Innovative Systems Design and Engineering www.iiste.

org
ISSN 2222-1727 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2871 (Online)
Vol.7, No.5, 2016

Fatigue in High Strength Reinforcement Bars: An Overview

Nyamu, D. Maringa
Department of Mechanical and Automotive Engineering. Technical University of Mombasa
PO Box 90420-80100, Mombasa, Kenya

Abstract
Fatigue is a process of progressive structural change in a material subjected to transient loads, stresses or strains.
Fatigue strength is defined as the maximum transient stress range (S) that may be repeated without causing failure
for a specified number of loading cycles (N). The stress range is defined as the algebraic difference between the
maximum and the minimum stress in a stress cycle: S = fmax - fmin; that is: the transient stress. Most ferrous
materials exhibit an endurance limit or fatigue limit below which failure does not occur for an unlimited number
of cycles, N. High strength bars can optimize design and cost as a result of high strength concrete, shallower
sections of concrete and shuttering; with smaller foundations to carry the smaller loads. It is noted that normal
allowable design stress is not invalidated by fatigue considerations.
Keywords: Fatigue, endurance limit, stress range, ADTT, relative rib area, AASHTO, DL, ADTTSL, ADT, tensile
strength, welded wire fabric, yield strength, anchorage, offshore, salinity

1. Introduction
Fatigue was hardly ever considered in early bridge design. The allowable 125-140MPa design stresses were low
and conservative. Seldom does one get to hear of bridge failure occasioned by fatigue. Over time, it has become
necessary for bridges to carry heavier loads through wider spans. A partial solution came by way of availability of
high yield strength steel reinforcement in the developed world. These types and grades of steel reinforcement have
yield strength in excess of 550 MPa. Granted, using steel with this higher capacity could provide various benefits
to the concrete construction industry by reducing member cross sections and reinforcement quantities, leading to
savings in material, shipping, and placement costs. (Corley, W.G; et al (1982).
The lack of explicit provisions in ACI 318 is almost certainly indicative of a lack of observed fatigue-
related problems in those structural concrete members and systems used in existing building applications. Many
designers are apprehensive of using welded wire fabric; but in a study, these misgivings have been found
baseless.(Wilast, A. et al (2007). Welded wire fabric affords faster works for tanks, foundations, chimneys, cooling
towers etc. In a sense, fatigue in an ordinary structure is taken care of indirectly and by default: low design stress,
proper quality concrete raw materials, adherence to construction standards with respect to ratio of mix for concrete;
and bar type, size, grade, spacing (both reinforcement and stirrups); bar cover; proper curing; service environment
(non wet or salty), high temperatures for long periods. Fatigue considerations are important in the design of bridges
and offshore structures.

1.1 Structures Prone to Fatigue

The usual, everyday house is regarded as carrying a dead load. Small loads as when a 50gm weaver bird or 2kg
marabou stork perches on the roof are trivialities. Human and furniture circulation, as well as winter snow deposits
merit no concern. But when 500 people hold a disco in a fifth floor hall the event is noted. So also one should note
the wind speeds on a structure and factor this in the design. Thus assuming a dead load on a structure is not truly
realistic.
Fatigue is a process of progressive structural change in a material subjected to transient loads, stresses or
strains. It is always indicated for bridges, crane beams and offshore structures.
Bridges carry varying dynamic load, largely non-periodic. That bridges span water bodies means that
some bridge details come in contact with water. Over many years this water undermines the bridge
structure and, depending on the initial quality, may reach the steel reinforcement. Wet corrosion then sets
in, reducing the cross section of the bar and raising the stresses. Sometimes salt may be used to de-ice a
bridge: remnants of such salt may find its way to the deck steel reinforcement. Bridges spanning salty
ocean waters must contend with both wetness and salinity.
Crane beams are a case of varying dynamic load.
Offshore structures are subject to random dynamic loading in the form of variegated wind and water
waves; as well as being permanently wetted by salty water. Any cracks present will quickly result in
corrosion fatigue.

2. Properties of the Bars

Chemical composition of reinforcement bars is specified in standards. The alloying elements are carbon,
manganese, molybdenum, silicon, zinc, chromium, vanadium, copper, nickel, columbium, aluminium. The exact

25
Innovative Systems Design and Engineering www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1727 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2871 (Online)
Vol.7, No.5, 2016

choice of these elements, and the amounts, are left at the manufacturers discretion. The resulting bar should have
minimum ultimate tensile strength of 1035MPa. Hot rolling and cold twisting are viable alternatives. Maximum
carbon contents are 0.25% for grade 250 hot-rolled steel and cold-worked steel and 0.4% for grade 460/425 hot-
rolled steel. For the latter to be weldable it is necessary for the carbon equivalent to be less than 0.51%. Maximum
sulphur content =0.050% and maximum phosphorus content=0.04% (ASTM 722-1998).

2.1 Types of Fatigue Test

2.1.1 Axial Tests
Axial tests are usually conducted on as received bars in conventional fatigue machines. The advantages are: (a)
tests are cheap and can be run at relatively high frequencies, up to about 150 Hz, so that long endurances can be
obtained quickly; and (b) applied stresses can be calculated unambiguously. The great disadvantage is that it is
difficult to grip the bars without introducing high local stresses which cause the fracture to occur near the grips.
It is also difficult to avoid the introduction of secondary stresses caused by lack of straightness in the bars or poor
alignment in the testing machine. A variety of methods have been used in attempts to grip the bars satisfactorily,
all of which have involved introducing an interlay between the bar and grips so that load transfer is spread evenly
over the bar surface. The interlays have included leather strips wrapped around the bars, casting the ends of the
bars into a low melting point alloy, bonding the ends into epoxy resin, and shot blasting the ends and wrapping
with thin aluminium sheet (Tilly,G.P. 1979).
Care need be taken to ensure axial loading and that fractures occur in the central section of the gauge length. The
loading is wholly tensile and the ratio (R) of minimum to maximum cyclic stress is 0.2
2.1.2 Bending tests on reinforced beams
The main advantage is that the test beam simulates service conditions such as the interactive effects at the steel-
to-concrete interface.
``After being cast in steel forms and cured for 24 hours under polythene sheeting, the beams were stripped and
allowed to cure at 25C and 100 per cent relative humidity until loading commenced. Beam age at test varied from
15 to 40 days. Beams were simply supported over a span of 1800 mm and centrally loaded (Fig. 3). Three
conditions of test were used, viz, in air, in natural sea water and in 3 per cent NaCl Solution, all with sinusoidal
cyclic loading at a frequency of 6.7 Hz. Not each bar type was necessarily subjected to all three conditions.
Throughout the period of test water was continuously aerated and circulated around individual beams up to their
midheight (Fig. 3); when tests ran for longer periods than one week the water was replaced each week.(Roper,
H-1982)

3. Factors Affecting Fatigue

Fatigue strength is by no means the dominating requirement of reinforcement and the rib patterns are designed to
give good pull-out strength and crack control. Material is supplied against a minimum characteristic strength i.e.
0.2% proof stress. The fatigue strength of the steel in reinforcing bars depends upon chemical composition,
microstructure, inclusions, and other variables. However, it has been shown that the fatigue strength of reinforcing
bars may be only one-half of the fatigue strength of coupons machined from samples of the bars. In addition,
reinforcing bar specifications are based on physical characteristics (ACI -1980).

3.1 Bar diameter

It is generally recognised that fatigue strength decreases with increase in bar diameter.
For plain cylindrical specimens the effect is relatively small. The explanation usually given for size effects is that
bigger sections have a statistically greater likelihood of containing large flaws. Another contributing factor may
be that smaller diameter bars can be more effectively worked. Also, studies have shown that in the vicinity of a
stress concentration the minimum size of flaw to permit crack growth reduces with increased thickness of specimen.

3.2 Bar Geometry (Deformations)

Deformations on reinforcing bars provide the means of obtaining good bond between the steel and the concrete.
However, these same deformations produce stress concentrations at their base, or at points where a deformation
intersects another deformation or a longitudinal rib. These points of stress concentrations are where the fatigue
fractures are observed to initiate. Any evaluation of the influence of the shape of the deformations on fatigue
properties of the bar must recognize that the rolling technique and the cutting of the rolls necessarily requires
specific (ACI -1980) limitations and variations in the pattern. This applies to the height of the deformations, the
slopes on the walls of the deformations, and also to the fillets at the base of the deformations. An analytical study
has shown that stress concentration of an external notch on an axially
loaded bar may be appreciable. This study indicated that the width, height, angle of rise, and base radius
of a protruding deformation affect the magnitude of the stress concentration. It would appear that many reinforcing
bar lugs may have stress concentration factors of 1.5 to 2.0. Tests on bars having a base radius varying from about

26
Innovative Systems Design and Engineering www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1727 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2871 (Online)
Vol.7, No.5, 2016

0.1 to 10 times the height of the deformation have been reported. These tests indicate that when the base radius is
increased from 0.1 to about 1 to 2 times the height of the deformation, fatigue strength is increased appreciably
(ACI -1980).
For bars having longitudinal ribs, it has been found that when tested in concrete beams their disposition
affects the fatigue strength. With the ribs in a vertical plane, the fatigue strength can be as much as 40% lower than
when placed in a horizontal plane.
Manufacturers identification markings, which appear as raised features, are very potent stress
concentrations and cause premature fractures. In cases where these have been filed off the fatigue life was
increased by about 100%. (Tilly,G.P. 1979).

3.3 Grade
The fatigue life (or fatigue strength) is not clearly a function of the grade of the bar (yield or tensile strength)
(ACI-1980).

3.4 Stress Range

For experimental convenience, axial tests are usually conducted with pulsating tension cycles having a tensile
minimum stress to ensure that components of the loading system are kept in alignment and do not become slack
at minimum load. In a structure the stress ratio (minimum/maximum cyclic stress) is a function of the ratio of dead
to live load and in bridges it is commonly in the range - 0.2 to 0.4. Most experiments are at stress ratios of 0 to 0.2.
The effect of increasing the mean stress is to reduce the allowable stress range for a given number of cycles to
failure. The introduction of a compressive phase in the cycling produces a disproportionate effect and endurances
are longer for a given stress range. (Tilly,G.P. 1979), (ACI-1980).

3.5 Microstructure
This is a function of chemical composition as well as the process of bar manufacture: hot-rolling, cold twisting or
Quench Self Tempered. We can have different phases; namely martensite, pearlite and ferrite; varied grain sizes
and relative amounts and orientation. Inclusions are discontinuities in the structure; initiating cracks because of
notch effects. Crack growth is slowed down in passing from pearlite to ferrite phase. (Marina Rocha Pinto P.N-
2014)
However, reinforcing bar specifications are based on physical characteristics. Consequently, the variables
related to the steel composition are of limited concern to practicing structural engineers. The variables related to
the physical characteristics and use of the reinforcing bars are of greater concern. (ACI-1980)

3.6 Corrosion
Damage due to corrosion can be a serious problem in highway bridges particularly for concrete decks subjected to
application of salt for de-icing. There have been numerous cases where salt has reached the reinforcement,
resulting in corrosion of the steel and spalling of the concrete. Such damage has been reported for a large number
of concrete bridge decks the most serious being in the United States. The consequences of corrosion fatigue in
offshore structures are even more ramified.(Tilly, G.P 1979).

3.7 Bending
The effect of bends on fatigue strength of bars have been investigated. Fatigue tests were carried out on both
straight and bent #8 deformed bars embedded in concrete beams. The bends were through an angle of 45o around
a pin of 6 in. (15.2 cm) diameter. The fatigue strength of the bent bars was a little more than 50 percent below the
fatigue strength of the straight bars. (ACI -1980) .

3.8 Welding
In an investigation21 using Grade 40 and Grade 60 reinforcement with the same deformation pattern, it was found
that the fatigue strength of bars with stirrups attached by tack welding was about one-third less than bars with
stirrups attached by wire ties. For both grades of steel, the fatigue strength of the bars with tack welding was about
20 ksi (138MPa) at 5 million cycles. All of the fatigue cracks were initiated at the weld locations. (ACI -1980)

4. Design for Fatigue

The AASHTO (2007) limit for fatigue-induced stress in mild steel reinforcement is based on the outcome of
NCHRP Project 4-7 as reported by Helgason et al. (1976). The maximum permitted stress range (ff ) in straight
reinforcement resulting from the fatigue load combination is given as:
f f 145- 0.33fmin +55(r/h)MPa (1)
where fmin = algebraic minimum stress level (compression is negative); and rh = ratio of base radius to height of
rolled-on transverse deformations; 0.3 may be used in the absence of actual values.

27
Innovative Systems Design and Engineering www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1727 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2871 (Online)
Vol.7, No.5, 2016

Recent revisions to AASHTO LRFD simply incorporate the default rh ratio as follows:
ff 165 0.33fmin MPa (2)
Other studies sought to relate endurance limits (fr) to yield strength (fy), (Soltani, A. et al.-2012). They established
that stress range is the critical parameter affecting fatigue. The endurance limit, (fmin) was seen to be independent
and was pegged at 165MPa (24ksi). This led to the modified expression:
ff 165 - 138 MPa (3)
The AASHTO fatigue limits are derived largely from tests having N=2000000. However, as code-prescribed limits,
they must be understood to be appropriate for the life of the structure. AASHTO (2007) provides some guidance
as to (a) the definition of a fatigue cycle, and (b) the expected number of cycles over the life of a structure. For
instance, on the basis of AASHTO-recommended values, a deck slab on an urban interstate may undergo
approximately 1 million fatigue cycles per year as follows for [Eq.(4)]:
N = 365 n ADTTSL= 930750 cycles (4)
where ADTTSL= 0.85(ADTT) = 0.85(0.15ADT) with ADT = 20,000 and n = 1.
ADTTSL is the single-lane, average daily truck traffic, ADT is the average daily traffic and n is the number of
cycles associated with a single vehicle passage. The supporting girders [assuming the bridge span exceeds 12.2 m]
will undergo twice this number of cycles (n = 2). Clearly, not all bridges see these many cycles.
A lightly traveled two-lane, rural highway bridge may undergo only about 100,000 cycles per year as follows:
N = 365 n ADTTSL= 109500 cycles (5)
where ADTTSL = 1.0(ADTT) = 1.0(0.15ADT) with ADT = 1,000 and n = 2.

A simply supported beam having length L was considered. Nominal moments are determined at the midspan using
the following loads:
DL = dead load (self weight). This value is determined for a range of values of DL/LLlane.
LLlane = specified lane load = 0.64 kip/ft (AASHTO LRFD)
LLtruck = greatest effect of design tandem and design truck . For truck on simple span, the minimum 32-kip axle
spacing of 14 ft is used.
LLfatigue = effect of single design truck having 32-kip axle spacing of 30 ft.
It is recognized that the maximum moment does not occur exactly at the midspan; however, the error in making
this assumption is quite small and becomes proportionally smaller as the span length increases.
From these moments, the STRENGTH and FATIGUE design moments are determined as follows:
STRENGTH =1.25 DL +1.75 LLlane +(1.75 1.33) LLtruck (6)
FATIGUE = (0.75 1.15) LLfatigue (7)
Where the 1.33 and 1.15 factors are for impact loading (IM).
In order to normalize for distribution, multiple lanes, etc., it is assumed that the STRENGTH design is optimized;
therefore, the stress in the primary reinforcing steel under STRENGTH conditions is fy = 0.9fy regardless of
bridge geometry. If this is the case, the reinforcing stress associated with the FATIGUE load is as follows:
ff =0.9 fy x( FATIGUE /STRENGTH ) (8)
Similarly, the minimum sustained load will result in a reinforcing stress of:
fmin = 0.9 fy (DL/ STRENGTH) (9)
The stress in the reinforcing steel under FATIGUE conditions is then normalized by the allowable stress [according
to AASHTO Equation 5.5.3.2 (Equation 3 above)] to determine the ratio of transient (FATIGUE) stress to the
calculated fatigue stress limit. The results from this approach were plotted for simple spans L = 10 to 160 ft and
DL/LLlane = 0.5, 1, 2, and 4. In this plot, the vertical axis reports the ratio ff /[24 20( fmin/ fy)]. Based on this
approach, it is not expected that the fatigue limits will affect design using fy = 60 ksi over the range considered
since the ratio of stress range/fatigue limit is less than unity for all cases. Only when fy 100ksi is this ratio
exceeded, and then only for spans under 20ft. (NCHRP Report 679 (2011), Soltani, A. et al. (2012).)
As of now, there is no universally agreed upon system of fatigue study or fatigue design for rebars. Results
can show much scatter and variation. Tests that crack near the grips are invalid. Also, how to deal with the impact
effect of a dynamic load? What about fatigue in other members e.g. anchor hooks (eye bolt), plates and girders?
Making bridge expansion joints watertight is useful: salinated water arising from de-icing is made to run off to
drainage rather than seep into the deck.

5. Discussion
There has been much research into fatigue of reinforcement. This has been intensified in recent years by the
introduction of higher strength materials, the development of advanced applications such as offshore structures
and the adoption of new design codes. In addition it is becoming recognised that features such as corrosion, type
of bar, form of manufacture, etc. can cause the fatigue lives to be substantially lower than are normally given in
reference data.
There is no evidence of the fatigue limit which is usually considered to develop at about 2 x106 cycles.

28
Innovative Systems Design and Engineering www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1727 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2871 (Online)
Vol.7, No.5, 2016

Five fractures occurred at beyond 107 cycles, the longest being at 97 x 106 cycles. Tests which survived 108 cycles
were stopped unbroken but were treated as broken in analysis of the data. Tests which failed at the grips or were
stopped short of 108 cycles for other reasons have been excluded. (Tilly,G.P & Moss, D.S-1982)
Presently accepted values for the fatigue or endurance limit for reinforcing steel are applicable to higher-
strength bars and likely are conservative. Fatigue considerations will rarely affect the design of typical reinforced-
concrete members having reinforcing steel with f y 690 MPa (100 ksi).

6. Conclusion
The design Provision for fatigue in the current AASHTO specifications was initially adopted in 1974. In this
Provision, the limiting stress range in reinforcing bars depends on the minimum stress level and the ratio of base
radius to height of the transverse lugs. Stress range, bar diameter and surface geometry especially the lug base
radius to height ratio (r/h) have significant effects on the fatigue strength of the bars. Relative rib area has no effect
on fatigue performance.
Designing for fatigue using the generally accepted endurance limit of 165MPa is sufficient and
conservative for most applications, except for high strength rebars with fy 100ksi. For bridges and offshore
structures, the fatigue effects of corrosion fatigue are acute. Some designers try stainless steel reinforcement.
Another method is to design offshore structures largely loaded in compression; with no-tension members. Unable
to avoid wetness and salinity, a sensible option is the use of proper quality concrete raw materials, proper casting
of the concrete and adequate bar cover.

References
Wilast, A. et al. (2007). Fatigue of Deformed Welded-Wire Reinforcement. University of Nebraska, Omaha.
PCI(2007)
Tilly, G.P, (1979), Fatigue Of Steel Reinforcement Bars In Concrete : A Review. Pergamon Press. Fatigue of
Engineering Materials and Structures Vol. 2, pp. 251-268
ASTM 722 (1998), Standard Specification for uncoated High Strength Steel Bars for Prestressing Concrete. ASTM
1998.
NCHRP Report 679 (2011) Appendix E: Fatigue of High Strength Reinforcing Steel. NCHRP 2011
ACI (1980) Manual of Concrete Practice: Part 1. ACI (1980).
Soltani, A. et al. (2012). Fatigue Performance of High Strength Reinforcing Steel. American Society of Civil
Engineers(2012)
Tilly, G.P, and Moss,D.S, (1982), Long Endurance Fatigue Of Steel Reinforcement IABSE Reports (1982)
Corley,W.G; et al (1982), Background of American Design Procedure for Fatigue of Concrete. Fatigue Codes and
Design Concepts; IABSE Reports (1982).
Jun Fei and David Darwin (1999), Fatigue of High Relative Rib Area Reinforcing Bars. US Department of
Transport Federal Highway Administration. University of Kansas Centre for Research, Inc. Lawrence,
Kansas(1999).
Roper, H. (1982) Reinforcement for Concrete Structures Subject to Fatigue. IABSE Reports (1982).
Marina Rocha Pinto P.N(2014) Fatigue Behaviour of Steel Reinforcement Bars at Very High Number of Cycles:
Phd Thesis; Ecole Polytechnique Federale De Lausanne(2014)
AASHTO-LRFD(2007) Bridge Design Specifications. AASHTO-LRFD(2007).
George A Christian,P.E (2010) Bridge Failures-Lessons Learned: Bridge Engineering Course, University at
Buffalo;NYSDOT,(2010)

29
Innovative Systems Design and Engineering www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1727 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2871 (Online)
Vol.7, No.5, 2016

Figure 1: The MTS 810 fatigue testing machine with Test Star control software (Wilast, A. et al 2007).

30
Innovative Systems Design and Engineering www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1727 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2871 (Online)
Vol.7, No.5, 2016

Table 1: Fatigue stress ranges (fr) corresponding to a fatigue life of 2 million cycles (NCHRP Report 679-2011)

31
Innovative Systems Design and Engineering www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1727 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2871 (Online)
Vol.7, No.5, 2016

Figure 2: Scanning Electron Microscope Image of a Lug (Jun Fei-1999)

32
Innovative Systems Design and Engineering www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1727 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2871 (Online)
Vol.7, No.5, 2016

Figure 3: Test layout of fatigue specimens: In-beam fatigue test (Roper, H. -1982)

Figure 4: Design Truck (AASHTO-LRFD-2007)

Figure 5: Design Tandem (AASHTO-LRFD-2007)

33
Innovative Systems Design and Engineering www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1727 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2871 (Online)
Vol.7, No.5, 2016

Figure 6: Schoharie Creek Bridge; collapsed 1987 (George A Christian,P.E; NYSDOT-2010)

34