Engineering Fracture Mechanics 255 (2021) 107956

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Fracture Mechanics

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engfracmech

Residual fracture energy of concrete suffering from fatigue loading

Mengdi Jia a, Zhimin Wu a, *, Rena C. Yu b, Xiaoxin Zhang b
a
State Key Laboratory of Coastal and Offshore Engineering, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian 116024, China
b
ETS de Ingenieros de Caminos, Canales y Puertos, Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, Ciudad Real 13071, Spain

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: To investigate the degradation of the residual fracture energy of concrete suffering from fatigue
Concrete loading, 150 three-point bending (TPB) beams were first subjected to a fatigue load until the
Fatigue loading preset number of fatigue cycles was reached, and then the static load was applied to these
Fatigue fracture
specimens until failure occurred. Based on the equilibrium relationship between the energy
Residual fracture energy
Fatigue fracture process zone
dissipated by the fatigue fracture process zone (FPZ) under static loading and the external work, a
calculation method for the residual fracture energy of concrete suffering from fatigue loading was
proposed. The effects of the number of fatigue cycles, the fatigue crack opening displacement, and
the fatigue load level on the residual fracture energy of concrete were evaluated, and an empirical
model for predicting the residual fracture energy was proposed. The results showed that in the
initial stage of fatigue loading, there was a rapid drop of the residual fracture energy with a
decelerated degradation rate. With the increases of the number of fatigue cycles and the fatigue
crack opening displacement, a stable degradation stage of the residual fracture energy with an
approximately constant degradation rate was observed. Furthermore, with the decreasing fatigue
load level, the residual fracture energy increased for the same fatigue cycles, while the residual
fracture energy decreased for the same fatigue crack opening displacement. The residual fracture
energy obtained in this study is essential for the numerical calculation of the residual bearing
capacity of concrete structures.

1. Introduction

Concrete structures, such as concrete pavements and offshore platforms, are subjected to cyclic vehicle loads and wave forces
during their service lives. Under these loads, microcracks are initiated and the existing cracks propagate within concrete. As a result,
the degradation of the mechanical properties of concrete structures occurs, such as the sustained decreases in the bearing capacity and
stiffness, finally resulting in the fatigue failure of concrete structures [1–3]. Because some structures subjected to fatigue loads are still
in service, it is of great significance to investigate the fatigue fracture properties of concrete so that the residual bearing capacities and
crack propagation processes of concrete structures can be predicted more precisely.
In the past few decades, extensive research on the fatigue crack propagation process of concrete has been conducted. Baluch et al.
[4] demonstrated that the Paris law [5] that describes the fatigue crack propagation process of metals was also applicable to concrete.
Bažant et al. [6,7] studied the size effect on Paris law for normal and high strength concretes, and they proposed a size adjusted fatigue
crack propagation model by introducing a size-dependent fracture toughness into the Paris law. Recently, the model was further
developed by Kirane and Bažant [8], and the transitional sizes for both static and fatigue loading were included. Slowik et al. [9]

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: jmdzzu@163.com (M. Jia), wuzhimin@dlut.edu.cn (Z. Wu), rena@uclm.es (R.C. Yu), xiaoxin.zhang@uclm.es (X. Zhang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2021.107956
Received 5 March 2021; Received in revised form 5 August 2021; Accepted 12 August 2021
Available online 14 August 2021
0013-7944/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M. Jia et al. Engineering Fracture Mechanics 255 (2021) 107956

Nomenclature

a crack length
a0 notch depth
ac critical crack length under static loading
af crack length corresponding to the fatigue failure of TPB beams
Δai crack propagation length after i fatigue cycles
Δas crack propagation length under static loading for fatigue-static tests
b1-2, c1-2, d1-3 empirical coefficients
B width of TPB beams
CMOD crack mouth opening displacement
CMODc critical crack mouth opening displacement under static loading
CMODf crack mouth opening displacement corresponding to the fatigue failure of TPB beams
CTOD crack tip opening displacement
CTODc critical crack tip opening displacement under static loading
CTODf crack tip opening displacement corresponding to the fatigue failure of TPB beams
D height of TPB beams
E Young’s modulus
fcu compressive strength
ft tensile strength
GF fracture energy
GF(N,w) residual fracture energy
GF(N,w)Exp experimental result for residual fracture energy
GF(N,w)Pre predicted result for residual fracture energy
GFmin(N,w) minimum residual fracture energy
H distance between clip gauge and crack mouth
KiniIC initial fracture toughness
KunIC unstable fracture toughness
KIf stress intensity factor corresponding to the fatigue failure of TPB beams
L span of TPB beams
N number of fatigue cycles
Nf fatigue life
Nfm mean value of fatigue life
P applied load
Pini initial cracking load
Pmax maximum load under fatigue loading
Pmin minimum load under fatigue loading
Pu peak load under static loading
qN energy dissipated by fatigue FPZ under static loading
Q external work for static tests
QN external work under static loading for fatigue-static tests
RN ratio of qNw and BΔaN
S fatigue load level
w fatigue crack opening displacement
w0 stress-free crack opening displacement
W opening displacement
W1-5 opening displacements measured by clip gauges
Wini elastic elongation of concrete before cracking
δ loading point displacement
δ0 loading point displacement at failure
ε concrete strain
ν Poisson’s ratio

presented that the occasional spikes in the fatigue loading resulted in the accelerated propagation of cracks in the subsequent loading
process, and they proposed a fatigue crack propagation model of concrete that considered the fatigue loading history. Later, the model
was further developed by Sain and Kishen [10,11]. In their study, the accelerated propagation of cracks due to sudden spikes was
correlated to the stress intensity factor amplitude and the fatigue crack propagation length. Kim and Kim [12] found that with the
increase of the strength of concrete, the fatigue crack propagation rate increased. After that, a fatigue crack propagation model that
considered the strength of concrete was suggested. Kolluru et al. [13] reported that the fatigue crack propagation rate of concrete

2
M. Jia et al. Engineering Fracture Mechanics 255 (2021) 107956

Fig. 1. Geometry of TPB beams (units: mm).

decreased in the initial stage of fatigue loading, followed by an accelerated stage until failure. For the decelerated stage, the rela­
tionship between the fatigue crack propagation rate and the fatigue crack propagation length was established. Maitra et al. [14] found
that with the increase of the number of fatigue cycles, the stress intensity factor gradually increased until the fracture toughness was
reached at the fatigue failure of TPB beams. Bhowmik and Ray [15] investigated the FPZ of TPB beams under fatigue loading by means
of the digital image correlation (DIC) technique. It was observed that the length of the fully developed FPZ was approximately equal to
that under static loading. Li et al. [16] revealed that the length of the FPZ gradually grew until the fully developed FPZ was formed, and
then the length decreased. When the number of fatigue cycles approached half of the fatigue life of TPB beams, the length of the FPZ
tended to be stable.
According to the fictitious crack model [17], considerable studies on fatigue crack propagation have also been performed. Gylltoft
[18] developed an energy-based cyclic tension-softening constitutive relationship for concrete, with which the fatigue crack propa­
gation process of concrete was numerically simulated. Horii et al. [19] proposed a simplified cyclic tension-softening constitutive
relationship with the linear unloading–reloading process, and they evaluated the fatigue crack propagation process and the evolution
of FPZ for low cycles fatigue loading. Hordijk [20] suggested the continuous-function model of the tension-softening constitutive
relationship, with which the fatigue crack propagation process of concrete was evaluated and the load versus deflection curves were
derived. The model was further simplified by Toumi and Bascoul [21] with the piecewise linear unloading–reloading process and a
constant reduction of the cohesive stress after one cycle, with which the fatigue crack propagation in concrete was simulated and the a-
N curves were obtained. Li and Matsumoto [22,23] presented an analytical model for fatigue crack propagation in concrete, in which
the stress intensity factor amplitude in Paris law was adjusted to the difference of the stress intensity factor amplitude caused by the
external load and the cohesive stress. Zhang et al. [24–26] proposed an empirical model of cohesive stress under fatigue loading. With
this model, an analytical method for fatigue crack propagation in TPB beams was proposed. Maitra et al. [27] used the empirical model
to investigate the fatigue crack propagation in concrete pavement. Brake and Chatti [28–30] established equivalent fatigue crack
resistance curves, with which an analytical model that unified the decelerated and accelerated stages of fatigue crack propagation was
proposed. Based on the dimensional analysis, Simon and Kishen [31] presented a fatigue crack propagation model that considered the
bridging stress of aggregates. Skar et al. [32] proposed an energy-based cyclic tension-softening constitutive relationship of concrete,
with which the a-N curves of concrete were numerically obtained by applying the constitutive relationship to a hinge model.
As far as the effects of fatigue loading on fracture parameters of concrete are concerned, only a few investigations have been re­
ported so far. Deng [33] studied the residual fracture energy of concrete after a preset number of fatigue cycles. The results showed that
there was a critical fatigue load level. When the fatigue load level was smaller than the critical fatigue load level, the residual fracture
energy of concrete was not affected by fatigue loading. When the fatigue load level was larger than the critical fatigue load level, the
residual fracture energy of concrete decreased with the increasing fatigue load level. It should be remarked that when the fatigue load
level was larger than the critical level, cracks gradually propagated. However, the effect of fatigue crack propagation on residual
fracture energy was not considered in their study. The investigation conducted by Wiedmann et al. [34] showed that the residual
fracture energy of concrete decreased by 10% after fatigue loading. Their 3D-CT tests revealed that the number, length, and width of
microcracks within concrete were further developed after fatigue loading. Although significant research on the residual fracture
energy of concrete has been conducted, to the author’s knowledge, the quantitative degradation law of the residual fracture energy of
concrete suffering from fatigue loading has not been reported. Therefore, from the point of view of exploring the fatigue fracture
mechanism of concrete and evaluating the safety of concrete structures suffering from fatigue loading, it is still desirable to investigate
the residual fracture energy of concrete.
The objective of this study was to present the quantitative degradation law of the residual fracture energy of concrete suffering from
fatigue loading. First, the TPB beams were tested under fatigue loading until the preset number of fatigue cycles was reached, followed
by static loading until failure. Based on the principle of energy conservation, the residual fracture energy of concrete was derived.
Thereafter, the effects of the number of fatigue cycles, the fatigue crack opening displacement, and the fatigue load level on the re­
sidual fracture energy of concrete were analyzed. Finally, an empirical model that described the degradation of the residual fracture
energy of concrete suffering from fatigue loading was proposed. It is expected that the residual fracture energy obtained here will
contribute to an in-depth understanding of the fatigue fracture mechanism of concrete and a precise prediction of the residual bearing

3
M. Jia et al. Engineering Fracture Mechanics 255 (2021) 107956

Table 1
Grouping of TPB beams.
Test condition Fatigue load level Number of fatigue cycles Number of specimens

Static tests – – 6
Fatigue failure tests 0.7, 0.75, 0.8, 0.85, 0.9 – 30
Fatigue-static tests 0.7, 0.75, 0.8, 0.85, 0.9 0.1Nfm, 0.3Nfm, 0.5Nfm, 0.7Nfm, 0.9Nfm 150

Table 2
Mix proportions of concrete.
Cement (kg/m3) Sand (kg/m3) Aggregate (kg/m3) Water (kg/m3)

329 662 1212 198

Fig. 2. Experimental setup for TPB tests. (a) Measuring δ and CMOD (b) Measuring a and CTOD.

capacity of concrete structures.

2. Experimental program

2.1. Preparation of TPB beams

The TPB beams, as shown in Fig. 1, were used to investigate the degradation of the residual fracture energy of concrete suffering
from fatigue loading. The dimensions of the specimens were L × B × D = 640 mm × 80 mm × 160 mm, the ratio of span to height L/D
was 4.0, and the notch depth a0 was 32 mm. As shown in Table 1, a total of 186 TPB beams were prepared. The number of TPB beams
for the static tests, fatigue failure tests, and fatigue-static tests was 6, 30, and 150, respectively. According to the loading modes, the
specimens could be divided into 31 groups and 6 specimens were included in each group. For the fatigue-static tests, the TPB beams
were subjected to fatigue loading until the preset number of fatigue cycles was reached, and then the TPB beams were tested under
static loading until failure. The fatigue load level S shown in Table 1 represents the ratio of the maximum load under fatigue loading
Pmax to the peak load under static loading Pu. Nfm is the mean value of the fatigue life measured by fatigue failure tests. The strength
grade of concrete was C30. The mix proportions of concrete are shown in Table 2. The binder material was P.O 42.5R ordinary Portland
cement, the fine aggregate was natural river sand with the maximum aggregate size of 5 mm, the coarse aggregate was limestone
rubble with the maximum aggregate size of 10 mm, and potable water was adopted for mixing. The TPB beams were cast in batches
and four specimens were included in each batch. To measure the compressive strength fcu, tensile strength ft, Young’s modulus E, and
Poisson’s ratio ν of the concrete, cubes with dimensions of 100 mm × 100 mm × 100 mm and prisms with dimensions of 100 mm ×
100 mm × 200 mm were cast at the same batch with the TPB beams. All of the specimens were cured in a laboratory for 90 days at a
relative humidity of 60%–70% and a temperature of 20 ◦ C–26 ◦ C to decrease the influence of the variation of the concrete strength on
the experimental results. After that, the TPB beams were demolded. The upper surface of the specimens was polished by an angle
grinder to ensure that the specimens were uniformly stressed in the through-thickness direction during loading. The notch was cut by a
cutting machine at the mid-span of the specimens with the notch width of 2 mm. Before the TPB tests, the material properties of the
concrete were measured as follows: fcu = 38.20 MPa, ft = 3.27 MPa, E = 34.61 GPa, and ν = 0.21.

4
M. Jia et al. Engineering Fracture Mechanics 255 (2021) 107956

Fig. 3. Typical P-ε curve.

Fig. 4. Opening displacement W.

2.2. Static tests

Static tests of the TPB beams were conducted on a 250 kN electro-hydraulic servo material testing machine. The loading process
was controlled by the loading point displacement with a rate of 0.012 mm/min. The experimental setup for the measurement of the
necessary parameters is illustrated in Fig. 2. The applied load P was measured with a 30 kN tension/compression load cell. To monitor
the loading point displacement δ and the crack mouth opening displacement CMOD, two clip gauges with the measuring range of 4 mm
were placed on the loading point and the crack mouth, as shown in Fig. 2(a). To measure the initial cracking load Pini of the TPB beams,
four strain gauges with the size of 10 mm × 2 mm and the resistance value of 120 Ω were symmetrically pasted on each specimen, 5
mm away from the notch tip. Fig. 1 schematically shows the locations of two strain gauges on one side of the TPB beams. Another two
strain gauges were pasted on the other side of the specimens. When the crack began to propagate, the elastic strain energy stored in the
specimens was released. Therefore, the concrete strain ε measured with the strain gauges decreased suddenly and significantly. Based
on the experimentally measured snap-back of the concrete strain ε in the vicinity of the notch tip, the initial cracking load Pini could be
determined. Because the difference in the initial cracking load obtained from the four load versus concrete strain (P-ε) curves was
negligible, only one P-ε curve was selected randomly, as presented in Fig. 3, where T-6 indicates the sixth specimen of the static tests.
M1 is the initial point of static loading. The concrete strain reached the maximum at M2 and then decreased, which meant that the crack
had begun to propagate. Therefore, the load corresponding to M2 was the initial cracking load Pini.
To measure the crack length a and the crack tip opening displacement CTOD, five clip gauges were mounted equidistantly along the
ligament and the distance between adjacent clip gauges was 20 mm, as shown in Fig. 2(b). The opening displacement W measured by
the clip gauges is illustrated in Fig. 4, where H represents the distance between the clip gauge and the crack mouth. W included the
elastic elongation of concrete, which could be obtained by measuring the opening displacement at the notch tip with respect to the
initial cracking load, denoted by Wini in this study. As can be seen, an approximately linear distribution of W along the ligament was

5
M. Jia et al. Engineering Fracture Mechanics 255 (2021) 107956

Fig. 5. P-CMOD curves.

Fig. 6. P-δ curves.

Table 3
Experimental results for static tests.
Specimen ac CMODc CTODc Pini Pu Pini KiniIC KunIC GF
(mm) (μm) (μm) (kN) (kN) Pu (MPa⋅m1/2) (MPa⋅m1/2) (N/m)

T-1 78.85 63.75 37.62 3.52 6.18 0.57 0.52 2.01 129.61
T-2 80.70 68.80 41.46 3.94 6.35 0.62 0.58 2.14 140.48
T-3 77.55 59.59 34.70 3.48 5.90 0.59 0.51 1.87 117.35
T-4 76.08 57.53 31.47 3.49 6.23 0.56 0.51 1.92 134.82
T-5 82.36 70.30 41.35 3.97 6.30 0.63 0.58 2.20 124.07
T-6 81.82 67.42 42.79 3.64 6.28 0.58 0.53 2.17 130.06
Mean value 79.56 64.57 38.23 3.67 6.21 0.59 0.54 2.05 129.40

obtained. Accordingly, the crack tip, where the opening displacement was equal to Wini, could be determined through linear inter­
polation to be the point “O” shown in Fig. 4. As a result, the crack length a, which was equal to the distance between the crack tip and
the crack mouth, and the crack tip opening displacement CTOD, which was equal to the difference between the opening displacement
W at the notch tip and the elastic elongation of concrete Wini, could be obtained. All of the experimental data were automatically
collected by a 32-channel Integrated Measurement and Control (IMC) dynamic data acquisition system with the sampling frequency of
100 Hz.
The experimentally measured load versus crack mouth opening displacement (P-CMOD) curves and the load versus loading point
displacement (P-δ) curves are shown in Figs. 5 and 6, respectively. Table 3 summarizes the experimental results for the static tests,
where ac, CMODc, and CTODc are the critical crack length, critical crack mouth opening displacement, and critical crack tip opening

6
M. Jia et al. Engineering Fracture Mechanics 255 (2021) 107956

Fig. 7. Typical W-N curves for fatigue failure tests.

7
M. Jia et al. Engineering Fracture Mechanics 255 (2021) 107956

Fig. 8. a-N curves for fatigue failure tests.

8
M. Jia et al. Engineering Fracture Mechanics 255 (2021) 107956

Table 4
Experimental results for fatigue failure tests.
Specimen Pmax Nf af CTODf (μm) CMODf (μm) KIf GFmin(N,w)
(kN) (mm) (MPa⋅m1/2) (N/m)

F-0.7–1 4.34 34,704 96.91 62.73 91.25 2.09 39.93

F-0.7–2 180,057 92.72 59.67 88.97 1.89 34.84
F-0.7–3 142,100 93.86 56.24 86.47 1.94 36.91
F-0.7–4 114,215 100.31 68.54 98.01 2.28 33.49
F-0.7–5 73,590 97.89 64.31 94.44 2.14 36.57
F-0.7–6 46,392 91.74 58.31 91.11 1.85 40.56
Mean value 94,074 95.57 61.63 91.71 2.03 37.05

F-0.75–1 4.66 10,351 92.86 58.59 81.43 2.04 46.25

F-0.75–2 22,832 95.73 61.79 92.54 2.18 41.87
F-0.75–3 16,810 90.79 58.74 85.77 1.95 44.31
F-0.75–4 3833 88.92 48.99 81.77 1.87 54.73
F-0.75–5 22,373 91.51 56.12 83.74 1.98 44.29
F-0.75–6 40,567 93.74 55.54 84.98 2.08 42.16
Mean value 18,091 92.26 56.63 85.04 2.02 45.60

F-0.8–1 4.97 4359 91.80 60.54 81.85 2.12 48.67

F-0.8–2 954 89.42 48.13 77.32 2.01 61.10
F-0.8–3 6124 91.01 57.95 82.51 2.09 48.58
F-0.8–4 5311 89.91 48.71 80.12 2.04 53.48
F-0.8–5 2492 87.91 53.26 76.93 1.95 54.43
F-0.8–6 1222 85.77 47.79 76.65 1.86 60.22
Mean value 3346 89.30 52.73 79.23 2.01 54.41

F-0.85–1 5.28 158 89.68 46.20 72.36 2.15 69.95

F-0.85–2 418 81.24 41.16 65.18 1.80 68.60
F-0.85–3 1135 88.63 50.27 78.21 2.10 59.22
F-0.85–4 874 83.87 44.06 68.63 1.90 63.68
F-0.85–5 528 85.95 49.71 77.14 1.98 62.75
F-0.85–6 970 86.98 43.47 71.29 2.03 63.53
Mean value 698 86.06 45.81 72.14 1.99 64.62

F-0.9–1 5.59 149 84.43 44.01 71.32 2.04 71.55

F-0.9–2 419 81.10 46.85 72.67 1.90 65.35
F-0.9–3 268 79.92 40.38 65.38 1.86 71.08
F-0.9–4 76 82.86 42.42 68.70 1.97 75.52
F-0.9–5 232 86.76 47.17 74.81 2.14 67.71
F-0.9–6 51 83.36 39.30 64.05 1.99 79.33
Mean value 181 83.07 43.36 69.49 1.98 71.76

displacement, respectively. The initial fracture toughness KiniIC and the unstable fracture toughness KunIC were calculated using Eq. (1)
[35]. For KiniIC, P = Pini and a = a0. For KunIC, P = Pu and a = ac.
3PL √̅̅̅ a
KI = aF( ) (1)
2D2 B D
[ ]
1.99 − a
D
(1 − a
D
) 2.15 − 3.93 Da + 2.7(Da )2
a
F( ) =
D a 3/2
(1 + 2 Da )(1 − D
)

The fracture energy GF was calculated using Eq. (2) as [36]

Q + mgδ0
GF = (2)
B(D − a0 )
where Q is the external work and it is equal to the area below the P-δ curve, mg is the weight of the specimen between the supports,
and δ0 is the loading point displacement at failure.

2.3. Fatigue failure tests

Based on the initial cracking load Pini and the peak load Pu measured by static tests, the fatigue failure tests of TPB beams were
performed. As shown in Table 3, the maximum value of the ratio of Pini to Pu was 0.63. To ensure that cracks propagated at the first
fatigue cycle, the fatigue load levels S selected for the fatigue failure tests were 0.7, 0.75, 0.8, 0.85, and 0.9. The ratio of the minimum
load Pmin to the maximum load Pmax was 0.05, the loading frequency was 1 Hz, and the sine wave was used in the fatigue loading. The
necessary parameters, such as CMOD, CTOD, and a, under fatigue loading were measured using the same methods as those depicted for
the static tests.

9
M. Jia et al. Engineering Fracture Mechanics 255 (2021) 107956

Fig. 9. Relationship between KIf and S.

The specimens for the fatigue failure tests were labeled as F-i-j, where i denotes the fatigue load level and j denotes the specimen
number. The typical opening displacement versus the number of fatigue cycles (W-N) curves are presented in Fig. 7, in which W1–W5
represent the opening displacements at Pmax measured by five clip gauges. Fig. 8 shows the crack length versus the number of fatigue
cycles (a-N) curves. The experimental results for the fatigue failure tests are shown in Table 4, where Nf is the fatigue life, and af,
CTODf, CMODf, and KIf are the crack length, crack tip opening displacement, crack mouth opening displacement, and stress intensity
factor corresponding to the fatigue failure of the TPB beams, respectively. KIf was calculated using Eq. (1). GFmin(N,w) is explained later
in this paper.
The relationship between the stress intensity factor KIf and the fatigue load level S of the TPB beams is presented in Fig. 9. As can be
seen, for the fatigue load levels adopted in this study, KIf could be considered to be a constant and it was approximately equal to the
mean value of the unstable fracture toughness KunIC listed in Table 3. Therefore, based on the linear elastic fracture mechanics, a
concrete fatigue failure criterion could be proposed. Namely, concrete fatigue failure occurred when the stress intensity factor reached
the unstable fracture toughness. The same conclusion was also obtained by Kolluru et al. [13] and Maitra et al. [14].

2.4. Fatigue-static tests

Based on the initial cracking load Pini, peak load Pu, and fatigue life Nf obtained in the static tests and the fatigue failure tests, the
fatigue-static tests were conducted. The fatigue load level S, the ratio of Pmin to Pmax, the loading frequency, and the loading waveform
for the fatigue-static tests were all identical to those in the fatigue failure tests. The preset number of fatigue cycles for each load level
was 0.1Nfm, 0.3Nfm, 0.5Nfm, 0.7Nfm, and 0.9Nfm, respectively. Owing to the great variability of the fatigue life of the TPB beams, the
maximum and minimum values of the fatigue life were excluded when calculating Nfm. After the preset number of fatigue cycles, the
displacement-controlled static tests were conducted with the same loading process as that presented for the static tests. By pro­
gramming a set of commands to control the loading process, the testing machine could automatically switch to displacement-
controlled loading mode for static tests after fatigue loading. The same methods as those depicted in the static tests were used to
obtain the necessary parameters.
The specimens for the fatigue-static tests were denoted by FS-i-j-k, where i represents the fatigue load level, j represents the ratio of
the preset number of fatigue cycles to Nfm, and k represents the specimen number. The typical W-N and a-N curves for the preset
number of fatigue cycles are shown in Figs. 10 and 11, respectively. It should be noted that the fatigue failure occurred in some
specimens before reaching the preset number of fatigue cycles. The a-N curves for these specimens are not presented in Fig. 11. The
typical P-CMOD and P-δ curves for the fatigue-static tests are illustrated in Figs. 12 and 13, respectively.

3. Calculation method for residual fracture energy of concrete

For the fatigue-static tests of the TPB beams, the schematic diagram of the P-δ curve is shown in Fig. 14, where QN is the external
work under static loading. The crack propagation process of the TPB beams under fatigue loading is schematically shown in Fig. 15,
where Δai and Ai (1 ≤ i ≤ N) are the crack propagation length and the crack tip after i fatigue cycles, w is the fatigue crack opening
displacement after N fatigue cycles, and the origin of coordinates is located at the notch tip. After N fatigue cycles, the damage degree
of the TPB beams along the ligament varied. If the specimens were then tested under static loading, the energy dissipated for a crack
propagating unit area was not a constant but rather a quantity that varied with the position, and this quantity was defined as the
residual fracture energy of concrete and denoted by GF(N,w). The number of fatigue cycles N and the fatigue crack opening
displacement w in GF(N,w) indicated the damage degree of concrete suffering from fatigue loading. The variation of the residual
fracture energy along the ligament is illustrated in Fig. 16. The residual fracture energy GF(N,w) in the fatigue cracking zone ΔaN was

10
M. Jia et al. Engineering Fracture Mechanics 255 (2021) 107956

Fig. 10. Typical W-N curves for preset number of fatigue cycles.

11
M. Jia et al. Engineering Fracture Mechanics 255 (2021) 107956

(a) FS-0.7-0.1 (b) FS-0.75-0.3

(c) FS-0.8-0.5 (d) FS-0.85-0.7

(e) FS-0.9-0.9
Fig. 11. Typical a-N curves for preset number of fatigue cycles.

smaller than GF due to the fatigue damage of concrete. It should be noted that the effects of the fatigue cycles before the cracking of
concrete and the boundary effect of fracture energy [37] on the residual fracture energy were not considered in this study. Therefore,
for the ligament D-a0-ΔaN, where no crack was formed during fatigue loading, the energy required to create unit area of a crack was GF.
Based on the aforementioned analysis, the energy dissipated by the fatigue FPZ under static loading, qN, could be derived from the
following two perspectives. First, qN was equal to the energy caused by the cohesive stress in FPZ. Accordingly, qN could be formulated

12
M. Jia et al. Engineering Fracture Mechanics 255 (2021) 107956

(a) FS-0.7-0.1-2 (b) FS-0.75-0.3-2

(c) FS-0.8-0.5-1 (d) FS-0.85-0.7-1

(e) FS-0.9-0.9-1
Fig. 12. Typical P-CMOD curves for fatigue-static tests.

13
M. Jia et al. Engineering Fracture Mechanics 255 (2021) 107956

(a) FS-0.7-0.1-2 (b) FS-0.75-0.3-2

(c) FS-0.8-0.5-1 (d) FS-0.85-0.7-1

(e) FS-0.9-0.9-1
Fig. 13. Typical P-δ curves for fatigue-static tests.

14
M. Jia et al. Engineering Fracture Mechanics 255 (2021) 107956

Fig. 14. Schematic diagram of P-δ curve.

Fig. 15. Schematic diagram of fatigue crack propagation process.

Fig. 16. Variation of residual fracture energy.

as
[∫ Δa1 ∫ Δa2 ∫ Δai ∫ ΔaN ]
qN = B GF (N, x)dy + GF (N − 1, x)dy + ⋯ + GF (N − i + 1, x)dy + ⋯ + GF (1, x)dy (3)
0 Δa1 Δai - 1 ΔaN - 1

Second, assuming that the external work under static loading was fully used for crack propagation, qN could also be obtained from
the point of view of external work, which could be expressed as
qN = QN − (D − a0 − ΔaN )BGF (4)
It has been demonstrated that the assumption of the linear distribution of crack opening displacement along a ligament had a
negligible effect on the prediction of the crack propagation process of TPB beams under static and fatigue loading [24,38]. Therefore,
based on this assumption, the relationship between the fatigue crack propagation length ΔaN and the fatigue crack opening
displacement w could be derived as
ΔaN
dy = − dx (5)
w
Substitution of Eq. (5) into Eq. (3) yields

15
M. Jia et al. Engineering Fracture Mechanics 255 (2021) 107956

Fig. 17. Relationships between RN and w.

16
M. Jia et al. Engineering Fracture Mechanics 255 (2021) 107956

Table 5
Empirical coefficients in Eq. (11).
Fatigue load level b1 b2 c1 c2 R2

0.7 − 172.73 − 772.63 − 0.30 − 0.05 0.97

0.75 − 227.49 − 1609.38 − 0.21 − 0.03 0.97
0.8 − 184.04 − 2144.51 − 0.17 − 0.03 0.93
0.85 − 76.93 − 2627.47 − 0.22 − 0.03 0.95
0.9 − 42.24 − 2852.86 − 0.22 − 0.03 0.93

Fig. 18. GF(N,w)-w curves.

( )
∫ w ∫ w 1−
Δa1
ΔaN
( ) ( ) GF (N − 1, x)dx + ⋯+
RN = Δa1
GF (N, x)dx +
w 1− ΔaN
Δa2
w 1− ΔaN

( ) ( ) (6)
∫ w 1−
Δai 1
ΔaN
- ∫ w 1− -
ΔaN 1
ΔaN
( ) GF (N − i + 1, x)dx + ⋯ + GF (1, x)dx
Δai 0
w 1− ΔaN

where RN is given by
qN w
RN = (7)
BΔaN
With the increase of the fatigue crack opening displacement w, the fatigue crack propagation length ΔaN increased, and the energy
dissipated by the fatigue FPZ under static loading, qN, also changed accordingly. Taking RN as a differentiable function with respect to
w and determining the first derivative in both sides of Eq. (6) with respect to w, the following relationship could be obtained:
dRN
=
dw
[ ( )] [ ( )]
Δa1 Δa1
[ ( )] d w 1 − [ ( )] d w 1 −
Δa1 ΔaN Δa1 ΔaN
GF (N, w) − GF N, w 1 − + GF N − 1, w 1 −
ΔaN dw ΔaN dw
[ ( )] [ ( )]
Δa2 Δai - 1 (8)
[ ( )] d w 1 − [ ( )] d w 1 −
Δa2 ΔaN Δai - 1 ΔaN
− GF N − 1, w 1 − + ⋯ + GF N − i + 1, w 1 −
ΔaN dw ΔaN dw
[ ( )] [ ( )]
Δai ΔaN - 1
[ ( )] d w 1 − [ ( )] d w 1 −
Δai ΔaN ΔaN - 1 ΔaN
− GF N − i + 1, w 1 − + ⋯ + GF 1, w 1 −
ΔaN dw ΔaN dw
For the fatigue crack propagation process of TPB beams shown in Fig. 15, the fatigue crack opening displacement at Ai (1 ≤ i ≤ N-1)
is (1-Δai/ΔaN)w. Ai is the crack tip after i fatigue cycles, for which the specimens experienced N-i + 1 fatigue cycles. Ai is also the start

17
M. Jia et al. Engineering Fracture Mechanics 255 (2021) 107956

Fig. 19. Relationships between w and N.

point of the crack propagation for the next fatigue cycle, for which the specimens experienced N-i fatigue cycles. Hence, the residual
fracture energy satisfied the following continuity condition:
[ ( )] [ ( )]
Δai Δai
GF N − i + 1, w 1 − = GF N − i, w 1 − (9)
ΔaN ΔaN
After substituting Eq. (9) into Eq. (8), the residual fracture energy GF(N,w) could be expressed as

18
M. Jia et al. Engineering Fracture Mechanics 255 (2021) 107956

Table 6
Empirical coefficients in Eq. (13).
Fatigue load level d1 d2 d3 R2

0.7 15.85 86,874 0.31 0.84

0.75 16.51 16,761 0.29 0.91
0.8 20.47 3270 0.28 0.81
0.85 22.79 756 0.31 0.91
0.9 21.56 193 0.27 0.90

Fig. 20. GF(N,w)-N curves.

dRN
GF (N, w) = (10)
dw

4. Test results and discussion

It is shown in Eq. (10) that to obtain the residual fracture energy of concrete, a quantitative relationship between RN and w needed
to be established in advance. In view of this, the residual fracture energy was calculated as follows. First, the necessary parameters for
determining RN were derived. Based on the opening displacement W measured in the fatigue-static tests, the fatigue crack opening
displacement w and the fatigue crack propagation length ΔaN after the preset number of fatigue cycles were obtained. The external
work QN was determined with the P-δ curves in the fatigue-static tests. The energy dissipated by the fatigue FPZ under static loading,
qN, was calculated using Eq. (4). Table A.1 summarizes the experimental results for the fatigue-static tests. The fatigue lives of the
specimens that failed to reach the preset number of fatigue cycles are listed in Table A.1. Second, a suitable function was selected for
the regression analysis of the relationship between RN and w. The selected function had to satisfy the following conditions.

(1) At w = 0, RN = 0. As can be seen from Eq. (7), when w was equal to 0, this condition was obvious.
(2) At w = 0, dRN /dw = GF . The reason for this was that when w was equal to 0, no crack developed, and the fatigue damage before
the cracking of concrete was not considered. Therefore, the first derivative of RN was equal to the fracture energy GF.

As shown in Eq. (11), an exponential function satisfying the mentioned conditions was used to fit the relationship between RN and
w, where b1, b2, c1, and c2 are empirical coefficients.
RN = b1 ec1 w + b2 ec2 w + (GF − b1 c1 − b2 c2 )w − b1 − b2 (11)
The first derivative of Eq. (11) with respect to w is given by
dRN
GF (N, w) = = b1 c1 ec1 w + b2 c2 ec2 w + GF − b1 c1 − b2 c2 (12)
dw
The fitting curves of RN versus w are presented in Fig. 17 and the fitting results of the empirical coefficients are listed in Table 5.
After substituting the fitting results in Table 5 into Eq. (12), the residual fracture energy versus fatigue crack opening displacement
(GF(N,w)-w) curves were obtained, as shown in Fig. 18.
The variation of the fatigue crack opening displacement w with the number of fatigue cycles N is illustrated in Fig. 19. Eq. (13) was
used to formulate the relationship between w and N. The fitting results of the empirical coefficients d1, d2, and d3 are shown in Table 6.

19
M. Jia et al. Engineering Fracture Mechanics 255 (2021) 107956

Fig. 21. Comparison between GF(N,w)Exp and GF(N,w)Pre.

Fig. 22. Relationship between GFmin(N,w) and S.

Fig. 23. Distribution of cohesive stress in FPZ.

N d3
w = d1 ( ) (13)
d2 − N
For any given number of fatigue cycles, the corresponding residual fracture energy could be derived as follows. First, the fatigue
crack opening displacement could be derived using Eq. (13). Second, the residual fracture energy could be obtained according to the
relationships between GF(N,w) and w shown in Fig. 18. The residual fracture energy versus the number of fatigue cycles (GF(N,w)-N)

20
M. Jia et al. Engineering Fracture Mechanics 255 (2021) 107956

curves for different fatigue load levels are shown in Fig. 20.
For the concrete suffering from fatigue loading, the residual fracture energy decreased. As shown in Figs. 18 and 20, in the initial
stage of fatigue loading, a rapid drop of the residual fracture energy with a decelerated degradation rate was observed. With the
increases of the number of fatigue cycles and the fatigue crack opening displacement, the behavior of the residual fracture energy was
generalized as a stable degradation stage, for which an almost constant degradation rate was found. The degradation law of the re­
sidual fracture energy was similar to that of the cohesive stress under fatigue loading observed by Zhang et al. [25] and Huang et al.
[39]. Furthermore, for the same fatigue crack opening displacement, the residual fracture energy increased with the increasing fatigue
load level, as shown in Fig. 18. This was because, for a higher fatigue load level, the specimens experienced fewer fatigue cycles to
reach the same fatigue crack opening displacement. The damage degree of the bond performance between the aggregates and the
mortar was lower [25]. Hence, there was a smaller reduction of the residual fracture energy. In contrast, for the same number of fatigue
cycles, the residual fracture energy decreased with the increasing fatigue load level, as shown in Fig. 20. The reason for this was that
the fatigue crack opening displacement increased with the increasing fatigue load level for the same number of fatigue cycles, which
led to a larger reduction of the residual fracture energy.
Based on the GF(N,w)-w and GF(N,w)-N curves presented in Figs. 18 and 20, a two-parameter nonlinear fitting was conducted and
the quantitative degradation law of the residual fracture energy of concrete suffering from fatigue loading was proposed. The fitting
result is given by
GF (N, w) w w
= 1 − 0.11log(N + 1) − 0.85( ) + 0.09log(N + 1)( ) (14)
GF w0 w0
where w0 is the stress-free crack opening displacement under static loading. The bilinear softening constitutive relationship pro­
posed by Petersson [40] was used in this study. Thus, w0 could be obtained as
3.6GF
w0 = (15)
ft
The comparison between the experimental results, GF(N,w)Exp, and the predicted results from Eq. (14), GF(N,w)Pre, is shown in
Fig. 21. There is a good agreement between the results with the correlation coefficient of 0.99. Therefore, for concrete structures
subjected to fatigue loads, the residual fracture energy could be predicted by Eq. (14) with high accuracy.
After substituting the fatigue crack tip opening displacement CTODf and the fatigue life Nf shown in Table 4 into Eq. (14), the
residual fracture energy of concrete with the largest degradation, GFmin(N,w), was obtained, as listed in Table 4. The relationship
between GFmin(N,w) and the fatigue load level S is presented in Fig. 22, where a nearly linear relationship could be observed. In
addition, GFmin(N,w) decreased with the decreasing fatigue load level. Within the range of the fatigue load levels adopted in this study,
the largest degradation of residual fracture energy was 74.12% of GF. This indicated that the FPZ had not fully developed when the
fatigue failure of the TPB beams occurred. This conflicted with the conclusions obtained by Bhowmik and Ray [15] and Li et al [16]. In
their study, the fully developed FPZ was observed before the fatigue failure of TPB beams by means of the DIC technique. The reason
for this conflict was that the crack tip opening displacement corresponding to the peak load Pu of the TPB beams was defined as the
stress-free crack opening displacement, which was smaller than the crack tip opening displacement corresponding to the fatigue failure
of the TPB beams.
The residual fracture energy quantitatively reflected the damage degree of concrete suffering from fatigue loading. Furthermore,
the residual fracture energy could also be used to predict the residual bearing capacity of concrete structures. The distribution of the
cohesive stress in the FPZ is shown in Fig. 23, where E1 and E2 are the envelopes of the cohesive stress for the fatigue-static tests and the
static tests of the TPB beams, ΔaN is the crack propagation length for the preset number of fatigue cycles, and Δas is the crack
propagation length under static loading for the fatigue-static tests. As can be seen, E1 was below E2 in the fatigue cracking zone ΔaN.
The reason for this was that for the fatigue-static tests, the residual fracture energy in the fatigue cracking zone ΔaN was smaller than GF
due to the fatigue damage of concrete. As a result, for the same crack opening displacement, the cohesive stress was smaller in ΔaN.
Hence, the fracture energy GF could not be used to determine the cohesive stress in the fatigue cracking zone, while the residual
fracture energy obtained in this study was a significant parameter that was used to determine the constitutive relationship of concrete
with fatigue damage. This indicated that the residual fracture energy was essential for the prediction of the residual bearing capacity of
concrete structures.

5. Conclusions

Static tests, fatigue failure tests, and fatigue-static tests were conducted on TPB beams in this study. Based on the principle of energy
conservation, the residual fracture energy of concrete was derived, the degradation law of the residual fracture energy was analyzed,
an empirical prediction model for the residual fracture energy was proposed, and the evaluation of the FPZ under fatigue loading was
performed. According to the experimental and theoretical studies, the conclusions could be drawn.

(1) A calculation method for the residual fracture energy of concrete was proposed. The effects of the fatigue crack propagation and
the variation of the damage degree of concrete along the ligament on the residual fracture energy were considered in this
method. The residual fracture energy obtained in this study indicated the damage degree of concrete suffering from fatigue
loading.

21
M. Jia et al. Engineering Fracture Mechanics 255 (2021) 107956

(2) A rapid drop of the residual fracture energy with a decelerated degradation rate was observed in the initial stage of fatigue
loading, followed by a stable degradation stage with a nearly constant degradation rate. With the decrease of the fatigue load
level, the residual fracture energy increased for the same number of fatigue cycles, while the residual fracture energy decreased
for the same fatigue crack opening displacement.
(3) A prediction model that correlated the residual fracture energy of concrete with the number of fatigue cycles and the fatigue
crack opening displacement was developed. For concrete structures subjected to fatigue loads, once the number of fatigue cycles
and the fatigue crack opening displacement were determined, the residual fracture energy could be derived. Further study of the
prediction of the residual bearing capacity of concrete structures could be conducted with the residual fracture energy obtained
in this study.
(4) The largest degradation of the residual fracture energy was 74.12% of GF within the range of the fatigue load levels adopted in
this study. The FPZ had not fully developed when the fatigue failure of the TPB beams occurred.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgements

This work was financially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation (Grant No. 52079021) and the United Kingdom
Royal Academy of Engineering through the Distinguished Visiting Fellow Scheme (Grant No. DVF1617_5_21). These organizations are
gratefully acknowledged.

Appendix

See Table A1

Table A1
Experimental results for fatigue-static tests.
Specimen Fatigue load level Number of fatigue cycles QN qN ΔaN w
(N⋅mm) (N⋅mm) (mm) (μm)

FS-0.7–0.1–1 0.7 9407 1231.70 106.54 19.31 12.46

FS-0.7–0.1–2 0.7 9407 1293.22 92.60 12.02 3.56
FS-0.7–0.1–3 0.7 9407 1263.17 121.14 17.68 9.86
FS-0.7–0.1–4 0.7 9407 1238.66 127.81 20.69 5.65
FS-0.7–0.1–5 0.7 9407 1265.79 138.82 19.14 12.31
FS-0.7–0.1–6 0.7 9407 1291.63 138.67 16.62 6.02

FS-0.7–0.3–1 0.7 28,222 1239.74 116.68 19.51 20.34

FS-0.7–0.3–2 0.7 28,222 1250.67 134.55 20.18 13.71
FS-0.7–0.3–3 0.7 28,222 1229.90 94.68 18.34 13.00
FS-0.7–0.3–4 0.7 28,222 1280.79 141.97 17.99 9.15
FS-0.7–0.3–5 0.7 28,222 1236.70 159.15 23.91 14.25
FS-0.7–0.3–6 0.7 28,222 1276.37 111.62 15.49 6.91

FS-0.7–0.5–1 0.7 47,037 1199.07 135.17 25.23 13.08

FS-0.7–0.5–2 0.7 47,037 1229.41 142.79 23.03 23.46
FS-0.7–0.5–3 0.7 47,037 1226.89 115.15 20.61 20.02
FS-0.7–0.5–4 0.7 47,037 1313.46 161.91 16.76 9.01
FS-0.7–0.5–5 0.7 47,037 1230.02 173.55 25.95 10.83
FS-0.7–0.5–6 0.7 47,037 1185.55 175.86 30.46 24.78

FS-0.7–0.7–1 0.7 65,852 1174.94 206.80 34.48 14.64

FS-0.7–0.7–2 0.7 65,852 1127.40 193.79 37.81 27.59
FS-0.7–0.7–3 0.7 65,852 1157.57 159.32 31.57 28.49
FS-0.7–0.7–4 0.7 65,852 1209.74 157.10 26.32 11.69
FS-0.7–0.7–5 0.7 65,852 1204.25 198.20 30.82 20.23
FS-0.7–0.7–6 0.7 65,852 1154.72 168.18 32.70 32.75

FS-0.7–0.9–1 0.7 84,667 1053.15 214.12 46.95 58.46

FS-0.7–0.9–2 0.7 84,667 1033.05 220.18 49.48 40.87
FS-0.7–0.9–3 0.7 84,667 1095.12 226.91 44.13 46.40
FS-0.7–0.9–4 0.7 60,366* – – – –
(continued on next page)

22
M. Jia et al. Engineering Fracture Mechanics 255 (2021) 107956

Table A1 (continued )
Specimen Fatigue load level Number of fatigue cycles QN qN ΔaN w
(N⋅mm) (N⋅mm) (mm) (μm)

FS-0.7–0.9–5 0.7 84,667 1104.05 181.37 38.87 55.52

FS-0.7–0.9–6 0.7 42,907* – – – –

FS-0.75–0.1–1 0.75 1809 1290.49 94.23 12.44 6.08

FS-0.75–0.1–2 0.75 1809 1243.38 106.06 18.14 12.88
FS-0.75–0.1–3 0.75 1809 1262.16 87.66 14.54 9.68
FS-0.75–0.1–4 0.75 1809 1315.17 124.76 13.01 7.80
FS-0.75–0.1–5 0.75 1809 1277.45 79.98 12.32 8.27
FS-0.75–0.1–6 0.75 1809 1306.71 127.25 14.06 9.43

FS-0.75–0.3–1 0.75 5428 1280.99 147.69 18.52 7.33

FS-0.75–0.3–2 0.75 5428 1241.15 153.50 22.93 12.25
FS-0.75–0.3–3 0.75 5428 1284.59 116.16 15.13 18.03
FS-0.75–0.3–4 0.75 5428 1315.78 147.55 15.15 5.69
FS-0.75–0.3–5 0.75 5428 1265.36 158.21 21.05 18.87
FS-0.75–0.3–6 0.75 5428 1260.18 138.10 19.61 18.24

FS-0.75–0.5–1 0.75 9046 1250.90 120.08 18.76 18.19

FS-0.75–0.5–2 0.75 9046 1211.20 141.27 24.65 20.49
FS-0.75–0.5–3 0.75 9046 1244.03 141.77 21.52 20.76
FS-0.75–0.5–4 0.75 9046 1192.68 163.06 28.54 19.53
FS-0.75–0.5–5 0.75 9046 1267.24 167.14 21.73 12.00
FS-0.75–0.5–6 0.75 9046 1234.76 153.02 23.50 13.00

FS-0.75–0.7–1 0.75 12,664 1175.80 217.03 35.38 27.34

FS-0.75–0.7–2 0.75 12,664 1207.67 154.87 26.30 18.38
FS-0.75–0.7–3 0.75 10,364* – – – –
FS-0.75–0.7–4 0.75 12,664 1223.32 153.74 24.68 23.89
FS-0.75–0.7–5 0.75 12,664 1209.46 195.29 30.03 24.78
FS-0.75–0.7–6 0.75 12,664 1212.57 165.99 26.90 19.56

FS-0.75–0.9–1 0.75 16,283 1122.18 224.11 41.25 50.39

FS-0.75–0.9–2 0.75 14,736* – – – –
FS-0.75–0.9–3 0.75 16,283 1140.22 212.82 38.41 38.11
FS-0.75–0.9–4 0.75 16,283 1145.95 243.63 40.84 43.65
FS-0.75–0.9–5 0.75 16,283 1101.11 238.56 44.68 46.75
FS-0.75–0.9–6 0.75 16,283 1168.41 173.78 31.92 47.19

FS-0.8–0.1–1 0.8 335 1279.07 111.20 15.18 13.07

FS-0.8–0.1–2 0.8 335 1291.86 85.26 11.44 11.83
FS-0.8–0.1–3 0.8 335 1304.98 111.06 12.67 8.56
FS-0.8–0.1–4 0.8 335 1324.28 127.46 12.39 7.69
FS-0.8–0.1–5 0.8 335 1291.76 57.33 8.76 14.35
FS-0.8–0.1–6 0.8 335 1301.77 51.19 7.19 10.85

FS-0.8–0.3–1 0.8 1004 1284.51 159.09 19.28 15.37

FS-0.8–0.3–2 0.8 1004 1256.89 116.14 17.80 19.27
FS-0.8–0.3–3 0.8 1004 1265.47 107.24 16.12 22.77
FS-0.8–0.3–4 0.8 1004 1307.60 93.00 10.67 13.22
FS-0.8–0.3–5 0.8 1004 1312.72 127.79 13.54 11.43
FS-0.8–0.3–6 0.8 1004 1317.46 147.98 15.03 15.43

FS-0.8–0.5–1 0.8 1673 1247.84 169.76 23.86 16.04

FS-0.8–0.5–2 0.8 1673 1253.99 115.60 18.03 28.21
FS-0.8–0.5–3 0.8 1100* – – – –
FS-0.8–0.5–4 0.8 1673 1285.30 158.62 19.16 18.17
FS-0.8–0.5–5 0.8 1673 1295.93 130.62 15.43 18.82
FS-0.8–0.5–6 0.8 1673 1289.80 143.16 17.23 22.81

FS-0.8–0.7–1 0.8 2342 1219.56 234.50 32.84 31.06

FS-0.8–0.7–2 0.8 2342 1263.28 174.18 22.79 28.62
FS-0.8–0.7–3 0.8 2342 1220.50 208.85 30.28 28.95
FS-0.8–0.7–4 0.8 2342 1304.12 144.92 16.02 18.21
FS-0.8–0.7–5 0.8 2342 1256.85 153.48 21.41 32.20
FS-0.8–0.7–6 0.8 2342 1189.36 191.17 31.57 21.63

FS-0.8–0.9–1 0.8 3011 1193.95 203.98 32.37 39.77

FS-0.8–0.9–2 0.8 3011 1156.75 275.61 42.88 49.09
FS-0.8–0.9–3 0.8 1687* – – – –
FS-0.8–0.9–4 0.8 2412* – – – –
FS-0.8–0.9–5 0.8 3011 1188.95 179.15 30.45 47.49
FS-0.8–0.9–6 0.8 3011 1168.12 253.33 39.63 29.41

(continued on next page)

23
M. Jia et al. Engineering Fracture Mechanics 255 (2021) 107956

Table A1 (continued )
Specimen Fatigue load level Number of fatigue cycles QN qN ΔaN w
(N⋅mm) (N⋅mm) (mm) (μm)

FS-0.85–0.1–1 0.85 70 1314.85 124.32 12.99 12.18

FS-0.85–0.1–2 0.85 70 1305.24 75.02 9.16 13.53
FS-0.85–0.1–3 0.85 70 1310.60 64.81 7.66 9.42
FS-0.85–0.1–4 0.85 70 1293.35 53.06 8.19 11.15
FS-0.85–0.1–5 0.85 70 1331.47 92.66 8.33 9.40
FS-0.85–0.1–6 0.85 70 1298.49 95.89 11.83 11.84

FS-0.85–0.3–1 0.85 209 1297.98 107.52 13.00 14.78

FS-0.85–0.3–2 0.85 209 1293.16 141.62 16.76 20.30
FS-0.85–0.3–3 0.85 209 1315.37 93.38 9.96 13.95
FS-0.85–0.3–4 0.85 209 1309.63 137.36 14.76 17.37
FS-0.85–0.3–5 0.85 209 1302.60 140.88 15.78 18.41
FS-0.85–0.3–6 0.85 209 1301.59 110.48 12.94 16.84

FS-0.85–0.5–1 0.85 349 1284.15 173.43 20.70 25.12

FS-0.85–0.5–2 0.85 349 1269.96 113.27 16.26 23.08
FS-0.85–0.5–3 0.85 349 1304.87 129.53 14.46 21.69
FS-0.85–0.5–4 0.85 349 1284.14 108.13 14.40 19.27
FS-0.85–0.5–5 0.85 349 1250.84 173.28 23.91 20.64
FS-0.85–0.5–6 0.85 349 1255.90 167.96 22.91 20.41

FS-0.85–0.7–1 0.85 489 1247.43 248.88 31.54 22.83

FS-0.85–0.7–2 0.85 396* – – – –
FS-0.85–0.7–3 0.85 489 1266.15 194.30 24.46 32.47
FS-0.85–0.7–4 0.85 489 1251.82 150.62 21.62 24.81
FS-0.85–0.7–5 0.85 299* – – – –
FS-0.85–0.7–6 0.85 489 1232.25 206.94 28.96 29.49

FS-0.85–0.9–1 0.85 628 1232.85 230.28 31.15 32.08

FS-0.85–0.9–2 0.85 628 1170.50 269.14 40.93 41.15
FS-0.85–0.9–3 0.85 628 1227.81 214.98 30.16 42.40
FS-0.85–0.9–4 0.85 573* – – – –
FS-0.85–0.9–5 0.85 628 1202.84 279.13 38.77 37.15
FS-0.85–0.9–6 0.85 628 1200.17 251.59 36.37 33.00

FS-0.9–0.1–1 0.9 18 1323.14 68.47 6.80 11.60

FS-0.9–0.1–2 0.9 18 1301.23 88.88 10.89 12.86
FS-0.9–0.1–3 0.9 18 1326.70 89.93 8.53 9.68
FS-0.9–0.1–4 0.9 18 1327.64 106.21 10.01 13.08
FS-0.9–0.1–5 0.9 18 1286.13 88.47 12.31 13.02
FS-0.9–0.1–6 0.9 18 1321.15 94.30 9.49 10.83

FS-0.9–0.3–1 0.9 54 1291.55 107.53 13.62 18.49

FS-0.9–0.3–2 0.9 54 1301.42 94.29 11.39 19.67
FS-0.9–0.3–3 0.9 54 1295.44 96.51 12.18 17.43
FS-0.9–0.3–4 0.9 54 1292.05 80.20 10.94 14.53
FS-0.9–0.3–5 0.9 54 1317.16 156.72 15.90 15.99
FS-0.9–0.3–6 0.9 54 1319.72 175.55 17.47 13.91

FS-0.9–0.5–1 0.9 91 1285.72 167.43 19.97 21.86

FS-0.9–0.5–2 0.9 91 1275.89 122.43 16.58 20.58
FS-0.9–0.5–3 0.9 91 1314.45 163.93 16.86 16.68
FS-0.9–0.5–4 0.9 91 1313.01 168.40 17.43 19.77
FS-0.9–0.5–5 0.9 91 1293.30 129.23 15.55 21.88
FS-0.9–0.5–6 0.9 91 1275.71 143.32 18.61 24.61

FS-0.9–0.7–1 0.9 127 1301.16 205.90 22.20 25.77

FS-0.9–0.7–2 0.9 127 1285.27 135.17 16.90 29.53
FS-0.9–0.7–3 0.9 127 1287.76 186.50 21.62 22.81
FS-0.9–0.7–4 0.9 127 1271.52 162.84 20.90 26.76
FS-0.9–0.7–5 0.9 127 1279.86 232.27 26.80 24.60
FS-0.9–0.7–6 0.9 127 1291.87 201.04 22.63 23.64

FS-0.9–0.9–1 0.9 163 1234.68 256.73 33.53 28.51

FS-0.9–0.9–2 0.9 163 1231.27 253.21 33.52 33.84
FS-0.9–0.9–3 0.9 163 1263.34 214.07 26.64 35.39
FS-0.9–0.9–4 0.9 112* – – – –
FS-0.9–0.9–5 0.9 163 1240.66 213.06 28.73 37.75
FS-0.9–0.9–6 0.9 96* – – – –
*
Fatigue life of the TPB beam.

24
M. Jia et al. Engineering Fracture Mechanics 255 (2021) 107956

References

[1] Zhang B, Wu K. Residual fatigue strength and stiffness of ordinary concrete under bending. Cem Concr Res 1997;27(1):115–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0008-
8846(96)00183-4.
[2] Soroushian P, Elzafraney M. Damage effects on concrete performance and microstructure. Cem Concr Compos 2004;26(7):853–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cemconcomp.2003.05.001.
[3] González DC, Vicente MA, Ahmad S. Effect of cyclic loading on the residual tensile strength of steel fiber-reinforced high-strength concrete. J Mater Civ Eng
2015;27(9):04014241. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0001200.
[4] Baluch MH, Qureshy AB, Azad AK. Fatigue crack propagation in plain concrete. SEM/RILEM International Conference on Fracture of Concrete and Rock.
Houston, Texas, USA; 1987.
[5] Paris P, Erdogan F. A critical analysis of crack propagation laws. J Basic Eng 1963;85(4):528–33. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.3656900.
[6] Bažant ZP, Xu K. Size effect in fatigue fracture of concrete. ACI Mater J 1991;88(4):390–9. https://doi.org/10.14359/1786.
[7] Bažant ZP, Schell WF. Fatigue fracture of high-strength concrete and size effect. ACI Mater J 1993;90(5):472–8. https://doi.org/10.14359/3880.
[8] Kirane K, Bažant ZP. Size effect in Paris law and fatigue lifetimes for quasibrittle materials: Modified theory, experiments and micro-modeling. Int J Fatigue
2016;83(Feb):209–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2015.10.015.
[9] Slowik V, Plizzari GA, Saouma VE. Fracture of concrete under variable amplitude fatigue loading. ACI Mater J 1996;93(3):272–83. https://doi.org/10.14359/
9812.
[10] Sain T, Chandra Kishen JM. Prediction of fatigue strength in plain and reinforced concrete beams. ACI Struct J 2007;104(5):621–8. https://doi.org/10.14359/
18864.
[11] Sain T, Chandra Kishen JM. Probabilistic assessment of fatigue crack growth in concrete. Int J Fatigue 2008;30(12):2156–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijfatigue.2008.05.024.
[12] Kim J-K, Kim Y-Y. Fatigue crack growth of high-strength concrete in wedge-splitting test. Cem Concr Res 1999;29(5):705–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0008-
8846(99)00025-3.
[13] Kolluru SV, O’Neil EF, Popovics JS, Shah SP. Crack propagation in flexural fatigue of concrete. J Eng Mech 2000;126(9):891–8. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
0733-9399(2000)126:9(891).
[14] Maitra SR, Reddy KS, Ramachandra LS. Stress intensity factor based damage prediction model for plain concrete under cyclic loading. J Mater Civ Eng 2018;30
(7):04018118. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0002289.
[15] Bhowmik S, Ray S. An experimental approach for characterization of fracture process zone in concrete. Eng Fract Mech 2019;211(Apr):401–19. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.engfracmech.2019.02.026.
[16] Li D, Huang P, Chen Z, Yao G, Guo X, Zheng X, et al. Experimental study on fracture and fatigue crack propagation processes in concrete based on DIC
technology. Eng Fract Mech 2020;235:107166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2020.107166.
[17] Hillerborg A, Modéer M, Petersson P-E. Analysis of crack formation and crack growth in concrete by means of fracture mechanics and finite elements. Cem
Concr Res 1976;6(6):773–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/0008-8846(76)90007-7.
[18] Gylltoft K. Fracture mechanics models for fatigue in concrete structures. Luleå, Sweden: Division of Structural Engineering, Luleå Univ. of Technology; 1983.
[19] Horii H, Shin HC, Pallewatta TM. Mechanism of fatigue crack growth in concrete. Cem Concr Compos 1992;14(2):83–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/0958-9465
(92)90002-D.
[20] Hordijk DA. Local approach to fatigue of concrete. Delft, The Netherlands: Delft Univ. of Technology; 1991.
[21] Toumi A, Bascoul A. Mode I crack propagation in concrete under fatigue: microscopic observations and modelling. Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomech 2002;26
(13):1299–312. https://doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)1096-985310.1002/nag.v26:1310.1002/nag.245.
[22] Li VC, Matsumoto T. Fatigue crack growth analysis of fiber reinforced concrete with effect of interfacial bond degradation. Cem Concr Compos 1998;20(5):
339–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0958-9465(98)00010-9.
[23] Matsumoto T, Li VC. Fatigue life analysis of fiber reinforced concrete with a fracture mechanics based model. Cem Concr Compos 1999;21(4):249–61. https://
doi.org/10.1016/S0958-9465(99)00004-9.
[24] Zhang J, Stang H, Li VC. Fatigue life prediction of fiber reinforced concrete under flexural load. Int J Fatigue 1999;21(10):1033–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0142-1123(99)00093-6.
[25] Zhang J, Stang H, Li VC. Experimental study on crack bridging in FRC under uniaxial fatigue tension. J Mater Civ Eng 2000;12(1):66–73. https://doi.org/
10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2000)12:1(66).
[26] Zhang J, Li VC, Stang H. Size effect on fatigue in bending of concrete. J Mater Civ Eng 2001;13(6):446–53. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2001)
13:6(446).
[27] Maitra SR, Reddy KS, Ramachandra LS. Numerical investigation of fatigue characteristics of concrete pavement. Int J Fract 2014;189(2):181–93. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10704-014-9969-x.
[28] Brake NA, Chatti K. Prediction of transient and steady-state flexural fatigue crack propagation in concrete using a cyclic R-curve. J Eng Mech 2012;138(4):
371–8. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EM.1943-7889.0000338.
[29] Brake NA, Chatti K. Prediction of size effect and non-linear crack growth in plain concrete under fatigue loading. Eng Fract Mech 2013;109(Sept):169–85.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2013.06.004.
[30] Brake NA, Chatti K. Equivalent crack, fracture size effect, and cohesive stress zone of plain concrete under quasi-static and variable high-cycle fatigue loading.
J Mater Civ Eng 2017;29(4):04016247. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0001766.
[31] Simon KM, Chandra Kishen JM. Influence of aggregate bridging on the fatigue behavior of concrete. Int J Fatigue 2016;90(Sept):200–9. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2016.05.009.
[32] Skar A, Poulsen PN, Olesen JF. A simple model for fatigue crack growth in concrete applied to a hinge beam model. Eng Fract Mech 2017;181(Aug):38–51.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2017.06.018.
[33] Deng Z. The fracture and fatigue performance in flexure of carbon fiber reinforced concrete. Cem Concr Compos 2005;27(1):131–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cemconcomp.2004.03.002.
[34] Wiedmann A, Weise F, Kotan E, Müller HS, Meng B. Effects of fatigue loading and alkali-silica reaction on the mechanical behavior of pavement concrete. Struct
Concr 2017;18(4):539–49. https://doi.org/10.1002/suco.201600179.
[35] Xu S, Reinhardt HW. Determination of double-K criterion for crack propagation in quasi-brittle fracture, part II: Analytical evaluating and practical measuring
methods for three-point bending notched beams. Int J Fract 1999;98(2):151–77. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018740728458.
[36] RILEM TC 50. Rilem TC 50-FMC recommendation: Determination of the fracture energy of mortar and concrete by means of three-point bend tests on notched
beams. Mater Struct 1985; 18(4): 287-290. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02472918.
[37] Hu X-Z, Wittmann FH. Fracture energy and fracture process zone. Mater Struct 1992;25(6):319–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02472590.
[38] Wang H-W, Wu Z-M, Wang Y-J, Yu RC. An analytical method for predicting mode-I crack propagation process and resistance curve of rock and concrete
materials. Theor Appl Fract Mech 2019;100(Apr):328–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tafmec.2019.01.019.
[39] Huang T, Zhang YX, Lo SR, Lee CK. Experimental study on crack bridging in engineered cementitious composites under fatigue tensile loading. Constr Build
Mater 2017;154(Nov):167–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.07.193.
[40] Petersson P-E. Crack growth and development of fracture zones in plain concrete and similar materials. Lund, Sweden: Division of Building Materials, Lund
Institute of University; 1981.

25