Cover Image

Not for Sale

View/Hide Left Panel
Click for next page ( 28

The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement

Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 27
27 number of loading cycles (N). The stress range is defined as tance. The resulting larger transient stresses in the steel may the algebraic difference between the maximum and the min- adversely affect fatigue performance of the member. Specifi- imum stress in a stress cycle: S = fmax - fmin (i.e., the transient cally, if designed efficiently, both the minimum and maxi- stress). Most ferrous materials exhibit an "endurance limit" or mum stresses will increase coincident with the value of fy used "fatigue limit" below which failure does not occur for an in design. However, the maximum stress may be increased to unlimited number of cycles, N. In general, the concrete mate- a greater degree, resulting in a larger stress range under tran- rial fatigue performance exceeds that of the steel and is not sient loads. For example, the value of fmin will generally be on considered in design (Neville 1975). the order of 0.20fy. For Grade 60 A615 steel, the present The AASHTO (2007) limit for fatigue-induced stress in AASHTO requirement (Equation 9) results in a fatigue limit mild steel reinforcement is based on the outcome of NCHRP of 20 ksi. Applying the same equation to steel having a yield Project 4-7 as reported by Helgason et al. (1976). The maxi- strength of 120 ksi, for instance, results in the unnecessary mum permitted stress range ( ff) in straight reinforcement (and unwarranted) reduction of the permitted fatigue stress resulting from the fatigue load combination is given in to 16 ksi. The lower fatigue limit implies that the higher AASHTO LRFD (2007) as follows: strength material has reduced fatigue performance, which is contrary to all available data (Appendix E). The counterintu- f f 21 - 0.33 fmin + 8 ( r h ) ( ksi units ) (Eq. 8) itive outcome, in terms of design, is that more of the higher strength steel is required to carry the same transient loads. Where: Although some data suggest an improved fatigue limit for fmin = algebraic minimum stress level (compression is neg- higher strength bars (DeJong et al. 2006) may be permissible, ative) and there are insufficient data at this time to make any recom- r/h = ratio of base radius to height of rolled-on transverse mendation in the direction of changing the AASHTO fatigue deformations; 0.3 may be used in the absence of actual limit (Equation 9) and/or making the fatigue limit a function values. of yield (or tensile) capacity. Nonetheless, the impact of Recent revisions to AASHTO LRFD simply incor- applying Equation 9 to higher strength reinforcing steel is porate the default r/h ratio as follows: that fmin may be increased by taking advantage of the higher strength steel, but the increase results in an unwarranted f f 24 - 0.33 fmin ( ksi units ) (Eq. 9) reduction in the fatigue limit. It is, therefore, proposed to normalize fmin by the yield stress, fy. Calibrating this equation The AASHTO-prescribed relationship is shown (see so that there is no effect for Grade 60 reinforcement, one Appendix E) to represent the lower-bound results of many arrives at the following: fatigue studies considering a range of bar sizes and is reported applicable for Grades 40, 60, and 75 ASTM A615 f f 24 - 0.20 ( fmin f y ) ( ksi units ) (Eq. 10) reinforcing bars (Corley et al. 1978). Corley et al. report that "A No. 11 Grade 60 bar fractured in fatigue after 1,250,000 While still conservative, this equation recognizes that fatigue cycles when subjected to a stress range of 21.3 ksi and a min- behavior of ferrous metals is largely unaffected by the yield imum stress of 17.5 ksi tension. This is the lowest stress range strength of the material itself; thus, the baseline endurance at which a fatigue fracture has been obtained in an undisturbed limit of 24 ksi is unchanged. North American produced reinforcing bar" [emphasis added]. The fmin term is appropriate where fmin is positive (i.e., ten- 2.4.2 Effect of High-Strength Steel sion, the usual case) but appears to be "calibrated" to result on the AASHTO Fatigue Provisions in the same stress values as were used for working stress In order to understand the role of fatigue in the design of design using Grade 40 steel. Finally, bar size is not consid- reinforced-concrete flexural members, the following approach ered in the AASHTO-prescribed limit, although it is well was taken. established that larger bar sizes typically have lower fatigue A simply supported beam having length L was considered. limits (Tilly and Moss 1982). Nominal moments are determined at the midspan using the following loads: 2.4.1 AASHTO Fatigue Equation and Design DL = dead load (self weight). This value is determined with High-Strength Steel for a range of values of DL/LLlane. The use of high-strength reinforcement may permit a LLlane = specified lane load = 0.64 k/ft (AASHTO LRFD reduction of the total area of steel required for flexural resis-