structures. Investi- l.2-Definitions
gations of the fatigue properties of component materiak+oncrete, reinforcing
bars, welded reinforcing mats, and prestressing tendons-are reviewed. Applica-
1.3-Standards cited in this report
tion of this information to predicting the fatigue life of beams and pavements is
Chapter 2-Fatigue properties of component materials, pg.
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 fpu to 215R-2
0.06 I;,,. 2.1-Plain concrete
2.2-Reinforcing bars
Keywords: beams (supports); compressive strength; concrete pavements: cracking (frac- 2.3-Welded wire fabric and bar mats
turing); dynamic loads; fatigue (materials); impact; loads (Forces); microcracking; plain
concrete; prestressed concrete; prestressing steel; reinforcedconcrete: reinforcingsteels; 2.4-Prestressing tendons
specifications; static loads: strains; stresses; structural design; tensile strength; welded
wire fabric; welding; yield strength. Chapter 3-Fatigue of beams and pavements, pg. 215R-15
3.1-Beams
CONTENTS 3.2-Pavements
21 5R-1
215R-2 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT
CHAPTER l-INTRODUCTION fatigue; however, this report does not specifically deal with
these types of loadings.
In recent years, considerable interest has developed in the
fatigue strength of concrete members. There are several rea- 1.3-Standards cited in this report
sons for this interest. First, the widespread adoption of ulti- The standards and specifications referred to in this docu-
mate strength design procedures and the use of higher ment are listed below with their serial designation, including
strength materials require that structural concrete members year of adoption or revision. These standards are the latest
perform satisfactorily under high stress levels. Hence there is effort at the time this document was revised. Since some of
concern about the effects of repeated loads on, for example, the standards are revised frequently, although generally only
crane beams and bridge slabs. in minor details, the user of this document may wish to check
Second, new or different uses are being made of concrete directly with the committee if it is correct to refer to the
members or systems, such as prestressed concrete railroad latest revision.
ties and continuously reinforced concrete pavements. These
uses of concrete demand a high performance product with an ACI 301-89 Specifications for Structural Concrete for
assured fatigue strength. Buildings
Third, there is new recognition of the effects of repeated ACI 318-89 Building Code Requirements for Rein-
loading on a member, even if repeated loading does not forced Concrete
cause a fatigue failure. Repeated loading may lead to inclined ASTM A 416-90 Standard Specification for Uncoated Seven
cracking in prestressed beams at lower than expected loads, Wire Stress Relieved Steel Strand for Pre-
or repeated loading may cause cracking in component mater- stressed Concrete
ials of a member that alters the static load carrying char- ASTM A 421-90 Standard Specification for Uncoated Stress
acteristics. Relieved Steel Wire for Prestressed Con-
crete
l.l-Objective and scope ASTM A 615-90 Standard Specification for Deformed and
This report is intended to provide information that will Plain Billet Steel Bars for Concrete Rein-
serve as a guide for design for concrete structures subjected forcement
to fatigue loading. ASTM 722-90 Standard Specification for Uncoated High
However, this report does not contain the type of detailed Strength Steel Bar for Prestressing Con-
design procedures sometimes found in guides. crete
Chapter 2 presents information on the fatigue strength of AWS Dl.4-79 StructuralWelding Code-Reinforcing Steel
concrete and reinforcing materials. This information has been
obtained from reviews of experimental investigations reported
in technical literature or from unpublished data made avail-
able to the committee. The principal aim has been to sum- CHAPTER 2-FATIGUE PROPERTIES
marize information on factors influencing fatigue strength OF COMPONENT MATERIALS
that are of concern to practicing engineers.
Chapter 3 considers the application of information on The fatigue properties of concrete, reinforcing bars, and
concrete and reinforcing materials to beams and pavements. prestressing tendons are described in this section. Much of
Provisions suitable for inclusion in a design specification are this information is presented in the form of diagrams and al-
recommended. gebraic relationships that can be utilized for design. However,
An Appendix to this report contains extracts from current it is emphasized that this information is based on the results
specifications that are concerned with fatigue. of tests conducted on different types of specimens subjected
to various loading conditions. Therefore, caution should be
1.2-Definitions exercised in applying the information presented in this report.
It is important to carefully distinguish between static,
dynamic, fatigue, and impact loadings. Truly static loading, or 2.1-Plain concrete*
sustained loading, remains constant with time. Nevertheless, 2.1.1 General-Plain concrete, when subjected to repeated
a load which increases slowly is often called static loading; loads, may exhibit excessive cracking and may eventually fail
the maximum load capacity under such conditions is referred after a sufficient number of load repetitions, even if the maxi-
to as static strength. mum load is less than the static strength of a similar speci-
Dynamic loading varies with time in any arbitrary manner. men. The fatigue strength of concrete is defined as a fraction
Fatigue and impact loadings are special cases of dynamic of the static strength that it can support repeatedly for a
loading. A fatigue loading consists of a sequence of load given number of cycles. Fatigue strength is influenced by
repetitions that may cause a fatigue failure in about 100 or range of loading, rate of loading, eccentricity of loading, load
more cycles. history, material properties, and environmental conditions.
Very high level repeated loadings due to earthquakes or
other catastrophic events may cause failures in less than 100 * Dr. Surendra P. Shah was the chairman of the subcommittee that prepared this
cycles. These failures are sometimes referred to as low-cycle section of the report.
FATIGUE LOADING DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS 215R-3
I- ’ icGs&it_g w
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
P=5~~~., probabilistic procedures: for a given maximum load, minimum
Smax load, and number of cycles, the probability of failure can be
r Probobi I i ty --I
f
0.4 - of Foilure estimated from the test results. By repeating this for several
numbers of cycles, a relationship between probability of fail-
ure 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.
0’ I 1
Curves a and c in Fig. 1 are averages representing 50 percent
I I I I I
I I
Fatigue strength relative to
technical literature are: Tests fatigue strength of No. 8 bars
reported Gr:*de
in bar
1. Minimum stress
No. 5
I No. 6
I No. 8
I No. 10
relatively insensitive to the minimum stress level. However, Reference 36 60 - 1.04 1.00 -
In another investigation26,411where both bar size and type the condition of the rolls, whether new or worn, had little
of beam were controlled variables, the former was found to effect on fatigue strength. However, a conflicting opinion has
be significant and the latter was not significant. This inves- been ex ressed in Reference 32.
tigation included bars of 5 different sizes-#5, 6, 8, 10, and Tests‘:2 also show a substantial effect on the fatigue resis-
ll-made by a major United States manufacturer. These bars tance of reinforcing bars due to brand marks. The brand
were embedded in rectangular or T-shaped concrete beams marks cover the identification of the bar as to size, type of
having effective depths of 6, 10, or 18 in. (152, 254, or 457 steel (billet, rail, or axle), mill that rolled the steel, and yield
mm). In this investigation, the fatigue life of #8, Grade 60 strength (Grade 40, 60, or 75).44 The stress concentration at
bars subjected to a stress range of 36 ksi (248 MPa) imposed a bar mark is similar to that caused by bar deformations.
on a minimum stress of 6 ksi (41.4 MPa) was 400,000 cycles. It has also been demonstrated24 that the fatigue strength
Under identical stress conditions, the fatigue life of the #5, of a reinforcing bar may be influenced by the orientation of
6, 10, and 11 bars were found to be 1.22, 1.30, 0.76, and 0.85 the longitudinal ribs. In that study, an increased fatigue life
times the life of the #8 bars, respectively. This trend is the was obtained when the longitudinal ribs were oriented in a
same as that for the data shown in Table 1. The irregular var- horizontal position rather than a vertical position. This phe-
iation was attributed to differences in surface geometry. nomenon is apparently associated with the location at which
2.2.4 Geometry of deformations-Deformations on rein- the fatigue crack initiates. In other words, if there is a
forcing bars provide the means of obtaining good bond be- particular location on the surface of a bar which is more
tween the steel and the concrete. However, these same defor- critical for fatigue than other locations, then the positioning
mations produce stress concentrations at their base, or at of that location in the beam will influence the fatigue
points where a deformation20,21,23 intersects another defor- strength.
mation or a longitudinal rib. These points of stress concen- 2.2.5 Yield and tensile strength-In three investiga-
trations are where the fatigue fractures are observed to tions9 21,27,28 the fatigue strength of different grades44 of bars
initiate. made by the same North American manufacturer were com-
Any evaluation of the influence of the shape of the pared. The results of these comparisons, all of which are in
deformations on fatigue properties of the bar must recognize the long life region of fatigue life, are shown by the bar
that the rolling technique and the cutting of the rolls nec- graphs in Fig. 7. It was concluded in References 21 and 28
essarily requires specific limitations and variations in the that the fatigue strength of the bars was relatively insensitive
pattern. This applies to the height of the deformations, the to their yield or tensile strength. References 21 and 28 in-
slopes on the walls of the deformations, and also to the fillets clude 157 and 72 tests, respectively. Reference 27, which
at the base of the deformations. includes 19 tests, indicated that fatigue strength may be pre-
An analytical study42 has shown that stress concentration dicted for grade of steel as a function of the stress range.
of an external notch on an axially loaded bar may be appreci-
able. This study indicated that the width, height, angle of rise, 40
and base radius of a protruding deformation affect the mag-
nitude of the stress concentration. It would appear that many Sr 20 N = 2 on
ksi cycles
reinforcing bar lugs may have stress concentration factors of
1.5 to 2.0. 0
Grade 4 0 6 0 75 406075 40 75 40 75
Tests on bars having a base radius varying from about 0.1 S mln 0 Ify 0 3fy 0 Ify 0 3fy
to 10 times the height of the deformation have been re- Manufacturer A A B B
ported. 25,26,28,36 These tests indicate that when the base radius a) Data from Reference 21 , No.8 Bars
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
N q 2 million
deformation does not show much effect on fatigue strength. cycles
However, Japanese tests366have shown that lugs with radii
0
larger than 2 to 5 times the height of the deformation have Grade 40 6075
reduced bond capacity. Smm 025fy
Tests have indicated30,31,39 that decreasing the angle of in- b) Data from Reference 27, No. 5 Bars
clination of the sides of the deformations with respect to the
longitudinal axis increases the fatigue strength of a rein-
forcing bar. This increase occurs for bars with lugs havin N = 5 million
abrupt changes in slope at their bases. It has been noted4Q ‘r
ksi
20
cycles
that the base radius should be determined in a plane through 0
the longitudinal axis of the bar, since this is the direction of Grade 40 60 75 4060 75 40 6075 40 60 75
S min 0 Ify 0 4fy 0 Ify 0 Ify
the applied stress. The base radius determined in this plane.
Size No8 No 8 No 5 No 10
will be substantially larger than a base radius determined in
a plane perpendicular to a sharply inclined lug. c) Data from Reference 28
In two experimental investigation,23,34 it was found that Fig. 7-Effect of grade of bar
ACI COMMITTEE REPORT
0.1
I
1.0
faces. When tested with a minimum stress level of 8.5 ksi Cycles to Failure,N, millions
60 ‘\ .
1 414
c
t \
Lower Bound for
Stress
Range
- 276
Stress
‘v.. \
Reference (50) Data
J
Sr ,ksi Range
S, MPa \ 276
Stress
a\ Range
‘s S, MPa
\ 0
138
Reference Symbol Wire Spacing
in
Fig. 9-Median S,-N curves for welded reinforcing mats (49) A 6
(50) l 6
(50) 0 12
are additive. 1 I IO
Results for “cross-weld” tests conducted in air are 0.1 IO IO 0
were made on a smooth wire fabric consisting of 0.236 in. (6 Fig. IO-A’,-N curves for slabs containing mats
mm) diameter wires welded to 0.315 in. (8 mm) diameter
wires. the results for the wire tested in air and a deterministic
In one American investigation49 59 “cross-weld” tests were assessment of the appropriate probability based on the num-
made on a 2 x 2-6 x 6 (0.263 in. or 6.7 mm diameter) smooth ber of approximately equally stressed welds in the slab. The
wire fabric, and in the other investigation48 22 “cross-weld” appropriate probability level for these slabs was about 98
tests and 30 between weld tests were made on #5 Grade 60 percent, indicating a need for a design approach for welded
deformed bars with #3 deformed bars welded to them. reinforcing mats based on a probability of survival greater
The University of Washington49 investigation was intended than the 95 percent commonly accepted for reinforcing bars
to provide a statistically analyzable set of test data for three and concrete.
stress ranges. It was observed that when the penetration The fatigue life values for collapse were about double
across the weld was less than one-tenth of the diameter of those for fracture of the first wire. The values for collapse
the wire, there was incomplete fusion of the wires and the could be predicted from the results of the tests conducted in
formation of a cold joint. For a greater penetration, the air using a deterministic procedure for assessment of the ap-
molten metal squirted into the intersection between the wires propriate probability level and Miner’s theory 7 to predict
causing a marked stress concentration so that the fatigue life cumulative damage effects.
for a hot joint was about half that for a cold joint. The result A comparison of the S-N curves for wire fabric and bar
shown in Fig. 9 is the median fatigue life value for the pene- mats with those for deformed bars indicates that an endur-
tration considered as a random variable. In those tests the ance limit may not be reached for the fabric and mats until
fatigue life values for a given stress range and a 95 percent about 5 x 106 c cles, whereas a limit is reached for the bars
probability of survival exceeded the life values obtained in at about 1 x 10 Jcycles. However, the total amount of data in
tests on high yield deformed bars.25 In the tests48 on the bar the long life range for fabric and mats is extremely limited
mats it was found that the welded intersection reduced the and insufficient for reliable comparison.
fatigue life for a given range by about 50 percent throughout
the short life stress range. 2.4-Prestressing tendons*
Tests on slabs reinforced with smooth wire mats have been 2.4.1 General-If the precompression in a prestressed con-
reported in References 49 and 50. The results are summar- crete member is sufficient to &sure an u&racked section
ized in Fig. 10, where it is apparent that there is reasonable throughout the service life of the member, the fatigue char-
correlation between the two sets of data. In the Illinois test,50 acteristics of the prestressing steel and anchorages are not
the 12 in. (305 mm) wide, 60 in. (1.52 m) long slabs were re- likely to be critical design factors. Further, in a properly
inforced with #0 gage wires longitudinally with #8 gage wires designed unbonded member, it is almost impossible to
welded to them at 6 or 12 in. (152 or 305 mm) spacings. achieve a condition for which fatigue characteristics are
In the University of Washington tests,49 the 54 in. (1.37 m) important.51 Consequently, fatigue considerations have not
square slabs were reinforced with two layers of the same 2 x been a major factor in either the specification of steel for
2-6 x 6 fabric as that tested in air. In the slab tests, it was prestressed concrete522 or the development of anchorage
observed that there was a rapid deterioration of the bond be- systems.
tween the smooth wires and the concrete under cyclic load- No structural problems attributable to fatigue failures of
ing, so that after 104 cycles of loading, all anchorage was pro-
vided primarily by the cross wires. Fatigue life values for frac- Dr. Neil M. Hawkins was chairman of the subcommittee that prepared this section
ture of the first wire in those slabs could be predicted using of the report.
215R-10 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT
the prestressing steel or anchorages have been reported in ally made from a steel whose principal alloying components
North America. However, in the near future fatigue consider- are about 0.8 percent carbon, 0.7 percent manganese, and
ations may merit closer scrutiny due to: 0.25 percent silicon. Hot-rolled alloy steels contain about 0.6
percent carbon, 1.0 percent manganese and 1.0 percent
1. The acceptance of designs53 which can result in a con- chromium. Typically, hot-rolled steels have a tensile strength
crete section cracked in tension under loads, and of 160 ksi (1100 MPa) while drawn wires have strengths
2. The increasing use of prestressing in marine environ- ranging between about 250 and 280 ksi (1720 and 1930 MPa).
ments, railroad bridges, machinery components, nuclear Drawing increases the tensile strength of the wire. It pro-
reactor vessels, railroad crossties, and other structures duces a grain structure which inhibits crack nucleation and
subject to frequent repeated loads which may involve provides a smooth surface which reduces stress concentra-
high impact loadings or significant overloads. tions. Consequently, the fatigue strengths of wires for a given
number of cycles are higher than those of rolled steels.
In the United States, the growing concern with the fatigue However, the differences are small for stress ranges expressed
characteristics of the prestressing system is reflected in sev- as percentages of the ultimate tensile strengths.
eral design recommendations developed recently. As a mini- Wires-Wires of United States manufacture conform to
mal requirement appropriate for unbonded construction, ASTM Designation: A 421,60 “Specifications for Uncoated
ACI-ASCE Committee 423,54 ACI Committee 301,55 and the Stress Relieved Wire for Prestressed Concrete.” This speci-
PCI Post-Tensioning Committees56 have recommended that fication covers plain wires only. Ribbed varieties are in
tendon assemblies consisting of prestressing steel and common use abroad. The fatigue characteristics of wires vary
anchorages be able to withstand, without failure, 500,000 greatly with the manufacturing process, the tensile strength
cycles of stressing varying from 60 to 66 percent of the of the wire, and the type of rib. In Fig. 11, fatigue strengths
specified ultimate strength of the assembly. Abroad, stan- are shown for 2 x 106 cycles for tests performed in Germany,
dards specifying fatigue characteristics for the tendons have Czechoslovakia, and Belgium,59 and Japan.* The solid circle
been published in German57 and Japan.58 in Fig. 11 is the result of a limited series of tests on 0.25 in.
This report does not consider conditions where unbonded (6.3 mm) diameter wires of United States manufacture.61
prestressing steels and their anchorages are subjected to high These tests showed a fatigue strength at 4 x 106 cycles in
impact, low cycle, repeated loadings during an earthquake. excess of 30 ksi (207 MPa). The squares are results for tests
ACI-ASCE Committee 42354 and the PCI Post-Tensioning on 4 and 5 mm (0.157 and 0.197 in.) diameter wires per-
Committee56 have developed design recommendations for formed by the Shinko Wire Company.
that situation. Also shown in Fig. 11 are likely ranges in stress for bonded
Many factors can influence the strength measured in a beams designed in accordance with the ACI Code. The lower
fatigue test on a tendon assembly. The tendon should be value is about the maximum possible when the tensile stress
tested in the “as delivered” condition and the ambient tem-
perature for a test series maintained with t 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 pre-
stressing system. Within commercially available limits, the de- Stress Range , Percent
Stress
II---l
20
t
several series of tests65-69 have been made on seven-wire
strand of either 7/16 or l/2 in. (11.1 or 12.7 mm) diameter.
Fatigue data compiled from these studies68 are shown in Fig.
12. These data are shown along with data obtained from tests
on Russian,59 Belgian,59 and Japanese63 strand, in Fig. 13.
The Japanese tests633indicated 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
”
50 60 70
strength with increasing size for the wires in the strand.
Minimum Stress
, Percent
Several writers59 have hypothesized that for strands the suc-
Tensile Strength
cessive lengthening and shortening of the cables produces al-
- - - B e l g i u m -Wire
ternating tensions in the individual wires. Failures initiate
Belgium - S t r a n d where the neighboring wires rub together under this alter-
- * -*-Russia
-***--***-U.S.A.-Warner nating load.
-**--..- U.S.A.-Tide 8 Van Horn
*U.S.A.-Hilmes Bars-Bars of United States manufacture conform to the
BJopan-2Wires requirements of the PCI Post-Tensioning Committee. Al-
0 Jopcrn-3 Wires
though fatigue tests on such bars have been made (Personal
Fig. 13-Fatigue strength at two million cycles for prestressing communication from E. Schechter, Stressteel Corp., Wilkes-
strand Barre, Pa.), most published information is for European bars
less than 0.7 in. (18 mm) in diameter. Bars manufactured in
in the precompressed zone is limited to m psi (OSC the United States range between % and 13/8 in. (19 and 35
MPa) (1.q kgf/cm2), so that the section is uncracked The mm) in diameter. Tests on bars ranging between 1 and 1% in.
upper value is about the maximum possible when the tensile (25 and 35 mm) in diameter have shown that the fatigue
stress is limited to 12fl psi (l.Oc MPa) (3.18fl kgf/cm2) limits of these bars are in excess of 0.1 times the tensile
so that the section may contain a crack as wide as 0.005 in. strength of the bar for 1 x 106 cycles of loading at a minimum
(0.125 mm). It can be seen that although the characteristics stress of 0.6 times the tensile strength. As with other post-
of wires vary widely, all could probably be justified for use tensioning systems, the characteristics of the anchorage and
with a limiting stress of 12c psi (l.Oc MPa). not the prestressing system control the fatigue characteristics
In Czechoslovakia, tests on plain wires of 3,4.5, and 7 mm of the unbonded tendon.
(0.076, 0.114, and 0.127 in.) diameter have shown that within German and Russian tests59 have shown that the fatigue
5 percent, the fatigue characteristics of these wires were inde- characteristics for their bars, expressed as a percentage of
pendent of the wire diameter. their ultimate tensile strength, are similar t o those of their
The effects of ribbing and indentations on fatigue charac- strand. Tests in Russia on bars with tensile strengths of about
215R-12 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT
150 ksi (1030 MPa) have shown the fatigue characteristics to result in hydrogen embrittlement73 and therefore its use in
be independent of bar size for bar diameters ranging between structures where fatigue is a consideration is not recom-
0.4 and 0.7 in. (10 and 18 mm). In Great Britain tests70 have mended. For wires and strand, galvanizing reduces the ulti-
been made on bonded and unbonded beams post-tensioned mate and yield strength significantly and therefore also re-
with l/2 in. (12.7 mm) diameter bars anchored by nuts on duces the fatigue limit. For bars, galvanizing does not alter
tapered threads. There were no fatigue failures of either the the static properties, but it does reduce the fatigue limit.
bar or the anchorage for 2 x 106 cycles of a loading for which 2.4.5 Anchorage type-For unbonded construction, stress
the stress range in the bonded bar was about 12 ksi (83 MPa) changes in the prestressing steel are transmitted directly to
at a minimum stress equal to at least 60 percent of the bar’s the anchorage. Although most anchorages can develop the
static strength. static strength of the prestressing steel, they are unlikely to
2.4.3 Statistical considerations-Reliable design information develop its fatigue strength. Further, bending at an anchorage
requires the collection of the test data in such a manner that can cause higher local stresses than those calculated from the
statistical methods can be used to define the properties of the tensile pull in the prestressing steel. Bending is likely where
material and to investigate the effects of differing parame- the prestressing steel is connected to the member at a few
ters . 71,72 At least six and preferably 12 tests are necessary at locations only throughout its length or where there is angu-
each stress level to establish fatigue strengths for survivals larity of the prestressing steel at the anchorage. Fatigue
ranging from 90 to 10 percent. To establish the finite-life part characteristics based on tests of single wire or strand anchor-
of the S-N diagram for a constant minimum stress, tests ages are likely to overestimate the strength of multi-wire or
should be made-at a minimum of three stress levels, one near multistrand anchorages.
the static strength, one near the fatigue limit, and one in Tests on single wire anchorages have been conducted in
between. Special techniques are needed to establish the the United States,611Great Britain (Test reports supplied by
fatigue limit. A.H. Stubbs, Western Concrete Structures, Inc., Los Angeles,
The overall scatter of fatigue data is of paramount impor- CA), Japan and Switzerland.599The types of anchorages tested
tance in defining the quality of the prestressing steel. For and the results are shown in Fig. 15. In each case the ratio of
United States strand, a modified Goodman diagram has been the minimum stress to the nominal tensile strength of the
developed by Hilmes and Ekberg68 for three discrete proba- wire was about 0.6. The broken line indicates the fatigue
bility levels. As shown in Fig. 14, these levels correspond to characteristics of the wire used in the Japanese tests, as
survival probabilities of 0.1, 0.5, and 0.9, and they were estimated from the results of rotating beam tests. It cor-
developed from data with minimum stress levels of 0.4, 0.5, responds also to the fatigue characteristics of the weakest
and 0.6 times the static tensile strength. For the desired wire in Fig. 11.
minimum stress and probability level, vertical intercepts All anchorages shown in Fig. 15 developed the full
within Fig. 14 define permissible stress ranges for failure for strength of the wire for static loading. However, most
strands tested in the United States at 5 x 106, 1 x 106, 5 x 106, resulted in a fatigue strength for the tendon of less than 50
2 x 105, 1 x 105, and 5 x 104 cycles. percent of the fatigue strength of the wire. The exceptions
2.4.4 Steel treatment-While all United States prestressing are the conical anchorages for the Swiss, British, and
steels are stress-relieved, some of those manufactured abroad American wires. If failures did not occur due to the fatigue
are not. Czechoslovakian and Russian tests59 have shown that loading, the static strength was not impaired. In the case of
stress relieving increases the fatigue limit significantly. For the American wire, five specimens out of seven took more
applications external to a member, the prestressing steel is than 107 cycles of the stress range shown without failure. The
sometimes protected by hot dip galvanizing. Galvanizing can lowest life was 3.5 x 106 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 character-
istics of a button head are influenced by the wire cutoff
method, the type of heading equipment, the geometric char-
acteristics of the head, the properties of the seating block,
and the type of wire. Successive improvements have led to
Smin button heads showing no failures even after 107 cycles of a
f PU 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 106 cycles dropped from 0.15 times
the tensile strength for a defect free head to a minimum of
Fig. 14-Strength envelopes for strand tested in United States 0.12 times that strength for a diagonal split in the head. In
FATIGUE LOADING DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS 215R-13
Anchorage Conica
Type But ton But ton Head Hammer Head Nut
Head
Wire
Diameter,in. 0.250 76 0.315 0,197 0.276 0.276 0.276
Rodius, R
0.25 19 0.28 0 0 0.49 0.89
Diameter
2c
Lower Limit of Wire Test Results
( B e l g i a n a n d J a p a n ese)
I2 5
A
?I
II.8
L
fpu IC
percent c 6.4
I- IL IL
5.7 5.7
1. I
Fig. 15-Fatigue strength of anchorages at two million cycles
contrast a soft steel seating block for a defect free head or wedges. In the American tests on grip nuts and wedges, a
resulted in a marked decrease in the fatigue life. The life stress range of 0.1 times the tensile strength at a minimum
dropped to 2 x 105 cycles for a stress range of 0.15 times the stress of about 0.6 times that strength did not cause failure
tensile strength, and the failure was due to fretting between even after 3 x 106 cycles of loading.
the tendon and the soft steel. Tests on single strand anchorages have been reported by
The Japanese investigation showed that, to a limited ex- several organizations.*j-$ For % in. (12.7 mm) seven-wire
tent, the strength increased as the ratio of the radius at the strand anchored in S7 and S9 C. C. L. spiral units,? cast in
base of the head to the wire diameter increased. In these small concrete blocks, failure did not occur within 1 x 106
tests the fatigue crack usually developed where the shoulder cycles of a loading varying between 0.6 and 0.65 times the
for the head and the wire met. Clearly, the reduced fatigue tensile strength of the strand. For % in. (12.7 mm), sevcn-
capacity of the anchorage is due to the stress concentration wire strand anchored by 5% x 2 in. (140 x 51 mm) cast steel
caused by the change in section. The conically shaped anchor- anchors,S failures have not occurred within 0.5 x106 cycles of
age forces the fatigue crack to develop at a section 50 to 80 loadings varying between 0.6 and 0.65, and between 0.56 and
percent larger in diameter than the wire. 0.64 times the tensile strength of the strand. Ten tests* on
Results for the fatigue tests conducted in the United Stressteel S-H % in. (12.7 mm) Monostrand wedges have
States,* and Japan74 on anchorages for bars are shown in Fig. shown that for a 10 or 7 deg angle, this system can take
16. Arrows indicate specimens for which failures did not without failure at least 5 x 105 cycles of a load varying be-
occur. The dotted line is a lower bound to the test results. tween 0.6 and 0.66 times the strength of a 270 ksi (1.860
The ratio of the minimum stress to the tensile strength of the MPa) seven-wire strand. For a load varying between 0.5 and
bar was about 0.6 for all tests. It is apparent that the stress 0.7 times the strength of the strand, failures occurred in the
range was insensitive to bar diameter or country of origin, grips when one wire of the strand ruptured. Average fatigue
and that all anchorages comply with the requirements of Sec-
tion 7.2 of Reference 56. The reduction in the fatigue * personal communication from E. Schechter, Stress steell Corp.,Wilkes-Barre, Pa.
strength of the system for cut threads with couplers is less t Test reports supplied by L. Gerber, The Prescon Corp.,Corpus Christi Tex.
than for cut threads with nuts, and the reduction for both $ Test reports supplied by K. B. Bondy, Atlas Prestressing Corp., Panorama City,
these systems is markedly more than for bars with grip n u t s Calif.
215R-14 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT
.
2c I 1 I
I-
AMERICAN TFSTS I
JAPANESE TESTS (7
BAR ANCHORAGE TYPE +NUT ON 0.95in. OR
OIL+. Thread Jw_, 24mm 0 BAR
in.
l x.!, +
I
“..A A A-
I ‘/a (28.6)
lb4 (31.8) ;
_ .. I %a (35.0) A P A
‘.
Stress *.
‘.
.... 0 0-’&As-_
w ,Percent . ... A0
*-. '. t
Strength . ..*
8 . '. t VP 0 o+
u . "'.........r
. -"-x........*+. A-A+ u-
.-.....,,.
. +.m..... .-......__..
4 . *
c
4 8 10 6 4
Cycles to Failure
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 52mm(O.2cI5in)K 12 Wlrel
that figure. For all tests the minimum stress was about 0.56
of the tensile strength of the tendon. From a comparison of
- - - A - ‘- Drawn Socket 5.2mm(0205iin)x13wire~ 76
Fig. 17 and 13 it is apparent that anchorages for strand result I 1 I 1 I
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* con-
sisting of 90 one-quarter in. diameter, (6.35 mm), 240 ksi fPU
(1660 MPa) wires, anchored by button heads on an 8% in. 0.1
(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 OS
0.75 times the tensile strength of the wire. A tendon? con-
sisting of nine % in. (12.7 mm) strands, anchored with three
3-strand S/H 10 deg wedges with the wedges on 11/4 in. (32 I
mm) (3.2 cm) radius at one end and 21/2 in. (57 mm) radius 0.2 0.5 1.0 2.0 5.0 IO.0
at the other end, withstood, without failure, 5 x lo5 cycles of Cycles to Failure , millions
a load varying between 0.6 and 0.66 times the minimum guar-
anteed tensile strength of the tendon. Fig. 1 7-Data for strand and multiple wire anchorages
2.4.6 Degree of bond-Bond and cracking effects dominate
differences between the fatigue characteristics of the pre- * Test reports supplied by L. Gerber. The Prescon Corp. Corpus Christi Tex.
stressing steel in air and those of the same steel in a pre- t Personal communication from E. Schechter, Stressteel Corp, Wilkes-Barre, Pa.
215R-16 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT
Any location where high stress ranges occur may be critical fatigue strength at a fatigue life of 10 million cycles. De-
for fatigue. Locations of stress concentrations in steel rein- formed bar reinforcement does exhibit a fatigue limit. How-
forcement, such as at tendon anchorages or at points where ever, the second criterion is a conservative lower bound of all
auxiliary reinforcement is attached to deformed bar reinfor- available test results on bars.
cement by tack welding, are especially critical for fatigue. If the calculated fatigue stresses are higher than values in-
Bends in reinforcement may also be critical if they are dicated permissible by Criteria 1 or 2, the design should not
located in regions of high stress. necessarily be rejected. In these cases, evidence based on in-
Concrete is a notch insensitive material.79 Hence, geo- formation in Sections 2.1 and 2.2 and elsewhere may provide
metric discontinuities in the concrete due to holes or changes a basis for allowing higher stresses.
in section are not considered to affect its fatigue strength, Since most of the information included in Section 2.2 is
although stress calculations must be based on the net section based on fatigue tests of bars embedded in concrete beams,
for large discontinuities. it is believed to be directly applicable to design. However,
Determination of critical fatigue stresses requires calcula- except for stress range, most of the variables which designers
tion of a minimum and maximum stress for specified load- can readily control-bar size, type of beam, minimum stress,
ings. In general, it is the stress range, which is the difference bar orientation, and grade of bar-do not have a large effect
between the minimum and maximum stress, that is most criti- on fatigue strength. Other variables related to manufacturing
cal for fatigue. Typically, the minimum stress is due to dead and fabrication-deformation geometry, bending, and tack
load, and the maximum stress is due to dead plus live load. welding-are much more significant.
Calculation of critical stresses is considered in more detail in One factor not considered in Section 2.2 is that a structure
the following sections on nonprestressed and prestressed is a composite of many members, each of which generally
members, as well as other special aspects which affect the be- contain many reinforcing elements. As the results of the
havior of these members. AASHO Road Test20 indicated, fatigue fracture of one or
3.1.1 Nonprestressed members-In this discussion, nonpre- more reinforcing elements does not necessarily result in
stressed members are restricted to concrete beams reinforced failure of the structure. Rather there is evidence of distress
with hot rolled deformed bars meeting the requirements of due to increased deflections and wide cracks and hence there
ASTM A 615.44 Flexural stresses in the concrete and rein- is opportunity to repair and strengthen the structure.
forcement may be computed in accord with the provisions of Unpublished research results at the University of Wash-
ACI 318.53 To determine if these stresses may possibly pro- ington* indicate that special attention should be given to the
duce fatigue distress, the Committee recommends that the shear fatigue strength of beams subjected to high nominal
following criteria be used: shearing stresses. Inclined cracking is a prerequisite for a
shear fatigue failure. However, it is known that web shear
1. The stress range in concrete shall not exceed 40 percent cracks will form under repetitive loads at appreciably lower
of its compressive strength when the minimum stress is stresses than those assumed for static loading conditions.
zero, or a linearly reduced stress range as the minimum For highly repetitive loading,20 it is recommended that the
stress is increased so that the permitted stress range is range in nominal shear stress that is assumed to cause in-
zero when the minimum stress is 0.75 f”. clined cracking under a zero to maximum loading be taken as
2. The stress range in straight deformed reinforcement one-half the value of nominal shear stress carried by the con-
shall not exceed the value computed from the following crete, vc, specified in the ACI Code.53 For other loadings, the
expression: range in nominal shear stress shall be linearly reduced from
one-half of v, to zero as the minimum stress is increased to
sr = 23.4 - 0.33 Smin Vc .
or Where the nominal shear stress under service loads ex-
(S, = 161 - 0.33 Smin) ceeds the values of vc specified in the ACI Code, and the
where shear stress due to the repetitive live load plus impact ex-
Sr = stress range, in ksi (or MPa); and ceeds 25 percent of the total nominal shear stress, it is
S min = algebraic minimum stress, tension positive, further recommended that the shear carried by the concrete
compression negative, in ksi (or MPa) vc be taken as zero for calculations of the required area of
but S, need not be taken less than 20 ksi (138 MPa). For bent shear reinforcement. This recommendation will reduce the
bars or bars to which auxiliary reinforcement has been tack risk of a shear fatigue failure at bends in stirrup rein-
welded, the stress range computed from the above equation forcement.
should be reduced by 50 percent. The above expression is 3.1.2 Prestressed members-In this discussion, prestressed
based on an approximation of an equation26 derived from sta- members are restricted to concrete beams reinforced with
tistical analysis at 95 percent probability that 95 percent of strand, wires, or bars that are prestressed to at least 40
the specimens will not fail. It should be cautioned that tack percent of the tensile strength of the reinforcement. This re-
welds are prohibited by AWS D1.4109 while full penetration inforcement is presumed to meet the requirements of ASTM
welds are permitted.
Concrete is not believed to exhibit a fatigue endurance * Personal communication from Dr. Neil M. Hawkins, University of Washington,
limit. The first criterion gives a conservative prediction of Seattle, Wash.
FATIGUE LOADING DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS 21 5R-1 7
Currently three types of concrete pavements are used in 3.2.1 PCA design method-The PCA design procedure for
the United States: a) plain pavements, with frequent joints highways is based on an extension of the Westergaard
and no reinforcement (with and without dowels); b) rein- theory lo4 which permits stress computations for multiple
forced concrete pavements, consisting of lon slabs with dis- wheeled vehicles and relates support, axle load, and slab
tributed reinforcing and doweled joints;94V9 B and c) contin- thickness to the stress created in the concrete. Only the heavy
uously reinforced pavements (CRCP), consisting of very long axle loads which stress the concrete to greater than 50
slabs with more reinforcement than a reinforced concrete percent of its modulus of rupture are considered; i.e., the
pavement and no transverse joints.95 effects of passenger cars and light trucks are not considered
Prestressed pavements may eventually be a fourth type. significant. The criteria for the fatigue life of the pavement
However, they are presently in a developmental stage. The is the appearance of the first structural crack in the slab.
majority of highway pavements are either of the plain or the The basic tool of the designer using this method is a set of
reinforced concrete type. Hence, the following discussion will flexural design stress charts for highway vehicles and for air-
deal mainly with these types of pavements, although some of craft. The charts are the result of analysis of exact wheel con-
the comments will apply to the others. figurations involving influence charts105 or computer pro-
Highway pavements are commonly designed by using grams. 1066 Computed stresses are normalized by dividing by
either the Portland Cement Association (PCA) method,97 or the design flexural strength of the concrete, and compared
variations of the American Association of State Highway against a “standard” S-N curve to determine the allowable
Officials (AASHO) method. 98 The PCA method is based on number of repetitions of load at each level. A percent
a modification of the Westergaard theory, and the AASHO damage is obtained by dividing the predicted number of loads
method is based on the results of a comprehensive field study by the number indicated to cause failure. These values are
at the AASHO Road Test. For airports, the U.S. Corps of then accumulated in accordance with the Miner hypothesis,
Engineers procedure is based on pavement performance and to determine whether the design life is satisfactory. The PCA
full-scale test track studies.99 method for airport pavement design107 is similar to the high-
The following is a brief description of some of the factors way design method.
which affect the service life of concrete pavements. 3.2.2 AASHO design method-The philosophy associated
with the AASHO design procedure is different than that of
1. Traffic-The volume and axle weights of the expected the PCA method, in that failure is considered to occur when
traffic must be predicted. For highways, these are pavement has deteriorated to a minimum tolerance level of
predicted from highway department truck weight serviceability.1088Serviceability is a unique concept which is
studies, and for airports they are based on aircraft directly related to the pleasantness of ride experienced by the
manufacturers’ data on the loads and configurations of driver traveling over the roadway. The serviceability index of
existing and projected future aircraft. a pavement is affected by cracking, joint faulting, etc., only to
2. Environment-Nonuniform stress gradients are created the extent that it affects rider comfort. The serviceability
in pavement slabs because of restraint to slab movement index scale is linear from 5.0 down to 0.0. New pavements
induced by changes in temperature and moisture condi- generally have an index between 4.2 and 4.6, and pavements
tions. Temperature and moisture gradients also affect are ready for resurfacing when the index drops to a value of
the performance of the slabs because they change the 2.0 or 2.5 depending on the facility.
shape of the slabs and hence alter the degree of sub- To apply this design method, all levels of axle loading are
grade support.100-102 converted to equivalent 18 kip (80 kN) single axle loads, by
3. Boundary conditions-The stress state in the pavement using a table of equivalency factors derived from the Road
is affected by subgrade friction, the type and efficiency Test. As an example, the effect of one passage of an 18 kip
of load transfer at joints, and the position of loads with axle load equates to 5000 repetitions of a 2 kip (8.9 kN) axle
respect to the joints and pavement edges. load. The thickness of the required pavement is determined
4. Support conditions-Several phenomena may affect the directly by using a nomograph relating the thickness to the
underlying subgrade, and reduce the support which it predicted number of equivalent axle loads to reach the mini-
provides to the concrete slab. These include loss of mum serviceability, the underlying subgrade support, and the
material by pumping, densification, and displacement of allowable working stress in the concrete.
the subgrade, as well as soil volume changes due to 3.2.3 Corps of Engineers method-For this design proce-
moisture changes and frost. dure99 load stresses are computed for the aircraft that are
expected to use the pavement. Design charts indicate re-
In the following section, the PCA, AASHO, and Corps of quired pavement thicknesses for specific aircraft depending
Engineers methods are briefly reviewed. Other design on concrete flexural strength, subgrade support and aircraft
methods are not specific in their evaluation of repeated loads. gear loads. The thickness so determined is for a fixed amount
It is expected that the PCA, AASHO, and Corps of of traffic-5000 coverages of the design aircraft. The term
Engineers approaches will continue to be the basic models “coverage” is used to convert the number of traffic operations
for design. Refinements in design methods are expected as to the number of full stress repetitions; i.e., a coverage occurs
more sophisticated analvsis and computer techniques are when each point of the pavement surface has been subjected
to one maximum stress by the operating aircraft. An equation
FATIGUE LOADING DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS 215R-19
to convert operations to coverages considers the wheel con- JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 63, No. 10, Oct. 1966, pp. 1059-
figuration and transverse wander width of the aircraft passes 1076.
on taxiways and runways. To recognize levels of traffic other 6. Kesler, Clyde E., “Fatigue and Fracture of Concrete,”
than the fixed 5000 coverage level, the following increases in Lecture No. 8, Stanton Walker Lecture Series on the Mater-
pavement thickness are specified; an increase of 5 percent for ials Sciences, National Sand and Gravel Association/National
10,000 coverages and up to 12 percent for 30,000 coverages. Ready Mixed Concrete Association, Silver Spring, Maryland,
Nov. 1970, 19 pp.
7. Miner, M.A., “Cumulative Damage in Fatigue,” Trans-
actions, ASME, V. 67, 1945.
NOTATION 8. Murdock, John W., “A Critical Review of Research on
Fatigue of Plain Concrete,”Bulletin No. 475, Engineering
fc’ = compressive strength of concrete Experiment Station, University of Illinois, Urbana, 1965, 25
fu = ultimate strength of prestressing steel pp.
Pr = modulus of rupture of concrete 9. Awad, M.E., and Hilsdorf, H.K., “Strength and Defor-
% = number of cycles applied at a particular stress con- mation Characteristics of Plain Concrete Subjected to High
dition Repeated and Sustained Loads,” Structural Research Series
N = fatigue life, i.e., number of cycles at which SO percent No. 373, Department of Civil Engineering, University of
of a group of specimens would be expected to have Illinois, Urbana, Feb. 1971.
failed, or the number of cycles causing failure in a 10. Raju, N.K., “Comparative Study of the Fatigue Be-
given specimen havior of Concrete, Mortar, and Paste in Uniaxial Compres-
Nr = number of cycles which will cause fatigue failure at sion,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 67, No. 6, June 1970, pp.
the same stress condition as rz, 461-463.
P = probability of failure 11. Nordby, Gene M., “Fatigue of Concrete-A Review of
S = the stress calculated on the net section by simple Research,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 55, No. 2, Aug.
theory such as S = P/A, MC/I, or Tc/J without taking 1958, pp. 191-220.
into account the variation in stress conditions caused 12. Ople, F.S., and Hulsbos, C.L., “Probable Fatigue Life
by geometrical discontinuities of Plain Concrete with Stress Gradient,” ACI JOURNAL, Pro-
S max = the stress having the highest algebraic value in the ceedings V. 63, No. 1, Jan. 1966, pp. 59-82.
stress cycle, tensile stress being considered positive 13. Sturman, Gerald M.; Shah, Surendra P.; and Winter,
and compressive stress negative George, “Effects of Flexural Strain Gradients on Micro-
Smin = the stress having the lowest algebraic value in the cracking and Stress-Strain Behavior of Concrete,” ACI
stress cycle, tensile stress being considered positive JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 62, No. 7, July 1965, pp. 805-822.
and compressive stress negative 14. Shah, Surendra P., and Winter, George, “Response of
s, = stress range, i.e., the algebraic difference between the Concrete to Repeated Loading,” Proceedings, RILEM Inter-
maximum and minimum stress in one cycle, S,, - national Symposium on Effects of Repeated Loading of
S min 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 Defor-
mation Characteristics of Concrete Subjected to Repeated
REFERENCES Compressive Stresses (Versuche tiber die Festigkeit und die
Verformung von Beton bei Druck-Schwellbeanspruchung),”
1. Shah, Surendra P., and Chandra, S. “Fracture of Bulletin No. 144, Deutscher Ausschuss fur Stahlbeton, Berlin,
Concrete Subjected to Cyclic Loading” ACI JOURNAL, 1962, pp. l-48.
Proceedings V. 67, No. 10, Oct. 1970, pp. 816824. 16. Glucklich, Joseph, “Fracture of Plain Concrete,” Pro-
2. Raju, N.K., “Small Concrete Specimens Under Repeated ceedings, ASCE, V. 89, EM6, Dec. 1963, pp. 127-138.
Compressive Loads by Pulse Velocity Technique,” Journal of 17. Diaz, S.I., and Hilsdorf, H.K., “Fracture Mechanism of
Materials, V. 5, No. 2, June 1970, pp. 262-272. Concrete Under Static, Sustained and Repeated Compressive
3. Shah, Surendra P., and Chandra, S., “Mechanical Loads,” Structural Research Series No. 383, Department of
Behavior of Concrete Examined by Ultrasonic Measure- Civil Engineering, University of Illinois, Urbana, 1972.
ments,” Journal of Materials, V. 5, No. 3, Sept. 1970, pp. 18. Fisher, J.W., and Viest, I.M., “Fatigue Tests of Bridge
550-563. Materials of the AASHO Road Test,” Special Report No. 66,
4. Beres, L., “Relationship of Deformational Processes and Highway Research Board, 1961, pp. 132-147.
Structure Changes in Concrete,” Proceedings, International 19. Sanders, W.W.; Hoadley, P.G.; and Munse, W.H.,
Conference on Structures, Solid Mechanics and Engineering “Fatigue Behavior of Welded Joints in Reinforcing Bars for
Design in Civil Engineering Materials, University of South- Concrete,” The Welding Journal, Research Supplement, V. 40,
ampton, Apr. 1969. No. 12, 1961, pp. 529-s to 535-s.
5. Hilsdorf, Hubert K., and Kesler, Clyde E., “Fatigue 20. “The AASHO Road Test, Report 4, Bridge Research,”
Strength of Concrete Under Varying Flexural Stresses,” ACI Special Report No. 61D, Highway Research Board,Washing-
215R-20 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT
ton, D.C., 1962, 217 pp. Current Paper No. CP 7/71, Building Research Station, Gar-
21. Pfister, J.F., and Hognestad, Eivind, “High Strength ston, Watford, Mar. 1971, 31 pp.
Bars as Concrete Reinforcement, Part 6, Fatigue Tests,” 34. Gronqvist, Nils-Ove, “Fatigue Strength of Reinforcing
Journal PCA Research and Development Laboratories, V. 6, Bars,” Second International Symposium on Concrete Bridge
No. 1, Jan. 1964, pp. 65-84. Also, Development Department Design, SP-26, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1971,
Bulletin No. D74, Portland Cement Association. pp. 1011-1059.
22. Walls, J.C.; Sanders, W.W. Jr.; and Munse, W.H., 35. Yokomichi, Hideo; Ota, Toshitaka; and Nishihori, Tad-
“Fatigue Behavior of Butt-Welded Reinforcing Bars in anobu, “Fatigue Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Beams,”
Reinforced Concrete Beams,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. Proceedings, 17th General Meeting of the Japan Cement En-
62, No. 2, Feb. 1965, pp. 169-192. gineering Association (Tokyo, May 1963), V. 12, pp. 474-478.
23. Burton, Kenneth T., “Fatigue Tests of Reinforcing Also, English synopsis in Review of the Seventeenth General
Bars,” Journal, PCA Research and Development Laboratories, Meeting, Japan Cement Engineering Association, Tokyo,
V. 7, No. 3, Sept. 1965, pp. 13-23. Also, Development 1965, p. 202.
Department Bulletin No. D93, Portland Cement Association. 36. Kokubu, Masatane, and Okamura, Hajime, “Funda-
24. Burton, K.T. and Hognestad, Eivind, “Fatigue Test of mental Study on Fatigue Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Reinforcing Bars-Tack Welding of Stirrups,” ACI JOURNAL, Beams Using High Strength Deformed Bars,” Transactions,
Proceedings V. 64, No. 5, May 1967, pp. 244-252. Also, Japan Society of Civil Engineers (Tokyo), No. 122, Oct. 1965,
Development Department Bulletin No. D116, Portland Cement pp. l-28. (in Japanese with English Summary)
Association. 37. Kokubu, Masatane; Tada, Yoshiaki; Tachibana, Ichiro;
25. Hanson, J.M.; Burton, K.T.; and Hognestad, Eivind, and Matsumoto, Yoshiji, “Fatigue Behavior of Reinforced
“Fatigue Tests of Reinforcing Bars-Effect of Deformation Concrete Beams with High-Strength Deformed Bars,” Trans-
Pattern,” Journal, PCA Research and Development Labora- actions, Japan Society of Civil Engineers (Tokyo), No. 122,
tories, V. 10, No. 3, Sept. 1968, pp. 2-13. Also, Development Oct. 1965, pp. 29-42. (in Japanese with English Summary)
Department Bulletin No. D145, Portland Cement Association. 38. Nakayama, Norio, “Fatigue Test on T-Shaped Concrete
26. Helgason, T.; Hanson, J.M.; Somes, N.F.; Corley, Beams Reinforced with Deformed Bars,” Transactions, Japan
W.G.; and Hognestad, E., “Fatigue Strength of High Yield Society of Civil Engineers (Tokyo), No. 122, Oct. 1965, pp.
Reinforcing Bars,”NCHRP Bulletin 164, Transportation 43-50. (in Japanese with English Summary)
Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, 39. Kokubu, Masatane, and Okamura, Hajime, “Fatigue
D.C., 1976. Behavior of High Strength Deformed Bars in Reinforced
27. Lash, SD., “Can High-Strength Reinforcement be Concrete Bridges,” First International Symposium on Concrete
Used for Highway Bridges?," First International Symposium on Bridge Design, SP-23, American Concrete Institute, Detroit,
Concrete Bridge Design, SP-23, American Concrete Institute, 1969, pp. 301-316.
Detroit, 1969, pp. 283-299. 40. Forrest, P.G., Fatigue of Metals, Pergamon Press,
28. MacGregor, James G.; Jhamb, I.C.; and Nuttall, N., Elmsford, New York, 1962.
“Fatigue Strength of Hot-Rolled Reinforcing Bars,” ACI 41. Helgason, Th., and Hanson, J.M., “Investigation of
JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 68, No. 3, Mar. 1971, pp. 169-179. Design Factors Affecting Fatigue Strength of Reinforcing
29. Rehm, Gallus, “Contributions to the Problem of the Bars-Statistical Analysis,” Abeles Symposium on Fatigue of
Fatigue Strength of Steel Bars for Concrete Reinforcement,” Concrete, SP-41, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1974,
Preliminary Publication, 6th Congress of the IABSE (Stock- pp. 107-138.
holm, 1960), International Association for Bridge and Struc- 42. Derecho, A.T., and Munse, W.H., “Stress Concentra-
tural Engineering, Zurich, 1960, pp. 35-46. tion at External Notches in Members Subjected to Axial
30. Kobrin, M.M., and Sverchkov, A.G., “Effect of Compo- Loadings,” Bulletin No. 494, Engineering Experiment Station,
nent Elements of Deformation Patterns on the Fatigue University of Illinois, Urbana, Jan. 1968, 51 pp.
Strength of Bar Reinforcement,” Experimental and Theoretical 43. Hanson, John M., and Helgason, Thorsteinn, Discus-
Investigations of Reinforced Concrete Structures, edited by A.A. sion of “Fatigue Strength of Hot-Rolled Deformed Rein-
Gvozdev, Scientific Research Institute for Plain and Rein- forcing Bars” by James G. MacGregor, I.C. Jhamb, and N.
forced Concrete, Gosstroiizdat, Moscow, 1963, pp. 45-63. Nuttall, ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 68, No. 9, Sept. 1971,
31. Soretz, Stefan, “Fatigue Behavior of High-Yield Steel pp. 725-726.
Reinforcement,”Concrete and Constructional Engineering 44. “Standard Specification for Deformed and Plain Billet-
(London), V. 60, No. 7, July 1965, pp. 272-280. Steel Bars for Concrete Reinforcement,” (A 615), American
32. Wascheidt, H., “On the Fatigue Strength of Embedded Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia. See Section
Concrete Reinforcing Steel (Zur Frage der Dauerschwingfest- 1.3 for current reference.
igkeit von Betonstahlen im einbetonierten Zustand),” Doc- 45. Rtisch, H., and Kupfer, H., Criteria for the Evaluation
toral Thesis, Technical University of Aachen, Germany, 1965. of Reinforcing Bars with High-Quality Bond (Kriterien zur
Also, abbreviated version, Technische Mitteilungen Krupp- Beurteilung von Bewehrungsstaben mit hochwertigem Ver-
Forschungsberichte, V. 24, No. 4, 1966, pp. 173-193. bund), Wilhelm Ernst and Sons, Munich, 1969.
33. Snowdon, L.C., “The Static and Fatigue Performance 46. Lee, Allen, “Maryland’s Two Continuously Reinforced
of Concrete Beams with High Strength Deformed Bars,” Concrete Pavements-A Progress Report,” Highway Research
FATIGUE LOADING DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS 21 5R-21
Record, Highway Research Board. No. 5, 1963, pp. 99-119. Structures, Technical Report No. 6, “Investigation of Button-
47. Sternberg, F., “Performance of Continuously Rein- Head Efficiency,” July 1968.
forced Concrete Pavement, I-84 Southington,” Connecticut 62. Bennett, E.W., and Boga, R.K., “Some Fatigue Tests of
State Highway Department, June 1969. Large Diameter Deformed Hard Drawn Wire,” Civil En-
48. Pasko, T.J., “Final Report on Effect of Welding on gineering and Public Works Review (London), V. 62, No. 726,
Fatigue Life of High Strength Reinforcing Steel Used in Jan. 1967, pp. 59-61.
Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavements,” Pavement 63. Iwasaki, I., and Asanuma, H., “Quality Tests of De-
Systems Group, Federal Highway Administration, Washing- formed Prestressing Wires for Prestressed Concrete Railroad
ton, D.C., Nov. 1971. Ties,” Report No. 7, Japanese National Railways Research
49. Hawkins, N.M., and Heaton, L.W., “The Fatigue Char- Laboratories, 1969, p. 346. Also, Structural Research Labor-
acteristics of Welded Wire Fabric,” Report No. SM 71-3, atory Report No. 42, Technical Research Institute for Rail-
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Washington, roads, Feb. 1969, 20 pp.
Seattle, Sept. 1971. 64. “Standard Specification for Uncoated Seven-Wire
50. Bianchini, Albert C., and Kesler, Clyde E., “Interim Stress-Relieved Strand for Prestressed Concrete,” (A 416),
Report on Studies of Welded Wire Fabric for Reinforced American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia.
Concrete,” T& AM Report No. 593, Department of Theoreti- See Section 1.3 for current reference.
cal and Applied Mechanics, University of Illinois, Urbana, 65. Lane, R.E., and Ekberg, C.E. Jr., “Repeated Load
Nov. 1960. Tests on 7-Wire Prestressing Strands,” Progress Report No.
51. Bondy, K.B., “Realistic Requirements for Unbonded 223.21, Fritz Engineering Laboratory, Lehigh University,
Post-Tensioning Tendons,”Journal, Prestressed Concrete Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, 1959.
Institute, V. 15, No. 2, Feb. 1970, pp. 50-59. 66. Fisher, J.W., and Viest, I.M., “Fatigue Tests of Bridge
52. “Les Armatures Speciales de Beton Arme et les Arma- Materials of the AASHO Road Test,” Special Report No. 66,
tures de Precontrainte," Proceedings, RILEM Symposium Highway Research Board, Washington, D.C., 1961, pp. 132-
(Liege, July 1958), RILEM, Paris, 1958. 147.
53. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for 67. Warner, R.F., and Hulsbos, C.L., “Probable Fatigue
Reinforced Concrete,” (ACI 318), American Concrete Insti- Life of Prestressed Concrete Beams,” Journal, Prestressed
tute, Detroit. See Section 1.3 for current reference. Concrete Institute, V. 11, No. 2, Apr. 1966, p. 16-39.
54. ACI-ASCE Committee 423, “Tentative Recommenda- 68. Hilmes, J.B., and Ekberg, C.E. Jr., “Statistical Analysis
tions for Concrete Members Prestressed with Unbonded of the Fatigue Characteristics of Under-Reinforced Pre-
Tendons,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 66, No. 2, Feb. stressed Concrete Flexural Members,” Iowa Engineering Ex-
1969, p. 85. periment Station, Iowa State University, Ames, 1965.
55. ACI Committee 301, “Specifications for Structural 69. Tide, R.H.R., and Van Horn, D.A., “A Statistical Study
Concrete for Buildings,” (AC1 301), American Concrete Insti- of the Static and Fatigue Properties of High Strength Pre-
tute, Detroit. See Section 1.3 for current reference. stressing Strand,” Report No. 309.2, Fritz Engineering Lab-
56. PCI Committee on Post-Tensioning, “Tentative Speci- oratory, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, 1966.
fication for Post-Tensioning Materials,” Journal, Prestressed 70. Eastwood, W., and Rao, R.M., “Fatigue Tests on Lee-
Concrete Institute, V. 16, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 1971, pp. 14-20. McCall Prestressed Concrete Beams,” Civil Engineering and
57. “Tentative Specifications for Testing of Prestressing Public Works Review (London), V. 52, No. 613, July 1957, pp.
Steel According to DIN 4227 for Their Acceptance, Manufac- 786-787.
turing and Supervision (Vorlaufige Richtlinien fur die Prti- 71. 1958 Tentative Guide for Fatigue Testing and the Statis-
fung bei Zulassung, Herstellung und Uberwachung von tical Analysis of Fatigue Data, STP-91A, 2nd Edition, Ameri-
Spannstahlen fur Spannbeton nach DIN 4227),” Department can Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1963.
of Transportation, Federal Republic of Germany, Dec. 1965. 72. Brenneisen, A., and Baus, R., “Statistics and Probabil-
58. “Design and Engineering Code for Prestressed Con- ities,” Steel for Prestressing, FIP Symposium (Madrid, June
crete Railway Bridges,” Japanese National Railway. 1968), Cement and Concrete Association, London, 1969, pp.
59. Baus, R., and Brenneisen, A., “The Fatigue Strength of 119-138.
Prestressing Steel,” Steel for Prestressing, FIP Symposium (Ma- 73. Moore, D.G.; Klodt, D.T.; and Hensen, R.J., “Protec-
drid, June 1968), Cement and Concrete Association, London, tion of Steel in Prestressed Concrete Bridges,” NCHRP Report
1969, pp. 95-117. No. 90, Highway Research Board, Washington, D.C., 1970,86
60. “Standard Specification for Uncoated Stress-Relieved pp.
Wire for Prestressed Concrete,” (A 421), American Society 74. Research Group for Steel for Prestressed Concrete,
for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia. See Section 1.3 for “Tests of Prestressing Steel,” Prestressed Concrete (Japan), V.
current reference. 3, No. 3, June 1961, pp. 46-53.
61. Ball, C.G., “Tensile Properties of Fatigue-Cycled USS 75. Mamada, K.; Naito, K.; and Mogami, T., “Tests on
High-Tensile-Strength, Stress-Relieved, Button-Anchoring- Anchorages for VSL Tendons,” Prestressed Concrete (Japan),
Quality 0.250-in. Diameter Wire,” Report, Project No. 57.019- V. 13, No. 4, Aug. 1971, pp. 42-48.
901 (ll), Applied Research Laboratory, U.S. Steel Corpora- 76. Leonhardt, Fritz, Prestressed Concrete-Design and
tion, Mar. 1963, 18 pp. Also, Part II, Western Concrete Construction translated by V. Amerongen, 2nd Edition, Wil-
215R-22 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT
helm Ernst and Sons, Berlin, 1964, pp. 136-141. 91. Abeles, Paul W., “Some New Developments in Pre-
77. Seki, M.; Yamamoto, S.; Shimbo, E.; and Toyokawa, stressed Concrete,” Structural Engineer (London), V. 29, No.
T., “Pulsating Tension Fatigue Strength of PC Steel Strand,” 10, Oct. 1951, pp. 259-278.
Journal, Japan Society for Materials Science (Kyoto), V. 18, 92. Fisher, J.W., and Viest, I.M., “Behavior of AASHO
No. 190, July 1969, pp. 12-16. Road Test Bridge Structures Under Repeated Overstress,”
78. Hanson, John M.; Hulsbos, Cornie L.; and Van Horn, Special Report No. 73, Highway Research Board, Washington,
David A., “Fatigue Tests of Prestressed Concrete I-Beams,” D.C., 1962, pp. 19-51.
Proceedings, ASCE, V. 96, ST11, Nov. 1970, pp. 2443-2464. 93. Hanson, John M., and Hulsbos, C.J., “Fatigue Tests of
79. Shah, Surendra P., and McGarry, Fred J., “Griffith Two Prestressed Concrete I-Beams with Inclined Cracks,”
Fracture Criteria and Concrete,” Proceedings, ASCE, V. 97, Highway Research Record, Highway Research Board, No. 103,
EM6, Dec. 1971, pp. 1663-1676. 1965, pp. 14-30.
80. Chang, Tien S., and Kesler, Clyde E., “Fatigue Be- 94. Fordyce, Phil, and Yrjanson, W.A., “Modern Design of
havior of Reinforced Concrete Beams,” ACI JOURNAL, Pro- Concrete Pavements,” Proceedings, ASCE, V. 95, TE3, Aug.
ceedings V. 55, No. 2, Aug. 1958, pp. 245-254. 1969, p. 407.
81. “Standard Specification for Uncoated High-Strength 95. ACI Committee 325, “Recommended Practice for
Steel Bar for Prestressing Concrete,” (A 722), American Design of Concrete Pavements (ACI 325-58)." Withdrawn as
Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia. See Section an ACI standard June 1976.
1.3 for current reference. 96. ACI Committee 325, “A Design Procedure for Contin-
82. Ekberg, C.E. Jr.; Walther, R.E.; and Slutter, R.G., uously Reinforced Concrete Pavements for Highways,” ACI
“Fatigue Resistance of Prestressed Concrete Beams in JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 69, No. 6, June 1972, pp. 309-319.
Bending,” Proceedings, ASCE, V. 83, ST4, July 1957, pp. 97. “Thickness Design for Concrete Pavements,” Publica-
1304-l to 1304-17. tion No. IS010P, Portland Cement Association, Skokie, 1966,
83. Hilmes, J.B., and Ekberg, C.E., “Statistical Analysis of 32 pp.
the Fatigue Characteristics of Underreinforced Prestressed 98. “AASHO Interim Guide for the Design of Pavement
Concrete Flexural Members,” Iowa Engineering Experiment Structures,” American Association of State Highway Officials,
Station, Iowa State University, Ames, 1965. Washington, D.C., 1972.
84. Abeles, Paul W.; Barton, Furman W.; and Brown, Earl 99. Hutchinson, R.L., “Basis for Rigid Pavement Design
I. II, “Fatigue Behavior of Prestressed Concrete Bridge for Military Airfields,”Miscellaneous Paper No. 5-7, U.S.
Beams,” First International Symposium on Concrete Bridge Army Corps of Engineers Ohio Division Laboratory, Cincin-
Design, SP-23, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1969, nati, May 1966, 74 pp.
pp. 579-599. 100. Yoder, E.J., Principles of Pavement Design, John Wiley
85. Abeles, Paul W., and Brown, Earl I. II, “Expected and Sons, Inc., New York, 1959, 569 pp.
Fatigue Life of Prestressed Concrete Highway Bridges as 101. Thomlinson, J., “Temperature Variations and Conse-
Related to the Expected Load Spectrum,” Second Internation- quent Stresses Produced by Daily and Seasonal Temperature
al Symposium on Concrete Bridge Design, SP-26, American Cycles in Concrete Slabs,”Concrete and Constructional
Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1971, pp. 962-1010. Engineering (London), V. 35, June-July 1940.
86. Abeles, Paul W.; Brown, E.I. II; and Hu, C.H., 102. Nagataki, Shigeyoshi, “Shrinkage and Shrinkage Re-
“Fatigue Resistance of Under-Reinforced Prestressed Beams straints in Concrete Pavements,” Proceedings, ASCE, V. 96,
Subjected to Different Stress Ranges, Miner’s Hypothesis,” ST7, July 1970, pp. 1333-1358.
Abeles Symposium on Fatigue of Concrete, SP-41, American 103. Hudson, W. Ronald, and Matlock, Hudson, “Analysis
Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1974, pp. 279-300. of Discontinuous Orthotropic Pavement Slabs Subjected to
87. Tachau, Herman, Discussion of “Fatigue Tests of Pre- Combined Loads,”Highway Research Record, Highway
stressed Concrete I-Beams” by John M. Hanson, Cornie L. Research Board, No. 131, 1966, pp. l-48.
Hulsbos, and David A. Van Horn, Proceedings, ASCE, V. 97, 104. “State of the Art: Rigid Pavement Design, Research
ST9, Sept. 1971, pp. 2429-2431. on Skid Resistance, Pavement Condition Evaluation,” Special
88. Venuti, William J., “A Statistical Approach to the Report No. 95, Highway Research Board, Washington, D.C.,
Analysis of Fatigue Failure of Prestressed Concrete Beams,” 1968, 68 pp.
ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 62, No. 11, Nov. 1965, pp. 105. Pickett, Gerald, and Ray, G.K., “Influence Charts for
1375-1394. Concrete Pavements,” Transactions, ASCE, V. 116, 1951, pp.
89. Magura, Donald C., and Hognestad, Eivind, “Tests of 49-73.
Partially Prestressed Concrete Girders,” Proceedings, ASCE, 106. Packard, R.G., “Computer Program for Airport Pave-
V. 92, ST1, Feb. 1966, pp. 327-350. ment Design,” Portland Cement Association, Skokie, 1967.
90. Rosli, Alfred, and Kowalczyk, Ryszard, “Fatigue Tests 107. “Design of Concrete Airport Pavements,” Publication
and Load Test to Failure of a Prestressed Concrete Bridge,” No. EBO5OP, Portland Cement Association, Skokie, 1972,48
Proceedings, 4th Congress of the FIP (Rome-Naples, 1962), pp.
Federation Internationale de la Precontrainte, Paris, V. 1, pp. 108. “The AASHO Road Test-Report No. 5, Pavement
136-140, (Published by Cement and Concrete Association, Research,” Special Report No. 61E, Highway Research Board,
London, 1963). Washington, D.C., 1962, 352 pp.
FATIGUE LOADING DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS 215R-23
109. “Structural Welding Code-Reinforcing Steel,” AWS A.2-Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete
D1.4, American Welding Society, Miami, Florida. See Section (ACI 318-89)
1.3 for current reference. The provisions for prestressed concrete related to repeti-
110. Rabbat, B.G., Kaar, P.H., Russell, H.G., and Bruce, tive loads contain the following requirement:
Jr., R.N., “Fatigue Tests of Pretensioned Girders with 18.19.3 In unbonded construction subject to repetitive
Blanketed and Draped Strands,” Journal, Prestressed Con- loads, special attention shall be given to the possibility of
crete Institute, V. 24, No. 4, Jul./Aug. 1979, pp. 88-115. fatigue in the anchorages or couplers.
111. Overman, T.R., Breen, J.E., and Frank, K.H., “Fatigue
Behavior of Pretensioned Concrete Girders,” Research Report A.3-Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, American
300-2F, Center for Transportation Research, The University Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials,
of Texas at Austin, November 1954, 354 pp. Fourteenth Edition, 1989
112. Brooks, J.J., and Forsyth, P., “Influence of Cyclic Fatigue considerations in this design specification include
Load on Creep of Concrete,” Magazine of Concrete Research the following provisions for reinforcement:
V. 38, No. 136, Sept. 1986, pp. 139-150. In AASHTO article 8.16.8.3, the range of stress in straight
113. Cornelissen, H.A.W., and Reinhart, H.W., “Fatigue of reinforcement caused by live load plus impact at service load
Plain Concrete in Uniaxial Tension and in Alternating Ten- level, is limited to:
sion-Compression Loading,” Proceedings, International
Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering Collo- ff = 21 - 0.33 fmin + 8 (r/h)
quium, Lausanne, 1982, pp. 273-282.
114. Muller, H.H., “Fatigue Strength of Prestressing where:
Tendons,” Betopwerk und Fertigteiltechnik, Dec. 1986, pp.
f = stress range in kips per square in.;
804-808.
fmin = algebraic minimum stress level, tension positive,
115. Oertle, J., “Reibermundung einbetonierter Spannkabel
(Fretting Fatigue of Post-Tensioning Tendons),” Dissertation compression negative in kips per square in.;
ETH Nr.8609, ETH Zurich (Swiss Federal Institute of Tech- r/h = ratio of base radius to height of rolled-on trans-
nology), 1988. verse deformations; when the actual value is not
116. Rigon, C., and Thurlimann, B., “Fatigue Tests of Post- known, use 0.3.
Tensioned Concrete Beams,” Report 8101-1, Institute fur Bau-
statik und Konstruktion, ETH Zurich (Swiss Federal Institute In bent bars, the fatigue limit of the bend is considerably
of Technology), May 1985. reduced. Thus, bends in primary reinforcement are to be
117. Wollmann, G.P., Yates, D.L., Breen, J.E., and Kreger, avoided at sections having a high range of stress. Fatigue
M.E., “Fretting Fatigue in Post-Tensioneed Concrete,” stress limits need not be considered for concrete deck slabs
Research Report 465-2F, Center for Transportation Research, with primary reinforcement perpendicular to traffic and
The University of Texas of Austin, Nov. 1988, 148 pp. 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 rein-
APPENDIX-SUMMARY OF SELECTED forcement stress in negative moment regions is limited to
SPECIFICATIONS RELATING TO FATIGUE* 20,000 psi.
less than that of prestressing steel itself, they are to be A.8-Denmark: DS 411:1984
located at sections where variable stresses are small. The code gives procedures for the evaluation of reinforced
concrete structures that are subject to fatigue loading. Fa-
A.5-Japan Society of Civil Engineers, Standard Specifi- tigue strength is defined as that stress range which loads to
cation for Design and Construction of Concrete Structures - fatigue fracture in 2 million cycles. The characteristic fatigue
1986, Part I (Design) strength is defined as the 50 percent fractile at 2 million
In the Standard Specification, the limit state design cycles. For reinforcement, the fatigue strength may be deter-
method is applied. One of the three limit state categories is mined from a Modified Goodman-Smith diagram, using tabu-
the fatigue limit state. Suggested values for partial safety lated values for various types of steel. The fatigue strength of
factors are given to the fatigue limit state. Fatigue strengths concrete is similarly determined from a Modified Goodman-
of concrete and steel are given by empirical formulas. For Smith diagram.
prestressing steel, however, it is not given because of lack of
experimental data. A.9-Finland: B4:1987
Computation of forces for the fatigue limit state is based Structures subjected to variable loading causing consider-
on linear analysis. Examination of the fatigue limit state is able fatigue effects are analyzed as for static loading but with
based on comparison of applied stress in materials with reduced material capacity. The design strength of concrete
fatigue strength or comparison of applied force at the section subjected to compressive fatigue loading is 0.6 times the static
with fatigue capacity of the section. Computation methods for design strength plus 0.4 the minimum cyclic stress, the sum
stress due to variable load are given for reinforcement and being less than the static design strength. The design strength
concrete subjected to flexure and axial force and for shear of reinforcement subjected to fatigue loading is obtained
reinforcement. The shear fatigue capacity of concrete beams from a similar formula except that the static strength factor
without shear reinforcement and the punching shear fatigue varies according to reinforcement bend radius and welding
capacity of concrete slabs are given by experimentally conditions.
obtained formulas. Detailing recommendations include limitations on the max-
imum spacing of parallel bars, the anchorage, splicing and
A.6-The West German Code for Prestressed Concrete (DIN bundling of reinforcing bars.
4227, Part I, July 1988)
Only such prestressing steels and prestressing systems are A.10-Iceland: IST 14:1989
to be used which have obtained approval by the governmental The fatigue provisions of this code are identical with those
building authorities. This approval is based upon the results of the Danish Code.
of proof testing which includes the determination of fatigue
characteristics. However, no generally applicable require- A.ll-Sweden: BBK 79-1:1979
ments are set up with regard to fatigue characteristics of pre- The maximum concrete design stress is reduced in accor-
stressing steels. dance with a maximum-minimum stress diagram when the
concrete is subjected to fatigue loading. No risk is considered
A.7-The West German Code for Reinforced Concrete (DIN to be at hand when the stresses fall inside the appropriate
1045, 1988) curve. Reference curves are provided in multiples of 10 for
For reinforcing steel III S U; = 420 N/mm’; 59500 psi) N = 1,000 to
and IV S (I’y = 500 N/mm2; 70800 psi) the stress range under N = l,OOO,OOO.
working load is not to exceed the following values: Reinforcement design stress is similarly reduced when
fatigue conditions arise. No risk of fatigue fracture is con-
-straight or slightly bent bars, pin diameters for bending d sidered to exist if the stress range for N cycles is less than or
2 25 d,, where d, = diameter of reinforcing bar: equal to a tabulated stress range value divided by a safety
180 N/mm2; 25500 psi factor. The tabulated value depends on bending and splicing
-bent sections, pin diameters 25 ds > d > 10 ds: conditions.
140 N/mm2; 19800 psi
-bent sections, pin diameter d > 10 ds: A.12-CEB-FIP Model Code Draft
100 N/mm2; 14200 psi The first draft of the CEB-FIP Model Code 1990 was pub-
lished as CEB-Bulletin D'Information No. 196, March 1990.
For welded reinforcing mats IV M (& = 500 N/mm2; 59500 Fatigue provisions are provided for plain concrete, reinforced
psi) and for welded splices, the stress range generally is not concrete and prestressed concrete based upon fatigue as an
to exceed 80 N/mm2 (11300 psi). Welded reinforcing mats ultimate limit state. The draft may undergo some changes
with bar diameters ds < 4.5 mm are not to be used in struc- before it is finalized.
tures subjected to fatigue loading. The standard contains
additional provisions for shear reinforcement.