_—— TITLE NO. 68-18 Fatigue Strength of Hot Rolled Deformed Reinforcing Bars By JAMES G. MACGREGOR, |. C.-JHAMB, and N. NUTTALL This paper reports fatigue tests on 445, 8, and In each case the reinforcing bars were rolled from 10 reinforcing bars (16, 25, and 32 mm diameter, new billets. The AI5 and A432 reinforcement were respectively) with nominal yield strengths of 40, produced in a continuous casting steel mill from steel 60, and 75 ksi (2800, 4200, and 5300 kgf/cm). scrap remelted in an electric furnace. The A431 rein- Tests were carried out on reinforced concrete forcement was produced trom an open-hearth process beams containing one such bar and on specimens The chemical composition of the nine types of steel, machi ed fem ‘he bers. Although the. fat sue obtained from mill test reports is presented in Table 1 strength of the machined specimens varied directly The reinforeing bars had two longitudinal as the ultimate tensile siength of the bars, the parallel tranaverse feos haan ajltudinal ribs, and fatigue strengths of the bars themselves were bar axis. In all cases the transverse lugs mersed inte essentially constant and equal to 30 ksi (2100 the longitudinal ribs. The bar diameter, tug heen, ond kgf/cm?) for a zero to maximum tension cycle. This lug spacing on the bars were measured with a microm- Raper suggest that thls may be caused by the ter and the radii at the bases of lugs were oblained docarburized outer surface of the bars and stress using an optical comparator, ‘The average veluss ef concentrations at the base of the deformations. diameter, lug height, lug spacing, and lug base radil Keywords: beams (supports); cyclic loads; de- foreach bar aré given in Table 2, formed reinforcement; fatigue (materials); high Two reinforeing bars of each size in each grade of strength steels; reinforced concrete: reinforcing steel were tested in tension, to determine the mechani- st rch; tonsile strength. cal properties of the bars, ‘The stress-strain curves for the three grades of #5, 8, and 10 bars are shown in. Fig. 1. In addition, the ultimate tensile strength of the metal in the center of the #8 bars was measured using two standard rotating beam specimens machined trom each grade. The laboratory test data is summarized in 5; res Table 1. Iw ReceNT veans A LARGER and larger percentage ‘The microstructure of the metal was studied for each of the North American reinforcing bar market is of the nine types of bars used in the tests. Photomicro. taken by high strength hot rolled deformed bars. _@ravhs are shown in Fig. 2 of the regiow at the have of Such bars show definite economic advantages over. _@ *Tansverse lug for #8 bars of the three grades, The conventional reinforeing bars in’ many cireum- rhs me te rantrceent was pushed ABTH Specie stances. Before high strength reinforeing bars can _plsced jn. tbea by ASTSr Ati8-63 Grade di, Grace’, and Grae be used in bridges, however, it is essential to learn something about their fatigue strength. The 5 ee a ee Pe oo oa gireoneg Us of are Eines Se Ae ings reported in various countries.“ ACI technical commits work, he testo the auikor’ oF numerous’ esearch papers desing. with reinforced concrete Currently, Or. MacGroger is chairman of ACIASCE Commies TEST SPECIMENS AND PROCEDURE 426, Shoor and iogonal Tensor and e morbar of AGENCE ° Ganmiies 41, Ronfoned Contec Celene, tnd ACI Cove Properties of reinforcement mitee 44, Response of Bulings vo Lael Fora ‘The reinforcement used in this program included #8, 8, them 9 grade student in cl enginting ot the, Univers of Aldea He hes prevesly eoreed 6M 4, and 10 bars of three grades, meeting ASTM specifi- tel MS depres tthe Unterties Sloan Rosey, a cations: AIS (intermediate grade), A492, and AdSi.* iors All the bars of any one size and grade were selected N, Not is» sutra engnger with Stanley and Assoc from the same heat, the heats being chosen on the | wer elena (Pinna Cen chy ct basis of similar yield stress for the three sizes of any | on MS ceore'n til engacsong’ iran i Untetiy ot ‘one grade. : Atom ‘ACI JOURNAL / MARCH 1971 189TABLE I—PROPERTIES OF REINFORCING BARS Bar Sie 1 a # Ea Grade of eel [Sais [ame [vaer [aw] | Aen | AS [Awa TAs ‘ie atronath (oa), Ra woo} ma | ase | ss | ia | 7 | oa | ooo Uitmats mtrensth (0) seo | ama | amt | ar | too | ams | ma | 0s | 1098 ‘eat stent (machine | Speake -— |= — | oo | seo | ime | — | = > Elongation, percent aa_| ws | io | mos | “eo | ‘S80 | 2 | ise |_ ue Content, percent | | T [~ ‘Carbon ose | os | ose | om | os | om | — | om | 48 Stangunese oe | tm | aa | oe | tk) ta | = | tm) ae Ssiphor dow | cow | oon | tore | oan | ous | =) cams | oma Proaphorue cos | oo | cow | cous | nas | “ome | — | com | ome Silicon = “ tm | oa} 2 |S oe Vanadium _— = ooo | = co | = = 0.08, +35, and 19 bars ave fomioa) diameters of Ta, 3, and mi, respectively THRE HR YS Hee cepeter OF 18S. ene S mm respechvey TABLE 2—PROPERTIES OF REINFORCING BARS Bar sie - ED # ee Grace of seal kig_[ Awe _[_at | _AB Awa AwT | ano] Aa Tit weight ib per RP Tis [aa [aaa | aet—| 200 | 208 | uae | Tas Diameter int tsee | esto | os | ose ‘aoe | ims | tas | tate Fatt width oft, ton | samo | oom | o2z0 | aio | om | eiss | O30 Height of has in pa | “as | om | cose sae | ome | sors | tare Specing of ge. cam | oa | ome | cae | cave | oa | oss | cass Face angle of lugs, dew | 's so | a2 a ° “4 no 6 ‘Radius of base of lugs, in. — ~ ‘Steeper ste (average) | oss | oo | coe | ome | oo | om | oonr | ome | ome Stancard deviation Soow | eames | coo | Som | ome | sous } naar | coma | 600s ‘iner sds (averege) ones | tous | tam | >oms | tose | oon |>oms | cos | cose Standand woviation oor | eonee | ome | | | soo |" | ooo | nce i gat elon, + arseipiy h7ee by 180 to ¥ MulUply Inches by 254% fet man AIS steel had a banded or wrought structure in the central core which essentially disappeared as one ap~ prozched the outside of the bar. The A431 steel had a higher carbon content and had a finer grain structure than the other two steels, A few ghost-like bands due to phosphorus concentrations could be seen in the cen- ter of the A431 bars but these tended to disappear as fone moved towards the surface, In general the micro- structure of the #5 and #10 bars were similar except that the average grain size was smaller in the #5 bars and was larger in the #10 bars. The #5 A431 bars had a much finer grain structure than any of the other bars tested. ‘A zone of decarburization was observed at the sur- face of all nine bar types. This zone can be seen in 109 STRESS —Ksi ‘502 Ova B06 STRAIN ‘3508 O10 Fig. | Stress-strain curves for test bars Fig. 2, The presence of this zone may significantly lower ‘the fatigue strength of the reinforcing bars since the decarburized zone is largely made up of low strength ferrite crystals, The decarburization zone seemed to be thinner in the A432 bars than in the others. An oxidized layer is also visible on all three bars shown in Fig. 2. In no case were cracks observed in the surface of the bars. ‘The metallographs also showed longitudinal discon- tinuous inclusions which were primarily carbon. The intensity of the inclusions seemed to be similar in all the steels, These inclusions were classified as C* (back~ ground classification) according to standard ASTM charts, The inclusions present were not excessive, and their influence on fatigue strength was probably not significant since they were oriented parallel to the direction of stress. Description of test program ‘The test program consisted of flexural fatigue tests of 72 reinforced concrete beams and 36 standard rotat- ing beam fatigue tests. The flexural fatigue tests were divided into 12 series, each consisting of six reinforced concrete beams of the same dimensions and reinforce- ment, Nine series including all combinations of the three grades and three bar sizes were tested at a minimum stress Ievel of one-tenth of the nominal yield strength, O.fy. In the remaining three series, beams containing the three grades of #8 bar were tested at a minimum stress level of four-tenths of the nominal yield strength, Offs, The rotating beam fatigue tests were divided into three series of 12 specimens, each series being machined from one of the three grades of #8 bars. ‘ACI JOURNAL / MARCH 1971(0) ASTM AIS BAR (b) ASTM 4432 BAR —_— DIRECTION OF ROLLING (c) ASTM A431 BAR 0 02 04° 0 001 002 Lit La SCALE- MM SCALE — INCHES Fig. 2—Microstructure of ##8 reinforcing bars at base of deformation lug Dimensions of test specimens To facilitate comparison of test results, the reinforced concrete beams in this investigation were designed to be geometrically similar to those used in previous tests carried out by the Portland Cement Association. The beams reinforced with #8 bars were identical to those described in References 1, 2, and 3. The nominal dimensions of the conerete beams are shown in Fig. 3. In all the beams the main reinforcement was placed with the longitudinal ribs on the sides of the bars. A transverse wooden strip was placed in the bottom of ‘the beam at midspan to initiate a crack at this point, ‘The concrete strength varied from 3715 to 6050 psi (261 to 425 kgf/cm?) with two-thirds of the beams alling between 4500 and 5500 psi (916 to 386 kgt/cm?). The beams were tested at ages ranging from 28 to 369 days. The details of the rotating beam fatigue specimen shown in Fig. 3 were taken from the instruetion manual supplied with the fatigue testing machine. One #8 reinforcing ber was taken from each grade of steel and twelve pieces of the required size were cut from each bar, The test specimens were turned on a precision automatic lathe following a template, The rotating beam specimens came from the center of the reinforcing bar pieces. In each case the surface of the rotating beam speci- ‘men was polished using 0, 00, and 000 emery paper, successively, in the longitudinal direction. Care was taken to make sure that surface finish was free from nicks, scratches and tool marks. Testing equipment and procedure ‘The reinforeed concrete beams were tested using a hydraulic pulsator and jacks of 22, 5, and 110 kips (10, 25 and 50 metric tons) dynamic eepacity. The hydraulic jack was mounted in a steel frame anchored to the test Hloor of the University of Alberta Structural Engineer- ACI JOURNAL / MARCH 1971 ing Laboratory. The pulsator was operated at 500 cycles per min, ‘The minimum loads on the beam were set to provide a minimum bar stress of either 0.1 or 0.4 times the yield stress of the reinforcing bar. The maximum load was varied in a manner designed to produce an S-N curve for each series. Essentially sinusoidal loading cycles were applied to the beams until failure occurred or 5 million cycles had been applied. The beams which sustained 5 million cycles without failure were retested at a higher maximum load. In all cases the reinforcement stresses were computed using the straight line theory of flexure assuming the modulus of elasticity of concrete as given in ACI 318-63 and that of steel as 29,000 ksi (2,089,000 Kgt/em®). Throughout the calculations nominal areas of 0.31, 0.79, and 1.27 sq in, (2.0, 5.1, and 8.19 em?) were used for the #5, 8, and 10 bars respectively. According to straight. line theory calculations the #3 stirrup support bars affected the calculated steel stress by less than 0.4 percent and they were ignored in calculating the steel stresses in the beams, For all three beam sizes the possible error in the bar stress due to errors in estimat- ing the pulsator dial readings was of the order of 0.2 ksi (14 kgf/em?), The rotating beam specimens were tested in a rotat~ ing. beam fatigue testing machine, This is a rotating cantilever beam type model, which can be set to apply a given moment at the section halfway along the length of the specimen. ‘The specimen is rotated under a load at a speed between 500 and 12,000 revolutions per min by a rheostat controlled motor. In this way a com- pletely reversed sinusoidal stress cycle is applied to the specimen. A speed of 6000 revolutions per min was used in the tests reported here, Cyclic loads were applied to the rotating beam speci- mens until they either developed a fatigue crack or had sustained 10 million cycles. 'The specimens which endured 10 million cycles were retested at higher alternating stresses, The loads were selected to estab- lish S-N curves with a well défined fatigue limit. imave] La Series 7, Band sheaves (228 em) 28..em 2 No.3 Bars (10mm) fT No Sterns [24] No.5 Bor (ibm 900m) 9 Beams- No.5 Bars ML vente lel 72" 182m) (aseet le ra Series 1to6 Beams-No. 8 Bars Thos em) (298m 1s No,10 Bar 90" (728em) Camm) 7 r 82m) Series 10, Nand 12 Beoms-No. 10Bare ee ne Rotating Beam Specimens Fig. 3—Details of test specimens TEST RESULTS forced concrete Descriptions of failures of beam specimens All the reinforced concrete beam specimens failed due to fatigue failure of the tension rein- forcement. In general, three major cracks ap- peared in each beam at the initial loading. The central crack started at the crack initiator and extended approximately as far as the rieutral axis, of the beam. The other two cracks were shear cracks symmetrically located on either side of the central crack. Longitudinal cracks were noted on the bottom of the beam below the bar. These cracks extended each way from each of the three flexural cracks about half a erack space in each direction. On removing the bars from the beams, ~ 112 a the bond between the bar and the concrete was found to be excellent in this region, however. In most cases the fatigue fracture of the rein- forcement occurred at or close to the performed crack at midspan. In four cases out of the 72 beams, the reinforcement fractured just over the stirrup nearest to midspan, In these cases there were distinct marks of rubbing between the reinforce- ment and the stirrup. Six beams failed at the first major inclined crack in the shear span at a dis- tance ranging from 2 to 9 5/8 in. (5 to 24 cm) from midspan. In 34 of the 36 beams containing #8 bars, the fractures originated at the base of a transverse lug at a point near the bottom of the bar. In the re- maining two beams, failure appeared to have orig- inated at the base of a transverse lug, where the ‘ACI JOURNAL / MARCH 1971 ilug merged into the longitudinal rib, It should be noted that the longitudinal ribs were in a horizontal plane in all beams. With three exceptions the fractures in the 18 beams containing #5 bars originated along the base of a transverse lug at a point near the bottom of the bar. In two beams, the fracture started at the bottom of the bar midway between two trans- verse lugs, while in the third the crack appeared to have started at the intersection of the longitu- dinal and transverse lugs. Of the 18 beams containing #10 bars in Series 10-12, seven beams failed due to bar fractures which initiated at the intersection of transverse and longitudinal lugs. In the remaining eleven beams, the fracture started at the base of a lug near the bottom of the bar, Presentation of test data ‘The computed stresses and the number of load cycles applied to each specimen are tabulated in Reference 15 along with S-N curves for each of the 15 test series, To save space, only six of these COMPUTED RANGE OF STRESS (K: BS MINIMUM ste6s50 5:2 a a a NUMBER OF CYCLES milons) [a) SERES 1 -ASTM AIS BARS COMPUTED RANGE OF STRESS (ksi os ag NUMBER OF CYCLES (millions) (c) SERIES 3 -ASTM A 431 BARS ‘S-NV curves have been reproduced in this paper. Fig. 4a, 4b, and 4e present S-N curves for the three grades of #8 bar for one minimum stress level. Each point refers to one test of a reinforced con- crete beam. Because of the small number of points, the lines in each of these curves were fitted by observation. The S-N ctirves from Fig. 4a, 4b, and 4c are compared in Fig. 4d. The fatigue strength at 5 million cycles is essentially constant for all three grades of steel. This agrees with the findings of research on hot rolled deformed bars presented in References 1 to 8, 7, and 14. The fatigue strengths obtained in this and other test series are compared in Fig. 7 which is discussed later in this paper. The fatigue strengths of reinforcing bars in beams at 5 million cycles obtained from these and similar curves are listed in Table 3. The test data for the three series of rotating beam specimen is reported in Fig. 5a to Sc. The curves in these figures were fitted to the data by observation, In the ease of specimens which were retested, the strengths were discounted by 5 per- cent for each retest, when drawing the lines, to fase onetesr DAINIMUM STRESS 6. 6 8 z é 2 8 a8 NUMBER OF CYCLES (millions) (bb) SERIES 2 “ASTM A 432 BARS 8 € 2400 COMPUTED RANGE OF STRESS (Ksi) Fig. 4—S-N curves for 38 bars-minimum stress = 0.1 fy ACI JOURNAL / MARCH 1971 zi 7 2000 7 1600 PANU SRE :04 ne az Os 10 20 30 NUMBER OF CYCLES {mone (a) SERES 1, 2 AND 9 128 _}TABLE 3—CHARACTERISTICS AT FATIGUE LIMIT IN REINFORCED CONCRETE BEAM TESTS “Computed applied stress, ksi @., - unetare saugintam, meee strength, | ‘stress a ‘for complete sf ie ait | "ME B os 2 B 1235 " 306 19.0 & oss H 1235 * 3 gee | oer | g # wi an | Bi H a 8 Ea # 3 + Corresponding to 5 million stress cycles | BSR ROaLIRS Goede diapers aiuming stralgnt-iine envelopes fee eaten cst e z 2 no i 2 g 5 g NUMBER OF CYCLES (ilons] NUMBER OF CYCLES (ilons] {a} SERES A ASTM. A 15 BARS (bo) SERES 8 ~ ASTM A 432 BARS a ” 129 | ™ a a ) "ya sso NUMBER OF CYCLES (milons) NUMBER OF CYCLES (milons) (c) SERES C- ASTM A 431 BARS (d) SERES 4,8. AND C Fig. 5—S-N curves for rotating beam specimens eee ACI JOURNAL / MARCH 1871 aiapproximately account for the coaxing effect.® The fatigue strengths at 5 million eycles obtained from Fig. 5 are summarized in Table 4. The three S-N curves from Fig. 5a to 5e are compared in Fig. 5d. In contrast to Fig. 4d, Fig. 5d shows a considerable change in the endurance limit for the three grades of steel in the rotating beam tests. ‘The limiting stress ranges of 48 bars at a mini- mum stress of 0.1 f, and 04 j, can be compared using the modified Goodman diagrams shown in Fig. 6. These diagrams are plotted for stress cycles corresponding to the fatigue strength at 5 million cycles as determined from the S-N curves similar to those in Fig. 4. In a Goodman diagram the average stresses in the cycles are plotted horizon tally and the maximum and minimum stresses in the cycles are plotted vertically. The envelopes to the test data in Fig. 6 can be represented with straight lines. The stress ranges reported in Col- umn 8 of Table 3 were obtained from these and similar Goodman diagrams. These test diagrams suggest that the test data for different grades of hot rolled reinforcing bars tested at various minimum stress levels may be approximated by modified Goodman diagrams with straight line envelopes. Although this con- clusion differs from that reached by other investi- gators, it is supported by Goodman diagrams for data from ‘other investigations of hot rolled rein- foreing bars? ¢ For cold worked reinforcing bars there is evidence that the envelopes are curved and tend to be parallel in range of practical tensile stresses.‘ ‘The straight line envelope to the Goodman dia- gram can be approximated by Eq. (1): ace = Sn + Inn Safi) ) where fooo = maximum stress in a given cycle fois = minimum stress in the cycle fn = stress range in a cycle having a mini- mum stress equal to zero fu = tensile strength of material DISCUSSION OF TEST RESULTS Effect of bar diameter on fatigue strength In metal fatigue literature it is generally con- cluded that the fatigue strength of small speci mens and specimens with significant stress gradients due to notching or flexural loading are affected by size* Thus, the fatigue strength of machined specimens tends to increase as the speci- men diameter is reduced below about 3/8 in. (1 cm). The size effect tends to disappear, however, in specimens comparable in size to most reinfore- ing bars. ‘ACI JOURNAL / MARCH 1971 For hot rolled reinforeing bars of identical manufacturing process and geometrically similar deformations, Wascheidt* reports that bars equiv- alent to #8 bars had 5 to 10 percent lower fatigue strength than those equivalent to #5 bars. These tests were in agreement with observations made on concrete reinforced with multirib cold worked steel by several investigators in Germany. Recent tests in Japan’ on hot rolled deformed reinforcing bars suggest a small decrease in fatigue strength with an increase in bar size for both plain and deformed bars. These tests were conducted on reinforced concrete beams containing bars having diameters equivalent to #46 and #8 bars. The bars of both sizes were manufactured using the same manufacturing process and had similar deforma- tions. ‘The findings reported by Wascheidt! and by Kokubu and Okamura’ are summarized in Table 5 for comparison with the University of Alberta test data. The fatigue strengths of the deformed bars show a small reduction with an increase in the bar diameter or cross-sectional area. This effect seemed to be more pronounced for higher strength bars in the Alberta tests but the opposite trend ‘was observed in Wascheidt’s tests. ‘The variation in fatigue strength with size could possibly be explained by the fact that the grain size tends to be smaller in small diameter bars. In general the fatigue strength tends to increase with a reduction in grain size The variation in strength with size can be roughly approximated by Eq. (2): Ky = 0.92 + 0.06/A (2) where K, = ratio of fatigue strength of a given bar to that of a 1 in. diameter bar A = cross-sectional area of bar, sq in. The strength ratios predicted by Eq. (2) are given in the last line of Table 5. Effect of tensilé strength on fatigue strength ‘The fatigue strength of the rotating beam speci- mens cut from #8 bars tested in this investigation increased almost linearly with the increase in the strength of the steel es shown by the data in Table 4. In these tests, the metal cut from the center of the reinforcing bars could resist fatigue stresses ranging from 61 to 59 percent of the ten- sile strength of the bars. This indicates that the metal in the higher grade steel bars has the ability to resist higher fatigue stresses and the fatigue strength at complete reversal is about 50 percent of the tensile strength of the metal. It should be noted in this respect that the rotating beam speci- mens were cut from the center of the bars and the hardness and metallographical observations re- 115@ 2, wt, ‘iota Sthengt ntimal® tense Until lense @ She "tx'ban ‘rength of bar, strength pf apectinen Nominal tress range,* standard ie ai minal ‘a5 y on m0 25 ‘ase 58 a0 nao a5, ast on ims 1280 1st0 + Correrponting to § milion excles, computed for mininum diameter ignoring any effect of stress concentration, 4} Multiiy ie by 703 to obtain keto" = 3 = Zz 2 2 z 2g z 3 2 3 = 60 | 40 Fy 90 STATIC WATIMATE STRESS 12509 = ff ce “Le =n LE of wero statss 777 Es E sob 7500 § = “/ 2 3 y 2 2 20] / z © Fosty minimum sraess 32 y 2500 10] 2 Cony MINIMUM STRESS = eee 2 Oo Hei) 3 1°) / 25007500 Tao0 (ka f/em?) 2 20] MEAN STRESS 3 20] (a) ASTM A15 BARS 130 STATIC ULTIMATE STRESS 0 g STATIC ULTIMATE STRESS a Be go 0 “ae ia = La “a sok view srRess— Lae a 8¢0 0 ee” Loo B 00] ea , My 2 7 fMsio stesso 7 ‘7 3 40] 0 = 50] Z Zz / 2 0 - 7 Be LF ty MINMun STRESS 7 / oats misao sess Zz V J a / Zio.” 5 Xo ty MINIMUM STRESS, 2 ZK pity, mung STRESS 19720-3010 $0 60 70 80-90 100 TO = [ip a0 @ 5 60 70 80 90 100 10 10 TO 19) MEAN STRESS (Ksi) BS MEAN STRESS (Ksi) 2 30 « (b) ASTM A 432 BARS (c) ASTM A 431 BARS Fig. 6—Modified Goodman diagrams for #£8 bars ‘ACI JOURNAL / MARCH 1971TABLE 5—EFFECT OF DIAMETER ON FATIGUE STRENGTH “ae ess a ‘er = ie 3 ieee : ia 3 ot 3 Bias & Eee 3 “Average ‘Strength tio Ba) * All atrength ratios corrected to 2 zero to maximum + iba difineer Ratio of fatigue strengtn to Htlgae readin ef ba ‘ba (kg f/em?) 02000 00060007000 ‘8000 _—9000 2 3000 = 40 = © 30 — 2 2000 = ALBERTA OTHERS s % 2 NO.S BARS + * 2) 3s NO. 6 BARS ° ~ 3 1000 or No.8 BARS ° < NO.10 BARS # MINIMUM. STRESS + 0 ksi ° lo 50 6070 8099 100-0120 TENSILE STRENGTH (ksi) Fig. 7—Effect of tensile strength on fatigue strength of reinforcing bars vealed that the metal properties were not uniform across the bar cross sections, In contrast to the strength of the rotating beam specimens, the fatigue strength of reinforcing bars in reinforced concrete beam tests was found almost constant for eight out of nine bars investigated as shown in Table 3 and by solid lines in Fig. 7. The exception was the A431 #5 bar which showed an increase of about 15 percent in the stress range as compared to A15 and A432 steel bars of the same size, The grain structure in this bar was much finer than in the other #5 bars and in addi- tion, the ratio of the radius at the base of the de- formations to the height of the lugs was about three times that for the AIS and A432 #5 bars, In Fig. 7 the test results from this investigation are compared with the available test data on hot- rolled deformed reinforcing bars." * In plotting this figure, Goodman diagrams with the shape given by Eq. (1) were used to adjust all data to a stress cycle with a minimum stress equal to ‘ACI JOURNAL / MARCH 1971 zero. As mentioned. previously, the Alberta tests, are shown by the solid lines in this figure. For design purposes it may be concluded that the fatigue strength of hot-rolled deformed rein forcing bars is not affected by changes in the ten- sile strength of the bars, and for a zero to maxi mum stress cycle may be taken equal to 27.5 ksi (1930 kgf/em*). ‘As shown in the preceding four paragraphs, the two types of fatigue tests reported in this paper gave very different results. The teinforced con- crete beam fatigue tests differed from the rotating beam tests in four principal ways: 1. The diameter and stressed length of the steel specimens was different. 2. The stress cycles and stress gradients differed. 3. The reinforcing bars had stress concentration due to the deformations. 4, The reinforcing bars had an as-rolled decar- burized outer surface as shown in Fig, 2 and the 1771TABLE 6—STRESS CONCENTRATION FACTORS AND COMPUTED FATIGUE STRENGTHS o | @ | sing geen | EBERT “ “ : g | megan | ESEET |g aller |_ ole , ® BE Fea [mat |_ al m | “log [a | gy) 8 | Lz ne 68 1B oT] i | a2 |g | gf] Mk a iB) HO | | BB 8 Als, i | 50 Bs 38S 1.09 | te Bi || BP |e | ~ ~ ‘Mean 118 costtcin ot walt = berms rotating beam specimens had a polished machined surface. Previous research on the fatigue of metals sug- gests that differences in the fatigue strength due to Items 1 and 2 will tend to be small and inde- pendent of the tensile strength. Values of the “theoretical stress-concentration factors,” K,, from Derecho and Munse;* the “notch sensitivity factors,” q,.from Kuhn and Hardrath; and the “fatigue stress-concentration factors,” K;, calcu- lated from K, and q are presented in Table 6. The variations in K; are not large enough to explain the differences between the fatigue strength of the two types of specimen. Several investigators!" have reported that when the surface of steel specimens is decar- burized, their fatigue strength is significantly reduced. This phenomenon occurs because the (kgf/cm?) ». 4000 8000 1200014000 wr a «= Machined A © Machined and Decarburized 8000 & Ratforeng Bor ~ Adjusted for Ky to0|- + Machined Reinforcing Bore : 6000 ENDURANCE LIMIT si g (kg f/em?) © “s}2000 [oI ° a a re) UUIMATE TENSILE STRENGTH ~ ksi Fig, 8—Effect of decarburization on fatigue strength \ 118 decarburized metal on the outside of specimens where the fatigue cracks start is weaker than that in the interior of the specimens due to the lower carbon content in the decarburized zone. The solid circles in Fig. 8 represent test data for machined steel specimens of various tensile strengths tested in reversed bending." The open circles in this figure represent companion tests which were decarburized after machining. Al- though the solid points show good agreement with the well known fatigue strength relation shown by the solid line in Fig. 8, the decarburized specimens fall considerably below this line. ‘The solid triangular points in Fig. 8 represent the complete reversal fatigue strengths of the rotating beam tests reported in this paper. The open triangular points represent the complete reversal fatigue strengths of the deformed bars (Column 8 of Table 3) multiplied by the caleu- lated fatigue stress concentration factors, K, (Col- umn 5 of Table 6). They thus represent the fa- tigue strength of the decarburized surface without any effect of the stress concentrations due to the bar deformations. The open triangular points fall in the same range as the decarburized machined specimens, This suggests that decarburization of the as-rolled surface of the bars may explain the poor fatigue strength of hot-rolled deformed rein- forcing bars. Calculation of fatigue strength on reinforcing bars From Fig. 7, a reasonable lower limit for the fatigue strength for 5,000,000 applications of a stress cycle with a minimum stress equal to zero, frs.co0.0 can be taken as 27.5 ksi (1930 kgf/cm*). If it is assumed that the average value of K; is about 1.5 for deformed bars, a reasonable lower limit on the corresponding fatigue strength of the decarburized outer layer can be taken as 1.5 times 27.5 ksi or 41 ksi (2880 kgf/cm). If it is as- sumed that the outer skin of all the bars had a AC] JOURNAL / MARCH 1971similar strength, it is possible to compute the fatigue strength of the bars in the Alberta test series using Eq. (1) with the value of fn in ksi as given by Eq. (3): In= (41/K)) Ka (3) where K, = area correction factor from Eq. (2) K, = fatigue stress concentration factor com- puted from data in References 9 and 10 The measured fatigue strengths are compared in Table 6 to those calculated using Ea. (1) and (3). ‘The mean ratio of test to computed strength is 1.16 with a standard variation of 3.2 percent. This calculation is carried out solely to indicate the more important variables affecting the fatigue strength. Additional fatigue tests and statistical and metallurgical studies are needed before a de- sign relationship can be proposed. CONCLUSIONS On the basis of the experimental results reported in this paper the following conclusions may be drawn: 1, The limiting stress range of the stress cycle is influenced by the minimum stress level of the cycle. The test data on hot-rolled reinforcing bars tested at various minimum stress levels may be approximated by a modified Goodman diagram with a straight line envelope. 2, The fatigue test data for #5, 8, and 10 bars conforming to ASTM A15, A432 and A431 indicates that the fatigue strength of hot-rolled deformed bars is relatively insensitive to the tensile strength of the metal. 3. The fatigue strength of the deformed rein- forcing bars was found to be appreciably lower than that of the bar metal. The difference may possibly be explained by the stress concentrations at the base of the deformations and the presence of a relatively low strength decarburized layer on the outside of all the deformed bars in this test series. 4, There is a small decrease in the fatigue strength with an increase in the diameter of the bar. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. The tests reported in this paper were carried out under a grant from the Research and Development Division of the Portland Cement Association. The work was started by N. Nuttall and completed by I. C, Shamb, who reported the test series in his Master of Science ACI JOURNAL / MARCH 1971 thesis, The authors wish to acknowledge the assistance of the Civil Engineering Department and the Mining and Metallurgical Engineering Department at The Uni- versity of Alberta. REFERENCES 1. Pfister, J. F., and Hognestad, E,, “High Strength Bars as Conerete Reinforcement, Part 6: Fatigue Tests Journal, PCA Research and Development Laboratories, V. 8, No. 1, Jan, 1964, pp. 65-84. 2. Burton, K. T., “Fatigue Tests of Reinforcing Bars,” Journal, PCA Research and Development Laboratories, V. 17, No. 8, Sept. 1985, pp. 13-23. 3. Hanson, J. Mj Burton, K. Ty; and Hognestad, E, “Fatigue Tests of Reinforcing Bars—Effect of Deforma- tion Pattern,” Journal, PCA Research and Development Laboratories, V. 10, No. 3, Sept. 1968, pp. 2-13, 4, Wascheldt, H., “On the Fatigue Strength of Em- bedded Concrete Reinforcing Steels (Zur trage der Dauerschwingfestigkeit von Betonstahlen im Einbeton- ierten Zustand),” Doctoral Thesis, Technical University of Achen, Germany, 1965, 5, Kokubu, M, and Okamura, H,, “Fatigue Behavior of High Strength Deformed Bars in Reinforced Concrete Bridges,” Journal, Faculty of Engineering, University of Tokyo, V. 29, 1968, 6, Lash, S. D.; MacLeod, N.; and Blackwell, W., “High ‘Strength Reinforcements in Reinforced Concrete Beams, Part 2—Crack Widths, Deflections, Fatigue Strength,” Report No. 38, Department of Civil Engineering, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, June 1965, 86 pp. 7, Kokubu, M,, and Okamura, H., “Fundamental Study on Fatigue Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Beams Using High Strength Deformed Bars,” Transactions, Japan Society of Civil Engineers (Tokyo), No. 122, Oct. 1065, pp. 1-28. (in Japanese with English Summary) 8, Forrest, P. G., Fatigue of Metals, Pergamon Press, New York, 1962, 9, Derecho, A. T., and Munse, W. H,, “Stress Con- centration at External Notches in Members Subjected to Axial Loadings," Bulletin No, 404, Engineering Ex- periment Station, University of Mlinois, 1968. 10. Kuhn, P,, and Hardrath, H. F, “An Engineering Method for Estimating Notch Size Effect in Fatigue Tests on Steels,” Technical Note No. 2805, National Advisory Commission on Aeronautics, 1952. U1. Jackson, L. R,, and Pochapsky, ‘T. E., “The Effect of Composition on the Fatigue Strength of Decarburized Steels,” Transactions, American Society of Metals, V. 39, 1949, pp. 45-60. 12, Lipsitt, H. A, and Horne, G. T, “The Fatigue Behavior of Decarburized Steel,” Proceedings, ASTM, V. 57, 1957, pp. 587-599, 13, “Decarburization,” Metals Engineering—Design, A. S, M. E. Handbook, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1965, Chapter 84, 14, Burton, K. T, and Hognestad, E., “Fatigue Tests of Reinforcing Bars—Tack Welding of Stirrups,” ACT ‘Jounnat, Proceedings V. 64, No. 5, May 1967, pp. 244-252, 15: Jhamb, I. C,, “Fatigue Strength of Deformed Re- inforeing Bars,” MS Thesis, University of Alberta, 1969, This paper wos received by the Institute May 26, 1970. 179