See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/245307996

Failure Mechanism of Concrete under Fatigue Compressive Load

Article  in  Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering · December 2004

DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2004)16:6(566)

CITATIONS READS
16 506

3 authors, including:

Kolluru Subramaniam Surendra P. Shah

Indian Institute of Technology Hyderabad Northwestern University
150 PUBLICATIONS   1,708 CITATIONS    625 PUBLICATIONS   20,952 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Improving sulfate-resistivity of concrete with nanoSiO2 View project

Seismic Assessment of Masonry Structures View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Kolluru Subramaniam on 31 August 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Failure Mechanism of Concrete
under Fatigue Compressive Load
Bin Mu1; Kolluru V. Subramaniam2; and S. P. Shah3

Abstract: In this paper, the behavior of concrete under static and fatigue compressive load is studied. Cylindrical specimens were
subjected to static cyclic and constant amplitude fatigue loading. The static cyclic tests were performed by unloading and reloading the
specimen at three different points in the postpeak period of the static loading response. Low cycle, high amplitude fatigue tests were
performed to failure using three load amplitudes. It is found that under the term of structural compliance the static compressive response
of concrete can be used as an envelope for the fatigue failure compressive response. The change rate of stiffness or compliance under
fatigue loading follows a two-stage process: a deceleration stage followed by an acceleration stage up to failure. The failure mechanisms
for both static and fatigue loading are explained by the band damage zone model and found to be consistent in the term of an inelastic
displacement. The results agree well with the previous research work.
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2004)16:6(566)
CE Database subject headings: Concrete; Failures; Compression; Fatigue; Loads.

Introduction
Fatigue is a process of progressive and permanent material dam-
age under repeated loading. Conventionally, a distinction has
been made between low and high amplitude fatigue. The former
is characterized by greater number of cycles of low stress ampli-
tude. Repeated cycles at high stress amplitude, where the material
response is nonlinear results in severe damage in a relatively
small number of cycles. Such loading is encountered in situations
such as airport pavements where the concrete is subjected to re-
peated loading of high stress amplitude due to passing aircrafts.
Biaxial high amplitude fatigue response of concrete is of interest
in such situations for developing rational design procedures, as-
sessing the service life of existing pavement, and predicting the
service performance of existing pavements to increased loading in
the future.
Current approaches to evaluate fatigue performance of con-
crete are empirical. Fatigue equations based on the well-known
S – N concept have been developed and reported in the literature.
(ACI 1982; RILEM Committee 36-RDL 1984; Oh 1991; Paskova
and Meyer 1994). Oh (1991) demonstrated that the probabilistic
distributions of fatigue life of concrete depend on the level of
applied stress. Thus, implementation of the conventional S – N
approach requires time-consuming experimental data collection
1
Research Associate, Center for Advanced Cement Based Materials,
Northwestern Univ., Evanston, IL 60208-4400.
2
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, City College of the
City Univ. of New York, New York, NY 10031.
3
Walter P. Murphy Professor and Director, Center for Advanced Ce-
ment Based Materials, Northwestern Univ., Evanston, IL 60208-4400
(corresponding author). E-mail: s-shah@nortwestern.edu
Note. Associate Editor: Zhishen Wu. Discussion open until May 1,
2005. Separate discussions must be submitted for individual papers. To
extend the closing date by one month, a written request must be filed with
the ASCE Managing Editor. The manuscript for this paper was submitted
for review and possible publication on February 13, 2003; approved on
February 23, 2004. This paper is part of the Journal of Materials in Civil
Engineering, Vol. 16, No. 6, December 1, 2004. ©ASCE, ISSN 0899-
1561/2004/6-566–572/$18.00.
for a given design case followed by statistical analysis. The re-
sulting information is not directly applicable to other design cases
with different loading configurations or boundary conditions.
Mechanistic understanding of damage evolution due to re-
peated loading is still evolving. The mechanistic approaches are
based on applying the concepts of fracture or damage mechanics
to model the accruing damage in the material due to repeated
loading. In tensile loading where the primary damage mechanism
is crack growth, early attempts to model crack growth included
applying the Paris Law to describe the fatigue crack growth (Bal-
uch et al. 1987; Perdikaris and Calomino (1987); Bazant and Xu
(1991); Bazant and Schell 1993). More fundamental approaches
to understand the damage growth in fatigue have been developed,
which have included a careful interpretation of the fatigue re-
sponse using parameters obtained from the static load response.
Using this approach the evolution of damage under fatigue is
interpreted by considering the mechanisms that influence growth
of damage in static loading. Hordijk and Reinhardt (1993) and
Gyltoft (1983) used the cyclic cohesive zone constitutive relation-
ship for concrete obtained from the static test response to numeri-
cally simulate the crack growth in fatigue loading. Li and Matsu-
tomo (1998) developed a cyclic constitutive law for frictional
bond degradation at the fiber–matrix interface and used it to pre-
dict the fatigue response of fiber-reinforced cement composites.
Recently, it was shown that the different stages in the fatigue load
response of concrete could be interpreted in terms of the different
mechanisms that influence the static response (Subramaniam
2000). A fracture-based mechanistic model, which provides a
clear understanding of the various mechanisms that influence the
crack propagation in fatigue, was also proposed (Subramaniam
1999).
The damage evolution and the failure of concrete in uniaxial
compression are more complex. The failure has been shown to be
caused by localization of damage into a zone of finite dimensions.
The damage localizes at or close to the peak load. After the dam-
age localizes, the strain distribution is not uniform along the
length of the specimen. After localization, the load–deformation
response of the specimen is dominated by the continued damage
accrual in the damage zone. The deformation of the damage zone

566 / JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2004


Fig. 1. Biaxial C – T region
continues to increase while the material outside the damage zone
unloads (Jansen and Shah 1997). A mechanistic model of the
observed damage growth has been developed using the band-
damage approach and has been successfully used to describe the
observed length independent response in axial compression (Jan-
sen and Shah 1997). While considerable data have been reported
in the literature on the compressive fatigue of concrete, most of
the previous studies have been confined to generating the S – N
curve (Oh 1991; Pakova and Meyer 1994). A mechanistic under-
standing of damage growth and failure of concrete subjected to
fatigue loading in compression is still lacking.
The concept of envelope curve is often used to establish fail-
ure criterion for concrete subjected to fatigue loads. According to
this concept, parameters assessed from the static response of the
specimen provide a bound for fatigue response. There is however
little agreement regarding the choice of parameters. Deflection-
based criterion has been proposed for the fatigue failure of fiber-
reinforced concrete, wherein the static response provides a bound
for the strain or deflection values for the specimens subjected to
compressive cyclic/fatigue loading (Otter and Naaman 1988).
However, the deflection-based criterion was found not applicable
for fatigue of fiber-reinforced concrete in flexure or tension
(Zhang et al. 1999). The deflections at fatigue failure for plain
concrete have been also shown to be significantly different from
the corresponding deflections in the postpeak part of the static
response (Shah and Chandra l970; Hordijk 1991; Subramaniam et
al. 1999). The total reduction in the stiffness at fatigue failure has
Fig. 2. Load–displacement response of cylinder in compressive test: (a) static test and (b) fatigue test
JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2004 / 567
Table 1. Test Data at Peak Loads in Static Compressive Test
Peak load Axial displacement Normalized compliance
Specimen (kN) (mm) 共Cr / Ci兲
1 338.5 0.89 1.13
2 335.1 0.81 1.04
3 337.4 0.86 1.09
Average 337.0 0.85 1.05
however been shown to compare favorably with that at the cor-
responding load in the postpeak part of the static response of a
specimen.
The work presented in this paper focused at developing a
mechanistic understanding of the fatigue response of concrete in
uniaxial compression. This uniaxial compression represents a
boundary point in the biaxial compression–tension loading region
(C – T region), where the signs of the two principal stresses are
different (Fig. 1). Static and fatigue compressive tests were con-
ducted and compared. The band-damage zone model was em-
ployed to explain the fatigue mechanism of specimens in both
tests.
Experimental Program and Test Results
The experimental program was aimed at determining the com-
pressive static cyclic and constant amplitude fatigue response of
concrete. Concrete cylinders 共100⫻ 200 mm兲 were used in the
study. The average age of the cylinders used in the static and
fatigue tests was 42 days. The mixture proportions by weight of
the constituents were, cement: water: fine aggregate: coarse
aggregate= 1.0: 0.5: 2.0: 2.0. Commercially available Type I Port-
land cement was used. The coarse aggregate was 9.5 mm pea
gravel, which was used in the air-dried state. The water required
for effective absorption was determined by the guidelines given in
ASTM C 127 (1994) and was accounted for in the mix. After
demolding at 24 h, the specimens were cured in a fog room at
98% relative humidity (RH) and at 23° C for 28 days. The speci-
mens were then placed in the laboratory environment until tested.
Table 2. Postpeak Normalized Compliance 共Cr / Ci兲 and Axial Displacement in Static Compressive Test
Prepeak 90% postpeak load 80% postpeak load 70% postpeak load
Specimen 共Ci / Ci兲 Cr / Ci (displacement, mm) Cr / Ci (displacement, mm) Cr / Ci (displacement, mm)

1 1.0 1.21 (0.97) 1.43 (1.02) 1.56 (1.04)

2 1.0 1.12 (0.92) 1.39 (1.02) 1.59 (1.09)
3 1.0 1.18 (1.02) 1.43 (1.09) 1.56 (1.14)

Average 1.0 1.16 (0.97) 1.41 (1.04) 1.56 (1.09)

Note: The axial displacement at x% postpeak load was measured at the starting unloading point in the load–displacement curve.

The average 28 day compressive strength was equal to 35 MPa.
Static Compressive Response
Static compressive tests were performed by unloading the speci-
mens at different load levels in the postpeak part of the load
response. Specifically, each specimen was unloaded at load levels
corresponding to 90, 80, and 70% of the peak load for that speci-
men and reloaded to the load envelope. The specimens were ini-
tially loaded in circumferential control using a closed-loop test
machine (see Table 1). The load was applied to the cylinders such
that the circumferential expansion of the cylinder measured using
an extensometer mounted around the circumference of the cylin-
der increased at a constant rate. Once the load reached 90% of the
peak load in the postpeak part of the load response, the test was
switched to displacement control and the load was decreased until
it reached a value of 44.5 N. Further testing was performed in
displacement control, i.e., the load was applied/reduced such that
the load–point displacement of the specimen increased/decreased
at a constant rate. The specimen was reloaded up to the load
envelope and unloaded each time the load reached the specified
fraction of the peak load. The load point axial displacement was
measured at the starting of the unloading process. A total of three
specimens were tested to determine the static response in com-
pression. The average static peak load determined from the three
specimens was 337.0 kN.
A typical static response obtained by unloading the specimen
at different points in the postpeak part of the axial load–
displacement response is shown in Fig. 2(a). Ci, and Cr are initial
and reload compliances, respectively, defined as the most linear
parts of the loading curves. The axial compliance increases with
every additional unloading–reloading cycle. This is indicated by
the progressive decrease in slope of the unloading–reloading
curves. The percentage increase in axial compliance as a function
of the percentage decrease in load in the postpeak is shown in
Table 2. The percentage increase in axial compliance has been
computed with respect to the initial axial compliance. The in-
crease in compliance with continued loading is an indicator of
accruing damage in the material and the percentage increment in
compliance shows the level of damage in the material.
Fatigue Compressive Response
cycled between the upper and lower load limits up to failure. In a
typical test, data was acquired for seven load cycles every time
the stiffness of the specimen changed by a certain threshold value.
Within each load cycle, data was acquired at time increments of
0.05 s. Data processing, which involved filtering and analyzing
the collected data to determine the change in stiffness at different
stages in the fatigue life of a specimen, was performed using a
computer program.
Typical load response from a constant amplitude fatigue test is
shown in Fig. 2(b). There is a steady increase in the axial com-
pliance of the specimen with repeated loading as seen by the
decreasing slope of the load–unloading curves. Secant stiffness
was measured. The change in stiffness during fatigue loading for
the same specimen is shown in Fig. 3. The normalized stiffness
represents the secant stiffness computed between the minimum
and maximum load levels, which has been normalized with re-
spect to the initial stiffness in the first fatigue cycle. The number
of load cycles 共N兲 has been normalized with respect to the total
number of fatigue cycles to failure 共N f 兲 for a given specimen. It
can be seen that the damage evolution in concrete during com-
pressive fatigue, in term of the measured stiffness, is a S-shaped
curve (Fig. 3). The damage evolution appears to follow a three-
stage trend. There is measurable drop in the axial stiffness during
the first a few cycles (Region I), which is followed by a region of
gradual, almost linear change (Region II). The linear rate of de-
crease in Region II suggests that the damage accrues at a constant
rate in the material in this stage. This is subsequently followed by
a large and rapid decrease in stiffness prior to failure (Region III).
The rates of change in axial compliance at different stages of
the fatigue life for all the specimens are shown in Fig. 4. The rate
of axial compliance increase has been plotted as a function of the
percentage increase in the axial compliance of the specimen. The
rate of compliance increase follows a two-stage process: a decel-
eration stage, which is followed by an acceleration stage up to the
failure. There is a distinctive inflection point in the rate of com-
pliance increase marking a critical value of compliance where the
rate of increase in compliance changes from deceleration to ac-
celeration. All specimens tested at the three load ranges showed
Table 3. Results from Fatigue Tests for Load Cycle of 90– 5% of Aver-
age Static Compressive Strength

Fatigue tests were performed at three different load ranges. At all At fatigue failure At inflection
the three load ranges tested the lower limit in the fatigue load Cycles to Axial displacement Normalized Normalized
cycle was kept fixed at 5% of the average static peak load. Three Specimen failure (mm) compliance compliance
different upper load levels corresponding to 90, 80, and 76% of
1 3,621 0.97 1.30 1.03
the average static peak load were used for the three load ranges
(See Tables 3–5). At least three specimens were tested at each 2 338 0.86 1.22 1.03
load range. Load was applied between the upper and lower load 3 66 0.79 1.25 1.02
levels in a sinusoidal waveform at a frequency of 2 Hz. The fa-
tigue tests were performed in load control, i.e., the load was Average 1,342 0.87 1.26 1.03

568 / JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2004

Table 4. Results from Fatigue Tests for Load Cycle of 80– 5% of
Average Static Compressive Strength
At fatigue failure At inflection
Cycles to Axial displacement Normalized Normalized
Specimen failure (mm) compliance compliance

1 1,966 0.88 1.32 1.05

2 1,390 0.87 1.24 1.06
3 3,984 1.00 1.35 1.10

Average 2,447 0.92 1.30 1.07

consistent behavior. Similar conclusions were drawn by other re-

searchers in the fatigue flexural tests. Stang and Zhang (1994)
presented evidence that the relation between fatigue crack length
and fatigue cycles was a S-shape curve. This S-shape curve actu-
ally implies that the crack growth rate follows a two-stage pro-
cess. Their conclusions were again verified by fatigue flexural
experiments conducted by Subramaniam et al. (2000).
Fatigue Failure Criterion
A comparison of the axial displacement at fatigue failure and
static load displacement response is shown in Fig. 5(a). Each data
point in the figure represents a different specimen tested in fatigue
and different symbols correspond to different fatigue load ranges.
It can be seen that the axial displacement at fatigue failure, which
is judged as the maximum displacement at the higher fatigue
loading level, is not comparable to displacement obtained from
the static response; the axial displacement at fatigue failure are
considerably smaller than the axial displacement at the corre-
sponding load in the static postpeak. Therefore, a failure criterion
based on static deflections may not be suitable for plain concrete
subjected to uniaxial compressive fatigue. Similar observations
have been reported from the previous research in the biaxial
t – C – T region.
A comparison of the compliances (inverse of stiffness) at the
fatigue failure and at the corresponding load in the postpeak static
response is shown in Fig. 5(b). The compliance at the fatigue
failure was determined by the smallest compliance in the load–
displacement curve. The compliance at a static test was obtained
from the unloading response at a given load level. Each solid
symbol corresponds to a different specimen tested in fatigue and
the hollow symbols correspond to the compliance obtained from
static load response. It can be seen that a favorable comparison
between the compliance at fatigue failure and that obtained at the
load corresponding to the maximum fatigue load in the static
Fig. 3. Relationship of normalized stiffness and normalized cycles
共76– 5 % 兲
postpeak period response is obtained. This suggests that the com-
pliance at fatigue failure can be obtained from the static response.
Hence, it can be concluded that the static response acts like an
envelope to the fatigue response when framed in terms of com-
pliance.
A comparison of the compliance at the inflection point in the
fatigue response, where the rate of change in compliance changes
from deceleration to acceleration, and the compliance at the peak
load in the static response is shown in Fig. 6. The compliance at
the peak load in the static response was calculated by the
interpolation/extrapolation as show in Fig. 7. The first extrapola-
tion based on the load–displacement, points, O2, O3 and O4 to get
cross point O0, which was the cross point of the fitting curve
O2 – O3 – O4 and the initial compliance OO0 共Ci兲. Then interpola-
tion was employed to get the unload compliance at the peak load
共Crpeak兲, based on the load–unload compliance relationship of Ci,
Cr90%peak, Cr80%peak, and Cr70%peak. The critical compliance in the
fatigue test is found to correspond to the compliance at the peak
load in the static test (Fig. 6).
Prediction of Fatigue Life from Fatigue Response
Fig. 8 shows a plot of the slope of the decrease in compressive
stiffness dK / dN, in Stage II of fatigue response versus the fatigue
life N f for all the specimens (where K, N, and N f are stiffness,
cycle, and fatigue life, respectively). The response of all the fa-
tigue specimens tested at three different loading ranges follows a
linear trend. This suggests that a larger slope in Region II is

Table 5. Results from Fatigue Tests for Load Cycle of 76– 5% of

Average Static Compressive Strength
At fatigue failure At inflection
Cycles to Axial displacement normalized normalized
Specimen failure (mm) compliance compliance

1 15,256 0.93 1.39 1.04

2 15,906 0.97 1.52 1.04
3 18,656 0.97 1.54 1.03
4 11,174 0.88 1.43 1.04

Average 15,248 0.94 1.47 1.04 Fig. 4. Compliance change rate versus compliance

JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2004 / 569

 Fig. 5. Comparison of static and fatigue response: (a) load–displacement and (b) load–compliance
associated with a smaller number of cycles to fatigue failure 共N f 兲.
A larger rate of damage accrual results in decreased fatigue life.
The relationship between the slope of Stage II and the number of
cycles to fatigue failure obtained using least squares approxima-
tion is given as
log共N f 兲 = − 0.9444* log共dK/dN兲 + 2.5134 共1兲
It is interesting to find that the relationship between the slope
of Stage II and fatigue life is independent of the load range (Fig.
8). This suggests that the fatigue life can be determined or pre-
dicted from Eq. (1) for any load range if the slope in Stage II of
the fatigue response is known. In practice, Stage I may represent
the first few months and the Stage II may represent a long time
before the airport pavement needs to be repaired. Since Stage I is
quite short and the slope of Stage II shows almost a linear trend,
engineers are able to predict the fatigue life of the airport pave-
ment by conducting the fatigue test with just a few cycles. When-
ever Stage II and the stiffness change rate in stage II are deter-
mined, Eq. (1) can be employed. However, it should be noted that
Eq. (1) is only applicable for a certain range of load level, for
example, higher than the threshold load level of the materials. In
addition, the minimum load level also influences the fatigue life
Fig. 6. Comparison of compliance at fatigue inflection point and that
at static peak load
570 / JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2004
of concrete (Stang and Zhang 1994). The applicability of Eq. (1)
for different minimum load levels needs to be studied.
Fatigue Failure Mechanism
In static compression, the damage zone of specimen has a non-
uniform distribution as shown in Fig. 9(a). From previous study
(Jansen and Shah 1997), this damage zone can be modeled as a
band damage zone [Fig. 9(b)]. Using the band damage zone
model, two distinct areas of the concrete sample can be described;
bulk concrete and damage zone. Localization initiates at the peak
stress or just prior to the peak stress. In either case, the shape of
the stress–strain curve up to the peak can be considered approxi-
mately the same in the bulk concrete and the eventual damage
zone. During prepeak the same amount of energy per unit volume
Fig. 7. Interpolation/extrapolation for compliance at peak load in
static test
Fig. 8. Relationship between decrease rate of stiffness in stage II of
fatigue response and fatigue life
dissipated in bulk concrete and damage zone due to microcrack-
ing [Fig. 9(c)]. During postpeak, the bulk concrete unloads. Ad-
ditional energy is dissipated in the damage zone. If assuming that
the total strain in the damage zone is composed of two parts
linearly: one similar to the bulk concrete ␧b and the additional
inelastic strain in the localized damage zone, one can write
␧z = ␧b + ␦/l 共2兲
where the length of the damage zone l is independent of the
length of specimen L and the postpeak inelastic displacement ␦
that substracts the prepeak response of concrete from the postpeak
displacements can approximately describe the inelastic, localized
deformations occurring during strain softening. This means that
no matter how long the specimens the postpeak behaviors in com-
pression are the same. The postpeak energies are essentially inde-
pendent of the specimen length. This independence of the post-
peak compressive fracture energy again confirms the occurrence
of localization as modeled.
This band damage zone model is employed to explore the
fatigue failure mechanism of concrete airport pavement. Fig. 10
gives a comparison of these postpeak inelastic displacements at
different loading levels from the static test and the fatigue test. In
the fatigue test, the postpeak inelastic displacement is calculated
by the failure displacement which substracts the displacement at
the compliance rate inflection point (Fig. 4). A good agreement is
found. This means that the static postpeak displacements, which
approximately describe the localization displacements in static
Fig. 9. Band damage zone model for localization behavior in com-
pression: (a) distributed damage, (b) band-damage distribution, and
(c) bulk concrete behavior and damage zone behavior
JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2004 / 571
Fig. 10. Comparison of static and fatigue response: load–postpeak
inelastic displacement in damage zone
compression, govern the fatigue failure mechanism. The fatigue
failure under compression is also a localized phenomenon. The
relationship of load–postpeak inelastic displacement obtained
from the static test acts as the envelope curve for the fatigue test.
Discussion
The static load–response can be visualized as a failure envelope
curve, where each point in the postpeak region is an equilibrium
point representing the maximum load that can be supported for a
given level of damage in the damage zone. Therefore every point
on the postpeak load envelope can be characterized by a given
damage level in the damage zone. Further, it can be implicitly
assumed that the change in compliance of a specimen in the post-
peak is due to accruing damage in the specimen and the increase
in compliance is indicative of the increase in the level of damage
in the damage zone.
The favorable comparison between the compliance at the in-
flection point in the fatigue response and the static peak load
indicates that the damage level is comparable for the two load-
ings. A similar conclusion can also be drawn from the favorable
comparison between the percentage decrease in stiffness in fa-
tigue and static postpeak.
As can be seen from Fig. 1, uniaxial compression and uniaxial
tension represent two boundary points of the biaxial C – T region,
respectively. Within this biaxial region the mode of failure
changes from a highly localized cracking associated with a tensile
loading to a crushing type of failure due to compressive stresses.
Previous research on high amplitude fatigue response of concrete
subjected to biaxial stresses in the tensile–compression–tension
共t – C – T兲 region, where the principal tensile stress is larger in
magnitude than the principal compressive stress (Fig. 1), sug-
gested the following: (1) the structural compliance in constant
amplitude fatigue loading was a two-phase process: a deceleration
phase followed by an acceleration stage; and (2) static load enve-
lope was shown to predict the crack length or structural compli-
ance at fatigue failure. The primary mode of failure in this biaxial
stress region was shown to be crack propagation. The observed
trends in fatigue crack growth were explained based on the
mechanisms that influence crack growth in static loading. The
fatigue crack growth models were developed using fracture-based
parameters. Details of the experimental work and the analytical
model for the material response are available in Subramaniam et
al. (1998, 1999, 2000, 2002) and Subramaniam (1999).
The experimental results in uniaxial compression are qualita-
tively in agreement with those obtained from the t – C – T region.
Thus it appears that the findings from previous research can be
extended to this point of the c – C – T region (Fig. 1), except for
the terms related to the length of crack. As to the crack informa-
tion, there is no simple way to characterize such information in
the compressive test, because the cracks are not distinctly local-
ized as that in tension. However, using the concept of the post-
peak inelastic displacement and band damage zone, the fatigue
failure mechanism can still be modeled based on the static results.
Conclusion
The concrete airport pavement subjected to static and low fre-
quency, high amplitude fatigue compressive loading was studied.
This loading case is a special point in the biaxial c – C – T region.
The experimental results are shown to be very similar to those in
the t – C – T region from the previous research. The fatigue infor-
mation can be obtained from the corresponding static results
under the term of structural compliance. This implies that the
method, theory, and model proposed in the t – C – T region are
verified and can be extended to this special point (point iv) in the
c – C – T region. Future study will focus on a general point in the
c – C – T region, i.e., point v, where the principle compressive
stress is larger, in magnitude, than the principle tensile stress.
Based on the results presented in this paper, the following main
conclusions can be drawn:
1. a deflection based failure criterion is not suitable for concrete
subjected to compressive fatigue loading;
2. the response of the load–postpeak inelastic displacement/
structural compliance obtained from static loading acts as a
failure envelope curve for fatigue loading;
3. structural compliance change rate has two stages: a decelera-
tion stage followed by an acceleration stage up to failure.
The compliance at the rate inflection point in the fatigue test
corresponds to the compliance at the peak load in the static
test.
4. the damage evolution in concrete during compressive fa-
tigue, in terms of the measured compliance, follows a three-
stage trend. Fatigue life can be predicted by the slope of the
stiffness in Stage II and the relationship between the slope of
Stage II and fatigue life is independent of the fatigue load
range.
5. the fatigue failure mechanism can be explained by the band
damage zone model and agrees with that of the static com-
pressive test. The postpeak inelastic displacement and the
length of the damage zone are independent of the length of
the specimen.
Acknowledgments
The paper was prepared from a study conducted at the Center of
Excellence for Airport Pavement Research. Funding for the Cen-
ter of Excellence is provided in part by the Federal Aviation Ad-
ministration under Research Grant No. 03-128/DOT-95-C-001/
Al 8. The Center of Excellence is maintained at the University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and is in partnership with North-
western University and the Federal Aviation Administration. Pa-
tricia Watts is the FAA-COE Program Director and Dr. David
572 / JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2004
View publication stats
Brill is the Project Manager at the FAA Airport Technology R&D
Branch. The writers acknowledge the support from the NSF Cen-
ter for ACBM, Northwestern University during the course of this
investigation.
References
American Concrete Institute (ACI). Committee 215. (1982). “Fatigue of
concrete structures.” SP-75, S. P. Shah, ed., Detroit.
Baluch, M. H., Qureshy, A. B., and Azad, A. K. (1987). “Fatigue crack
propagation in plain concrete.” Proc., SEM/RILEM Int. Conf. on
Fracture of Concrete and Rock, S. P. Shah and S. E. Swartz, eds.
Houston, 80–87.
Bazant, Z. P., and Schell, W. F. (1993). “Fatigue fracture of high strength
concrete and size effect.” ACI Mater. J., 90(5), 472–478.
Bazant, Z. P., and Xu., K. (1991). “Size effect in fatigue fracture of
concrete.” ACI Mater. J., 88(4), 390–399.
Gyltoft, K. (1983). “Fracture mechanics models for fatigue in concrete
structures.” PhD thesis, Lulea Univ. of Technology.
Hordijk, D. A. (1991). “Local approach to fatigue of concrete.” PhD
dissertation, Delft Univ., Delft, The Netherlands.
Hordijk, D. A., and Reinhardt, H. W. (1983). “Numerical and experimen-
tal investigation into the fatigue behavior of plain concrete.” Exp.
Mech., 83(4), 278–285.
Jansen, D. C., and Shah, S. P. (1997). “Effect of length on compressive
strain softening of concrete.” J. Eng. Mech., 123(1), 25–35.
Li, V. C., and Matsumoto, T. (1998). “Fatigue crack growth analysis of
fiber reinforced concrete with effect of interfacial bond degradation.”
Cem. Concr. Compos., 20, 339–351.
Oh, B. H. (1991). “Fatigue-life distributions of concrete for various stress
levels.” ACI Mater. J., 88(2), 122–128.
Otter, D. E., and Naaman, A. E. (1988). “Properties of steel fiber-
reinforced concrete under cyclic loading.” ACI Mater. J., 85(4), 254–
261.
Paskova, T., and Meyer, C. (1994). “Optimum number of specimens for
low-cycle fatigue tests of concrete.” J. Struct. Eng., 120(7), 2242–
2247.
Perdikaris, P. C., and Calomino, A. M. (1987). “Kinetics of crack growth
in plain concrete.” Proc., SEM/RILEM Int. Conf. on Fracture of Con-
crete and Rock, S. P. Shah and S. E. Swartz, eds., Houston, 64–69.
RILEM Committee 36-RDL (1984). “Long term random dynamic load-
ing of concrete structures.” Mater. Constr. (Paris), 17(9), 1–28.
Shah, S. P., and S. Chandra. (1970). “Fracture of concrete subjected to
cyclic and sustained loading.” J. Am. Concr. Inst., 67(9), 816–825.
Stang, H., and Zhang, J. (1994). “Experimental determination of fatigue
crack growth in fiber reinforced concrete.” Recent advances in experi-
mental mechanics, J. F. Silva Gomez et al., eds., A. A. Balkema,
Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 1347–1352.
Subramaniam, K. V. (1999). “Fatigue of concrete subjected to biaxial
loading in the tension region.” PhD dissertation, Northwestern Univ.,
Evanston, Ill.
Subramaniam, K. V., O’Neil, E., Popovics, J. S., and Shah, S. P. (2000).
“Crack propagation in flexural fatigue of concrete: Experiments and
theoretical model.” J. Eng. Mech., 126(9), 891–898.
Subramaniam, K. V., Popovics, J. S., and Shah, S. P. (1998). “Testing
concrete in torsion: Instability analysis and experiments.” J. Eng.
Mech., 124(11), 1258–1268.
Subramaniam, K. V., Popovics, J. S., and Shah, S. P. (1999). “Fatigue
behavior of concrete subjected to biaxial stresses in the C – T region.”
ACI Mater. J., 96(6), 663–669.
Subramanian, K. V., Popovics, J. S., and Shah, S. P. (2002). “Fatigue
fracture of concrete subjected to biaxial stresses in the tensile C – T
Region.” J. Eng. Mech., 128(6), 668–676.
Zhang, J., Stang, H., and Li, V. C. (1999). “Fatigue life prediction of fiber
reinforced concrete under flexural load,” Int. J. Fatigue, 21(10),
1033–1049.