Professional Documents
Culture Documents
John M. Hanson
Chairman
Paul W. Abeles
John D. Antrim
Earl I. Brown, II
John N. Cernica
Carl E. Ekberg, Jr.*
Neil M. Hawkins
Hubert K. Hiisdorf
Cornie L. Hulsbos
Don A. Linger
Edmund P. Segner, Jr.
Surendra P. Shah
Laurence E. Svab
William J. Venuti
* Chairman of ACI Committee 215 at the time preparation of this report was begun.
David W. Johnston
Chairman
M. Arockiasamy
P.N. Balaguru
Mark D. Bowman
John N. Cernica
Luis F. Estenssoro
John M. Hanson
Neil M. Hawkins
Thomas T.C. Hsu
Ti Huang
Lambit Kald
Michael E. Kreger
Basile G. Rabbat
Raymond S. Rollings
Surendra P. Shah
Luc R. Taerwe
William J. Venuti
This report presents information that is intended to aid the practicing engineer
confronted with consideration of repeated loading on concrete structures. Investigations of the fatigue properties of component materiak+oncrete, reinforcing
bars, welded reinforcing mats, and prestressing tendons-are reviewed. Application of this information to predicting the fatigue life of beams and pavements is
discussed. A significant change in Section 3.1.2 of the 1992 revisions is the
increase in the allowable stress range for prestressing steel from 0.04 fpu to
0.06 I;,,.
Keywords: beams (supports); compressive strength; concrete pavements: cracking (fracturing); dynamic loads; fatigue (materials); impact; loads (Forces); microcracking; plain
concrete; prestressed concrete; prestressing steel; reinforcedconcrete: reinforcingsteels;
specifications; static loads: strains; stresses; structural design; tensile strength; welded
wire fabric; welding; yield strength.
CONTENTS
21 5R-1
215R-2
CHAPTER l-INTRODUCTION
ACI 301-89
215R-3
icGs&it_g
loo -
215R-4
III
III
Strain
x 106
21 5R-5
215R-6
60 -
414
Stress
Range
S,, MPa
Stress
Range
S,, ksi
40 -
20 -
01;
-138
IO
01
Cycles
IO
10.0
to Failure, N, millions
Tests
reported
in
I I
Gr:*de
bar
No. 6
No. 8
No.
10
Reference 28
,~~~~~
Reference 36
40
1.12
1.00
60
1.04
1.00
60
1.10
1.00
215R-7
N = 2
on
cycles
20
0
Grade 4 0 6 0 75
S mln
0 Ify
Manufacturer
406075
40 75
40 75
0 3fy
0 Ify
0 3fy
No.8 Bars
2 million
cycles
0
Grade 40 6075
Smm
025fy
b) Data from Reference 27, No. 5 Bars
r
ksi
N = 5 million
cycles
20
0
Grade 40 60 75
S min
0 Ify
Size
No8
4060
75
40 6075
40 60 75
4fy
0 Ify
0 Ify
No 8
No 5
No 10
80
60
Stress
Range
Sr , ksi
Stress
Range
S, MPa
4 0
20
\Tack-Welded
Stirrups
0.1
1.0
Cycles to Failure,N,
millions
215R-9
60
t
Stress
Range
Sr ,ksi
276
Stress
Range
S, MPa
\ .
\
v..
414
276
Stress
Range
S, MPa
a\
s
\
138
are additive.
Results for cross-weld tests conducted in air are
summarized in Fig. 9. In the German investigation45 15 tests
were made on a smooth wire fabric consisting of 0.236 in. (6
mm) diameter wires welded to 0.315 in. (8 mm) diameter
wires.
In one American investigation49 59 cross-weld tests were
made on a 2 x 2-6 x 6 (0.263 in. or 6.7 mm diameter) smooth
wire fabric, and in the other investigation48 22 cross-weld
tests and 30 between weld tests were made on #5 Grade 60
deformed bars with #3 deformed bars welded to them.
The University of Washington49 investigation was intended
to provide a statistically analyzable set of test data for three
stress ranges. It was observed that when the penetration
across the weld was less than one-tenth of the diameter of
the wire, there was incomplete fusion of the wires and the
formation of a cold joint. For a greater penetration, the
molten metal squirted into the intersection between the wires
causing a marked stress concentration so that the fatigue life
for a hot joint was about half that for a cold joint. The result
shown in Fig. 9 is the median fatigue life value for the penetration considered as a random variable. In those tests the
fatigue life values for a given stress range and a 95 percent
probability of survival exceeded the life values obtained in
tests on high yield deformed bars.25 In the tests48 on the bar
mats it was found that the welded intersection reduced the
fatigue life for a given range by about 50 percent throughout
the short life stress range.
Tests on slabs reinforced with smooth wire mats have been
reported in References 49 and 50. The results are summarized in Fig. 10, where it is apparent that there is reasonable
correlation between the two sets of data. In the Illinois test,50
the 12 in. (305 mm) wide, 60 in. (1.52 m) long slabs were reinforced with #0 gage wires longitudinally with #8 gage wires
welded to them at 6 or 12 in. (152 or 305 mm) spacings.
In the University of Washington tests,49 the 54 in. (1.37 m)
square slabs were reinforced with two layers of the same 2 x
2-6 x 6 fabric as that tested in air. In the slab tests, it was
observed that there was a rapid deterioration of the bond between the smooth wires and the concrete under cyclic loading, so that after 104 cycles of loading, all anchorage was provided primarily by the cross wires. Fatigue life values for fracture of the first wire in those slabs could be predicted using
A
l
0
1
0.1
6
6
12
I
IO
IO
IO 0
Cycles to Failure,N,millions
215R-10
Percent
0
50
70
60
Minimum Stress
Tensile Strength
* Percent
Germany
0 Japan (63)
--
Czechoslovakia
-.-
Belgium
o Japan - 5mm
Japan -4mm
U.S.A.
Smax
f PU
0.5 -
II
o4 0.06 0.1
I
0.4
I
1.0
I
4.0
Cycles to FaiIure,N,miIIions
Stress
II---l
20
50
Minimum Stress
Tensile Strength
60
70
Percent
- - - B e l g i u m -Wire
Belgium - S t r a n d
- * -*-Russia
-***--***-U.S.A.-Warner
-**--..- U.S.A.-Tide 8 Van Horn
*U.S.A.-Hilmes
BJopan-2Wires
0 Jopcrn-3 Wires
21 5R-1 1
215R-12
Smin
f PU
Country
Americl
Anchorage
Type
Conica
Mark
Series?
Wire
Diameter,in.
0.250
Japon
But ton Head
But ton
Head
Rodius, R
Diameter
215R-13
0.25
Hammer Head
Nut
B8
T5
T7A
T7B
T7C
76
0.315
0,197
0.276
0.276
0.276
19
0.28
0.49
0.89
2c
?I
fpu
IC
percent
II.8
I2 5
A
1.
6.4
I- IL IL
5.7
5.7
215R-14
2c
I
I-
l x.!,
..A
A
..
Stress
w ,Percent
Strength
8 .
*.
.
4 .
BAR
OIL+.
in.
I
I /a (28.6)
;
lb4 (31.8)
I %a
(35.0)
.
AMERICAN TFSTS
ANCHORAGE TYPE
Thread
Jw_,
....
. ...
A P
0-&As-_
A0
JAPANESE TESTS (7
+NUT ON 0.95in. OR
24mm 0 BAR
A-
*-. '.
t
. ..*
'.
VP
t
0 o+
"'.........r
.
-"-x........*+.
uA-A+
.-.....,,.
. +.m..... .-......__..
*
c
4
Failure
to
Cycles
10 6
lives were 57,100 and 54,700 cycles for 10 and 7 deg wedge
angles. Results of foreign tests on proprietary anchorages for
strand and multiple wire tendons are shown in Fig. 17. The
sources of the data are indicated on the legend accompanying
that figure. For all tests the minimum stress was about 0.56
of the tensile strength of the tendon. From a comparison of
Fig. 17 and 13 it is apparent that anchorages for strand result
in a fatigue strength of about 70 percent of the potential
strength of the strand. The strength with a rope socket is only
about 50 percent of the strength of the strand. For multiple
wire anchorages it is apparent from a comparison of Fig. 17
and 11 that the reduction is of the same order as that for
strand.
Several organizations in the United States have conducted
tests on multiple wire or strand anchorages. A tendon* consisting of 90 one-quarter in. diameter, (6.35 mm), 240 ksi
(1660 MPa) wires, anchored by button heads on an 8% in.
(222 mm) diameter donut washer with fabrication blunders
purposely incorporated in the washer, withstood, without
failure, 55,100 cycles of a loading varying between 0.70 and
0.75 times the tensile strength of the wire. A tendon? consisting of nine % in. (12.7 mm) strands, anchored with three
3-strand S/H 10 deg wedges with the wedges on 11/4 in. (32
mm) (3.2 cm) radius at one end and 21/2 in. (57 mm) radius
at the other end, withstood, without failure, 5 x lo5 cycles of
a load varying between 0.6 and 0.66 times the minimum guaranteed tensile strength of the tendon.
2.4.6 Degree of bond-Bond and cracking effects dominate
differences between the fatigue characteristics of the prestressing steel in air and those of the same steel in a pre-
52mm(O.2cI5in)K 12 Wlrel
2.0
5.0
76
\
!
fPU
0.1
OS
0.2
0.5
1.0
IO.0
215R-16
fatigue strength at a fatigue life of 10 million cycles. Deformed bar reinforcement does exhibit a fatigue limit. However, the second criterion is a conservative lower bound of all
available test results on bars.
If the calculated fatigue stresses are higher than values indicated permissible by Criteria 1 or 2, the design should not
necessarily be rejected. In these cases, evidence based on information in Sections 2.1 and 2.2 and elsewhere may provide
a basis for allowing higher stresses.
Since most of the information included in Section 2.2 is
based on fatigue tests of bars embedded in concrete beams,
it is believed to be directly applicable to design. However,
except for stress range, most of the variables which designers
can readily control-bar size, type of beam, minimum stress,
bar orientation, and grade of bar-do not have a large effect
on fatigue strength. Other variables related to manufacturing
and fabrication-deformation geometry, bending, and tack
welding-are much more significant.
One factor not considered in Section 2.2 is that a structure
is a composite of many members, each of which generally
contain many reinforcing elements. As the results of the
AASHO Road Test20 indicated, fatigue fracture of one or
more reinforcing elements does not necessarily result in
failure of the structure. Rather there is evidence of distress
due to increased deflections and wide cracks and hence there
is opportunity to repair and strengthen the structure.
Unpublished research results at the University of Washington* indicate that special attention should be given to the
shear fatigue strength of beams subjected to high nominal
shearing stresses. Inclined cracking is a prerequisite for a
shear fatigue failure. However, it is known that web shear
cracks will form under repetitive loads at appreciably lower
stresses than those assumed for static loading conditions.
For highly repetitive loading,20 it is recommended that the
range in nominal shear stress that is assumed to cause inclined cracking under a zero to maximum loading be taken as
one-half the value of nominal shear stress carried by the concrete, vc, specified in the ACI Code.53 For other loadings, the
range in nominal shear stress shall be linearly reduced from
one-half of v, to zero as the minimum stress is increased to
Vc .
Where the nominal shear stress under service loads exceeds the values of vc specified in the ACI Code, and the
shear stress due to the repetitive live load plus impact exceeds 25 percent of the total nominal shear stress, it is
further recommended that the shear carried by the concrete
vc be taken as zero for calculations of the required area of
shear reinforcement. This recommendation will reduce the
risk of a shear fatigue failure at bends in stirrup reinforcement.
3.1.2 Prestressed members-In this discussion, prestressed
members are restricted to concrete beams reinforced with
strand, wires, or bars that are prestressed to at least 40
percent of the tensile strength of the reinforcement. This reinforcement is presumed to meet the requirements of ASTM
* Personal communication from Dr. Neil M. Hawkins, University of Washington,
Seattle, Wash.
21 5R-1 7
215R-18
to convert operations to coverages considers the wheel configuration and transverse wander width of the aircraft passes
on taxiways and runways. To recognize levels of traffic other
than the fixed 5000 coverage level, the following increases in
pavement thickness are specified; an increase of 5 percent for
10,000 coverages and up to 12 percent for 30,000 coverages.
NOTATION
fc
=
=
=
=
REFERENCES
215R-19
215R-20
Current Paper No. CP 7/71, Building Research Station, Garston, Watford, Mar. 1971, 31 pp.
34. Gronqvist, Nils-Ove, Fatigue Strength of Reinforcing
Bars, Second International Symposium on Concrete Bridge
Design, SP-26, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1971,
pp. 1011-1059.
35. Yokomichi, Hideo; Ota, Toshitaka; and Nishihori, Tadanobu, Fatigue Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Beams,
Proceedings, 17th General Meeting of the Japan Cement Engineering Association (Tokyo, May 1963), V. 12, pp. 474-478.
Also, English synopsis in Review of the Seventeenth General
Meeting, Japan Cement Engineering Association, Tokyo,
1965, p. 202.
36. Kokubu, Masatane, and Okamura, Hajime, Fundamental Study on Fatigue Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Beams Using High Strength Deformed Bars, Transactions,
Japan Society of Civil Engineers (Tokyo), No. 122, Oct. 1965,
pp. l-28. (in Japanese with English Summary)
37. Kokubu, Masatane; Tada, Yoshiaki; Tachibana, Ichiro;
and Matsumoto, Yoshiji, Fatigue Behavior of Reinforced
Concrete Beams with High-Strength Deformed Bars, Transactions, Japan Society of Civil Engineers (Tokyo), No. 122,
Oct. 1965, pp. 29-42. (in Japanese with English Summary)
38. Nakayama, Norio, Fatigue Test on T-Shaped Concrete
Beams Reinforced with Deformed Bars, Transactions, Japan
Society of Civil Engineers (Tokyo), No. 122, Oct. 1965, pp.
43-50. (in Japanese with English Summary)
39. Kokubu, Masatane, and Okamura, Hajime, Fatigue
Behavior of High Strength Deformed Bars in Reinforced
Concrete Bridges, First International Symposium on Concrete
Bridge Design, SP-23, American Concrete Institute, Detroit,
1969, pp. 301-316.
40. Forrest, P.G., Fatigue of Metals, Pergamon Press,
Elmsford, New York, 1962.
41. Helgason, Th., and Hanson, J.M., Investigation of
Design Factors Affecting Fatigue Strength of Reinforcing
Bars-Statistical Analysis, Abeles Symposium on Fatigue of
Concrete, SP-41, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1974,
pp. 107-138.
42. Derecho, A.T., and Munse, W.H., Stress Concentration at External Notches in Members Subjected to Axial
Loadings, Bulletin No. 494, Engineering Experiment Station,
University of Illinois, Urbana, Jan. 1968, 51 pp.
43. Hanson, John M., and Helgason, Thorsteinn, Discussion of Fatigue Strength of Hot-Rolled Deformed Reinforcing Bars by James G. MacGregor, I.C. Jhamb, and N.
Nuttall, ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 68, No. 9, Sept. 1971,
pp. 725-726.
44. Standard Specification for Deformed and Plain BilletSteel Bars for Concrete Reinforcement, (A 615), American
Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia. See Section
1.3 for current reference.
45. Rtisch, H., and Kupfer, H., Criteria for the Evaluation
of Reinforcing Bars with High-Quality Bond (Kriterien zur
Beurteilung von Bewehrungsstaben mit hochwertigem Verbund), Wilhelm Ernst and Sons, Munich, 1969.
46. Lee, Allen, Marylands Two Continuously Reinforced
Concrete Pavements-A Progress Report, Highway Research
21 5R-21
Structures, Technical Report No. 6, Investigation of ButtonRecord, Highway Research Board. No. 5, 1963, pp. 99-119.
47. Sternberg, F., Performance of Continuously Rein- Head Efficiency, July 1968.
62. Bennett, E.W., and Boga, R.K., Some Fatigue Tests of
forced Concrete Pavement, I-84 Southington, Connecticut
Large
Diameter Deformed Hard Drawn Wire, Civil EnState Highway Department, June 1969.
48. Pasko, T.J., Final Report on Effect of Welding on gineering and Public Works Review (London), V. 62, No. 726,
Fatigue Life of High Strength Reinforcing Steel Used in Jan. 1967, pp. 59-61.
Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavements, Pavement
63. Iwasaki, I., and Asanuma, H., Quality Tests of DeSystems Group, Federal Highway Administration, Washing- formed Prestressing Wires for Prestressed Concrete Railroad
Ties, Report No. 7, Japanese National Railways Research
ton, D.C., Nov. 1971.
49. Hawkins, N.M., and Heaton, L.W., The Fatigue Char- Laboratories, 1969, p. 346. Also, Structural Research Laboracteristics of Welded Wire Fabric, Report No. SM 71-3,
atory Report No. 42, Technical Research Institute for RailDepartment of Civil Engineering, University of Washington, roads, Feb. 1969, 20 pp.
Seattle, Sept. 1971.
64. Standard Specification for Uncoated Seven-Wire
50. Bianchini, Albert C., and Kesler, Clyde E., Interim Stress-Relieved Strand for Prestressed Concrete, (A 416),
Report on Studies of Welded Wire Fabric for Reinforced American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia.
Concrete, T& AM Report No. 593, Department of Theoreti- See Section 1.3 for current reference.
65. Lane, R.E., and Ekberg, C.E. Jr., Repeated Load
cal and Applied Mechanics, University of Illinois, Urbana,
Nov. 1960.
Tests on 7-Wire Prestressing Strands, Progress Report No.
51. Bondy, K.B., Realistic Requirements for Unbonded
223.21, Fritz Engineering Laboratory, Lehigh University,
Post-Tensioning Tendons,Journal, Prestressed Concrete
Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, 1959.
Institute, V. 15, No. 2, Feb. 1970, pp. 50-59.
66. Fisher, J.W., and Viest, I.M., Fatigue Tests of Bridge
52. Les Armatures Speciales de Beton Arme et les Arma- Materials of the AASHO Road Test, Special Report No. 66,
tures de Precontrainte," Proceedings, RILEM Symposium
Highway Research Board, Washington, D.C., 1961, pp. 132147.
(Liege, July 1958), RILEM, Paris, 1958.
67. Warner, R.F., and Hulsbos, C.L., Probable Fatigue
53. ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for
Reinforced Concrete, (ACI 318), American Concrete Insti- Life of Prestressed Concrete Beams, Journal, Prestressed
tute, Detroit. See Section 1.3 for current reference.
Concrete Institute, V. 11, No. 2, Apr. 1966, p. 16-39.
54. ACI-ASCE Committee 423, Tentative Recommenda68. Hilmes, J.B., and Ekberg, C.E. Jr., Statistical Analysis
tions for Concrete Members Prestressed with Unbonded of the Fatigue Characteristics of Under-Reinforced PreTendons, ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 66, No. 2, Feb.
stressed Concrete Flexural Members, Iowa Engineering Ex1969, p. 85.
periment Station, Iowa State University, Ames, 1965.
55. ACI Committee 301, Specifications for Structural
69. Tide, R.H.R., and Van Horn, D.A., A Statistical Study
Concrete for Buildings, (AC1 301), American Concrete Insti- of the Static and Fatigue Properties of High Strength Pretute, Detroit. See Section 1.3 for current reference.
stressing Strand, Report No. 309.2, Fritz Engineering Lab56. PCI Committee on Post-Tensioning, Tentative Speci- oratory, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, 1966.
70. Eastwood, W., and Rao, R.M., Fatigue Tests on Leefication for Post-Tensioning Materials, Journal, Prestressed
Concrete Institute, V. 16, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 1971, pp. 14-20.
McCall Prestressed Concrete Beams, Civil Engineering and
57. Tentative Specifications for Testing of Prestressing Public Works Review (London), V. 52, No. 613, July 1957, pp.
Steel According to DIN 4227 for Their Acceptance, Manufac- 786-787.
turing and Supervision (Vorlaufige Richtlinien fur die Prti71. 1958 Tentative Guide for Fatigue Testing and the Statisfung bei Zulassung, Herstellung und Uberwachung von tical Analysis of Fatigue Data, STP-91A, 2nd Edition, AmeriSpannstahlen fur Spannbeton nach DIN 4227), Department can Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1963.
of Transportation, Federal Republic of Germany, Dec. 1965.
72. Brenneisen, A., and Baus, R., Statistics and Probabil58. Design and Engineering Code for Prestressed Conities, Steel for Prestressing, FIP Symposium (Madrid, June
crete Railway Bridges, Japanese National Railway.
1968), Cement and Concrete Association, London, 1969, pp.
59. Baus, R., and Brenneisen, A., The Fatigue Strength of 119-138.
Prestressing Steel, Steel for Prestressing, FIP Symposium (Ma- 73. Moore, D.G.; Klodt, D.T.; and Hensen, R.J., Protecdrid, June 1968), Cement and Concrete Association, London, tion of Steel in Prestressed Concrete Bridges, NCHRP Report
1969, pp. 95-117.
No. 90, Highway Research Board, Washington, D.C., 1970,86
60. Standard Specification for Uncoated Stress-Relieved pp.
Wire for Prestressed Concrete, (A 421), American Society
74. Research Group for Steel for Prestressed Concrete,
for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia. See Section 1.3 for Tests of Prestressing Steel, Prestressed Concrete (Japan), V.
current reference.
3, No. 3, June 1961, pp. 46-53.
61. Ball, C.G., Tensile Properties of Fatigue-Cycled USS
75. Mamada, K.; Naito, K.; and Mogami, T., Tests on
High-Tensile-Strength, Stress-Relieved, Button-AnchoringAnchorages for VSL Tendons, Prestressed Concrete (Japan),
Quality 0.250-in. Diameter Wire, Report, Project No. 57.019- V. 13, No. 4, Aug. 1971, pp. 42-48.
901 (ll), Applied Research Laboratory, U.S. Steel Corpora76. Leonhardt, Fritz, Prestressed Concrete-Design and
tion, Mar. 1963, 18 pp. Also, Part II, Western Concrete
Construction translated by V. Amerongen, 2nd Edition, Wil-
215R-22
91. Abeles, Paul W., Some New Developments in Prestressed Concrete, Structural Engineer (London), V. 29, No.
10, Oct. 1951, pp. 259-278.
92. Fisher, J.W., and Viest, I.M., Behavior of AASHO
Road Test Bridge Structures Under Repeated Overstress,
Special Report No. 73, Highway Research Board, Washington,
D.C., 1962, pp. 19-51.
93. Hanson, John M., and Hulsbos, C.J., Fatigue Tests of
Two Prestressed Concrete I-Beams with Inclined Cracks,
Highway Research Record, Highway Research Board, No. 103,
1965, pp. 14-30.
94. Fordyce, Phil, and Yrjanson, W.A., Modern Design of
Concrete Pavements, Proceedings, ASCE, V. 95, TE3, Aug.
1969, p. 407.
95. ACI Committee 325, Recommended Practice for
Design of Concrete Pavements (ACI 325-58)." Withdrawn as
an ACI standard June 1976.
96. ACI Committee 325, A Design Procedure for Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavements for Highways, ACI
JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 69, No. 6, June 1972, pp. 309-319.
97. Thickness Design for Concrete Pavements, Publication No. IS010P, Portland Cement Association, Skokie, 1966,
32 pp.
98. AASHO Interim Guide for the Design of Pavement
Structures, American Association of State Highway Officials,
Washington, D.C., 1972.
99. Hutchinson, R.L., Basis for Rigid Pavement Design
for Military Airfields,Miscellaneous Paper No. 5-7, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers Ohio Division Laboratory, Cincinnati, May 1966, 74 pp.
100. Yoder, E.J., Principles of Pavement Design, John Wiley
and Sons, Inc., New York, 1959, 569 pp.
101. Thomlinson, J., Temperature Variations and Consequent Stresses Produced by Daily and Seasonal Temperature
Cycles in Concrete Slabs,Concrete and Constructional
Engineering (London), V. 35, June-July 1940.
102. Nagataki, Shigeyoshi, Shrinkage and Shrinkage Restraints in Concrete Pavements, Proceedings, ASCE, V. 96,
ST7, July 1970, pp. 1333-1358.
103. Hudson, W. Ronald, and Matlock, Hudson, Analysis
of Discontinuous Orthotropic Pavement Slabs Subjected to
Combined Loads,Highway Research Record, Highway
Research Board, No. 131, 1966, pp. l-48.
104. State of the Art: Rigid Pavement Design, Research
on Skid Resistance, Pavement Condition Evaluation, Special
Report No. 95, Highway Research Board, Washington, D.C.,
1968, 68 pp.
105. Pickett, Gerald, and Ray, G.K., Influence Charts for
Concrete Pavements, Transactions, ASCE, V. 116, 1951, pp.
49-73.
106. Packard, R.G., Computer Program for Airport Pavement Design, Portland Cement Association, Skokie, 1967.
107. Design of Concrete Airport Pavements, Publication
No. EBO5OP, Portland Cement Association, Skokie, 1972,48
pp.
108. The AASHO Road Test-Report No. 5, Pavement
Research, Special Report No. 61E, Highway Research Board,
Washington, D.C., 1962, 352 pp.
APPENDIX-SUMMARY OF SELECTED
SPECIFICATIONS RELATING TO FATIGUE*
A.l-Manual for Railway Engineering, American Railway
Engineering Association; Chapter 8-Concrete Structures
and Foundations, 1990
215R-23
where:
f
fmin
r/h
215R-24
A.8-Denmark: DS 411:1984
Structures subjected to variable loading causing considerable fatigue effects are analyzed as for static loading but with
reduced material capacity. The design strength of concrete
subjected to compressive fatigue loading is 0.6 times the static
design strength plus 0.4 the minimum cyclic stress, the sum
being less than the static design strength. The design strength
of reinforcement subjected to fatigue loading is obtained
from a similar formula except that the static strength factor
varies according to reinforcement bend radius and welding
conditions.
Detailing recommendations include limitations on the maximum spacing of parallel bars, the anchorage, splicing and
bundling of reinforcing bars.
A.10-Iceland: IST 14:1989
The fatigue provisions of this code are identical with those
of the Danish Code.
A.ll-Sweden: BBK 79-1:1979
The maximum concrete design stress is reduced in accordance with a maximum-minimum stress diagram when the
concrete is subjected to fatigue loading. No risk is considered
to be at hand when the stresses fall inside the appropriate
curve. Reference curves are provided in multiples of 10 for
N = 1,000 to
N = l,OOO,OOO.
Reinforcement design stress is similarly reduced when
fatigue conditions arise. No risk of fatigue fracture is considered to exist if the stress range for N cycles is less than or
equal to a tabulated stress range value divided by a safety
factor. The tabulated value depends on bending and splicing
conditions.
A.12-CEB-FIP Model Code Draft
The first draft of the CEB-FIP Model Code 1990 was published as CEB-Bulletin D'Information No. 196, March 1990.
Fatigue provisions are provided for plain concrete, reinforced
concrete and prestressed concrete based upon fatigue as an
ultimate limit state. The draft may undergo some changes
before it is finalized.