Articles
Ludger Lohaus
Nadja Oneschkow*
Maik Wefer
Design model for the fatigue behaviour
of normal-strength, high-strength and
ultra-high-strength concrete
Fatigue design according to CEB-FIP Model Code 90 [1] is limited
to concrete grades up to C80. In addition, the design rules include
a strength-dependent reduction in the fatigue reference strength,
which leads to uneconomical design of high-strength concrete.
Considering comprehensive knowledge now available concern-
ing the fatigue behaviour of normal-strength and high-strength
concretes, the amount of this reduction can no longer be justi-
fied. A new design model for compressive fatigue loading and its
derivation is presented in this article [2, 3]. A comparison be-
tween the new design model and the current standard ones [1]
reveals that the new design model ensures safe and economical
design of normal-strength, high-strength and ultra-high-strength
concrete. This new design model is included in the new fib Model
Code 2010 [4].
Keywords: fatigue, design model, high-performance concrete,
Model Code 2010
1 Introduction
The design of structures with regard to the material prop-
erties of high-strength and ultra-high-strength concretes
(UHPC) usually leads to lightweight and slender structural
elements that differ significantly from the traditional bulky
structures. Concurrently, those structures with a reduced
dead weight are more susceptible to variable loads, e.g.
non-static loading. As a consequence, the influence of
cyclic stresses increases and fatigue becomes relevant for
such concrete structures. The Woehler curves of CEB-FIP
Model Code 90 [1] are based on research conducted by
Petkovic [5, 6]. However, types of concrete with compres-
sive strengths > 100MPa were not considered in that re-
search work, reflecting the fact that there was no reliable
experience with such types of concrete in those days. Fur-
thermore, that research was conducted based on a limited
number of samples [5, 6].
Hence, one focus of the research work presented in
this paper is an ultra-high-strength concrete (UHPC) with
an average compressive strength of 180MPa [2]. The num-
ber of samples used in these fatigue tests was much larger
than Petkovics. Additional investigations were conducted
on a normal-strength and a high-strength concrete for the
* Corresponding author: n.oneschkow@baustoff.uni-hannover.de
Submitted for review: 18 November 2011
Revised: 22 March 2012
Accepted for publication: 29 April 2012
182 2012 Ernst & Sohn Verlag fr Architektur und technische Wissenschaften GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin Structural Concrete 13 (2012), No. 3
DOI: 10.1002/suco.201100054
purpose of comparison. Based on these test results, new
Woehler curves and a new approach to the fatigue design
of normal-strength, high-strength and ultra-high-strength
concrete under uniaxial compressive fatigue loading was
developed in [2], and subsequently developed further [3].
Therefore, the fatigue design values of CEB-FIP Model
Code 90 [1] were modified in such a way that they apply to
normal-strength, high-strength and, additionally, ultra-
high-strength concrete. The design model and its capabili-
ties are presented in this paper. A comparison between the
new design model and the design Model according to
CEB-FIP Model Code 90 [1] shows that the new design
model ensures safe and economical design of concrete un-
der fatigue loading. The design model presented is includ-
ed in the new fib Model Code 2010 [4].
2 Experimental investigations
2.1 Test specimens
The following results were obtained based on experimen-
tal investigations on two ultra-high-strength concrete mix-
tures, which were the standard mixtures in priority
programme 1182 Sustainable Building with Ultra-High-
Performance Concrete funded by the German Research
Foundation (DFG).
The ultra-high-strength fine-grained concrete (M2Q),
with a maximum grain size of 0.5 mm, and the coarse-
grained concrete (B4Q), with a maximum grain size
of 8.0 mm, had 28-day compressive strengths of
fc,cube,100 = 160MPa and fc,cube,100 = 180MPa respectively,
both after storage underwater [7]. Both mixtures con-
tained 2.5 % by vol. of high-strength smooth steel fibres
with a length of 9.0 mm and an l/d ratio of 60. The exper-
imental investigations were carried out using cylindrical
test specimens with dimensions d x h = 60 180mm. The
formwork was removed after 48 hours and the specimens
were then heat-treated at 120 C for 2 days. Following the
heat treatment, the cylinders were stored in standardized
conditions (20 C, 65 %RH) until testing. Before testing,
the loaded surfaces of the specimens were ground parallel
and then polished.
2.2 Testing machines
Most of the fatigue tests, with expected numbers of cycles
to failure of up to N = 2.0106, were conducted using a
 L. Lohaus/N. Oneschkow/M. Wefer Design model for the fatigue behaviour of normal-strength, high-strength and ultra-high-strength concrete

servo-hydraulic universal testing machine with a test fre-
quency of fP = 10Hz. A 1MN actuator was used for these
tests. In cases where the expected numbers of cycles to
failure were higher than N = 2.0106, the tests were car-
ried out using a resonance testing machine with a test fre-
quency of approx. fP 60Hz. Both testing machines were
used for expected numbers of cycles to failure of between
N = 5.0105 and N = 2.0106. The test results show that
compared with the servo-hydraulic testing machine, the
characteristics of the resonance testing machine led to
lower numbers of cycles to failure [2]. Thus, the considera-
tion of these test results is on the safe side.
2.3 Fatigue tests and evaluation of test results
log N = 24.9 Sc,max + 25.4; B = 0.78
for Sc,min = 0.40 (3)
In accordance with [10], an investigation was carried out
to discover whether the variances in the number of cycles
to failure in the fatigue tests can be traced back to the vari-
ances in static compressive strength. Therefore, a normal
distribution was used to describe the static compressive
strength and the logarithmic numbers of cycles to failure.
The tolerance range, which results from the variances in
the static compressive strength, can be determined for the
95 % level of confidence. The tolerance range is exemplar-
ily calculated for a maximum compressive stress level of
Sc,max = 0.70 according to [11] as follows [2]:

Sufficient data are required for determining reliable re- (k T s)

TstU = Sc,max 0.61 < Sc,max =
gression lines in the finite life fatigue strength range. Sc,max
Therefore, single-level Woehler fatigue tests were carried (k T s)
out on the two types of ultra-high-strength concrete with = 0.70 < 0.79 Sc,max + = TstO (4)
Sc,max
constant minimum compressive stress levels of
Sc,min = 0.05, Sc,min = 0.20 and Sc,min = 0.40. The mean val- where
ues of static compressive strengths fcm,i were determined U; T O
Tst lower and upper bounds of tolerance range,
st
using at least three specimens from the same batch and which results from variances in the static com-
with the same geometry. These mean values were used as pressive strength
reference strengths for calculating Sc,min and Sc,max. The
x static compressive strength
st
regression lines shown in Fig. 1 were established based on kT value for determining the tolerance range
88 tests with a minimum compressive stress level of
Sc,min = 0.05, 21 tests with Sc,min = 0.20 and 12 tests with As an example, Fig. 2 compares the tolerance range (Tst U;

Sc,min = 0.40. O
Tst ) resulting from the variances in static compressive
No significant differences in the regression lines strength (x ) with the tolerance range resulting from the
st
were found in the test results for UHPCs with different variances in number of cycles to failure for Sc,max = 0.70
grain compositions. This confirms the findings in [8] and and Sc,min = 0.05.
[9] that different grain compositions have no significant ef- It is obvious that the range of variation (Tst U

fect on the fatigue behaviour. Thus, the two UHPC mix-

xst Tst ) resulting from the variances in the static com-
O

tures were not considered separately. Taking into account
the assumptions mentioned above, the regression analysis
based on single values of the logarithmic number of cycles
to failure results in the following regression lines for ultra-
high-strength concrete (see also Fig. 1):
log N = 12.4 Sc,max + 14.1; B = 0,87
for Sc,min = 0.05
pressive strength, and thus included in the fatigue tests,
completely covers the tolerance range of the regression
lines. Accordingly, for ultra-high-strength concrete under
fatigue loading, similarly to normal and lightweight con-
crete [10], no additional variances could be observed due
to fatigue loading.
The influence of the minimum stress level Sc,min
(1) must be taken into account for a complete description of

log N = 18.7 Sc,max + 19.2; B = 0.96 1.0

for Sc,min = 0.20 (2)
0.9
Sc,max = c,max / fcm,i [-]

1.0
T Ost = xst + kT * s
0.8
Sc,max = c,max / fcm,i [-]

0.9
x st
0.7
0.8 T Ust = xst - kT * s
0.6
0.7
single value log N
0.5
regression line
0.6 Sc,min = 0.05
Sc,min = 0.20 range of tolerance Sc,min = 0.05
Sc,min = 0.40 0.4
0.5 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 number of cycles to failure log N [-]
number of cycles to failure log N [-]
Fig. 2. Comparison between range of variation in static strength and toler-
Fig. 1. Experimental test results and regression lines ance range for number of cycles to failure

Structural Concrete 13 (2012), No. 3 183

 L. Lohaus/N. Oneschkow/M. Wefer Design model for the fatigue behaviour of normal-strength, high-strength and ultra-high-strength concrete
1.0
0.8
Sc,max = c,max / fcm,i [-]
0.6
0.4
0.2 boundary line for UHPC for N = 2.0 x 106
boundary line for N = 2.0 x 106 from Petkovic
boundary line for minimum stress level
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6
Sc,min = c,min / fcm,i [-]
Fig. 3. Comparison between fatigue strengths of our investigations and of [5]
the fatigue behaviour because an increasing minimum
stress level Sc,min in combination with a constant maxi-
mum stress level Sc,max leads to higher numbers of cycles
to failure. The results of the regression analysis are com-
pared with the investigations by Petkovic [5] in a Good-
man diagram for a number of cycles to failure of
N = 2.0106 (see Fig. 3). The investigations of Petkovic [5]
are the basis for the S-N relations in CEB-FIP Model Code
90 [1].
For the UHPC tested, it is obvious that higher
permissible amplitudes were reached than those accord-
ing to [5] for all minimum compressive stress levels
Sc,min,i. This means that the fatigue strength of the UHPC
specimens investigated is underestimated by the S-N rela-
tions according to CEB-FIP Model Code 90 [1].
In addition to the test series described above, it was
also necessary to analyse different influencing factors rele-
vant to the fatigue behaviour of UHPCs [2]. These further
investigations mainly focused on the influence of steel fi-
bres and heat treatment. The results of these investiga-
tions are included in Fig. 10, but are not incorporated in
detail here.
3 Development of a material model for uniaxial
fatigue loading
3.1 Requirements for the mathematical description
The material model describing the behaviour of concrete
under uniaxial fatigue loading has been developed based
on the experimental investigations, taking the minimum
compressive stress level into consideration. The material
model is determined by combining the Woehler and
Goodman diagrams (Fig. 4). The main objectives for de-
veloping this model were a complete description of the fa-
tigue behaviour and thus the definition of a failure surface
for uniaxial compressive fatigue loading.
Based on the comparative research conducted on nor-
mal-strength and ultra-high-strength concrete, and based on
184 Structural Concrete 13 (2012), No. 3
Sc,max
0.8 1.0 Sc,min [-]
log N [-]
Fig. 4. Regression lines shown in a 3D Model
knowledge gained from the literature, the derivation takes
the following requirements into consideration [2]:
Intersection with the ordinate at Sc,max = 1.0 [5, 6]
Linear approximation, at least for the range up to log
N = 7 [12]
Deviation from test results that is on the safe side
Connection to high numbers of load cycles (N > 107)
and thus continuous description for all maximum stress
levels Sc,max
An asymptotic approach to the respective minimum
stress levels for high numbers of load cycles [1]
3.2 Mathematical description of failure surface
According to the requirements described above, it is possi-
ble to define the parameterized failure surface for uniaxial
compressive fatigue. A three-dimensional system of coor-
dinates with axes Sc,max, Sc,min and logN, according to [2],
is therefore considered (Fig. 5). This system requires the
four fatigue strength values in the plane log N2 = const.
P1,fat = (log N2, Sc,max(log N2, Sc,min,1), Sc,min,1),
P2,fat = (log N2, Sc,max(log N2, Sc,min,2), Sc,min,2),
P3,fat = (log N2, Sc,max(log N2, Sc,min,3), Sc,min,3) and
P4,fat = (log N2, Sc,max(log N2, Sc,min,4), Sc,min,4)
to be determined.
The points P1,fat, P2,fat, P3,fat and P4,fat represent four
fatigue strengths determined for a previously defined num-
ber of cycles to failure log N2 based on experimental in-
vestigations or by extrapolating the regression lines. Each
fatigue strength is specified by the maximum stress level
Sc,max,i, the minimum stress level Sc,min,i and the number of
cycles to failure log N2. For high log N2 and minimum
stress levels in the range of the sustained static loading
 L. Lohaus/N. Oneschkow/M. Wefer Design model for the fatigue behaviour of normal-strength, high-strength and ultra-high-strength concrete

Sc,max,i Equation 7
1.0 Pi,0

P4,fat Equation 15
Sc,min,i = const.

Pi,fat
P3,fat
Sc,max [-]

P2,fat
0.0
log N2 log N
P1,fat
Fig. 6. Woehler curve shown in the plane Sc,min,i = const.

log N2 = const.
Pi,fat = (N2, Sc,max(log N2), Sc,min)
Sc,min
log N [-]

as the first parameter and takes the gradient at this point

as the second parameter (Fig. 6). The approach for this ex-
Fig. 5. Input parameters required for the material model (3D view)
ponential function in the logarithmic space is

Sc,max Sc,min = a N = a e ln x = a 10 log(x) = a 10 x

(

= f log x = f(x) ) (8)
strength, point P4,fat is equal to the sustained static loading
strength of the concrete investigated (Sc,max = Sc,min). where a, und N > 0.
Firstly, the plane Sc,min,i = const. is considered (see The following requirements have to be met when de-
Fig. 5). This is correlated with a Woehler curve for an ar- termining parameters a and mentioned above:
bitrary minimum compressive stress level Sc,min,i. In this
plane, the points ) = f(N ) = a 10 x 2
f(x = Sc,max(log N2 ) Sc,min (9)
2 2

Pi,0 = (0.0; 1.0) and f(x 2 ) = a 10 x 2 ln(10) = m (10)

Pi,fat = (log N2, Sc,max(log N2)) where x 2 = log N2 and m is taken from Eq. (6). Divid-
ing Eq. (10) by Eq. (9), parameter is obtained as
are already known. Pi,0 is the starting point of the Woehler follows:
curve at Sc,max,i = 1.0 [5, 6] and Pi,fat represents the fatigue
strength at logN = logN2. A function Sc,max (log N) with a 10 x 2 ln(10) m
= ln(10) = (11)
logN 0 is considered in this plane. A linear equation is a 10 x 2 S c,max(log N2 ) Sc,min
formulated for 0 log N log N2 which passes through
points Pi,0 and Pi,fat, see Fig. 6. Substituting both points in- m
= (12)
to the linear equation presented by ln(10) Sc,max(log N2 ) Sc,min

y = Sc,max (log N) = m x + b = m log N + b (5) Substituting in Eq. (9), the required parameter a is
calculated as:
means it is possible to calculate the variables

mlog N2

Sc,max(log N2 ) 1 Sc,max(log N2 ) 1 ln(10)Sc,max(log N2 )Sc,min
m= = (6) a = Sc,max(log N2 ) Sc,min 10 (13)
log N2 0 log N2

and b = 1 and thus the straight line Inserting parameter and a into Eq. (8) then results
in:
S (log N2 ) 1
Sc,max(log N) = c,max log N + 1 (7)
log N2 Sc,max(log N) = Sc,max(log N2 ) Sc,min
m (log N log N2 )
This equation clearly defines the Woehler curve in the ln(10) Sc,max(log N2 ) Sc,min
range up to logN = logN2 for all minimum compressive 10 + Sc,min (14)
stress levels Sc,min,i. An exponential function is chosen for
numbers of cycles to failure logN > logN2 which asymp- This function is a monotonic decreasing exponential func-
totically approaches the minimum compressive stress lev- tion. It continues the line expressed by Eq. (7) for the area
el value of the respective regression line. In the non-loga- 0 logN logN2 at the point where logN = logN2 for
rithmic space, this function intersects the point logN > logN2.

Structural Concrete 13 (2012), No. 3 185

L. Lohaus/N. Oneschkow/M. Wefer Design model for the fatigue behaviour of normal-strength, high-strength and ultra-high-strength concrete

Solving the equation for logN leads to: 1

b=
det
log N = log N2 + x x x y y y
23 34 42 2 3 4
Sc,max Sc,min + y1 x 21x 31x 23y 2y 3 + x 31x 41x 34 y 3y 4 + x 41x 21x 42y 4 y 2
ln(10) Sc,max(log N2 ) Sc,min log
Sc,max(log N2 ) Sc,min (18)
Sc,max(log N2 ) 1 1
c=
log N2 det
(15) (( ) ( ) ( )
x 23 x12 y 3c(21)(41) + x 24 x12 y 4c(31)(21) + x 22 x12 y 2c(41)(31) )
(19)
Eq. (15) defines the Woehler curves for all maximum com-
pressive stress levels 0< Sc,max 1 and for each minimum
compressive stress level Sc,min,i (see Fig. 6).
d =
1
(
x y c +x y c +x y c
det 21 2 (41)(31) 31 3 (21)(41) 41 4 (31)(21) ) (20)
Now consider the plane log N = log N2 = const.
(Fig. 7). This plane represents the modified Goodman dia- where
gram for the number of cycles logN = logN2, which de- det = x 2x 3x 32x 41y 2y 3 + x 3x 4 x 43x 21y 3y 4 + x 4 x 2x 24 x 31y 4 y 2
notes the change from the linear to the non-linear part of + x1x 2x 21x 43y1y 2 + x1x 3x 31x 24 y1y 3 + x1x 4 x 41x 32y1y 4
the Woehler curve. The discontinuous rational function (21)
a + b Sc,min where xij = xi xj, Yij = yi yj and c(i1)(j1) = xi1yj1 xj1yi1.
Sc,max = (16)
1 + c Sc,min + d Sc,min
2 (22)

was chosen to approximate the progression of the Good-
man diagram. This function includes the following four fa-
tigue strengths:
P1,fat = (Sc,min,1, Sc,max (Sc,min,1)) = (x1, y1),
Based on these considerations and the combination of the
approximations described, two partial planes that depend
on log N, Sc,max and Sc,min are generated in the three-di-
mensional system of coordinates (Fig. 5).
The partial plane in the subspace logN logN2 is:

P2,fat = (Sc,min,2, Sc,max (Sc,min,2)) = (x2, y2), S (log N2 ) 1

Sc,max(log N) = c,max log N + 1
log N2
P3,fat = (Sc,min,3, Sc,max (Sc,min,3)) = (x3, y3) and
a + b Sc,min
1
P4,fat = (Sc,min,4, Sc,max (Sc,min,4)) = (x4, y4). 1 + c Sc,min + d Sc,min
2
= log N + 1
(23)
log N2
It should be noticed here that 0< x1 < x2 < x3 < x4. The

four parameters a, b, c and d required are determined
depending on the points P1,fat, P2,fat, P3,fat, and P4,fat [2]:
Solving for log N:
1
a=
det
y x x x x y y + x x x x y y + x x x x y y log N =
(S c,max )
1 log N2
1 2 31 41 43 3 4 3 41 21 24 4 2 4 21 31 32 2 3 a + b Sc,min
x1x 23x 34 x 42y 2y 3y 4 1 (24)
1 + c Sc,min + d Sc,min
2
(17)

S c,max,i In the subspace log N > log N2, the partial area is ex-
pressed by:

Sc,max(log N) = Sc,min + Sc,max(log N2 ) Sc,min

1.0
P 4,fat
P 3,fat m(log N log N2 )
0.8 ln(10)Sc,max(log N2 )Sc,min
P 2,fat 10
a + b Sc,min
0.6 = Sc,min + S
c,min
1 + c Sc,min + d Sc,min
2

P 1,fat m(log N log N2 )
0.4 a + bSc,min
ln(10) Sc,min
1+ cS + d S 2

10 c,min c,min
(25)
0.2
where
a + b Sc,min
S c,min,i 1
Sc,max(log N2 ) 1 1 + c Sc,min + d Sc,min
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 2
m= = (26)
Fig. 7. Fatigue strengths Pi,fat shown in the plane logN = logN2 = const. log N2 log N2

186 Structural Concrete 13 (2012), No. 3

 L. Lohaus/N. Oneschkow/M. Wefer Design model for the fatigue behaviour of normal-strength, high-strength and ultra-high-strength concrete
Using a, b, c and d according to Eqs. (17) to (20) and solv-
ing for logN results in the following equation:
a + b Sc,min
log N = log N2 + ln(10)
1 + c Sc,min + d Sc,min
2 P 4,fat
Sc,max Sc,min
log
a + b Sc,min
Sc,min
1 + c Sc,min + d Sc,min
2
log N2
a + b Sc,min
1
1 + c Sc,min + d Sc,min
2
Applying Eqs. (24) and (27), the failure surface for uniaxi-
al compressive fatigue loading can be unequivocally gen-
erated for arbitrary maximum and minimum stress levels
using four certain fatigue strengths (P1,fat, P2,fat, P3,fat and
P4,fat). These fatigue strengths have to be determined ac-
cording to experimental test results for the same ultimate
number of cycles to failure.
3.3 Determining the model parameters
According to the above considerations and taking into ac-
count the investigations conducted on ultra-high-strength
concrete, the following input quantities are established for
the material model. The starting point for the regression
lines for all minimum compressive stress levels is located
at Sc,max = 1.0 [6]. Investigations by Klausen [12] show that
a linear correlation between the number of cycles to fail-
ure and the maximum compressive stress level can be as-
sumed up to a number of cycles to failure of N = 108. Ac-
cording to this, a linear extrapolation of the regression
lines detected experimentally was carried out up to
logN = 8. A kink in the Woehler curve, as presented in [5],
cannot be deduced from the investigations conducted.
Thus, the material model provides a description of the ma-
terial behaviour that is on the safe side. The lines for
0 logN logN2 = 8 result as follows:
log N = 15.87 (1.0 Sc,max) for Sc,min = 0.05
log N = 19.99 (1.0 Sc,max) for Sc,min = 0.20
log N = 26.42 (1.0 Sc,max) for Sc,min = 0.40
The transition point between linear and non-linear parts
of the Woehler curve is set to be logN = logN = 8. Further
input quantities are the maximum compressive stress level
Sc,max,i (log N = 8) and the minimum compressive stress
level Sc,min,i (logN = 8) of the fatigue strengths P1,fat, P2,fat,
P3,fat and P4,fat. For logN2 = 8, they are calculated using
the extrapolated regression lines considering the respec-
tive minimum stress levels Sc,min,i = 0.05, 0.20,0.40:
P1,fat: Sc,max,1 (Sc,min,1 = 0.05, log N = 8) 0.50
P2,fat: Sc,max,2 (Sc,min,2 = 0.20, log N = 8) 0.60
P3,fat: Sc,max,3 (Sc,min,3 = 0.40, log N = 8) 0.70
Sc,min
S c,max [-]
P 3,fat
P 2,fat
P 1,fat
(27)
log N2 = const. S c,min [-]
log N [-]
Fig. 8. Failure surface for uniaxial fatigue loading
It is assumed that the sustained static loading strength can
be set to Sc,max = Sc,min = 0.85, referring to the characteris-
tic compressive strength [2]. Therefore, the fatigue
strength P4,fat is
P4,fat: Sc,max,4 (Sc,min,4 = 0.85, log N = 8) 0.85
The discontinuous rational function according to Eq. (16)
is used to approximate the progression of the Goodman
diagram. The parameters a, b, c and d are calculated as
a = 0.45, b = 1.8, c = 1.8 and d = 0.3 by inserting the val-
ues for the fatigue strengths P1,fat, P2,fat, P3,fat and P4,fat in
Eqs. (17) to (22). Substituting the parameters a, b, c and d
in Eqs. (24) and (27) clearly defines the fatigue failure sur-
face for uniaxial fatigue loading for arbitrary maximum
and minimum compressive stress levels (Fig. 8).
3.4 Verification of the material model developed
Experimental test results for different concrete types un-
der compressive fatigue loading are shown in Fig. 9, to-
(28) gether with the Woehler curve according to CEB-FIP Mod-
el Code 90 [1] and the new Woehler curve. Therefore, a
(29) total of 272 experimental tests were analysed, presenting
the numbers of cycles to failure as mean values. The max-
(30) imum and minimum compressive stress levels were calcu-
lated using the mean values of the static short-term
strength as the reference strength. Each mean value was
previously determined using at least three specimens. Nor-
mal-strength, high-strength and ultra-high-strength con-
cretes with and without fibres, as well as with and without
heat treatment, were investigated using different test fre-
quencies. The minimum compressive stress level was
Sc,min = 0.05 in each test.
It can be seen that the numbers of cycles to failure
are quite similar for all types of concrete investigated. Fur-
thermore, the numbers of cycles to failure for all concrete
types are higher than those according to [1]. It is impor-
tant to mention that the Woehler curve [1] is rather con-
servative. The same conclusion can be drawn regarding
concretes C80, C70 without fibres and C90 with fibres, al-
Structural Concrete 13 (2012), No. 3 187
L. Lohaus/N. Oneschkow/M. Wefer Design model for the fatigue behaviour of normal-strength, high-strength and ultra-high-strength concrete

1.0 1.0
ntests = 272 Run out
0.9
0.9 Run out
maximum stress level S c,max [-]

maximum stress level S c,max [-]

0.8
0.8 0.7

0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
S c,min = 0.05
0.3
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0
number of cycles to failure log N [-]
Woehler curve Model Code 90 [1]
New Woehler curve Hannover
mean values C20 without fibres, 10 Hz [2]
mean value C70 without fibres, 0.5 Hz
mean values C80 without fibres, 10 Hz [13]
mean values C80 without fibres, 5 Hz [13]
mean values C80 without fibres, 1 Hz [13]
mean values C80 without fibres, 0.1 Hz [13]
mean value C90 with fibres, 0.5 Hz
mean values C150 without fibres, 10 Hz [14]
mean values C200 with fibres, heat-treated, 10 Hz [2]
mean values C200 without fibres, heat-treated, 10 Hz [2]
mean value C200 with fibres, 10 Hz [2]
Fig. 9. Comparison between Woehler curves and our experimental test
results
though the test frequencies fP = 0.1Hz 1Hz were very
low, which for the maximum stress levels tested generally
leads to lower numbers of cycles to failure [5].
Fig. 9 also shows that the numbers of cycles to failure
for high-strength and ultra-high-strength concretes with fi-
bres tend to be lower than those for the same types of con-
crete without fibres. The mean value of numbers of cycles
to failure of the ultra-high-strength concrete without heat
treatment is similar to the test results for high-strength
concrete.
Fig. 10 shows a comparison between the new materi-
al model, the model according to CEB-FIP Model Code [1]
and the results from single-level fatigue tests and fatigue
models documented in the literature. By way of an exam-
ple, the comparison is made for a minimum compressive
stress level of Sc,min = 0.05. The experimental results of
the University of Aalborg originate from a pre-published
research report which is documented in [15]. The mate-
rial investigated has a 28-day compressive strength of
fcm = 140MPa.
Fatigue investigations at the University of Kassel
were carried out on cylindrical specimens made from ul-
tra-high-strength concrete with a compressive strength of
about fcm = 160MPa after storage in water [16]. The mini-
mum compressive stress levels in these tests were varied
between 0.06 und 0.075, which resulted in slightly higher
numbers of cycles to failure in comparison with the mini-
mum compressive stress level of Sc,min = 0.05. From a prac-
tical point of view, this deviation is not very relevant. The
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
S c,min = 0.05
0.0
9.0 10.0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0
number of cycles to failure log N [-]
Woehler curve Model Code 90 [1]
New Woehler curve Hannover for NC, HP C, UHP C
(with and without fibres)
Approach for NC of Hsu (without fibres) [17]
Regression for UHP C of University Aalborg (without fibres) [15]
Regression for UHP C of University Kassel (with fibres) [16]
Regression for NC from Klausen (without fibres) [12]
Fig. 10. Comparison between the new Woehler curves and data taken from
the literature
normal-strength concrete investigated by Klausen [12] had
a 28-day cube strength of fcm = 40MPa. The approach by
Hsu [17] which according to [18] was developed based on
783 tests conducted on normal-strength concrete between
1943 and 1981, should be highlighted at this point for its
extensive database. Fig. 10 shows that test results and fa-
tigue models documented in the literature are quite close
to one another. Furthermore, it is obvious that the
Woehler curve of [1] underestimates these results.
Fig. 9 and Fig. 10 both demonstrate that the Woehler
curves of the CEB-FIP Model Code [1] are quite conserva-
tive. In contrast, the new material model approximates the
fatigue behaviour of normal-strength, high-strength and ul-
tra-high-strength concrete much better. The heat treat-
ment and the use of steel fibres in the experimental inves-
tigations conducted are considered within this model.
Consequently, the development of the new material model
based on these experimental investigations is justifiable
[2]. Furthermore, it is obvious that the fatigue strengths of
all the different types of concrete are quite close to one an-
other. The requirement for a strength-dependent reduc-
tion in the fatigue reference strength cannot be derived
from this.
The new Woehler curves and those of the CEB-FIP
Model Code 90 [1] are compared in Fig. 11. The new
curves for high maximum compressive stress levels lead to
higher numbers of cycles to failure (resistance) than the
current standard ones. However, lower numbers of cycles
to failure are reached for low maximum compressive stress
levels in the range logN > 8, depending on the minimum
compressive stress level. Generally, there is a lack of ex-
perimental test results in this range. The approximation
was carried out on the safe side for this reason. For practi-
cal applications this range of stress levels has only limited
effects on the sum of damage, according to Palmgren-
Miner, because of the very high numbers of cycles to

188 Structural Concrete 13 (2012), No. 3

 L. Lohaus/N. Oneschkow/M. Wefer Design model for the fatigue behaviour of normal-strength, high-strength and ultra-high-strength concrete

design value of fatigue reference strength fcd,fat [MP a]

1.0 120
Model Code 90 [1]
0.9 New approach Hannover
maximum stress level S c,max [-]

fat = 1.0
0.8 S c,min = 0.8 100
fat = 0.7
0.7
S c,min = 0.6 Additional safety for fatigue
0.6 80 loading, new approach

0.5 S c,min = 0.4 Additional safety for fatigue

loading, Model Code

0.4 S c,min = 0.2 60

0.3
0.2 S c,min = 0.0 40
Woehler curves Model Code 90 [1]
0.1
New Woehler curves Hannover
0.0 20
S ame safety level for fatigue loading
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 CE B-FIP Model Code 90: C70/C80
number of cycles to failure log N [-] New approach Hannover: C120
0
Fig. 11. Comparison between the new Woehler curves and those of CEB- 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
FIP Model Code 90 [1] characteristic static compressive strength fck [MP a]

failure. Fig. 11 demonstrates that the continuous mathe-
matical description of the fatigue behaviour is another ad-
vantage of the new Woehler curves. As presented in sec-
tion 3.2, only two equations are necessary for their
mathematical description. Additionally, there are no dis-
continuities at the transition points.
4 Integrating the material model into the existing
design concept of the Model Code
4.1 Design fatigue reference strength
The new material model should be integrated into the ex-
isting design concept of the Model Code [1] as follows so
that easy practical application is assured.
According to [1], the design fatigue reference
strength fcd,fat is determined based on the static compres-
sive design strength fcd, which is reduced by a strength-
dependent term, here referred to as fat:
f f
fcd,fat = 0.85 cc(t) ck 1 ck
c 25fck0
on the safe side, but to a lesser extent.
fcd fat
in accordance with [1], section 6.7.3
where fck0 = 10MPa (reference strength).
The derivation of the partial safety factor, c,fat, for ultra-
high-strength concrete is documented in [2]. Hereafter as
for normal-strength and high-strength concrete c,fat is
assigned a value of c,fat = c = 1.5. That value should be
verified by further investigations. Generally, the additional
reduction due to the term fat, taking account of fatigue
loading, increases as the static compressive concrete
strength fck rises. However, for concretes of strength
grades above C80, this reduction is even higher than that
due to the partial safety factor c,fat = 1.5. For a concrete
with a static compressive strength fck = 120MPa, the cor-
responding reduction term is fat = 0.52. This means that
the design fatigue reference strength fcd,fat only amounts
to 52 % of the static strength design value fcd.
Fig. 12. Comparison between the new approach to fcd,fat and the existing
approach of CEB-FIP Model Code 90 [1]
Fig. 12 shows the correlations between the compres-
sive strength and the design fatigue reference strength ac-
cording to the new approach and [1]. The correlations for
constant values of fat = 1.0, which means no additional
reduction (fcd,fat = fcd), and fat = 0.7 are also analysed. It is
obvious that applying the fatigue reference strength fcd,fat
according to CEB-FIP Model Code 90 [1] to concretes
with compressive strengths of fck > 125MPa would lead to
a regressive curve (see Fig. 12).
It is absolutely vital to modify the design value fcd,fat
for the fatigue design of concretes with compressive
strengths higher than fck = 125MPa. Thus, a new design
value for the fatigue reference strength was determined
based on the investigations so that it can also be applied
to concretes with compressive strengths of up to
fck = 200MPa. The required safety level has to be ensured
here. Although the need for a strength-dependent reduc-
tion in the fatigue reference strength cannot be derived
from Fig. 9 and Fig. 10, this reduction should be included
Considering the investigations on ultra-high-strength
concrete (Fig. 1), the extrapolation of the regression lines
(31) for a minimum stress level of Sc,min = 0.05 up to N = 108 load
cycles leads to a corresponding compressive stress level of
Sc,max 0.5, which accounts for a loss of 50 % in strength or
bearing capacity of a C200 strength class concrete. In prac-
tical terms this represents an extreme loading condition
since such high amplitudes rarely occur in combination
with low minimum stress levels. It was for this reason that
the term fat was established in a way that the design fatigue
reference strength fcd,fat for a C200 class concrete amounts
to 50 % of the design value fcd. The new design fatigue ref-
erence strength is calculated using Eq. (32):
f f
fcd,fat,Hannover = 0.85 cc(t) ck 1 ck (32)
c,fat 40fck0
fcd fat
where fck0 = 10MPa (reference strength).
c,fat = c = 1.5

Structural Concrete 13 (2012), No. 3 189

L. Lohaus/N. Oneschkow/M. Wefer Design model for the fatigue behaviour of normal-strength, high-strength and ultra-high-strength concrete

The curve of the modified design value is also shown in where

Fig. 12. It is obvious that the function applies up to a com- Scd,min = Sd c,min c/fcd,fat,Hannover
pressive strength of fck = 200 MPa. Furthermore, fatigue Scd,max = Sd c,max c/fcd,fat,Hannover
reference strength values higher than those according to Sd = 1.1 or 1.0 in accordance with [1], section 1.6.4.4
[1] are permitted. Applying the modified fatigue reference c in accordance with [1], Eq. (6.7-2)
strength leads to fat = 0.70 for a C120 concrete. The same
safety level is thus assured for a C120 concrete as was 0.45 + 1.8 Scd,min
Y=
specified for a concrete in the range between C70 and C80 1 + 1.8 Scd,min 0.3 Scd,min
2
according to the CEB-FIP Model Code 90 [1] in the early
1990s. Meanwhile, the extensive scientific research avail-
fck f
able regarding high-strength concrete (see section 3.4) jus- fcd,fat,Hannover = 0.85 cc(t) 1 ck
c,fat 40fck0
tifies this adjustment to the safety level. Thus, the required
safety level is ensured for all concrete grades up to
fck = 200 MPa. At the same time, economical fatigue Level 3:
design of concrete with characteristic static strengths up If the level 2 requirement is not met, the whole spectrum
to fck = 200MPa is possible. of load levels has to be known. As explained in CEB-FIP
Model Code 90 [1], verifying the fatigue requirements in
4.2 Design concept accordance with the PalmgrenMiner summation [19, 20]
is recommended. The limiting fatigue damage has to be
The material model and the proposed design value met.
for the fatigue reference strength will now be integrated
into the design concept of CEB-FIP Model Code 90 j
n
[1]. D= NSiRi Dlim = 1 in accordance with[1], section 6.7.5
i=1 (37)
Level 1:
Detailed fatigue design is not necessary provided the fol- The numbers of resisting cycles to failure NRi are calculat-
lowing requirement for concrete under compressive fa- ed using Eqs. (35) and (36).
tigue loading is met: The new design model comprising the new Woehler
curves and the modified value for fatigue is included in
Sd c,max c 0.45 fcd,fat, Hannover (33) the new fib Model Code 2010 [4].

fck f 4.3 Verification of the design model developed

where fcd,fat,Hannover = 0.85 cc(t 0 ) 1 ck
c,fat 40fck0 with respect to safety requirements

fck0 = 10MPa (reference strength) The evaluation of the concrete fatigue design with regard
to safety requires a joint analysis of Woehler curves and
In such cases, a number of cycles to failure of N 108 is fatigue reference strength. The fatigue reference strength
reached for a minimum stress level of Scd,min = 0. has a dominant effect with regard to the level of safety.
Generally, the level of safety required is ensured by the de-
Level 2: finition of the fatigue reference strength, or rather by the
If the level 1 requirement is not met, the verification refers amount of the reduction in the characteristic static
to a single load level including the dominant fatigue load- strength. The fatigue reference strength in the design con-
ing. The requirements are fulfilled if the number of load cept is used as the reference value for Scd,max and Scd,min.
cycles occurring n is equal to or less than the number of The correlation between the design stresses cd,max or
resisting cycles N: cd,min and the numbers of cycles to failure N is changed
by modifying the fatigue reference strength. For a chosen
nN (34) value of log N, the design stresses decrease with decreas-
ing fatigue reference strength, when the stress levels are
The number of resisting cycles N is calculated for kept constant. At the same time, the correlation between
0 Scd,min 0.80 using the following equations. In the Scd,max or Scd,min (or rather cd,max or cd,min) and N is non-
case of Scd,min > 0.80, the minimum stress level design val- linear and, as a consequence, small changes in fcd,fat lead
ue is taken as Scd,min = 0.80. to disproportionate changes in numbers of cycles to fail-
ure. Additionally, the influence of the fatigue reference
For logN 8: strength increases with increasing concrete strength
8 grades. As an example, Fig. 13 shows the effect of different
log N = (Scd,max 1)
Y 1( ) (35)
reference values for concrete grades C30 and C120. For
this purpose, the characteristic static strength fck, the stat-
For logN > 8: ic design strength fcd and the design fatigue reference
8 ln(10) S Scd,min strength fcd,fat,Hannover are used as reference values. The
log N = 8 + (Y Scd,min) log cd,max
(Y 1 ) Y Scd,min
new Woehler curve is used here. In addition, the dotted
curve is calculated using the Woehler curve and the fa-
(36) tigue reference strength fcd,fat of CEB-FIP Model Code 90

190 Structural Concrete 13 (2012), No. 3

 L. Lohaus/N. Oneschkow/M. Wefer Design model for the fatigue behaviour of normal-strength, high-strength and ultra-high-strength concrete
maximum compressive stress cd,max [MP a]
S c,min = 0.05
number of cycles to failure log N [-]
C120: fcd,fat,Hannover and Woehler curve Hannover
C120: fcd,fat and Woehler curve Model Code 90
C120: fcd, Woehler curve Hannover
C120: fck, Woehler curve Hannover
C30: fcd,fat,Hannover and Woehler curve Hannover
C30: fcd,fat and Woehler curve Model Code 90
C30: fcd, Woehler curve Hannover
C30: fck, Woehler curve Hannover
Fig. 13. Analysis of the effect of reference values fck, fcd, fcd,fat and
fcd,fat,Hannover (C30 and C120)
[1]. For simplicity, the minimum stress level Sc,min = 0.05 is
kept constant.
It is obvious in Fig. 13 that the effect of the new de-
sign model is greater for high-strength concrete than for
lower concrete grades because of the modified fatigue ref-
erence strength (see also Fig. 12). For a normal-strength
concrete C30, both approaches lead to quite similar maxi-
mum compressive stresses cd,max (fcd,fat or fcd,fat,Hannover as
reference strength). Additionally, it can be seen that the
new approach permits higher numbers of cycles to failure
than [1] for the same maximum compressive stress, espe-
cially for C120. At the same time, the differences in load
cycles between the new and the current standard curves
are significantly smaller than the total difference when fck
is used as the reference strength. Comparing the curves
for reference values fcd,fat,Hannover and fck, it is obvious that
a huge reduction in numbers of cycles to failure still exists.
This reduction represents the degree of safety ensured.
The effect of the fatigue reference strength decreases for
higher numbers of cycles to failure.
Further aspects have to be considered when evaluat-
ing concrete fatigue design with regard to safety. General-
ly, and differently from both design approaches, the deter-
mination of the stress levels in experimental tests refers to
mean values of the static strength. This means that even
without any safety factors and additional reduction terms
taking account of fatigue loading additional safety is
generally included in the design concept since fck refers to
the 5 % quantile and not to the mean value of static
strength. This additional reduction in number of cycles to
failure is not included in Fig. 13. Another aspect is that the
fatigue reference strength refers to 28-day strengths. How-
ever, subsequent concrete hardening, which is not consid-
ered in the design concept, leads to decreasing stress lev-
els during the concretes lifetime and thus to a better fa-
tigue capacity. That means additional safety. Two further
positive influences regarding fatigue strength are the redis-
tribution of stresses in damaged zones and the combined
bearing capacity of reinforced concrete. On the contrary,
there are influences such as preliminary damage, over-
loads and the combination of different load levels that
might reduce the calculated fatigue strength of structures.
As yet, the effect of redistribution, preliminary damage
and overloads can hardly be quantified in a way that is
generally valid for all concrete structures.
Altogether, the new approach does not lead to signif-
icant changes in the fatigue design results for normal-
strength concrete. For higher-strength concrete, there is
still a huge reduction in numbers of cycles to failure. Tak-
ing this into account, and considering the hidden safety
factors described previously, it is ensured that the new de-
sign approach complies with the level of safety required.
5 Conclusions
The design concept according to CEB-FIP Model-Code 90
[1] is limited to types of concrete with compressive
strengths up to fck = 80MPa. Furthermore, the fatigue de-
sign concept includes a reduction in the fatigue reference
strength, which for high-strength concrete leads to uneco-
nomical design at the ultimate fatigue limit state. This pa-
per presents the results of experimental and theoretical in-
vestigations of the compressive fatigue behaviour of
high-performance concrete with concrete strengths up to
fck = 200MPa. A material model for concrete under uniax-
ial compressive fatigue loading was developed based on
these extensive experimental investigations. The new ma-
terial model approximates the fatigue behaviour of nor-
mal-strength, high-strength and ultra-high-strength con-
crete. Another advantage is the continuous mathematical
description of the Woehler curves, which ensures easier
practical application. The new design model was devel-
oped considering the design concept according to CEB-
FIP Model Code 90 [1]. The required partial safety factor,
c,fat = 1.5, was confirmed to be applicable for ultra-high-
strength concrete, too. The characteristic compressive ref-
erence strength fck,fat and the design value of the fatigue
reference strength fcd,fat were modified. The modified fa-
tigue reference strength ensures the same level of safety
for a C120 as for a concrete in the range of C70/C80 ac-
cording to [1]. The analysis of the assured safety shows
that the new design model leads to higher numbers of re-
sisting cycles to failure, especially for high-strength con-
crete. These improvements are absolutely crucial for prac-
tical applications taking into consideration the increase in
fatigue-relevant loads. This modification is justified ac-
cording to the experimental test results currently available
for high-strength concrete. At the same time, and most im-
portantly, it was demonstrated that the level of safety re-
quired is still assured. Altogether, the new design model
leads to safe and economical design. Furthermore, it en-
ables the prospect of extending the application to ultra-
high-strength concrete with compressive strengths up to
fck = 200MPa. The design model presented is included in
Structural Concrete 13 (2012), No. 3 191
L. Lohaus/N. Oneschkow/M. Wefer Design model for the fatigue behaviour of normal-strength, high-strength and ultra-high-strength concrete
the new fib Model Code 2010 [4], although the concrete
grades are limited to C120.
Acknowledgements
This research project was supported by the German Re-
search Foundation (DFG) within the scope of priority pro-
gramme 1182 Sustainable Building with Ultra-High-Per-
formance Concrete (UHPC). The authors would like to
express their gratitude for the financial support.
References
1. CEB Comit Euro-international du Bton: CEB-FIP Mod-
el Code 90. Bulletin dInformation, No. 213/214, Thomas
Telford Ltd., London, 1993.
2. Wefer, M.: Materialverhalten und Bemessungswerte von
ultrahochfestem Beton unter einaxialer Ermdungsbean-
spruchung. Dissertation, Leibniz University of Hannover, In-
stitute of Building Materials Science, 2010.
3. Lohaus, L., Wefer, M., Oneschkow, N.: Ermdungsbemes-
sungsmodell fr normal-, hoch- und ultra-hochfeste Betone.
In: Beton- und Stahlbetonbau, vol. 106, No. 12, 2011, pp.
836846.
4. fib International Federation for Structural Concrete: Mod-
el Code 2010, final draft, Volume 1 and 2, March 2012.
5. Petkovic, G., Stemland, H., Rosseland, S.: High Strength
Concrete SP3 Fatigue, Report 3.2 Fatigue of High Strength
Concrete. SINTEF Structures and Concrete, Trondheim,
Aug 1992.
6. Petkovic, G., Lenschow, R., Stemland, H., Rosseland, S.: Fa-
tigue of High-Strength Concrete. In: High-strength concrete:
Second International Symposium, American Concrete Insti-
tute (ACI Special Publication 121), Detroit, 1990, pp.
505525.
7. Grnberg, J., Lohaus, L., Ertel, C., Wefer, M.: Mehraxiales
mechanisches Ermdungsmodell von Ultra-Hochfestem Be-
ton (Experimentelle und analytische Untersuchungen). In:
Beton- und Stahlbetonbau, vol. 102, No. 6, 2007, pp. 388
398.
8. Bennett, E., Muir, S.: Some Fatigue tests of high-strength
concrete in axial compression. In: Magazine of Concrete Re-
search, vol. 19, No. 59, June 1967.
9. Hohberg, R.: Zum Ermdungsverhalten von Beton. Disserta-
tion, TU Berlin, 2004.
10. Weigler, H., Freitag, W.: Dauerschwell- und Betriebsfestigkeit
von Konstruktionsleichtbeton. Deutscher Ausschuss fr
Stahlbeton, No. 247, 1975.
11. Wilrich, P.-T., Henning, H.-J.: Formeln und Tabellen der an-
gewandten mathematischen Statistik. Springer Verlag, Ber-
lin, 2003.
12. Klausen, D.: Festigkeit und Schdigung von Beton bei hu-
fig wiederholter Beanspruchung. Dissertation, TU Darm-
stadt, 1978.
192 Structural Concrete 13 (2012), No. 3
13. Grnberg, J., Oneschkow, N.: Grndung von Offshore-
Windenergieanlagen aus filigranen Betonkonstruktionen
unter besonderer Beachtung des Ermdungsverhaltens von
hochfestem Beton. Final report for BMU joint research pro-
ject, Leibniz University of Hannover, 2011.
14. Anders, S., Lohaus, L.: Polymer- und fasermodifizierte
Hochleistungsbetone fr hochdynamisch beanspruchte Ver-
bindungen wie Grouted Joints bei Windenergieanlagen.
Final report for research scholarship T 4/2002, Stiftung In-
dustrieforschung, Hannover, 2007.
15. Lohaus, L., Anders, S.: High-cycle Fatigue of Ultra-high Per-
formance Concrete Fatigue Strength and Damage Devel-
opment. Fdration Internationale du Bton, Proceedings of
2nd International Congress, Naples, 2006.
16. Fehling, E., Schmidt, M., Teichmann, T., Bunje, K., Borne-
mann, R., Middendorf, M.: Entwicklung, Dauerhaftigkeit
und Berechnung Ultra-Hochfester Betone (UHPC). Schrif-
tenreihe Baustoffe und Massivbau, University of Kassel, No.
1, 2004.
17. Hsu, T.: Fatigue of Plain Concrete. In: ACI Journal, JulAug
1981, pp. 292305.
18. Pfanner, D.: Zur Degradation von Stahlbetonbauteilen unter
Ermdungsbeanspruchung. Research reports, VDI Reihe 4,
No. 189. VDI Verlag, Dsseldorf, 2003.
19. Palmgren, A.: Die Lebensdauer von Kugellagern. Zeitschrift
VDI, 68, 1924, pp. 339341.
20. Miner, A. M.: Cumulative Damage in Fatigue. Journal of
Applied Mechanics, No. 12, 1945.
Prof. Dr.-Ing. Ludger Lohaus Dipl.-Ing. Nadja Oneschkow
lohaus@baustoff.uni-hannover.de n.oneschkow@baustoff.uni-hannover.de
Leibniz Universitt Hannover
Institute of Building Materials Science
Appelstrae 9A
30167 Hannover
Dr.-Ing. Maik Wefer
Leibniz Universitt Hannover
ForWind Center for Wind Energy Research
Appelstrae 9A
30167 Hannover
maik.wefer@forwind.uni-hannover.de