0080f0l0 l8l0f88ll088l / NOVEMBER 2002 59

BY JEAN-FRANCOIS TROTTIER, MICHAEL MAHONEY, AND DEAN FORGERON

P
088 $8l00ll0
fl00f8 80#l800
N0l000Nlf0 f80fl0
l8 $l808086f0080F
lastic shrinkage cracking occurs
most commonly on the exposed
surfaces of freshly placed concrete
floors and slabs. When moisture
evaporates from the surface of freshly
placed concrete faster than it is
replaced by bleed water, the surface
concrete shrinks. Due to the restraint
provided by the concrete below the
drying surface layer, tensile stresses
develop in the weak, stiffening plastic
concrete, resulting in shallow cracks
that are usually short and run in
random directions.
1
Therefore, concrete elements,
such as slabs-on-ground, require
reinforcement for the control of cracks
due to temperature and shrinkage
stresses wherever reinforcement has
not been placed for structural reasons.
2
It is well recognized that the presence
of reinforcing steel (deformed bars
and welded-wire fabric [WWF]) will
not prevent conventional portland
cement concrete from cracking.
Reinforcing steel will hold the cracks
tight, maintain aggregate interlock,
and prevent faulting of the slab.
However, such reinforcement is also
known to provide defined amounts of
structural strength, which come into
existence after the element cracks.
3
Since the early 1980s, low dosages
of fibrillated and monofilament
synthetic fibers have replaced conven-
tional shrinkage/temperature steel in
slabs-on-ground, pavements, and septic
tanks. When mixed into the concrete,
discrete fibers offer the advantages of
an evenly distributed element whose
predominant effect is the control of
plastic shrinkage cracking of the
concrete. Fibers can also provide
added resistance to impact, fatigue,
thermal shock, and abrasion.
Presently, there exists a lot of
debate among owners, architects,
engineers, contractors, and manufac-
turers concerning the replacement of
conventional WWF, in a variety of
applications, by what appears to be
lesser and lesser quantities of low-
denier-fibrillated and monofilament
synthetic fibers. It is not clear if fibers
can provide the same level of perfor-
mance (plastic shrinkage cracking
resistance, toughness) that even the
lightest WWF can offer.
In this article, we compare the
performance of a variety of commer-
cially available low-denier-fibrillated
and monofilament-synthetic fibers,
at low fiber content (0.03 to 0.1% by
volume), to that of a conventional
150 x 150 mm 3.4 mm/3.4 mm gage
(6 x 6 in. 10/10 gage) WWF. This
specific WWF size was selected
because it is commonly used as
shrinkage/temperature steel and it is
one of the lightest gages available.
In the second part of this article, the
performance of the WWF was compared
with that of a deformed steel fiber, a
coarse monofilament self-fibrillating
synthetic fiber, and a conventional
low-denier-fibrillated-synthetic fiber
at moderate fiber dosage (0.25 to
0.5% by volume).
The testing program was designed
to provide answers to the following
two simple questions:
I How efficient is the reinforcement
in controlling the formation of
plastic shrinkage cracks (plastic
shrinkage tests)? and
I After cracking has occurred in a slab,
how efficient is the reinforcement in
providing resistance to additional
opening of the cracks in the hardened
concrete (toughness tests)?
In terms of industry requirements, it
is desired that slabs crack as little as
possible and if cracking occurs, these
cracks should remain as tight as
possible. It is anticipated that this
testing program will identify the
limitations and strengths of the various
reinforcing alternatives under review. It
will also assist owners, architects,
engineers, and contractors in selecting
the proper type of reinforcement to
meet their specific requirements.
1l$1l86 F8068N
Six different commercially available
low-denier-synthetic fibers (one
monofilament and five fibrillated), a
coarse monofilament self-fibrillating
60 NOVEMBER 2002 / 0080f0l0 l8l0f88ll088l
synthetic fiber, a deformed steel fiber,
and a conventional 150 x 150 mm
3.4 mm/3.4 mm gage (6 x 6 in. 10/10
gage) WWF were investigated. An
illustration of the reinforcement types,
their physical characteristics, and
their identification M and F1 to F8 is
shown in Fig. 1.
The low-denier-synthetic fibers
F1 through F6 and the deformed
steel fiber F8 were selected for
evaluation in this investigation
because they are commonly used in
practice, at the fiber dosages
evaluated in this study, for the
replacement of conventional WWF
in slab-on-ground applications.
The coarser monofilament self-
fibrillating synthetic fiber F7 was
also selected and evaluated at a
moderate fiber dosage (0.5% by
volume) because this new, commercially
available fiber was developed (by
two of the authors) to improve
both the plastic shrinkage cracking
resistance of concrete as well as to
provide an increase in toughness.
For comparison purposes, one of
the low-denier-fibrillating-synthetic
fibers (F4) was also evaluated at a
Fig. 1: Reinforcement types, their physical characteristics, and their identification used
for the samples in the testing program (not to scale)
moderate fiber dosage (0.5%
by volume).
Table 1 lists the concrete mixture
composition used in this program.
The mixture was a typical 25-MPa
(3500 psi) air-entrained concrete
normally used for slab-on-ground
applications. Table 2 provides the
various concrete mixtures produced
and tested with their respective fiber
dosages. The specific fiber dosage
for each of the fiber types under
investigation was determined from
previous commercial use of each
fiber in slab-on-ground applications.
All mixtures were produced with a
conventional 6 m
3
(8 yd
3
) ready-mix
truck and batch sizes were kept
constant at 2 m
3
(2.6 yd
3
). Because the
investigation involved plastic shrinkage
cracking evaluations, the concrete was
delivered to the laboratory where the
specimens could be prepared and
subjected to identical temperature
and humidity conditions. The same
operators produced, cast, and tested
all concrete mixtures under
similar conditions.
Upon arrival of the concrete truck
at the laboratory, slump, temperature,
and air content measurements were
performed on the plain concrete
before fiber addition. The fibers
were then added and mixed for 5 min
at full mixing speed. Slump and air
content measurements were also
performed on the concrete after
fiber addition to evaluate the impact
of the fibers on the fresh properties
of the concrete. The specimens
prepared for each of the mixtures are
listed in Table 2. Four panels, 800 mm
diameter x 75 mm thick (32 x 3 in.),
were created for toughness evaluation
at 7 and 28 days using the Round
Determinate Panel test method
developed by Bernard.
4
At the present time, no standardized
test method exists for measuring the
effectiveness of fibers or WWF in
controlling plastic shrinkage cracking
of concrete. It is recognized that the
physical significance of most of the
tests that have been proposed (plate
type, ring type) is limited; and,
0080f0l0 l8l0f88ll088l / NOVEMBER 2002 61
therefore, they should be used only
for comparative assessment purposes.
5
For the plastic shrinkage cracking
resistance evaluation of the various
reinforcing alternatives tested in this
program, it was decided to prepare
all plastic shrinkage test specimens
from the same concrete load to
eliminate any possible variations in
the test results from differences in
the concrete delivered. Rectangular
plate specimens 900 x 600 x 50 mm
(36 x 24 x 2 in.) were used for the
plastic shrinkage cracking tests (two
plates per mixture were evaluated).
The molds were made of 20-mm-thick
(3/4 in.) plywood equipped with
metallic and wooden restraints
systematically placed at the bottom
and on the sides of the mold.
The following procedure was used
for the preparation of the plastic
shrinkage specimens: from the 2 m
3
(2.6 yd
3
) plain concrete load,
14 small loads of exactly 0.1 m
3
(0.13 yd
3
) were transferred into small
field drum mixers and mixed for
5 min with the appropriate dosage of
each fiber investigated. The plastic
shrinkage plate specimens were then
immediately cast, finished, and
subjected to a constant airstream
with a speed of 2 m/s (6.5 ft/s) in a
room kept at constant temperature
(22
o
C [72
o
F]) and approximately
50% relative humidity. Casting the
plastic shrinkage specimens using
this procedure required a lot of
preparation, equipment, and personnel;
but it was considered essential to
produce a reliable comparative
evaluation of the plastic shrinkage
cracking resistance of the various
reinforcing alternatives. For the
preparation of the WWF-reinforced
plastic shrinkage plates, the plain
concrete was also mixed for an
additional 5 min before it was placed
in the plastic shrinkage mold in
which the WWF was positioned in
the center of the panel.
The toughness (or capability to
resist crack opening) of the various
reinforcing alternatives was evaluated
using two different testing methods.
TABLE 1: TABLE 1: TABLE 1: TABLE 1: TABLE 1:
CONCRETE MIXTURE COMPOSITION USED IN THE TESTING PROGRAM (KG/M
3
).
THE MIXTURE WAS A TYPICAL 25 MPa (3500 PSI) AIR-ENTRAINED CONCRETE TYPICALLY
USED FOR SLAB-ON-GROUND APPLICATIONS
*
Water-reducing admixture, WRDA 82.
t n e m e C
0 1 e p y T
e n i F
e t a g e r g g a
e s r a o C
e t a g e r g g a
) m m 0 2 ( r e t a W A R W
*
s r e b i F
3 6 2 0 6 7 5 2 1 1 3 6 1 L m 0 7 6
e e s
2 e l b a T
The first method, ASTM C 1399,
provides data needed to obtain that
portion of the load-deflection curve
beyond which significant cracking
damage has occurred. ASTM C 1399
also provides a measure of the post-
cracking strength of the concrete, as
such strength is affected by the use of
reinforcement.
6
This method was
particularly developed for fiber-
reinforced concrete with low-fiber
dosages to eliminate the instability of
beam samples at the onset of matrix
cracking, as typically seen during an
ASTM C 1018 test performed using an
open-loop configuration.
7
With the ASTM C 1018 test, the
instability in loading at the occurrence
of matrix cracking precipitates brittle
failure in the specimen, generally
resulting in erroneous toughness
indices and a marked underestimation
of the post-cracking load carrying
capacity of the specimen. In Canada, a
similar test method to ASTM C 1399 is
specified in the Canadian Highway
Bridge Design Code (CHBDC) for
evaluation of fiber-reinforced concrete
(FRC) used in bridge deck applications.
Concrete in such decks is devoid of
any traditional steel reinforcement
and carries only a nominal volume
fraction of polymeric fibers provided to
control shrinkage and thermal cracking.
8
According to ASTM C 1399, cast or
sawn 100 x 100 x 350 mm (4 x 4 x 14 in.)
fiber-reinforced concrete beams are
cracked using the third-point loading
apparatus specified in ASTM C 78
modified by a steel plate (Fig. 2). The
steel plate is used to assist in the
support of the concrete beam during
the initial loading cycle and to help
control the rate of deflection when the
beam cracks. After the beam has
cracked, the steel plate is removed
and the cracked beam is reloaded to
obtain a reloading load-deflection
curve. As shown in Fig. 2, load values
at specified deflections values on the
reloading curve are averaged and
used to calculate the Average Residual
Strength (ARS) of the beam. The ARS
value represents the average stress-
carrying capability of a cracked beam.
For the ASTM C 1399 evaluation of the
WWF-reinforced specimens tested in
this program, a very small portion of
the WWF was placed in the center of
the beam sample (Fig. 3). The use of
this method to evaluate the reinforcing
ability of the WWF was not considered
to be appropriate by the authors since
the small portion of the WWF that was
inserted in the beam would
more than likely lack sufficient
development length to generate its
full reinforcing capacity.
To allow for a more representative
evaluation of the reinforcing capability
of the WWF and a proper comparison
with the various fiber-reinforced
alternatives, the second method of
toughness evaluation used in this
program was the Round Determinate
Panel Test method developed by
Bernard.
4
As shown in Fig. 4, a central
point load is imposed on the round
supported on three radial points. The
slender geometry of the specimen
results in a mode of failure that is
dominated by flexure and membrane
62 NOVEMBER 2002 / 0080f0l0 l8l0f88ll088l
tension, thereby closely reflecting
in place behavior. Performance in
round determinate panels has been
measured by two means: peak load
capacity and energy absorption up to
a nominal central deflection. Peak load
capacity reflects the strength of the
concrete matrix. The energy absorbed
by the specimen up to a central
deflection of 5, 10, 20, 30, and 40 mm is
found by integrating the load-deflection
curve up to these points. These
quantities represent a direct reflection
of the post-crack performance of the
fibers or the WWF.
For the round determinate panel
evaluation of the WWF-reinforced
specimens, a portion of the WWF
was placed in the center of the panel.
Since it is possible to accurately
position the mesh layer in the mold
when preparing the mesh-reinforced
panels, it should be kept in mind,
when comparing the performance of
mesh to that of fiber-reinforced
panels, that the values obtained for
the mesh represent the ideal case
scenario where the mesh layer has
been positioned exactly at its
intended location in the structure.
8l$0l1$
ff080 0080f0l0 #f0#0fll08
As anticipated for the mixtures
incorporating very low dosages of low-
denier-monofilament and fibrillated-
synthetic fibers F1 to F6, the addition
of fibers in the ranges listed in Table 2
had very little impact on the workability
of the concrete. In general, the initial
slump of the concrete was 125 mm
(5 in.) before fiber addition and the
final slump ranged from 90 to 110 mm
(3.5 to 4.5 in.) after fiber addition. All
fiber-reinforced concrete mixtures
produced were very workable and
casting and finishing of the various
test specimens was comparable to
that of plain concrete. The addition of
fibers was not found to have any
impact on the air content of the
concrete. The average value of the air
content before and after fiber addition
was similar for all concrete and equal
to approximately 5%.
D I e r u t x i M D I t n e m e c r o f n i e R
m / g k e g a s o d r e b i F
3
d y / b l (
3
)
M
, h s e m e r i w - d e d l e W
e g a g 0 1 / 0 1 . n i 6 x 6

) 3 . 0 ( 1 F
t n e m a l i f o n o M ( 1 F
) e n e l y p o r p y l o p
) 5 . 0 ( 3 . 0
) 9 . 0 ( 1 F
t n e m a l i f o n o M ( 1 F
) e n e l y p o r p y l o p
) 5 . 1 ( 9 . 0
) 5 4 . 0 ( 2 F
d e t a l l i r b i F ( 2 F
) e n e l y p o r p y l o p
) 5 7 . 0 ( 5 4 . 0
) 9 . 0 ( 2 F
d e t a l l i r b i F ( 2 F
) e n e l y p o r p y l o p
) 5 . 1 ( 9 . 0
) 5 4 . 0 ( 3 F
d e t a l l i r b i F ( 3 F
) e n e l y p o r p y l o p
) 5 7 . 0 ( 5 4 . 0
) 6 . 0 ( 3 F
d e t a l l i r b i F ( 3 F
) e n e l y p o r p y l o p
) 0 . 1 ( 6 . 0
) 5 4 . 0 ( 4 F
d e t a l l i r b i F ( 4 F
) e n e l y p o r p y l o p
) 5 7 . 0 ( 5 4 . 0
) 9 . 0 ( 4 F
d e t a l l i r b i F ( 4 F
) e n e l y p o r p y l o p
) 5 . 1 ( 9 . 0
) 5 4 . 0 ( 5 F
d e t a l l i r b i F ( 5 F
) e n e l y p o r p y l o p
) 5 7 . 0 ( 5 4 . 0
) 9 . 0 ( 5 F
d e t a l l i r b i F ( 5 F
) e n e l y p o r p y l o p
) 5 . 1 ( 9 . 0
) 6 . 0 ( 6 F
d e t a l l i r b i F ( 6 F
) e n e l y p o r p y l o p
) 1 ( 6 . 0
) 9 . 0 ( 6 F
d e t a l l i r b i F ( 6 F
) e n e l y p o r p y l o p
) 5 . 1 ( 9 . 0
) 5 . 4 ( 4 F
d e t a l l i r b i F ( 4 F
) e n e l y p o r p y l o p
) 5 7 . 7 ( 5 . 4
) 5 . 4 ( 7 F
t n e m a l i f o n o M ( 7 F
g n i t a l l i r b i f
) d n e l b r e m y l o p
) 5 7 . 7 ( 5 . 4
) 0 2 ( 8 F ) l e e t s d e p m i r C ( 8 F ) 4 3 ( 0 2
TABLE 2 TABLE 2 TABLE 2 TABLE 2 TABLE 2:
VARIOUS CONCRETE MIXTURES PRODUCED, THEIR DESIGNATIONS AND FIBER CONTENTS
0080f0l0 l8l0f88ll088l / NOVEMBER 2002 63
Mixture F7 (4.5), incorporating
4.5 kg/m
3
(7.6 lb/yd
3
) of the coarse
monofilament self-fibrillating synthetic
fiber, resulted in a 50-mm (2 in.) slump
reduction with no change in the
original air content. This level of
slump loss is considered normal for a
concrete mixture incorporating 0.5%
by volume of fibers. Similarly, Mixture
F8 (20), incorporating 20 kg/m
3
(34 lb/yd
3
) of deformed steel fibers,
resulted in a slump loss of 50 mm
(2 in.) with no change in the original
air content. Both Mixtures F7 (4.5) and
F8 (20) were considered to be very
workable and the specimens were
easily cast and finished.
On the contrary, it was almost
impossible to properly mix and cast
specimens using the low-denier-
fibrillated-synthetic Fiber F4 (4.5) at a
fiber dosage of 4.5 kg/m
3
(7.75 lb/yd
3
)
due to the fibers very high surface
area. To achieve the minimum work-
ability required to cast the specimens,
it was necessary to add 2 L/m
3
of high-
range water-reducing admixture
(HRWRA) to the mixture. Despite the
addition of HRWRA, the specimen
preparation was still very difficult and
the mixture was classified as
nonacceptable by the concrete
finishers. Although the results for
mixture F4 (4.5) will be presented in
this study, this mixture could not be
used practically in the field.
Fl88ll0 80fl8k80 0f80kl8
As mentioned earlier, the samples
required for the plastic shrinkage
cracking evaluation (two plates of 900
x 600 mm x 50 mm [36 x 24 x 2 in.] per
mixture) were prepared from the same
concrete load to eliminate any
possible variations in the test results
caused by differences in the concrete
delivered. In general, shrinkage cracks
began to develop approximately 3 h
after casting and the process was
normally completed after 8 to 10 h.
The total area of cracking, the total
number of cracks, and the average
crack widths of each specimen were
measured and a plot of the crack
pattern was drafted 24 h after casting.
The total area of cracking of each
specimen corresponds to the sum of
the length of each crack multiplied by
its average width. Two plain concrete
panels were also prepared for the
plastic shrinkage cracking evaluation
and were used as a reference. A
summary of the plastic shrinkage test
results is presented in Table 3.
Table 3 shows that the plain
concrete panels displayed the
largest total area of cracking as well
as the largest number of cracks of all
mixtures evaluated. Surprisingly, the
WWF-reinforced panels displayed
the largest average crack width of all
mixtures evaluated, including the
plain concrete, and a total area of
cracking representing 82.9% of that
of the plain concrete panels.
In general, all fiber-reinforced
concrete mixtures evaluated, with
the exception of F4 (0.9), performed
significantly better than the WWF-
reinforced alternative in terms of the
total area of cracking, average crack
width, and total number of cracks
recorded. The short monofilament
Fiber F1 (0.3) did very well considering
that this mixture contained the lowest
fiber dosage of all mixtures evaluated.
As shown in Table 3, panels from
Fig. 2: Schematic of the three-point loading apparatus specified in ASTM C 78 modified
with a steel plate to perform ASTM C 1399, the average residual strength evaluation
Fig. 3: Positioning of the welded-wire mesh in the ASTM C 1399 beam
64 NOVEMBER 2002 / 0080f0l0 l8l0f88ll088l
Mixture F1 (0.3) displayed only 43.5% of
the total area of cracking of the plain
concrete panels and exhibited some of
the lowest average crack widths of all
mixtures evaluated. The increase in
fiber dosage of F1 from 0.3 to 0.9 kg/m
3
further reduced the total area of
cracking to 28.2% when compared with
the plain concrete panels. In this case,
the increase in fiber dosage also
resulted in a reduction in the total
number of cracks. The average crack
widths were not affected by the
increase in the fiber dosage for all
fibrillated fibers, F1 to F6.
When comparing the performance
of the different fibrillated fibers,
it should be kept in mind that,
although some of the geometrical
characteristics of these products
appear to be similar, their physical
properties (tensile strength, modulus
of elasticity) may differ significantly
and, consequently, have a direct
impact on their performance. Fibers
F2, F3, F4, and F5 were all evaluated at
a fiber dosage of 0.45 kg/m
3
. The
results from Table 3 appear to
indicate that the average crack width
of Panels F2 (0.45), F3 (0.45),
F4 (0.45), and F5 (0.45) were similar
and were not affected by the type of
fibrillated fiber used. At 0.45 kg/m
3
fiber dosage, the longer 50-mm (2 in.)
fibrillated fiber F5 (0.45) displayed by
far the best overall performance for
that fiber dosage and exhibited only
10.8% of the total area of cracking
recorded for the plain concrete
panels. Panels reinforced with Fiber
F6 (multiple-denier and multiple-
length-fibrillated fiber) also
performed extremely well at both
fiber additions evaluated. Panels
from Mixtures F6 (0.6) and F6 (0.9)
displayed the smallest average crack
widths of all panels evaluated and
almost insignificant cracking.
As shown in Table 3, the increase in
fiber dosage of Fibers F1, F2, F5, and
F6 resulted in a further improvement
in the plastic shrinkage cracking
resistance of the concrete. At the
present time, it is not possible to
explain the plastic shrinkage cracking
performance reduction of Mixtures F3
(0.6) and F4 (0.9) compared to their
lower fiber content counterparts F3
(0.45) and F4 (0.45).
Incorporating the coarse
monofilament self-fibrillating Fiber
F7 (4.5) in test panels improved
plastic shrinkage cracking as evi-
denced by a total area of cracking of
27.8% in comparison with the plain
concrete control panels. The average
crack widths of these panels were
also among the smallest recorded in
the program. Unfortunately, the
plastic shrinkage data on the steel
fiber Panels F8 (20) cannot be
presented in this document because
the samples were damaged during
handling in the laboratory.
00M#f088l90 8lf08l0,
890f80 f08l008l 8lf08l0,
880 f0080 00l0fMl88l0
#880l l08l f080ll8
The results of the ASTM C 39
compressive strength, the ASTM
C 1399 average residual strength,
and the Round Determinate Panel
tests of all mixtures evaluated in this
program are shown in Table 4.
Fig. 4: Schematic of Round Determinate Panel test assembly and reaction frame. A
central point load was imposed on the round specimen supported on three radial points
0080f0l0 l8l0f88ll088l / NOVEMBER 2002 65
All mixtures exceeded the 28-day
design compressive strength of 25
MPa (3500 psi), with the exception of
the moderate fiber dosage low-
denier-fibrillated-synthetic fiber
Mixture F4 (4.5) that experienced, as
described previously, severe work-
ability problems. For all other
mixtures evaluated, the use of low- to
medium-fiber dosages did not have
any significant impact on the com-
pressive strength of the concrete.
The Average Residual Strength
(ARS) values of the various mixtures
were determined using ASTM C 1399
test method. The results in Table 4
indicate that the WWF-reinforced
beam specimens significantly
outperformed all low dosage fiber-
reinforced concrete specimens. The
WWF-reinforced beams exhibited an
ARS value three times greater than
the highest of the low dosage fiber-
reinforced concrete beams evaluated
F6 (0.9), and as much as 23 times
more than the beams reinforced
with the low-denier-monofilament-
synthetic fiber F1 (0.3). Although an
increase in the fiber dosage of Fiber
F1 from 0.3 to 0.9 kg/m
3
led to an
increase in the ARS value from 0.1 to
0.36, this value appears still to be
somewhat lower than what was
achieved in general with the fibril-
lated fibers at a similar fiber dosage.
With the exception of Fiber F5, the
increase in fiber content has resulted
in an increase in the average residual
strength of the concrete.
Table 4 also shows that the ARS
value recorded by the specimens
incorporating the coarse monofilament
self-fibrillating synthetic Fiber F7 at
4.5 kg/m
3
and the deformed steel Fiber
F8 at 20 kg/m
3
, which were slightly
greater than the value obtained by the
WWF-reinforced specimens.
Table 4 also provides the results
of the Round Determinate Panel
tests for all mixtures evaluated. The
curves presented in Fig. 5 represent
the averaged load-deflection curves
(between 0 and 40 mm [0 to 1.5 in.]
deflection) of Fibers F6, F7, F8, and the
WWF. Results from Fibers F1 to F5 have
TABLE 3 TABLE 3 TABLE 3 TABLE 3 TABLE 3:
SUMMARY OF PLASTIC SHRINKAGE TEST RESULTS
been omitted from the figure for the
sake of clarity and because they were
all almost identical to that of
Fiber F6. As can be seen in Fig. 5, all
panels sustained approximately the
same amount of load before matrix
cracking. This was expected since the
same concrete was used for all speci-
mens tested and it is known that the
use of fibers, at the dosages evaluated,
will not modify the precracking
behavior of the concrete. The same
applies to the WWF evaluated.
The differences between the
performance of the various reinforcing
alternatives evaluated can only be
observed in the post-cracking zone
of the load-deflection curves shown
in Fig. 5. There are various ways to
look at these curves. While some
applications may require the selection
of the reinforcing alternative that will
e r u t x i M
D I
l a t o T
f o a e r a
g n i k c a r c
m m (
2
)
e g a r e v A
k c a r c
h t d i w
) m m (
l a t o T
r e b m u n
f o
s k c a r c
f o a e r a l a t o t f o %
n i g n i k c a r c
n i a l p o t n o s i r a p m o c
n e m i c e p s l o r t n o c
n i a l P 9 . 3 9 9 7 9 0 . 0 6 6 1 0 . 0 0 1
M 5 . 3 2 8 1 1 1 . 0 2 0 1 9 . 2 8
) 3 . 0 ( 1 F 2 . 2 3 4 4 8 0 . 0 6 8 5 . 3 4
) 9 . 0 ( 1 F 2 . 0 8 2 5 8 0 . 0 2 6 2 . 8 2
) 5 4 . 0 ( 2 F 3 . 6 2 6 0 9 0 . 0 8 8 0 . 3 6
) 9 . 0 ( 2 F 6 . 3 6 2 3 9 0 . 0 5 5 5 . 6 2
) 5 4 . 0 ( 3 F 2 . 7 3 3 2 9 0 . 0 9 4 9 . 3 3
) 6 . 0 ( 3 F 2 . 3 9 5 3 9 0 . 0 3 7 7 . 9 5
) 5 4 . 0 ( 4 F 0 . 4 5 4 2 9 0 . 0 3 5 7 . 5 4
) 9 . 0 ( 4 F 6 . 2 5 9 6 9 0 . 0 5 3 1 9 . 5 9
) 5 4 . 0 ( 5 F 7 . 7 0 1 9 8 0 . 0 1 2 8 . 0 1
) 9 . 0 ( 5 F 7 . 3 3 0 9 0 . 0 9 4 . 3
) 6 . 0 ( 6 F 2 . 9 5 0 8 0 . 0 0 2 0 . 6
) 9 . 0 ( 6 F 4 . 4 0 8 0 . 0 2 4 . 0
) 5 . 4 ( 4 F 0 5 3 5 9 0 . 0 7 2 1 2 . 5 3
) 5 . 4 ( 7 F 4 . 6 7 2 3 8 0 . 0 8 4 8 . 7 2
) 0 2 ( 8 F A / N A / N A / N A / N
66 NOVEMBER 2002 / 0080f0l0 l8l0f88ll088l
TABLE 4 TABLE 4 TABLE 4 TABLE 4 TABLE 4:
28-DAY HARDENED CONCRETE PROPERTIES INCLUDING THE RESULTS FROM THE ROUND DETERMINATE PANEL TESTS,
ASTM C 1399, AND ASTM C 39
s t s e T l e n a P e t a n i m r e t e D d n u o R
e r u t x i M
D I
9 3 C M T S A
e v i s s e r p m o c
) a P M ( h t g n e r t s
9 9 3 1 C M T S A
l a u d i s e r e g a r e v a
) a P M ( h t g n e r t s
k a e P
d a o l
) N k (
) J ( y g r e n e e v i t a l u m u C
m m 5 m m 0 1 m m 0 2 m m 0 3 m m 0 4
M ) n i a l p ( 2 . 7 3 4 3 . 2 7 . 6 1 9 . 6 3 5 . 0 7 1 . 2 2 1 2 . 8 3 1 0 . 5 4 1
) 3 . 0 ( 1 F 4 . 6 3 0 1 . 0 1 . 8 1 7 . 8 1 2 . 0 2
m m 2 . 2 1 t a e k o r B
2 . 0 2 ( n o i t c e l f e d J)
) 9 . 0 ( 1 F 1 . 5 3 6 3 . 0 7 . 5 1 5 . 9 1 2 . 2 2
m m 8 . 3 1 t a e k o r B
2 . 2 2 ( n o i t c e l f e d J)
) 5 . 0 ( 2 F 2 . 3 3 6 3 . 0 8 . 6 1 5 . 0 2 2 . 4 2
m m 6 . 8 1 t a e k o r B
5 2 . 4 2 ( n o i t c e l f e d J)
) 9 . 0 ( 2 F 6 . 4 3 2 5 . 0 2 . 8 1 1 . 4 2 1 . 0 3 7 . 5 3
m m 7 3 t a e k o r B
4 . 7 3 ( n o i t c e l f e d J)
) 5 . 0 ( 3 F 9 . 6 3 4 3 . 0 7 . 7 1 8 . 1 2 9 . 5 2
m m 9 1 t a e k o r B
6 . 8 2 ( n o i t c e l f e d J)
) 6 . 0 ( 3 F 7 . 5 3 9 5 . 0 0 . 8 1 9 . 3 2 9 . 9 2 1 . 4 3
m m 6 2 t a e k o r B
3 . 5 3 ( n o i t c e l f e d J)
) 5 . 0 ( 4 F 1 . 6 3 9 4 . 0 4 . 8 1 7 . 2 2 8 . 7 2 1 . 2 3
m m 6 2 t a e k o r B
8 . 2 3 ( n o i t c e l f e d J)
) 9 . 0 ( 4 F 8 . 4 3 9 6 . 0 1 . 8 1 6 . 7 2 2 . 6 3 9 . 4 4 9 . 9 4 0 . 2 5
) 5 . 0 ( 5 F 8 . 6 3 3 2 . 0 2 . 8 1 1 . 0 2 6 . 2 2
m m 4 1 t a e k o r B
2 . 3 2 ( n o i t c e l f e d J)
) 9 . 0 ( 5 F 7 . 5 3 2 2 . 0 2 . 7 1 5 . 6 1 8 . 8 1
m m 8 . 4 1 t a e k o r B
1 1 . 0 2 ( n o i t c e l f e d J)
) 6 . 0 ( 6 F 5 . 2 3 4 5 . 0 9 . 9 1 7 . 4 2 0 . 9 2 7 . 1 3
m m 0 2 t a e k o r B
n o i t c e l f e d
) 9 . 0 ( 6 F 7 . 0 3 6 7 . 0 4 . 6 1 1 . 8 2 5 . 7 3 5 . 6 4 2 . 1 5 0 . 2 5
) 5 . 4 ( 4 F 2 . 4 2 4 4 . 2 1 . 5 1 5 . 4 4 9 . 1 6 6 . 5 7 8 . 2 8 0 . 8 8
) 5 . 4 ( 7 F 3 . 3 3 5 6 . 2 6 . 7 1 1 . 8 4 5 . 5 8 9 . 5 4 1 9 . 0 9 1 0 . 5 2 2
) 0 2 ( 8 F 7 . 4 3 1 4 . 2 8 . 5 1 4 . 9 3 3 . 6 6 9 . 4 0 1 2 . 8 2 1 2 . 3 4 1
0080f0l0 l8l0f88ll088l / NOVEMBER 2002 67
provide the greatest cracking resis-
tance at very small crack
openings (small deflection), others, in
which the formation of medium- to
large-size cracks is anticipated, may
require the selection of the best-
performing option at mid- to large-
deflection values.
In the case of slab-on-ground
applications, it should be kept in mind
that for crack widths greater than
1 mm (0.04 in.), aggregate interlock is
generally lost. Approximate values
of maximum crack widths were
measured during testing of the round
panels. On average, at a 3-mm (0.1 in.)
panel deflection, the maximum crack
width at the bottom of the panel is
0.25 mm (0.01 in.). Between 3 and
12 mm (0.1 to 0.5 in.) of panel deflection,
the maximum crack width at the
bottom of the panel varies between
0.25 to 2 mm (0.01 to 0.08 in.), and
from 12 to 40 mm (0.5 to 1.6 in.) panel
deflection, the crack widths vary
between 2 to 12 mm (0.08 to 0.5 in.).
These values are approximate and
only listed here to provide the reader
with an appreciation of the magnitude
of the crack widths corresponding to
the deflections shown in Fig. 5 and
listed in Table 4.
When observing the behavior of
Mixtures F6 (0.6), F6 (0.9), F7 (4.5), and
the WWF at very small deflections (0
to 10 mm [0 to 0.38 in.]) in Fig. 5, some
very interesting observations can be
made. At the onset of matrix cracking,
the load-carrying capacity of the low-
denier-fibrillated fibers is almost
negligible compared with that of the
WWF and Fibers F7 (4.5) and F8 (20)
reinforced panels. As shown in Table 4,
the cumulative energy at 5 mm
(0.19 in.) panel deflection (small crack
openings) is very small for all Fibers
F1 to F6 and appears to be unaffected
by the increase in fiber content. Figure 5
shows that the coarse monofilament
fibrillating Fiber F7 (4.5) reinforced
panels exhibit, from matrix cracking to
a 10-mm deflection, a greater load-
carrying capacity (better resistance
at small crack openings) than the
WWF-reinforced panels.
Since the WWF is only located at
midheight of the panel, and the crack
initially forms at the bottom of the
panel, a certain amount of deflection
of the panel is required to involve the
reinforcement in the stress transfer.
Alternatively, because the fibers are
randomly distributed throughout the
panel sample, they will bridge and
provide resistance to crack openings
at any location. This is why panel
specimens from Mixtures F7 (4.5) and
F8 (20) are more effective than the
WWF at small deflections (and
consequently small crack openings)
to carry stresses across the cracked
panel sections.
At around 12-mm (0.5 in.) deflection,
both the F7 (4.5) and the WWF
perform equally until the WWF starts
to break (as illustrated in Fig. 5 by
several sharp drops in the load)
causing a significant reduction in the
load-carrying capacity of the panels.
In general, it can be concluded that
Fiber F7 (4.5) outperforms the WWF
and the deformed steel fiber (F8) at all
deflections and, correspondingly, all
crack openings. As seen in Table 4, the
total cumulative energy (resistance to
crack opening) provided by Fiber F7
was 51% greater than that of the
WWF and steel fiber-reinforced
specimens. It can also be concluded
that the steel fiber (F8) outperforms
the WWF at very small deflections
only, and consequently small crack
openings. At midrange deflection
levels (4- to 20-mm deflection), the
WWF appears to provide markedly
betterr performance than the
deformed steel fiber.
$00l0 fl8l8$
8lFl0l NNfF
In this research program, we
conducted a comparative evaluation of
the plastic shrinkage cracking resis-
tance and toughness of fiber-reinforced
and WWF-reinforced concrete. The
results of this investigation clearly
demonstrate that the use of low-denier-
monofilament and fibrillated-synthetic
fibers at low fiber dosages (0. 3 to
0.9 kg/m
3
) is far more effective in the
control of plastic shrinkage than the
conventional WWF.
When looking at the ability of the
various reinforcing alternatives to
resist crack opening in the hardened
concrete, as measured by the ASTM
C 1399 and the Round Determinate
Panel test methods, the WWF
significantly outperformed all low-
denier-synthetic fibers evaluated in
this program. In general, an increase in
Fig. 5: Load versus deflection data for the specimens subjected to the Round
Determinate Panel test
cracking occurs at approximately 0.75 to 0.8 mm
68 NOVEMBER 2002 / 0080f0l0 l8l0f88ll088l
the fiber content of the low-denier-
synthetic fibers has resulted in a small
increase in the cracking resistance (as
measured by ASTM C 1399 and the
Round Determinate Panel tests) of the
concrete. At moderate fiber dosage, it
was demonstrated that the coarse
monofilament self-fibrillated synthetic
fibers (F7) outperformed, at all
deflections, all other reinforcing
options evaluated.
The laboratory results have also
demonstrated that it was not practi-
cal to use low-denier-fibrillated-
synthetic fibers at moderate fiber
dosage (0.3% vol. and up) because of
the workability problems they create.
Testing confirmed that low-denier-
synthetic fibers are effective in
minimizing plastic shrinkage cracking,
but also showed they add little in
terms of post-crack load-carrying
capability. It is clear from this work
that WWF and low-denier-synthetic
fibers both show value in mitigating
cracking, but both in different ways,
and affecting different types of
cracking. Unfortunately, most of the
debate in the marketplace has
concentrated on whether or not low-
denier-synthetic fibers are a suitable
replacement for WWF.
The answer depends on what
performance is required. If protection
against plastic shrinkage cracking is
required, the fibers are a superior
alternative. If the objective is to keep
cracks of any origin from opening up
over time, properly placed WWF is
clearly the superior alternative to the
low-denier-synthetic fibers. The only
caution with WWF is that without
diligence to ensure that it is placed
properly, it may not give the same
level of performance as in a carefully
controlled test.
What many owners desire is a
combination of the properties of
both the low-denier-synthetic fibers
and properly placed WWF. The two
products can be easily added
together in the same concrete to
achieve this. It is then up to the
owner and/or specifier to decide
what performance is desired, and at
what price. As with most choices in
life, you get what you pay for.
Hopefully, these test results help
in that decision by objectively
presenting the performance side
of this picture.
0k80Nl00M08l8
The authors would like to thank the Natural
Sciences and Research Council of Canada for
partial project funding. Special thanks to
Atlantic Fiber Technologies, Grace Construction
Products, SI Corp., Novocon, and Forta Corp.
for supplying the fibers investigated.
80l0f08008
1. ACI Committee 224, Causes, Evaluation
and Repair of Cracks in Concrete Structures
(ACI 224.1R-93), American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1997, 22 pp.
2. Shaeffer, R. E., Reinforced Concrete:
Preliminary Design for Architects and
Builders, McGraw-Hill, 1992.
3. Ringo, B. C., and Anderson, R. B.,
Designing Floor Slabs on Grade, Second
edition, The Aberdeen Group, 1996.
4. Bernard, E. S., Point Load Capacity in
Round Steel Fiber-Reinforced Concrete
Panels, Civil Engineering Report CE8, School
of Civil Engineering and Environment, UWS,
Nepean, J uly 1998.
5. Bentur, A., and Mindess, S., Fibre
Reinforced Cementitious Composites, Elsevier
Applied Science, 1990.
6. ASTM C 1399-98, Test Method for
Obtaining Average Residual Strength of
Fiber-Reinforced Concrete, Annual Book of
ASTM Standards, V. 04.02, 1998.
7. Banthia, N., and Trottier, J .-F., Test
Methods for Flexural Toughness Character-
ization of Fiber-Reinforced Concrete: Some
Concerns and a Proposition, ACI Materials
J ournal, V. 92, No. 1, J an.-Feb. 1995, pp. 48-57.
8. Banthia, N.; Bakht, B.; and Mufti, A.,
Residual Strength Index (RSI) Test for Fiber-
Reinforced Concrete: Results of Canadian
Round-Robin Test Program, University of
British Columbia, Internal Report, 1997.
Received and reviewed under Institute
publication policies.
ACI member Je Je Je Je Jean-Fr an-Fr an-Fr an-Fr an-Franc anc anc anc ancoi oi oi oi ois ss ss T TT TTr rr rrottier ottier ottier ottier ottier is the Canada Research Chair in
Structural Health Monitoring and Innovative Materials and a Professor
at Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada. A current member of ACI
Committee 544, Fiber Reinforced Concrete, he received the ACI Young
Member Award for Professional Achievement in 2000. In 1997, he
was awarded the ACI Wason Medal for Materials Research for a
co-authored paper on fiber-reinforced concrete.
Mi c Mi c Mi c Mi c Mi ch hh hhael ael ael ael ael M MM MMahoney ahoney ahoney ahoney ahoney is a research professional at Dalhousie
University. His current research interest includes the development,
characterization, and evaluation of fiber-reinforced concrete
and shotcrete.
D DD DDe ee eean F an F an F an F an For or or or org gg gger er er er eron on on on on is a PhD candidate at Dalhousie University. His
research interests include the durability of concrete and fiber-
reinforced concrete under severe environments.