i

Shear Capacity of Steel Fibre

Reinforced Concrete Beams
without Conventional Shear
Reinforcement

Tvrkraftskapacitet hos fiberbetongbalkar utan

konventionell armoring

ELEONORA MONDO

Master of Science Thesis

Stockholm, Sweden 2011
Shear Capacity of Steel Fibre
Reinforced Concrete Beams
without Conventional Shear
Reinforcement
Tvrkraftskapacitet hos fiberbetongbalkar utan
konventionell armoring

Eleonora Mondo


EleonoraMondo,2011

RoyalInstituteofTechnology(KTH)
DepartmentofCivilandArchitecturalEngineering
DivisionofStructuralDesignandBridges
Stockholm,Sweden,2011

PolitecnicodiTorino
DipartimentodiIngegneriaStrutturale

TRITABKN.MasterThesis331
StructuralDesignandBridges,2011
ISSN11034297
ISRNKTH/BKN/EX331SE

Preface

ThismasterthesisistheresultofmystudiesatPolitecnicodiTorinoandattheRoyal
Institute of Technology of Stockholm where I did my last year of M.Sc. within the
ErasmusExchangeprogram.
AfterthefirstfivemonthsinthisUniversity,theknowledgeandtheavailabilityofthe
Professors, the friends I met and the great experiences I had, led me to extend my
studiesherefordoingmymasterthesis.
ProfessorJohanSilfwerbrand,ProfessorBernardinoChiaiaandProfessorAlessandro
PasqualeFantilligavemethepossibilitytodothisthesisonthefieldoftheshearofSFRC
beams. I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Professor J. Silfwerbrand three
times,forthisopportunity,forbringingmetoknowthisinnovativematerialandforthe
timespentonmywork.FurtherIwouldliketothankProfessorB.ChiaiaandProfessor
A.P.Fantillifortheirgreatcooperation,supervisionandhelp.
Iwouldlike tothankthe employeesatthe SwedishCement andConcrete Research
InstitutefortheirassistanceandpositiveattitudeandthePolitecnicodiTorinoforthe
technicalbackgroundprovidedtomeandthescholarshipIreceived.
During this unique experience I met special people that became friends, I saw
amazingplacesandIdiscoveredinterestingcultures.Theywillalwaysstayinmyheart.
Finally,Iwishtoexpressmygreatestthankstomyfamilyandfriendswhogaveme
thesupportIneededwithoutanyexception.





Stockholm,September2011




EleonoraMondo

iii


Abstract

WhiletheincreaseinshearstrengthofSteelFibreReinforcedConcrete(SFRC)iswell
recognized, it has yet to be found common application of this material in building
structures and there is no existing national standard that treats SFRC in a systematic
manner.
Theaimofthediplomaworkistoinvestigatetheshearstrengthoffibrereinforced
concrete beams and the available test data and analyse the latter against the most
promising equations available in the literature. The equations investigated are:
Narayanan and Darwishs formula, the German, the RILEM and the Italian guidelines.
Thirty articles, selected among over one hundred articles taken from literature, have
beenusedtocreatethedatabasethatcontainsalmost600beamstestedinshear. This
large number of beams has been decreased to 371 excluding all those beams and test
that do not fall within the limitation stated for this thesis. Narayanan and Darwishs
formulacanbeutilizedeverytimethatthefibrepercentage,thetypeoffibres,thebeam
dimensions, the flexural reinforcement and the concrete strength class have been
defined.Ontheopposite,theparametersintroducedintheGerman,theRILEMandthe
Italian guidelines always require a further characterization of the concrete (with
bendingtest)inordertodescribethepostcrackingbehaviour.Theparametersinvolved
intheguidelinesaretheresidualflexuraltensilestrengthsaccordingtothedifferenttest
setups. A method for predicting the residual flexural tensile strength from the
knowledgeofthefibreproperties,thecylindricalcompressivestrengthoftheconcrete
andtheamountoffibrespercentageissuggested.Thepredictionsoftheshearstrength,
obtainedusingtheproposedmethodfortheresidualflexuraltensilestrength,showedto
besatisfactorywhencomparedwiththeexperimentalresults.
A comparison among the aforementioned equations corroborate the validity of the
empiricalformulationsproposedbyNarayananandDarwishneverthelessonlytheother
equations provide a realistic assessments of the strength, toughness and ductility of
structural elements subjected to shear loading. Over the three investigated equations,
whichworkwiththepostcrackingcharacterizationofthematerial,theItalianguideline
proposalistheonethat,duetoitswidedomainofvalidityandtheresultsobtainedfor
thegathereddatabaseofbeams,hasbeenselectedasthemostreliableequation.

Keywords:SteelFibreReinforcedConcrete,shear,NarayananandDarwishsEquation,
RILEM,CNR,DafStB,postcracking,flexuraltensilestrength.

Sammanfattning

Trots att fiberbetongens utkade tvrkraftskapacitet r vl knd har fiberbetongen

nnu inte uppntt en stllning som ett vanligt alternativ inom husbyggnad. Det finns
helleringanationellastandardersombehandlarfiberbetongpettsystematisktstt.
Mlet med freliggande examensarbete r att underska tvrkraftkapaciteten hos
fiberbetongbalkar genom tillgngliga frsksresultat samt analysera frsksresultaten
mot de mest lovande ekvationerna som r tillgngliga i litteraturen. De underskta
ekvationernarfljande:NarayanansochDarwishsekvationsamtdetyska,RILEMsoch
deitalienskarekommendationernasekvationer.Trettioartiklar,somvaltsutblandver
100artiklarfrnlitteraturen,haranvntsfrattskapaendatabassominnehllerver
600balkarsomprovatsiskjuvning.Dettastoraantalharreduceratstill371genomatt
alla balkar som faller utanfr avhandlingens begrnsningar uteslutits. Narayanans och
Darwishs ekvation kan anvndas s fort man knner fiberinnehllet, fibertypen,
balkdimensionerna, bjarmeringen och hllfasthetsklassen. I motsats till det krver de
tyska,RILEMsochdeitalienskarekommendationernaenmerutfrligbeskrivningver
fiberbetongen (genom bjprovning) fr att beskriva hur fiberbetongen fungerar efter
uppsprickning. Den ndvndiga parametern i rekommendationerna r fiberbetongens
residualhllfasthet bestmd genom olika varianter av bjning av fiberbetongbalkar. I
rapporten har frfattaren utvecklat en ett frslag till metod med vars hjlp man kan
uppskatta residualhllfastheten ur uppgifter om fiberns egenskaper, betongens
cylinderhllfasthet samt fiberinnehll. Bestmningen av skjuvhllfastheten, genom
anvndning av denna metod, visade sig stmma vl verens med experimentella
resultat.
EnjmfrelsemellandeovannmndaekvationernavisargiltighetenhosNarayanans
och Darwishs empiriska ekvation, ven om enbart de andra tre ger en realistisk
bedmning av brfrmga och seghet hos konstruktionselement som belastas i
skjuvning.Blanddetreundersktaekvationerna,sombeaktarmaterialetsverkningsstt
efteruppsprickning,rdeitalienskarekommendationernasmetodikdesomfresprkas
hr,eftersomdenharenbredgiltighetochstdidatabasen.

Nyckelord: Fiberbetong, skjuvning, Narayanans och Darwishs ekvation, RILEM, CNR,
DafStB,verkningssttefteruppsprickning,bjdraghllfasthet.

vii


Sommario

Ilcalcestruzzofibrorinforzatounmaterialecompositoottenutointroducendofibre
cortedacciaioinunamatricedicalcestruzzo.Laggiuntadiquestefibreadunamatrice
cementizia,che caratterizzata da un comportamento fragile a trazione, rallenta il
processo di fessurazione aumentando la duttilit e la capacit di assorbimento di
energia del materiale composito. Inoltre, come ampiamente riconosciuto dalla
letteraturascientifica,lefibreaumentanolacapacitatagliodeglielementistrutturali.
Tuttavia,restalanecessitdistabiliremeccanismidiresistenzaediredigerenormative
nazionaliriguardantiiltagliochepermettanoditrattareilproblemainmodoaffidabilee
sistematico.
Lapresentetesiintendeesaminarelemoltepliciformulazionianaliticheperilcalcolo
dellaresistenzaultimaataglio,testimoniatedallemoltepubblicazioniscientificheenon,
presentiinletteratura.Nellospecifico,sonostateconfrontatelaformuladiNarayanane
DarwisheleequazionipropostedaglientinormativiTedesco(DafStB),Italiano(CNR)e
dal RILEM. Lo studio fondato su trenta campagne sperimentali, selezionate tra un
centinaiodipubblicazioni,peruntotaledi600elementitravedidimensionirealitestati
a taglio. Escludendo i test su elementi le cui propriet non rientrano nel dominio
investigatodaquestatesi,siottenutoundatabasedi371elementitrave.
LaformuladiNarayananandDarwishhalapeculiaritdipoteressereutilizzatatutte
le volte che sono note le dimensioni della trave, la percentuale in volume di fibre, le
caratteristichefisichemeccanichedellefibre,ilquantitativodiarmaturalongitudinalee
la classe del calcestruzzo. Le linee guida del DafStB, del RILEM e del CNR, invece,
contengono allinterno delle loro formulazioni un parametro legato al comportamento
del materiale nella fase posteriore alla fessurazione, ovvero la resistenza residua
desunta da prove a flessione. Questi tre metodi, pertanto, richiedono una
caratterizzazione del materiale che consiste in un ulteriore test a flessione (differente
per ogni ente normativo) su un provino di piccole dimensioni, dal quale si possono
desumereleresistenzeresiduedelmateriale.Alfinediproseguirenelconfronto,che
precipuamente loggetto di questa tesi, la scarsit di questa tipologia di dati stata
superata performando una back analysis; la formulazione analitica ottenuta, una per
ciascun ente, si basa sulla percentuale di fibre, sulle caratteristiche delle fibre e sulla
resistenza cilindrica a compressione del calcestruzzo, restituendo il valore della
tensione residua mancante. La capacit a taglio, basata sulle tensioni residue calcolate
conlaformulazioneanaliticapresentatainquestolavoro,mostrarisultatisoddisfacenti
quandovienecomparataconlacapacitatagliomisurataduranteleprovesperimentali
riportateneldatabase.
Ampie interpretazioni e discussioni generate dai risultati ottenuti con le
sovramenzionate equazioni, confermano la validit della formulazione empirica di
Narayanan e Darwishcommisurando difficolte risultati;nonostantetutto,lealtre tre

ix


equazionisonoingradodidaremaggioriindicazionirelativeallaresistenza,allatenacit
e alla duttilit dellelemento trave soggetto ad azioni taglianti. Tra queste ultime la
proposta italiana, grazie al suoesteso dominio di validit ed ai risultati ottenuti, viene
indicatacomelapipromettenteformulaperlacomputazionedellacapacitatagliodi
unatravefibrorinforzatainassenzadiarmaturaspecifica.

Parole chiave: Calcestruzzo fibrorinforzato, sforzi di taglio, Narayanan e Darwish,
RILEM,DafStB,CNR,postfessurazione,tensioneresidua.

Contents

Preface..........................................................................................................................................iii
Abstract..........................................................................................................................................v
Sammanfattning.......................................................................................................................vii
Sommario.....................................................................................................................................ix
Contents........................................................................................................................................xi
Notations...................................................................................................................................xiii
Abbreviations............................................................................................................................xv
Chapter1 Introduction.........................................................................................................1

1.1 Background...............................................................................................................................1
1.2 ScopeoftheThesis.................................................................................................................3
1.3 Limitation..................................................................................................................................3
1.4 OutlineoftheThesis..............................................................................................................4

Chapter2 TheoreticalBackground..................................................................................7

2.1 FibreReinforcedConcrete:Material,GeometriesandPhysicalProperties......7
2.2 MechanismsofCrackFormationandPropagation.................................................13
2.3 TestMethods.........................................................................................................................20

Chapter3 ShearCapacity..................................................................................................27

3.1 AlternativeI:Narayanan&Darwish.............................................................................31
3.2 AlternativeII:EquationDevelopedfromtheGermanCommitteefor
ReinforcedConcrete(DAfStB).........................................................................................36
3.3 AlternativeIII:RILEMTC162TDF(2003).................................................................38
3.4 AlternativeIV:ItalianGuidelineCNRDT2042006................................................42

Chapter4 AnalysisandComparisonoftheSpecimens..........................................45

4.1 Introduction..........................................................................................................................45
4.2 PresentationofalltheData.............................................................................................48

xi


4.3 ClassificationoftheSpecimensBasedontheMainProperties...........................57

4.3.1 TestMethods&PostCrackingParameters.....................................................................57
4.3.2 ModesofFailure.........................................................................................................................66
4.3.3 StrengthofConcrete.................................................................................................................67
4.3.4 Fibres&VolumePercentage.................................................................................................68
4.3.5 LongitudinalReinforcement..................................................................................................68
4.3.6 SpecimenDimensions..............................................................................................................68
4.3.7 OtherProperties.........................................................................................................................69

4.4 DataProcessing....................................................................................................................70
4.5 ComparisonbetweentheTestDatafromLiteratureandtheTheoretical
FormulasofChapter3........................................................................................................94

4.5.1 Effectofa/dRatio......................................................................................................................95
4.5.2 EffectoftheMaximumAggregateSize..............................................................................96
4.5.3 EffectofFibresPercentage.....................................................................................................97
4.5.4 EffectofLongitudinalReinforcement................................................................................98
4.5.5 EffectoftheCylindricalCompressiveStrength.............................................................99
4.5.6 EffectoftheRIandtheFibreFactorF............................................................................100
4.5.7 EffectoftheEffectiveDepthd............................................................................................102

Chapter5 ConclusionandFuturePerspectives......................................................105

5.1 DiscussionoftheResults................................................................................................105
5.2 ProposaloftheBestAlternative..................................................................................106
5.3 FuturePerspectives..........................................................................................................108

References...............................................................................................................................109
AppendixA...............................................................................................................................A1
AppendixB SFRCPapersandReferences...............................................................B1

xii


Notations

Generalnotations
(.)c property(.)referredtoconcrete

(.)d designvalueofproperty(.)
(.)exp experimentalvalueofproperty(.)
(.)F property(.)referredtofiberreinforcedconcrete
(.)k characteristicvalueofproperty(.)
(.)m mediumvalueofproperty(.)
(.)R property(.)asresistance
(.)s property(.)referredtosteel
(.)S property(.)asdemand
(.)u ultimatevalueofproperty(.)
[AXX] articlenumberXX

UppercaseRomanletters
A' nondimensionalconstantinNarayanan&Darwish'sEq.
Ab totalbondareaofthefibresacrosstheinclinedcrackedsection[mm2]
Ac areaoftheconcretecrosssection[m2]
Af areaofasinglefibre[mm2]
As areaoftensilereinforcement[mm2]
A's areaofcompressionreinforcement[mm2]
B' dimensionalconstantinNarayanan&Darwish'sEq.
Vf Fibrecontentbyvolume
Ff FibreFactor

xiii


EC elasiticiymodulusofconcrete
Pu observedultimateload

LowercaseRomanletters
a shearspan[mm]
a/d shearspan/effectivedepthratio
b widthofthebeam[mm]
d effectivedepthofthecrosssection[mm]
da maximumaggregatessize[mm]
df fiberdiameter(equivalent)[mm]
df bondfactorinNarayanan&Darwish'sEq.
fcc,cube28 compressivecubestrengthofconcrete[MPa]
fcsp28 splittingtensilestrengthofconcrete[MPa]
fsy Yieldstressofreinforceingsteel[MPa]
lf/df Aspectratiosoffibres
fcfl flexuraltensilestrengthofconcrete[MPa]
fcsp splittingtensilestrengthofconcrete[MPa]

LowercaseGreekletters
diameterofrebar[mm]
f fibermassdensity[kg/m3]
fibrematrixinterfacialbondstress[MPa]
'flex percentageofareaoftensilereinforcement=(A/bd)x100
flex percentageofareaofcompressionreinforcement=(A's/bd)/100
tot totalratioofreinforcement

xiv


Abbreviations

3PBT ThreePointBendingTest
4PBT FourPointBendingTest
ASTM AmericanSocietyforTestingandMaterials
CEN ComitatoNormativoEuropeoEuropeanCommitteeforStandardization
CNR ConsiglioNazionaledelleRicercheNationalResearchCouncil
CRC ChemicalRubberCompany
CSTR TheConcreteSocietyTechnicalReport(U.K.)
CUR CentreforCivilEngineeringResearchandCodes(Netherlands)
DAfStB theGermanCommitteeforStructuralConcrete
DEUTSCHER BETON UND BAUTECHNIKVEREIN German Society for concrete and
DBV
Technology
DT DiagonaltensionModeofFailure
e.g. exempligratia,forexample
EC2 Eurocode2
EN EuroNorm
F FailureinFlexure
FRC FibreReinforcedConcrete
FRP FiberReinforcedPolymer
FT FlexuralTensionModeofFailure
i.e. idest,thatis
IB InformationBulletin
JCI JapanConcreteInstitute
JSCE JapanSocietyofCivilEngineers
NA FailureModenotAvailable
PC PlainConcrete
PCA PortlandConcreteAssociation(U.S.A.)
PPR PartialPrestressingRatio

xv


RC ReinforcedConcrete
Runion Internationale des Laboratoires et Experts des Matriaux, Systmes de
RILEM Construction et Ouvrages; International Meeting of Experts and Laboratories for
Materials,BuildingSystemsandStructures
S ShearingModeofFailure
SC ShearCompressionModeofFailure
SCA SwedishConcreteAssociation
SLS ServiceabilityLimitState
ST FailureinShearTension
TC TechnicalCommittee
ULS UltimateLimitState
UNI EnteNazionaleItalianodiUnificazione,ItalianOrganizationforStandardization
UTT UniaxialTensileTest
WC WebCrushingModeofFailure
WST WedgeSplittingTest

xvi


Chapter1

Introduction

1.1 Background

InthesecondhalfoftheXIXcenturytherewerethefirstpatentsofthereinforced
concrete, when the ParisiangardenerJosephMonierincorporatedthe metalcageused
toshapehisflowerpotsandheunderstoodthatthisstrengthenstheconcreteintension.
Hegotispatentsinthe1867.
Afterthisfirstexperienceconcretesteelotherproductsstartedtoberealizedinthis
manner: pipes, tanks, flat and curved slabs, stairs etc... In 1855, at the Universal
Exhibition in Paris a small boat, built by the French lawyer J. L. Lambot, with a metal
structurecoveredwithconcretewasexposed(BrencichA.,1992).
In the yearof1874,19yearslatertheLambotsboat,A.Berardfirstpatented fibre
ReinforcedConcrete(Balaguruetal.,1992).
Sincethenanewconceptofdiscretereinforcementdonewithfibresbornandalot
ofotherfibres,thanthesteelone,weretriedlikesilicon,carbon,ceramics,glass,nylon,
polypropylene,asbestos,siliconcarbideetc..
ForlongtimetheFRCwasuselessduetoitshighmaterialcosts,missingtheoretical
knowledgeandsimultaneousdevelopmentoftheRC.Butwhen,attheendof1950and
beginningof1960,Romualdi,BatsonandMandelpublishedpapers aboutthe fracture
mechanicsdesignapproachforFRC,itbecametodrawthemoderncountries(Romualdi
and Batson, 1963; Romualdi and Mandel, 1964). The modern era of research of FRC
beganinterestingmoreandmoreusersallovertheword.Sincethebeginningitsmost
commonutilizationisinthefieldofshotcreteapplications.
TheexpressionfiberreinforcedconcreteisbyACI116(2000)andthedefinitionof
the Italian National Agency for Standardization states: composite material made from
concrete base in which a fibrous widespread and evenly distributed reinforcement is
embedded(UNI110391,2003).

TherearemainlyfourkindsofFRC:(1)SteelFibreReinforcedConcrete(SFRC),(2)
GlassFibreReinforcedConcrete(GFRC),(3)NaturalFibreReinforcedConcrete(NFRC)
and(4)SyntheticFibreReinforcedConcrete(SNFRC).
Today,afterrealizingthatasbestosisharmfultooneshealthandtheestablishment
ofglassfibreismostlylimitedtotheproductionofcladdingmaterial,thebetterknown
is the SFRC. As more experience is gained with SFRC, thanks to its applicability in the
field of the civil engineering construction, more applications and data are accepted by
theengineeringcommunity.SFRCiswidelyusedinstructurewherefibrereinforcement
isnotessentialforintegrityandsafety(i.e.slabsongrade,rockslopestabilizationand
repair)butthentheindustryandtheresearchersaretestingfibresassubstitutesofthe
shearreinforcementandtheyaretryingtocoverthelackofcodes.
Itisnowrecognizedthattheparamounteffectoffibresisthatitenhancesthepost
cracking behaviour and the toughness i.e. the capacity of transferring stresses after
matrix cracking and the tensile strain at rapture rather than the tensile strength. The
addition of fibres also slightly improves compressive strength, elastic modulus, crack
resistance, crack control, durability, fatigue life, resistance to impact and abrasion,
shrinkage,expansion,thermalcharacteristics,andfireresistance(ACI544,1996).
The first works of Romualdi, Batson and Mandel (Romualdi and Batson, 1963;
Romualdi and Mandel, 1964) were focused on the thought that the fibres improve the
tensilestrengthanddelaythewideningofmicrocracks;theyfoundconfirmationduring
the interpretation of the indirect test methods (i.e. splitting test and flexural test that
highlighttheincreaseoftoughness)usedtodeterminethetensilestrength.
Ontheotherhand,alsonewmodernresearchpostulatedtheinfluenceofthefibres
on the delay of the widening of microcracks like Nelson et al. (2002) and Lawler et al
(2003).
Fromapracticalviewpoint,however,theuseofsteelfibresbecameattractiveincase
where they can completely replace bartype shear reinforcement. The research points
outthatthisispossible:FRCisabletoreplacetheminimumquantityofstirrupsrequest
andtowellperformconnectionbetweenslabsandcolumns(DeHanaietal,2008).

Considerableresearch,development,andapplicationsofFRCasshearreinforcement
are taking place throughout the world. The numerous research papers, articles,
internationalsymposiaandstateoftheartdemonstratetheincreasinginterestsonthe
industry and the potential business of FRC development. The ACI Committee 544
publisheditsfirststateoftheartreportin1973.RILEMstechnicalcommittee19FRC
on fibre reinforced cement composites published a report, too. The latest Fibs Model
Code 2010,intendedtoserve as abasisforfuture codes andanoperationaldocument
for normal design situations, gives an extensive stateoftheart regarding SFRC and
theirshearcapacity.
Despite the lack of codes, the literature is full of authors that, in evaluating their
experimental data, have proposed different analytical equations to estimate the shear
capacity of FRC; each theoretical model agrees well with the experimental data from
which the model equations are derived but they dont show the same degree of
agreementwhenappliedtootherpublisheddata.
Theevaluationoftheshearcapacitycouldfollowtwodifferentthoughts:one,most
common in the past but still utilized today and recommended by RILEM (2000a), that
estimatesthecontributionofthefibrestotheshearcapacityasanindependentaddend
(see Narayanan & Darwish (1987), RILEM TC 162TDF (2003), DAfStB guidelines
(2011),Etc.)andtheotherthoughtthatstatesthecontributionofconcreteandfibreare

coupled and, thus, must be solved simultaneously considering the toughness of the
material(FibBulletin57,2010).

1.2 ScopeoftheThesis

Today fibre reinforced concrete is in its fourth decade of development, after

Romualdi et al. (1963 and 1964) research, and it has established itself as one of the
majorbuildingmaterialbutneverthelesscomparedwithitshighperformancesitisstill
notwidelyused,notcommoninbuildingstructureswithaninexplicablelackofnational
andinternationalstandardsabletotreatitinasystematicmanner.
Theinterestsonfibrereinforcedconcreteareincreasingdaybydayconsideringthe
economicsadvantagesthatcanarisefromitsuselikethesubstitutionofthetransversal
reinforcementandtheearnintermsofsavinglabourtimeandincreasingdurabilityof
thestructures.

Thescopeofthisthesisistocomparethemostusedformulasforthecalculationof
the shear strength; they well agree with the experimental data from which the model
equations are derived but they dont work as well as when applied to other data; a
furtherscopeistoemphasisethedifferencebetweenthem.
Last but not least the aim of the work is to point out the formula that better
performedshearinafibrereinforcedbeamconsideringthedifferentkeyparameters.

1.3 Limitation

Todealwithsuchahugetopic,severallimitationshavetobeset.
There are a lot of different fibres (glass, steel, natural, synthetic, etc.) and even the
hybridcombinationofmetallicandnonmetallicfibrescanofferpotentialadvantagesin
improving concrete properties as well as reducing the overall cost of concrete
production in this work, we will go exclusively through the Steel Fibre Reinforced
ConcreteabbreviatedinSFRC.Section2.1showsallthevarietiesoffibresbutnormally
thesamplescontainsteelendhook,crimpedorstraightfibres.
Herein,onlybeamswithflexuralreinforcementandfibresareanalysedwhilebeams
withfibres,shearreinforcementandflexuralreinforcementarenotconsidered.
Thesamplesinvestigatedexhibitsastrainsofteningbehaviourandalltheformulas
aredesignedforthiskindofmaterial.
With regard of the compressive strength of the samples it is worth to stress that,
from the beginning, it is not possible to make a categorical exclusion of some
compressive classes of concrete. The decision of which compressive strength can be

accepted depend on the limitations of the formulas (if present) but at first we must
definehowtheconcretecanbeclassified.Normallyitisdividedintotwobigcategories:
normalstrengthandhighstrength.
Theperceptionofwhatlevelofcompressivestrengthconstituteshighstrengthhas
beencontinuallyrevisedupwardsoverthepast20yearsorsoandmaywellcontinueto
rise in the near future. A simple definition would be concrete with a compressive
strength greater than that covered by current codes and standards. In the UK this
would include concrete with a characteristic compressive cube strength of 60 MPa or
more,butEurocode2alreadyincludesconcretewithcharacteristiccubestrengthsupto
105MPaandSwedenandGermanhadrisenthislimitupto115MPa,eventhissimple
definitionisnotreallyadequate.Thereforeforthepurposesofthisthesis,concretewith
compressive (cube) strength smaller than 105 MPa will be considered as normal
strength.
This thesis considers mainly normal strength but even a minority of high strength
concreteisgatheredinordertoinvestigatetheirshearbehavior.
TheformulasutilizedcomefromtheEuropeansetting(Germany,ItalianandSwedish
guidelines)eveniftheyarewellknownallovertheworld.

1.4 OutlineoftheThesis

Whenspecimensaretestedtherearealotofparametersthatinfluence the results,

especially when the formulas used have an empirical background and they had been
performedonalimitedbunchofsamples.
This thesis consists on graphs that show the ratio of the shear strength obtained
from the test and the shear strength coming from the formula related to the key
parameters that influence the shear response of concrete members with special
emphasisofFRCtoughnessandsizeeffect.
Thethesisconsistsoffivechapters.
In Chapter 2 a theoretical background is given to better understand the subject
treated in the next chapters; FRCs are described with their geometrical and physical
properties and the mechanisms of crack formation and propagation are explained. In
additiondifferenttestmethodsarepresented.
In Chapter 3 the importance of the shear strength is pointed out and four different
alternativestoquantifyitarepresented,describedandtheoreticalnotionsaregivenfor
eachofthefouralternatives.
Chapter4isthesoulofthethesis.Afterabriefintroductionabouttheimportanceof
theresearchintheshearfield,inSection4.2allthearticlesgatheredarepresentedand
their main features are explained. The following subchapter (Section 4.3) shows the
domain investigated in this work according to the main characteristics (percentage of
fibre, maximum aggregate size, type of failure, test methods, etc.). In Section 4.4 a
methodtoobtainthepostcrackingparametersincaseofabsenceofstandardbending
tests is proposed and also the data processing is therein explained. In the next
subchapter(Section4.5)thetheoreticalresultscomingfromtheformulasofChapter3
arecomparedwiththetestresultsandthetrendofeachformulaindifferentfieldtestsis

evaluated.Alltheworkisdonepayingparticularattentiontothedifferentperformance
ofthefouralternatives.
Chapter 5 leads a discussion among the results obtained on the previous chapters
and suggests the formula that best suits the specimens analysed; in addition future
perspectivesoftheworkarepresented.
Thethesisconcludeswithanalphabeticallistofbibliographicalsourcescitedinthe
text.

Chapter2

TheoreticalBackground

The continuous research in the construction field improves the properties and the
qualitiesoftheconcreteavailableonthemarket.
Firstofallresearcherstriedtoincreasethestrengthbutthentheyfocusedonother
properties like the weight, the workability, the permeability, the ductility and the
toughness.
Thefibrereinforcedconcreterespondsreallywelltothelattertwoneeds.
Themainbenefitsoftheinclusionoffibresinhardenedconcretecanbeappreciated
inthe postcrackingstate,where the fibres,bridgingthe cracks,contribute toincrease
(1)thestrength,(2)thefailurestrainand(3)thetoughnessofthecomposite.Intension,
SFRCfailsonlyafterthe steelfibres breakorarepulledoutofthe cementmatrix(ACI
Committee544,2002).

2.1 FibreReinforcedConcrete:Material,
GeometriesandPhysicalProperties.

Fibrereinforcedconcreteisaconcretecontainingdispersedfibres.
Theconceptofdiscretereinforcementfindsitsrootin1874whenA.Berardpatented
itforthefirsttime(Balaguruetal.,1992).
Comparedtotheconventionalreinforcement,thefibrereinforcementis:
distributed throughout a cross section (whereas bars are only place
whereneeded);
relativelyshortandcloselyspaced(whilebarsarecontinuousandnot
ascloselyspaced);

notcomparable,intermofarea,totheoneofthebars.
As stated before, the addition of fibres to plain concrete totally changes the post
cracking behaviour leading to a softening branch after the peak load. Moreover the
fibresbridgingthecrackscontributetoincreasethestrength,thefailurestrainandthe
toughnessofthecomposite.
The toughness is significantly increased obtaining, thus, a really versatile
constructionmaterial;but,fibrereinforcedconcretebecomesmoreandmoreattractive
when it is able to totally replace transversal reinforcements that are one of the more
labourcost activities necessary for concrete structures. This technology also improves
thedurabilityofconcretestructures.
Thefibrereinforcedconcreteisnotarecentconcept,but,duetothelackofnational
and international standards, it is not used in really significant structural applications.
Nowadaysitismainlyusedinnonstructuralelementslike:
slabs and pavements in which fibres are added as secondary
reinforcement and with the aim of withstanding the crack induced by
the humidity and the temperature variation (crack for which the
conventionalreinforcementisnoteffective);
tunnellinings,precastpiles(thathavetobehammeredintheground)
and blast resistance structures that have to carry high load or
deformation;
thinsheetsorelementswithcomplicatedshapewheretheconventional
reinforcementcannotbeusedand,inanycase,duetothethinconcrete
cover,itwillbedifficulttopreservefromcorrosion.
Inmostoftheapplications,thefunctionofthefibresdoesnotconsistintoincreasing
the strength (although an increase of tensile strength is a consequence) but just to
controlanddelaybothwideningcracksandthebehaviouroftheconcreteafterthecrack
ofthematrix.

Inasimpleview,theelementsinvolvedinthesystemFRCarethree:theconcrete,the
bondandthefibres.

TheConcrete
Themoderateadditionoffibreshasnoeffectonthemechanicalmaterialproperties
of plain concrete before cracking unless the fibre dosage exceeds around 80 kg/m3
(Technical Report No. 63). The design of such high performance composites is not
covered in this thesis. In consequence the addition of fibres does not change the
compression strength after 28 days, that is the main characteristic used to classify
concrete(seeTable2.1).

Table2.1StrengthConcreteClassification(PCA,1994).

Conventional Highstrength Veryhigh Ultrahigh

concrete concrete strengthconcrete strengthconcrete

<50 50100 100150 >150

Strength,MPa(psi)
7250 (725014500) (1450021750) 21750

Watercementratio >0.45 0.4530 0.300.25 <0.25

ChemicalAdmixtures Notnecessary WRA/HRWR HRWR HRWR

MineralAdmixtures Notnecessary Flyash SilicaFume SilicaFume

Permeabilitycoefficient
>1010 10nov 10dic <1013
(cm/s)

Needsair Needsair Needsair

Freezethawprotection Nofreezablewater
entrainment entrainment entrainment

However, fibre addition causes a less brittle failure; this is due to the fact that
compression failure of concrete is related to its tension failure, since tensile stresses
cause growth of the preexisting microcracks in the concrete (and tanks to the fibre
bridgingthestressescontinuetoincrease).
Nevertheless,theaddition offibres changestheconsistence.Themutationdepends
upon the aspect ratio of the fibres that is defined as the ratio of its length lf to its
diameter df (when cross section is not circular, diameter is substituted by equivalent
diameter).Itisphysicallydifficulttoincludefibreswithanaspectratioofmorethan50
because concrete contains about 70 % by volume of aggregate particles which,
obviously,cannotbepenetratedbyfibres.
LongerfibresofsmallerdiameterwillbemoreefficientinthehardenedFRC,butwill
makethefreshFRCmoredifficulttocast.ThisexplainswhythemixdesignofFRCoften
requiresadditivesforobtainingtheconsistenceneeded.
Anotherimportantfactorthatcouldnotbeignoredisthemaximumaggregatesize;
everytimethataconcretematrixisdesigned,particularattentionshouldbepaidtothe
determinationofthisparameterthatinfluencesthephenomenonofinterlock.

TheBond
ThebondbetweenthematrixandthefibresinfluencestheperformancesoftheFRC.
Thevalueofthebondstrengthforastraightroundsteelfibrerarelyexceeds4MPa,but,
with mechanical deformation of the fibre or devices (anchors), the bond slip can be
avoidedduringthefibrefailure.
Itisreallydifficulttopredictthebehaviourofthefibre;thisisbecauseitdependson
bothfibreshapeandconcretestrength.Thereforeitisnotpossibletogiveageneralized
bondstrengthwhichcouldbeusedinnumericalcalculations.Theonlycertaintyinthe
fibrebehaviouristhatthefibrebondliesbetweenfibreslipandfibrefailure.

TheFibres
Based on industrial sources, the amount of fibres used worldwide is estimated at
300,000 tons peryear,and is projectedtoincrease.InNorthAmerica,the growthrate
hasbeenplacedat20%peryear.However,itshouldbepointedoutthatFRCremainsa
smallfractionoftheamountofconcreteusedeachyearintheconstructionindustry(Li,
V.C.,2002). As shown in Table 2.2, there aremany different types offibres in commerce
with different properties. On the whole, steel fibresremain the most used fibres(50 % of
totaltonnageused),followedbypolypropylene(20%),glass(5%)andotherfibres(25%)
(Banthia,2008).
Table2.2Propertiesoffibresusedasreinforcementinconcrete(Banthia,2008).

Tensile Tensile Tensilestrain Fibre Alkali

strength modulus (%) diameter stability
Fibretype
(MPa) (GPa) (m) (relative)
min max
Asbestos 6003600 69150 0.1 0.3 0.023 excellent
Carbon 5904800 28520 1 2 718 excellent
Aramid 2700 62130 3 4 1112 good
Polypropylene 200700 0.59.8 10 15 10150 excellent
Polyamide 7001000 3.96 10 15 1050
Polyester 8001300 upto15 8 20 1050
Rayon 4501100 upto11 7 15 1050 fair

PolyvinylAlcohol 8001500 2940 6 10 14600 good

Polyacrylonitrile 8501000 1718 9 19 good

Polyethylene 400 24 100 400 40 excellent

Polyethylenepulp
400 24 100 400 120 excellent
(oriented)

HighDensityPolyethylene 2585 117 2.2 38 excellent

Carbonsteel 3000 200 1 2 5085 excellent

Stainlesssteel 3000 200 1 2 5085 excellent
ARGlass 1700 72 2 1220 good

The type of fibres to be used depends mainly upon the application of the FRC.
Asbestos fibres have been used for a long time in pipes and corrugated or flat roofing
sheets. Glass fibres find their application as reinforcing materials in automotive and
navalindustriesorlikecladdingmaterials.Vegetablefibreshavebeenusedinlowcost
buildings. Synthetic fibres like polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP), acrylics (PAN),
polyvinylacetate (PVA), polyester (PES) and carbon are incorporated in the cement
matrixmainlyforreducingplasticshrinkagecrackingandforincreasingtheresistance
tofirespalling.
At any rate, the most interesting fibres in the building materials sector are those
made out of metal. They improve the toughness and reduce the crack widths. Surely,
alongtheyears,thankstothenewtechnology,theirshapeischangedandtodaymodern
steelfibreshavehigherslendernessandmorecomplexgeometry.
This master thesis deals only with steel fibres that are more developed into
structuralapplications.

In particular, metallic fibres are made of either carbon steel or stainless steel and
theirtensilestrengthvariesfrom200to2600MPa.

10


TheEuropeanStandardEN148891:2006(CEN,2006)saysthat[...]steelfibresare
straight or deformed pieced of colddrawn steel wire, straight or deformed cut sheet
fibres,meltextractedfibres,shavedcolddrawnwirefibresandfibresmilledfromsteel
block which are suitable to be homogeneously mixed into concrete or mortar [...].
Moreover,inthatnorm,steelfibresaredividedintofivegeneralgroupsandaredefined
inaccordancewiththebasicmaterialusedfortheproductionofthefibresaccordingto:
GroupI,colddrawnwire;
GroupII,cutsheet;
GroupIII,meltextracted;
GroupIV,shavedcolddrawnwire;
GroupV,milledfromblocks.
There are also many other classifications made by other standard bodies that
consider different fibres features. The Japanese Society of Civil Engineers (JSCE) has
classifiedsteelfibresaccordingtotheshapeoftheircrosssection:
Type1:Squaresection;
Type2:Circularsection;
Type3:Crescentsection.
ASTMA820providesaclassificationforfourgeneraltypesofsteelfibresbasedupon
theproductusedintheirmanufacture:
TypeIColddrawnwire;
TypeIICutsheet;
TypeIIIMeltextracted;
TypeIVOtherfibers.
For steel fibres, three different variables are used for controlling the fibres
performance: (1) the aspect ratio; (2) the fibre shape and surface deformation
(includinganchoragesthatincreasetheirperformance)and(3)the surfacetreatments
(Lfgren,2005).

For fibres, in order to be effective in cementitious matrices, it has been found (by
bothexperimentsandanalyticalstudies)thattheyshouldhavethefollowingproperties
(Naaman,2003):(1)atensilestrengthsignificantlyhigherthanthematrix(fromtwoto
threeordersofmagnitude);(2)abondstrengthwiththematrixpreferablyofthesame
order as, or higher, than the tensile strength of the matrix; (3) an elastic modulus in
tensionsignificantlyhigherthanthatofthematrix(atleastthreetimes)and(4)enough
ductilitysothatthe fibre doesnotfracture duetoitsabrasionorbending.In addition,
thePoissonratio()andthecoefficientofthermalexpansion()shouldpreferablybeof
thesameorderofmagnitudeforbothfibreandmatrix(Lfgren,2005).

A great variety of fibre shapes and lengths are available depending on the
manufacturingprocessasitisrepresentedinFigure2.1.

11


Figure2.1Varietyoffibres(DiPrisco,2007&IB39,2009).

Thecrosssectionofanindividualfibrecouldbecircular,rectangular,irregular,flat
or any substantially polygonal shape. Mechanical deformation along their length can
improvethebondstrengthproducingsmooth,indented,deformed,crimped,coiledand
twisted fibres. Also different shaped ends could improve the bond strength (end
paddles, endbuttons, endhooks or other anchorages). Steel fibres can also have
coatings like zinc (for improving corrosion resistance) or brass (for improving bond
characteristics).
Fibre length ranges from 10 to 60 mm with equivalent diameters between 0.5 and
1.2 mm (0.150.40 mm thickness and 0.250.90 mm in width) and an aspect ratio less
than100(typicallyrangingfrom40to80).
While the straight fibre is only anchored in the matrix by friction and chemical
adhesion, all other fibers, which have a deformation along their axis, develop greater
bond properties. In order to utilize the usually high tensile strength of fibres it is
importantthatfibresarewellanchoredintheconcretematrix.
HughesandFattuhi(1976)indicatedthatcrimpedfibresshowabetterworkability
compared to straight or other forms of fibers for a similar fibre aspect ratio (Minelli,
2005).

The orientation and the distribution of fibres are worth mentioning. They play an
importantroleforthemechanicalperformanceoftheFRC.Bodyrandomorientationis
characterised by equiprobable and unlimited (free) distribution of short fibres
throughout the body of the concrete (in three dimensional space). Plane random
orientation occurs in thin walled elements (flat sheets, plate, thin walls, etc.). The
smaller the crosssection is, the more restricted the possibilities of free orientation of
thefibresandathreedimensionalbulkare.Themechanicalbehaviourmustincludethe
orientation of the fibre in order to quantify the fibres bridging the crack. For this
purpose, it is common to define the fibre efficiency factor (b) as the efficiency of
bridging, in terms of the amount of fibres bridging crack, with respect to orientation
effects.

The fibre content in a mixture, when steel fibres are used, usually varies between
0.25and2%byvolume,i.e.from20to160kg/m3.Normallylowestpercentageisused

12


in slabs on grade while the upper value is used for structurally more complicated
applications.
Nowadays, it is believed that a proper characterization of fibers should be
undertakenbyconsideringthepostcrackingbehaviouritselfratherthanthegeometry
and the amount of fibres provided in the matrix. In fact, the same amount of fibres in
different types of concrete give quite different postcracking behaviours of the
composites(Minelli,2005).

2.2 MechanismsofCrackFormationand
Propagation

The first crack that appears ina beam normally is in correspondence of the region
where the bending moment is maximum and the shear force is small; the cracks are
alignedwhiteachotherand,moreorless,perpendiculartotheflexuralstress;theyare,
therefore, in mode I condition. As visible in a normal loaddeflection plot, at a certain
point,thebehaviourfromlinearbecomesnonlinear(Figure2.2,Karyhaloo,1993).

Figure 2.2 A longitudinal reinforced concrete beam in threepoint bending. First

flexuralcracksappearintheregionofmaximumbendingmoment(a)accompaniedby
nonlinearity in loaddeflection response (denoted by an asterisk in (b)). More flexural
cracksappearawayfromtheregionofmaximummomentunderincreasingload(c),and
a dominant crack propagates towards load point until ultimate failure by crushing of
compressiveconcrete(d)(Karihaloo,1993).

Increasing the load more cracks are formed away from the region of maximum
bending moment and also the nonlinearity increases; these further cracks are along
region where the shear forces are no longer small, for this reason they are in mixed
mode condition (mode I + II), but always normal to the major tensile principal stress.

13


Thesecracks,growing,followabentpath(duetomodeII)andtheyarenomoreparallel
to the direction of the applied load (sometimes these are incorrectly called shear
cracks). Mode IIis alsoresponsibleofthe slidingofthe crackfaces. Longitudinalbars,
transversal bars and fibres counteract the opening of the crack, but it is difficult to
separatetheireffectsforquantifyingthecontributionofeachelement.
Further increasing of load does grow a dominant crack towards the reduced
compressionzoneuntilfailuretakeplace.Theresponseisgenerallyductile.
Changingthebeamdimensionsorthereinforcement,anotherkindofcollapsecould
beappreciatedthatconsistsintotheformationofasecondarycrackwhichcrossesthe
firstflexuralcracks(Figure2.3).Thismodeoffailure(duetothecombinationofshear
andnormalstresses)isoftensuddenandunstableanditiscalledthediagonaltension
mode(or,incorrectly,shearmode).

Figure2.3Asecondarycrackcrossingtheflexuralcracksleadstosuddenbrittlefailure
(Karihaloo,1993).

The sliding displacement of the inclined crack faces bring into play the aggregate
interlockwhich givesacontributiontothe totalshearstrength. Afurthercontribution
comesfromthelongitudinalreinforcementthatactsasadowel.Bondstressesalsoact
betweenreinforcementandsurroundingconcretecausedbyslipduetotheopeningof
thecrack(Karyhaloo,1993).Thecontributionofdowelaction,aggregateinterlockand
bondstressduetoslipareveryhardtoquantifyandevenfracturemechanicsisnotable
todescribethecrackpropagationinacorrectway.
Themostsignificanteffectofthepresenceofsteelfibresisthecrackingbehaviour;
the beams made out of FRC display an increased number of both flexural and shear
cracksatcloserspacingthanthecorrespondingbeamswithoutfibres.Normally,alsoa
reductionofspallinginthevicinityofthesupportandbondcrackingcanbefound.The
addition of fibres could (not always) lead to achieve the flexural failure; but, although
fibresbeneficiallyandsubstantiallyimprovethecrackanddeformationalbehaviouras
wellastheultimatestrength,thisdoesnotalwayshappen.
Thetensilefracturemechanismofconcreteisacomplexphenomenonandstillithas
notbeen fullyelucidated. Thepostcrackingbehaviour,as shown in Lfgren(2005), is
affectedbytwodifferentmechanisms:
Aggregatebridgingthatisalwayspresentintheplainconcrete
FibrebridgingthatcontributestoenergydissipationinFRCconcrete.
Thefibrebridgingisalwayspredominant,butthefinalbearinginuniaxialtensionis
the combination of both the two mechanisms; aggregate bridging decays to zero for a
crackopeningofaround0.3mm.Theaddition offibres increases the workoffracture
(represented by the area under the stresscrack opening curve) and the critical crack

14


opening(fromapproximately0.3mmtohalfthefibrelengthforsteelfibresusually10
to30mm).

AggregateBridging
Aggregate bridging is the major toughening mechanism for plain concrete; an
aggregatethatbridgesthecrackuntil0.3mmworksalmostinthesamewayasfibresdo.
Theconcrete crackbridgingis the coalescence ofmicrocracksinthematrixduetothe
developmentofbondcracksbetweenaggregateandmatrixandthefrictionalpulloutof
aggregates (Lfgren, 2005). In plain concrete, in addition to aggregate bridging, many
differentmechanismsareinvolved:
crack shielding: the nucleation of many microcracks, around the tip of a
propagating crack, has a significant influence on the propagation of the
main crack. It reduces the stress intensity factors of the main crack
(Loehnertetal.,2007);
crack deflection: at the interface of dissimilar materials the crack can
arrestoradvancebyeitherpenetratingtheinterfaceordeflectingintothe
interface(Heetal.,1989);
cracksurfaceroughnessinducedclosure:themechanismsofcrackclosure
arisingfrommicroscopicroughnessofthefatiguefracturesurfacesarenot
fully understood. Its known to strongly influence fatigue crack growth
rates(Vrkoly,2001);
cracktipbluntedbyvoid;
crackbranching:thetipofthecracksharesintwodifferentbranches,the
mainandthesecondarycracktip.

Figure2.4Sometougheningmechanismsinplainconcrete(Shahetal.,1995).

The toughening mechanisms can be divided into crack frontal, crack tip and crack
wakemechanisms(wheretheaggregatebridging,butmorefibrebridging,mechanism
is developed); they can also be classified in longrange effect over a large crack
extension distance (e.g. microcracking and aggregate and fibre bridging) and short

15


range effect over a small crack extension distance (e.g. crack deflection, bowing and
pinning).
Themajortougheningmechanismofplain concrete is theaggregatebridginganda
lot of experimental and numerical observations support this hypothesis. The stress
crack opening relationship has been investigated changing all the parameters that
influence it. In particular, several researchers have investigated the effects that
aggregates play changing the type, the size, the shape and the volume fraction (see
Tasderi and Karihaloo, 2001; van Mier, 1991, 1997; Giaccio and Zerbino, 1997). After
these numerous studies the uniaxial behaviour can be depicted as in the Figure 2.5. It
has been observed that, even before any stresses have been applied, preexisting
microcracksexistwithintheconcrete,andthisisduetotheinternalrestraincausedby
the aggregate and both shrinkage and thermal deformations. With the development of
externally caused stresses, the microcracks start to grow, at first between the cement
pasteandtheaggregates(A)andlateralsointothemortar(B).Afterthepeakstress(C),
microcrackspropagateinanunstablemannerandcracklocalisationoccurs;atthistime
macrocracks propagate through the specimen with the stressdrop consequence (D).
The toughening action of the aggregates and crack branching are responsible for the
longsofteningtail(DE)observedduringexperiments.

Figure 2.5 Schematic description of the fracture process in uniaxial tension and the
resultingstresscrackopeningrelationship(Lfgren,2008).

ThegraphshowninFigure2.5canchangeshapeconsideringlightweightconcreteor
highstrengthconcretebecausetheaggregatesmaybecametheweaklinkandaggregate
rupture may occur, which reduce the bridging effect and results in a more brittle
fractureprocess.

FibreBridging
The fibre bridging, like the aggregate one, depends on many parameters and, for
simplicity, an isolated fibre is investigated along a crack. The fibre contributes to
dissipate energy thanks to: (1) matrix fracture and matrix spalling, (2) fibrematrix
interface debonding, (3) postdebonding friction between fibre and matrix (fibre pull
out),(4)fibrefractureand(5)fibreabrasionandplasticdeformation(oryielding)ofthe
fibre.

16


Figure2.6(a)Aschematicillustrationofsomeofthetougheningeffectsandcrackfront
debonding, the CookGordon effect, and debonding and sliding in the crack wake. (b)
Matrixspallingandmatrixcracking.(c)Plasticbending(deformation)ofinclinedfibre
duringpulloutbothatthecrackandattheendanchor(Lfgren,2008).

The mechanical behaviour of FRC depends surely on the amount of fibre (which
showsbenefitsfrom1%until15%,forengineeredcementitiouscompositesECC),on
the orientation of the fibres and largely on the pullout versus load (or loadslip)
behaviouroftheindividualfibres.Inparticular,thepulloutdependsonthetypeandthe
mechanical/geometrical properties of the fibres, on the mechanical properties of the
interfacebetweenfibreandmatrix,ontheangleofinclinationofthefibrewithrespect
to the direction of loading and on the mechanical properties of the matrix. A large
amountofliteraturecoversthissubject.
Thefibrepulloutbehaviouristhegradualdebondingofaninterfacesurroundingthe
fibre,followedbyfrictionalslipandpulloutoffibre.
The bond (responsible of the forces transmission between fibre and matrix) has
differentcomponents:
thephysicaland/orchemicaladhesionbetweenfibreandmatrix;
thefrictionalresistance;
themechanicalcomponent(arisingfromthefibregeometry,e.g.deformed,
crimpedorhookedend);
thefibretofibreinterlock;
Severalpulloutmodelsexist,thesimplestignoretheelasticstresstransferandthe
matrix deformation (e.g. Hillerborg (1980) and Wang (1989)) while other models
assume elastic interfacial shear bond stresses that gradually change into a frictional
forcesbecauseofthedebondingoftheinterface(e.g.GopalaratnamandShah(1987)).

Thedebondingcriterioncanbedescribedwithtwodifferentapproaches:
strengthbased criterion (or stressbased) where it is assumed that the
debonding initiates when the interfacial shear stress exceeds the shear
strength;
fracturebased criterion that considers the debonding zone as an
interfacial crack together with the evaluation of fracture parameters and
energyconsideration;

17


Figure2.7Differentdebondingmodelsforfibrepullout(Lfgren,2008).

Once debonding has taken place, stress transfer develops owing to frictional
resistancethat,initsturn,canbedescribed,asdepictedinFigure2.7,withthefollowing
differentrelationships:
constantfriction
decayingfriction(orslipsoftening)
sliphardeningfriction.
In the literature, there can be found huge differences on the interfacial shear bond
strength, ranging from 1 up to 10 MPa (Minelli, 2005); moreover interfacial shear
friction capacity (ranging from 0,5 to 20 MPa) makes the correct interpretation of the
pullouttestdifficult(Lfgren,2005).
The dissipated energy is equal to the area beneath the loaddisplacement (slip)
curve.Thepulloutenergy(bothdebondingandfriction)increaseswiththeembedment
length,unlessthe embedmentbecomestoolongandthefibre breaks,anddependson
theendofthefibres(crimped,straight,hooked,etc.)asshowninFigure2.8.

Figure2.8Typicalfibrepulloutrelationshipbetweenendslipandloadforstraightand
endhookedfibre(Lfgren,2008).

The behaviour of different fibres during the pullout test depends on both their
mechanical and geometrical properties, as well as on their chemical affinity to the

18


matrix. The pullout behaviour of a hookedend fibre differs from straight,

crimped/corrugated, indented fibres or the one named Torex (with polygonal cross
sectiontwistedalongitsaxis).
Whenthefibreisnotperpendiculartotheconcreteblock,thepulloutenergyisalso
influenced from the angle of inclination, and, in this case, it is related to the matrix
strength.Inparticular,itincreasesforflexiblefibres(e.g.synthetic)andstiffbutductile
fibres(e.g.steel,butonlyuptoabout45,Lfgren,2008)whileitdecreasesforbrittle
fibres(e.g.carbon).
Itiswellknownthata fibrereinforcedconcreteconsistsofseveralfibreswhich,in
mostcases,haverandomorientation;throughoutthisobservation,BenturandMindess
(1990) explained that the process of debonding and pullout is quite different in an
actualfibrereinforcedspecimencomparedtoasimplepullouttestonareinforcingbar.
It is also important to note is that the pullout behaviour and maximum load depend
uponthespacingofthefibres.

AggregateandFibreBridging,aCooperativeMechanisms.
The two phenomena explained above during the cracks formation act
simultaneously;fibreactasanadditionalbridgingmechanism;thefinalresultisthatthe
critical crack opening increases by a factor larger than 10 and, consequently, the
fractureenergyincreasestoo.
Tosummarisethefibrereinforcedconcretebehaviourisacombinationoftheeffects
causedbyaggregateandfibrebridgingwheretheformerhasarelativelyshortworking
rangeincomparisonwiththelatter.
Figure 2.9 depictsaschematicdescriptionofthe effectofthe fibresonthe fracture
processinuniaxialtension;threedistinctzonesarepointedout(Lfgren,2005):
atractionfreezone,whichoccursforrelativelylargecrackopening;
a bridging zone , where stress is transferred by fibre pullout, and
aggregatebridging;
azoneofmicrocrackingandmicrocrackgrowth.

Figure2.9Schematic descriptionoftheeffect of fibres onthe fractureprocessin uni

axialtension(Lfgren,2008).

The contribution from fibre bridging comes gradually and it is not until crack
openingreaches,atleast,0.05mmthatithasanymajorinfluence.
Obviously, the kind, the mechanical characteristic, the percentage and the aspect
ratioofthefibrescanchangetheshapeofthisgraph.

19


2.3 TestMethods

It shouldnowbe clearthatthepropertiesofan FRCcouldnotbe representedbya

single characteristic (compression strength) as it happens for normal concretes. In
particular,seeingthattheadditionoffibresincreasessignificantlythetoughnessleaving
thecompressionstrengthalmostunchanged,forfibrereinforcedconcretesomesortof
toughnesspropertyisrequired,andthusothertestshavetobeusedtocharacteriseit.
Themoderateadditionoffibre(<1%)doesnotchangesignificantlythecompressive
strength and the prepeak properties, so, as suggested by the RILEM Technical
CommitteeTDF162,Testanddesign methodsforSFRC,the compressive strengthof
SFRCshouldbedeterminedbymeansofstandardteststhat,inthecaseofEurocode 2
(CEN, 2006), could be done on either concrete cylinders or cubes. Furthermore, the
concrete is classified according to the same strength classes as in Eurocode 2 (CEN,
2006).AsitisshowninFigure2.10,incaseofadditionofmicrofibresandforhighfibre
volumes(>1%),itispossibletoappreciateanincreaseofthecompressivestrength.

Figure2.10SchematicdescriptionofthebehaviourofconcreteandFRCincompression
(Lfgren,2008).

Inthelastfortyyearstheresearchersexperienceddifferentmethodstocharacterise
the tensile behaviour of a fibrereinforced concrete like determining dimensionless
toughness indices (as prescript in ASTM C 1018) as well as, determining the residual
flexuralstrengthforspecifieddeflectionormeasuringtheflexuralstrength.
The presence of fibres mainly affects ductility and this influence is strongly
dependentonthefibrecontentandfibretype(FibBulletin57,2010).
Themaintestsetupsusedare:
uniaxialtensiontestordirecttensiletest(UTT);
flexuraltest:
Three Point Bending Test (3PBT) (notched/unnotched): it is the
most widespread method on beam/prism specimens; it is
suggestedalsobyRILEMTC162TDF(2002b)forSFRC;
FourPointBendingTest(4PBT)(notched/unnotched);
paneltestorplatetest(usedforshotcreteandforspecificloadcondition
thatsimulatesadesignsituationinarealstructure);
wedgesplittingtest(WST)thatsometimesisanalternativetotheUTTand
the3PBT.

20


The RILEM Technical Committee TDF162, Test and design methods for SFRC,
proposedtheUTTandthe3PBTonnotchedbeams.

UniaxialTensileTest
AsproposedintheRILEMRecommendations(2000b)theinfluenceofthefibresona
strainsofteningFRC,afterthecrack,canbedetermineddirectlyintermsofstresscrack
opening()relationwiththeuniaxialtensiletest(UTT).Themethod,however,isnot
intended for the determination of the tensile strength that is recommended to be
determinedindependently(Dssland,2008).
CastspecimenshavetofollowgeometricalconditionasdepictedinFigure2.11.

Figure2.11UTTspecimenasproposedbyRILEMTC162TDF.

This test consists of a controlled tensile displacement imposed at the end of a

notchedcylindricalspecimen;itischaracterizedbyahighrotationalstiffness(provided
byfourturnbuckles).
Typicalresults,fromtheUTTexperiments,show,inthe()graph,thatinthepre
peakregionthe curve islinearup tothe stresslevelofabout70%ofthe peakstress,
andafterthispointthecurvedeviatesandanonlinearbehaviourcanbeobserved.The
magnitude of the deformation in the prepeak nonlinear zone is quite small but after
thepeakstressasofteningresponseisobservedandlargedisplacementsarise.

Figure2.12TypicalresultsfromtheUTTexperiments:(a)stressdeformationresponse
in the pre and immediate postpeak behaviour; (b) Stresscrack opening relationship
(Lfgren,2005).

21


This test is rarely utilized due to the complex test set up. The test is also time
consuming and difficult to carry out; it demands highly trained and experienced
personnel.Othertests(e.g.WedgeSplittingTest,WST,andBendingTest,BT)aremore
economical without compromising the reliability of the method. They are, normally,
usedforthedeterminationofthe()relationshipinadvanceddesignprocedures.

ThreePointBendingTest(3PBT)
In the three points bending test proposed by RILEM, the tensile behaviour is
evaluated in terms of the load bearing capacity at a certain deflection or crack mouth
openingonanotchedspecimen(RILEMTC162TDF,2002a).
This test method can be used for determination of: (1) the limit of proportionality,
(2)theequivalentflexuraltensilestrengthand(3)theresidualflexuraltensilestrength.
Furthermore, it evaluates the flexural performance of toughness parameters derived
fromfibrereinforcedconcreteintermsofareasundertheloaddeflectioncurve.When
toughness is determined in terms of areas under the loaddeflection curve, it is an
indication of the energy absorption capability of the particular test specimen during
deformation, and, consequently, its magnitude depends directly on the geometrical
characteristicsofthetestspecimenandtheloadingsystem(ASTMC101897).
Figure2.13showsthespecimengeometryandloadingconditionsinthethreepoint
bending test according to RILEM Recommendation (RILEM TC 162TDF, 2002a). The
suggested standard test specimen is not intended for concrete with steel fibres longer
than60mmand/oraggregateslargerthan32mm;thebeamarecastinmoulds,cured
andnotchedusingwetsawing.

Figure2.13Testsetupforthethreepointbendingtestinnotchedbeamsaccordingto
RILEMTC162TDF.

Theresultsofthisstandardtestmethodaredependentonthesizeofthespecimen,it
followsthatthoseobtainedusingacertainsizemouldedspecimenmaynotcorrespond
tothoseobtainedfromlarger/smallermouldedspecimens,concreteinlargestructural
unitsorspecimenssawnfromsuchunits.
This difference may occur because the degree of preferential fibre alignment
becomes more pronounced in moulded specimens containing fibres that are relatively
long compared with the crosssectional dimensions of the mould (ASTM C1609
C1609M10).
Theadvantageofusingnotchedspecimenisthatthecrackwillforminapredefined
positionandnotintheweakestsection.Consequently,notchedbeamteststendtogive
higher values of flexural strength than unnotched beam tests but with a lower
coefficientofvariation.

22


Thetestsarenormallyperformedundercrackmouthopeningdisplacement(CMOD).

FourPointBendingTest(4PBT)
AppendixoftheJCIguidelines(JCI2007)presentsamethodofcalculatingthetensile
strength and ultimate tensile strain of fibrereinforced cementitious composites using
themaximumbendingmomentandcurvature.
CorrespondingmethodsoftheJCIbendingtestareusedintheNorwegiandesignrule
draft,intheItalianstandards(UNI,2003),intheGermanguideline(DAfStB,2011b),in
the Swedish Concrete Association design rule and in the design guidelines for Dramix
steelfibres.
Normally,asdisplayedinFigure2.14,thedimensionofthespecimenare150x150x
600 mm (these are the exactly dimensions according to DAfStB (2011b) and CNR DT
2042006) and, similarly to the 3PBT, can be used unnotched or notched beam,
dependingonthestandardtowhichtheyrefer;thebeamsareloadeduptofailureunder
fourpointbendingacrossaspanof450mm.Thebendingmomentalongthespan,inthe
middleofthetwopointloads,isconstant;thisis,ononehand,anadvantagebecausethe
crack will appear at the weakest section (incorporating the effect of variation in the
materialsstrength)but,ontheotherhand,a disadvantagebecausethepositionofthe
crack cannot be predicted making harder the measurement of the crack opening
deflections.

Figure2.14(a,b)Specimengeometryand(c,d)testingsetupforthelargerandthe
smallerbeams(Sorellietal.,2005).

Toughness and the equivalent flexural strength can be calculated from the midspan
deflectionthatismeasuredduringthewholetest.

23


According to the Italian guideline, specimens can have different dimensions than
those abovementioned; inordertoobtain amore clearcomparisonbetween different
specimengeometries,experimentalresultsfrombendingtestsarereportedintermsof
nominalstressNdefinedaccordingtoalinearstressdistributionas EquationChapter(Next )Section1EquationChapter(Next)S ection1

FLsp
N (Eq.2.1)
Bb Hb a0
2

where F = force; Bb and Hb = beam thickness and depth, respectively; Lsp = span
length;anda0=notchdepth.
Experimental results from fibre reinforced concrete with low fibre contents are
sensitivetothenumberoffibresinthecrackedsectionswhichhaveahigherdegreeof
variationinthesmallersurfaceareas,especiallywhennotchedspecimensareadopted.

The fibre orientation has to be considered by cutting a block from the beam
specimenandmakinganaverageofthenumberoffibrescrossingthetwocrosssections
(only the longitudinal fibres). The block is sawn from the middle part of the beam
betweenthetwinloadsataminimumdistancefromthecrackof2/3lf,where lfisthe
lengthofthefibre.Itisimportanttohighlightthatthisvaluationdoesnotconsiderthat
somefibresmaybeineffectiveduetoreducedanchorage.Thesedataaretotallymissed
inthespecimenstreatedinChapter4.

WedgeSplittingTest(WST)
The wedge splitting test is interesting since it does not require sophisticated test
equipment;itisalsotimeandcostefficient,withgoodreproducibility.Despiteallthese
goodcharacteristicsitisstillnotwidelyapplied(Lfgren,2008).

Figure2.15(a)Schematicviewoftheequipmentandtestsetupand(b)photooftest
setup(Lfgren,2008).

Sincethebeginningithashadawiderangeofapplication;infact,itcanbeusedto
evaluate fracture properties, fatigue crack growth in highstrength concrete, stress
crackopeningrelationshipsforplainandfibrereinforcedconcrete.

24


Figure2.16Specimenwithnotchesonthesidesofthespecimentopreventhorizontal
cracks(Lfgren,2008).

Figure 2.15 and Figure 2.16 clarify the geometry and the loading procedure; the
specimenhasagroove(fortheapplicationofthesplittingload),astarternotch(forthe
crack propagation) and a guide notch (for preventing horizontal crack in case of high
fibrevolumefractions).Twosteelplateswithrollerbearingareplacedpartlyontopof
the specimen and partly into the groove; the splitting force, Fsp, is applied through a
wedging device. During the test, are monitored both the load in the vertical direction
(Fv) and the crack mouth opening displacement on top of the specimen (CMOD);
moreover,theloadisappliedinadeformationcontrolledwayandFvisrelatedwithFsp.
Forsteelfibrereinforcedconcrete,asmallnumberofreferencesaboutspecimensize
and experimental interpretations can be found. In 2004, Lfgren provided some
recommendations for using WST for FRC; in that research he pointed out that the
specimensize,inordertoavoidthewalleffectsandprovidealargerfracturesurfaceas
well as reducing the scatter, should follow these recommendations: (1) the outer
dimensionofthespecimenshouldbeatleast3timesthefibrelengthand/or5timesthe
maximumaggregatesize;(2)thelengthoftheligamentshouldbeatleast1,5timesthe
fibrelengthand/or5timesthemaximumaggregatesize.
The same research found that the WST, compared to UTT and 3PBT, has lower
scatter,althoughthescatteringeneralislargeforallmethods.

The test methods used for the determination of the parameters included in the
formulapresentedinChapter3willbedeeplydiscussedinsection4.3.1.

EquationChapter3Section1

25


Chapter3

ShearCapacity

A really short historical review is here necessary to better understand the

importance of the shear design. Hennebique and Ritter at the end of the 19th century
werethepioneersinthestudyofstirrupsandshear.In1908Mrschstatedthesimple
ormultipletrusssystemmodelwheretheconcreteisthecompressedstrutandstirrups
or bentup bars are the tensile member. Later Kupfer proposed a variable strut
inclination(evensmallerthan45degreeswithinfollowinglimits: 0.25 tg 1.00 with
=inclinationofthecompressivestruttotheaxisofthemember).Worthytonoteare
modelsdevelopedbyKani(withiscomblikemechanism),Leonhardt(thatwiththeweb
compressionfailuregivingtheupperlimitofshearresistance),ThrlimanandWarlaven
(who corroborated the positive influence of prestressing on the shear capacity).
Moreover,CollinsandVecchioin1986developedthemodifiedcompressionfieldtheory
for reinforced concrete elements. Nowadays, fib is working to find the best procedure
forsheardesignbasedonearlierexperienceswithMC78,MC90aswellasMC2010.
Themajorityoftheanalyticalmodels,introducedherebefore,havetoberearranged
when steel fibres are added in concrete matrix, because they considerably influence
shearbehaviouraswellastheshearcapacity(fibBulletin57,2010).
At any rate, along these decades, year by year, different experiments done by
researchersallovertheword,havetriedtopredicttheshearcapacityofmemberswith
andwithouttransversereinforcement.

As it can be seen in Chapter 4, each researcher after his own studies usually
proposed empirical relationship that is based on a limited batch of specimens with
similarcharacteristics.Thisrelationshipfitsreallywellwiththesetofsheartestresults
from which they come from. In reality, when those formulas are applied to other
specimenstheresultsarenotassatisfactoryasexpected.

The growing interest of the researcher community can be observed looking at the
number of papers on shear design published in ACI Journal since the beginning of the
lastcentury.

27


Figure3.1NumberofpaperspublishedinACIJournalsincethebeginningofthelast
Century(Minelli,2005).

Sincecatastrophicshearfailurehappened(likethefailureofroofbeamsinAirForce
warehouseonAugust1955inOhio)thecommonaimwastofullyunderstandandavoid
thebrittlenessoftheseevents(MinelliF.,2005).
Inspiteofthehugeamountofmaterialavailableinliterature,whenashearscholar
try to collect a systematic presentation of the influence of the basic parameters, like
concrete strength, percentage of longitudinal reinforcement, shear length, volume of
fibres, this turn out to be almost impossible to witness that the shear mechanism is
difficulttobetotallyunderstood.

Kani,fromtheUniversityofToronto,in1966statedthatTheprimaryreasonforthis
limited understanding of the problem of diagonal failure is the great number of
parametersinfluencingthe beamstrength:grade ofsteel,percentage ofsteel,grade of
concrete,shapeofthecrosssection,sheararmratio,typeofwebreinforcement,thetype
of loading [], the type of beam [], and prestress in the longitudinal, transverse and
verticaldirectionwhich,ofcourse,createadditionalparameters.
Kani postulated the shear domain and investigated the influence of the
reinforcement ratio. Moreover he theorized the beam behaviour for beams with a
sheartodeptratiogreaterthanabout2.5(Kani,1964).
Further researchers gave their contribute to the shear design and the most
significant are presented in Chapter 4 (e.g. Narayanan, Darwish, Voo, Foster, Gilbert,
Swamy,Bahia,etc.).

InthelastdecadesparticularattentionwasdevotedtoFRCthatnowadaysarelargely
available inthe market.Theyaremore andmore utilizedthankstotheopportunityto
totallysubstitutethetransversereinforcement,thatrequireatimeandcostconsuming
workandtotheimprovedperformanceofFRCaftercracking.
Severalequationsbasedontestdataandtheoreticalanalyseshavebeenproposedfor
calculating the shear capacity of SFRC beam. These equations can be divided into two
categories.Thefirstcategoryassumesthatsteelfibresgiveshearstrengthinadditionof

28


the shear strength provided by the plain concrete and the stirrups that the fibre can
totallysubstitute.Thiskindsofformulashaveabasicformatasfollow:
V Vc Vs Vf (Eq.3.1)
Where Vf, Vc and Vs are the shear strength carried by, respectively, the fibres, the
concreteand(whenpresent)thestirrups.
The second category considers that the steel fibers directly influence the shear
capacityof concrete (thisinfluence is determinedbyappropriatetests e.g.splittensile
cylinder and modulus of rupture tests) and it does not explicitly consider the
characteristicsofthefibres.
This kind of formula includes in the concrete member the characteristics obtained
fromthe fibre addition anditis basedonobservation thatfibres ofthesame typecan
achievedifferentresultsifaddedindifferentmatrix,formwork,etc.aswellasdifferent
fibres can get the same results; the inventors of this second category of formulas
stronglybelievethatitisimpossibletodrawouttheshearforcecarriedoutbythefibres
onlyknowingthekindoffibreanditspercentage.
The aim of this thesis is to find the formula, among all those present in literature,
which best mirrors the results of perform all the specimens collected in the database
presentedinChapter4[AppendixA].

Thecharacteristicsthatagoodformulahastosupplyarelistedbelow:
it has to give lower scatter compared with other formula applied on the
samebatchofspecimens;
itshouldbedevelopedfromaconsistentbatchofspecimens;
ithastobeeasytohandleinordertobewidelyusedfromthecommunity
ofengineeranddesigners;
ithastoinvolveparametersplainlyavailablefortheusers;
itshouldbevalidforalargevarietyofparametervalues.
mechanicallysound
Rules of design of SFRC have been drafted in almost all European countries;
SwitzerlandproduceditsRecommendation SIA162/6in2008;Italy followedwiththe
CNRDT2042006,Italianguidelines;inSwedentheSwedishConcreteAssociation(SCA)
developeditsfirstrecommendationsforSFRCin1995(SCA,1997)andatthatmoment
theywereconsideredtobeoneofthemostcuttingedgerecommendations;Austriahas
its own Fibrereinforced concrete guideline (sterreichische Vereinigung fr Beton
undBautechnikRichtlinieFaserbeton);Netherlandsalsosetoutrecommendationsfor
the testing and dimensioning of steelfibrereinforced concrete based on the CUR (the
Centre for Civil Engineering Research and Codes) rules and RILEM Recommendation;
United Kingdom historically adopted the Japanese beam test JCISF4 but recently the
RILEMbeamtesthasbeenincorporatedalmosttotallyintoBSEN14651;moreoverthe
Concrete Society with its Technical Report No. 63 (2007) summaries the current
applications for SFRC considering practical aspects such as production and quality
control; it does not give a definitive design guidelines but the information for the
designers to exercise judgement in this area of evolving technology; Germany has its
DAfStB guideline for steelfibrereinforced concrete (DAfStB, 2011b); The Norwegian
ConcreteAssociationsetoutitsfirstrecommendationintheTechnicalSpecificationand
Guidelines in 1993; Steelfibrereinforced concrete has also been included in the fib
ModelCode2010(fibBulletin55,2010).

29


After these considerations four different formulas have been chosen for being
comparedinthisthesis.Worthytonoteisthedistinctionbetweenformulationsthatare
empirical or semiempirical model based on test results and those that are analytical
modelbasedontheoreticalstudies.AlternativeIisanempiricalmodel,anditisalready
includedintheSwedishConcreteReportNo.4(SCA,1997),whileAlternativeII,IIIand
IV are analytical formulations included in the DAfStB guideline, in the RILEM TC 162
TDFandintheCNRDT2042006,respectively.

30


3.1 AlternativeI:Narayanan&Darwish

In1987,tworesearchers,NarayananandDarwish,postulatedtheirformulathat,in
thefollowingyears,hasbeenoneofthemostusedandhaslaterbeenshowntobeoneof
thebestalternativesthroughcomparisonwithpublisheddata(Hllgren,1997).
R. Narayanan obtained his first civil engineering degree in India and a masters
degree from the University of London. Since his PhD, he worked in the University of
Manchester and University of Wales (Cardiff), with more than 25 years of experience
workingintheconstructionindustry.
I. Y. S. Darwish obtained his first degree from the University of Damascus and his
mastersdegreefromtheUniversityCollege(Cardiff).Atthetimeofthepublication,he
wastakinghisPhDattheUniversityCollege.
Their formula was presented, for the first time, in the ACI Structural Journal, May
June 1987 volume, into the article Use of Steel Fibers as Shear Reinforcement
(Narayananetal.,1987).
Their purpose was to investigate the behaviour of steel fibre reinforced concrete
beams subjected to predominant shear. After their investigation they presented the
semiempiricalequationsthataretoolstobeusedfordesignpurposes.
These predictive equations are suggested for evaluating (1) the cracking shear
strengthand(2)theultimateshearstrengthoffibrereinforcedconcretebeams.
InthepapermentionedabovetheyestablishedthattheinclusionofsteelfibresinRC
beams results in a substantial increase in their shear strength (e.g. when 1 % volume
fractionoffibreswasused,anincreaseofupto170%intheultimateshearstrengthwas
observed).

The test program consisted on fabricating 49 beams having identical rectangular
cross section of 85 x 150 mm, and testing them under four symmetrically placed
concentratedloads.
Fourclearspansandfourshearspanswereemployed.Threedifferenttypesofbeam
were tested: (1) beams without web reinforcement, (2) beams with conventional
stirrupsand(3)beamscontainingcrimpedsteelfibresaswebreinforcement.
Thefabricationdata,thematerialusedandallthecharacteristicsthatcouldinfluence
theshearbehaviourofthespecimens,availableonthearticle,arequotedinAppendixA.
Test result showed that the firstcrack shear strength fcr increased significantly due to
the crackarresting mechanism of the fibres. Even for a fibre volume fraction of 1 %,
whichwastheoptimumpercentage,theultimateshearstrengthimprovementswereof
thesameorderasthoseobtainedfromconventionalstirrups.
TheyrecognizedthattheshearforceVwithstoodbyabeamcouldhavethefollowing
form:
V Va Vb Vc Vd (Eq.3.2)
where Va is the vertical component of the interlocking force, which results from
interlocking of aggregate particles across a crack; Vb is the vertical component of the
fibre pullout forces along the inclined crack; Vc is the shearing force across the
compression zone and Vd is the transverse force induced in the main flexural
reinforcement by dowel action. However,it should be noted that the above four shear
forcesarenotnecessarilyadditivewhenfailureisimminent.Intheformulahereinafter

31


shown,thecontributionoftheaggregateinterlockinghasbeenignored(thisassumption
givesasafeprediction).

Figure3.2Freebodydiagramofpartoftheshearspanofasimplesupportedbeam
fibrereinforcedconcretebeam(Narayananetal.,1987).

Touseproperlythisformulasometermshavenowtobedefined:

FibrefactorFgivenby
L
F f df (Eq.3.3)
D
WhereL/Disthefibreaspectratio, fisthefibrevolumefractionanddfisthebond
factor that accounts for differing fibre bond characteristics; based on a large series of
pullouttests,df wasassignedarelativevalueof0.5forroundfibres,0.75forcrimped
fibresand1.0forindentedfibres.

Splitcylinderstrengthof fibreconcrete( f s p f )
Direct tension tests, modulus of rupture tests and cylinder split tests have all been
employedtomeasurethetensilestrengthofFRC.
The determination of true tensile strength by direct tensile test of fibre concrete is
not easy because of the stress concentration at the grips of the testing machines.
Moreover,itisaffectedbymachinestiffness,specimenalignment,thesizeandtheshape
ofthespecimen,thefibreorientationandsoon,giving,thus,awidescatterofresults.
AquickandsafeestimationofsplitcylinderstrengthfspfofFRCthatrelatesitwithits
compressivestrengthandfibrefactorhasbeenfound:
fcuf
fspfc B C F (Eq.3.4)
A
Where fcuf is the cube strength of fibre concrete, A is a nondimensional constant
having a value of ! = (20 (), B is a dimensional constant having a value of 0.7
N/mm2 and C is a dimensional constant having a value of 1 N/mm2; the formula has
beenobtainedbyaregressionanalysis,thus:

32


fcuf
f spfc 0.7 1 F (Eq.3.5)
20 F
Theultimateshearstrength(N/mm2),asmentionedbefore,consistsofthreeterms,I,
IIandIII,accordingtoEq.3.2,theywillbedescribedinthefollowingparagraphs.

PartI
vb 0.41 F (Eq.3.6)
ToevaluatetheverticalcomponentVb[N],onemaystartwiththenumberoffibresat
acrosssectionnw,whichaccordingtoRomualdietal.(1964)isgivenby
1.64 f
nw (Eq.3.7)
D
wherefisthevolumefractionoffibresandDisthediameterofthefibres.Assuming
thattheshearcrackwillhaveaninclinationoftothehorizontal(seeFIGURA[1])and
therefore a length equal approximately to jd/sin, the total number of fibres at the
inclinedcrackedsectionofthefibrereinforcedconcretebeamwillbe:
jd
n nw b (Eq.3.8)
sin
wherebisthewidthofthebeam.
Thetotalbondareaoffibresacrosstheinclinedcrackedsectionisthus
DL
Ab n (Eq.3.9)
4
where L/4 is assumed to be the average pullout length since the latter may range
between0andL/2.Assumingthattheforcesofthefibresarenormaltothecrack,the
totalforceFbdevelopedisgivenby
Fb Ab (Eq.3.10)

where istheaveragefibrematrixinterfacialbondstress.ThefibrepulloutforceVb
isgivenby
Vb Fb cos [kN] (Eq.3.11)
orintermofstrength
Fb cos N
vb mm2 (Eq.3.12)
b j d
assuming=45degrees,thestressvbcanbewrittenfromEq.(3.8),(3.9),(3.10)and
(3.12)as
L
vb 0.41 f (Eq.3.13)
D
Toallowitsapplicationforthedifferentpulloutresistanceofferedbydifferenttypes
of fibres, it is essential that this is modified by introducing the bond factor df into Eq.
(3.13).

33


vb 0.41 df L f (Eq.3.14)
D
or,introducingthefibrefactorF,Eq.(3.14)becomesastheEq.(3.6).
With steel fibres in cementitious composites, the fibre matrix interfacial bond is
mainlyacombinationofadhesionandfrictionandmechanicalinterlocking(seeSection
2.2).Theavailableinvestigationsonthefibrebondresistancehaveshownalargescatter
of test results (Narayanan et al., 1987). However, the indirect methods adopted by
Swamy,MangatandRao(1974)seemtobemorerealisticandthevalueof4.15N/mm2
suggested by them for the ultimate bond stress was adopted in the Narayanan &
Darwishstudy.ForthisreasonsitwillalsobeadoptedinChapter4.

PartII
vc e A' fspfc (Eq.3.15)

This term considers the shear span ratio a/d and the split cylinder strength fspfc
calculatedbyEq.(3.5).AlltheunitsareinNewton(N)andmillimetres(mm).Theterme
isanondimensionalfactorthattakesintoaccounttheeffectofarchactionandisgiven
by
e 1.0whena / d 2.8
d (Eq.3.16)
e 2.8 whena / d 2.8
a
Itisemphasizedthateisanondimensionalfactor,anditisunaffectedbythesystem
ofunits.Inreinforcedconcretebeam,Zsutty(1971)hasobtainedthevalue etobe2.5
d/a when a/d 2.5. But as the inclusion of fibres improves the arch action, through
enhancing the split compressive strength of concrete, a higher value of e is not
unreasonable.
Aisanondimensionalconstanthavingavalueof0.24;eandA(liketheconstantB
presented in equation(3.17)) were evaluated by a regression analysis of the test data
through computer. The purpose of such statistical analysis was to determine that
combination of the constants which, when applied to published data, would yield an
average value of the ratio of observed to predicted ultimate shear loads equal to one
withaminimumstandarddeviation.

PartIII
d
vd e B ' (Eq.3.17)
a
The last and third term, considers the dowel action provided by the amount of
longitudinal tensile reinforcement = As/bd with the shear span ratio a/d; B is a
dimensionalconstanthavingthevalueof80N/mm2.
Thedatareportedinthearticlepresentawiderangeofvariables,suchasconcrete
strength, a/d ratio, fibre factors, amount of tensile reinforcement, shapes and cross
section(rectangular,IorTsection)andsizeofspecimen.

34


Worthytonoteistheconsistencyoftheformulathatwhen f =0orF=0predicts
appropriatevaluesforreinforcedconcrete.Theauthorsalsosuggestedoneequationfor
predictingthecrackingshearstrengthoffibrereinforcedconcretebeams.
Thepredictedvaluesobtainedfromtheequationfortheultimateshearstrengthgave
toNarayananandDarwish(1987)acceptableresultscomparedwithavailabletestdata
ofbeamscollapsingbyshearfailure.Themeanvalueoftheratiobetweentheobserved
ultimate shear and the predicted ultimate shear of 91 tests was 1.09 with a standard
deviation of 0.157. This means that the formula is applicable for a wide range of
parametricvariationsandisvalidatedbytestscarriedoutbytheauthorsandbymore
than30yearsofitsutilization.

35


3.2 AlternativeII:EquationDevelopedfrom
theGermanCommitteeforReinforced
Concrete(DAfStB)

TheGermanCommitteeforReinforcedConcrete(DAfStB)wasfoundedin1907and
is a nationally and internationally recognized and respected professional body for the
promotionofconcretestructures.Thescopeoftheworkfocusesonresearchactivities,
the preparation of guidelines for concrete structures and the documentation of the
informationinitsownpublications.EssentialcharacteristicofthebodiesofDAfStBisits
composition in the form of a "round table" on which the balance is needed between
representativesfromthedifferentfieldsas:
Contractorsandconstructionsupervision,
Buildingmaterialsandconstruction,
Scienceandengineeringconsultants.
TheresultsoftheresearchactivitiesareoftenimplementedintheDAfStBguidelines
thatareusuallyintroducedbytheconcreteconstructionbodiesandinthiscaseaswell
asrelevantstandardsrecognizedrulesoftheart(DAfStB,2011a).
Before the publication of the DAfStB Guidelines, the DBV Steelfibrereinforced
concrete recommendation (Deutscher Beton und BautechnikVerein e V., DBV
MerkblattStahlfaserbeton.October2001)hasbeenavailableinGermanyforthedesign
of steelfibrereinforced concrete elements. This was based on the DBV Tunnel
Engineering recommendation and includes European developments in the field of
standardisation.TheDBVSteelfibrereinforcedconcreterecommendationprovidesa
wellfoundedaidtothedesignofsteelfibrereinforcedconcrete.Anyway,thiscodedoes
nothavethecharacterofastandard.Inviewofthisfact,theDAfStBdecidedtodrafta
Guidelines orientated around DIN 10451. The final edition of the DAfStB Steelfibre
reinforced concrete Guidelines was published in 2011. These Guidelines replace and
complement parts of DIN 10451 and after being taken up in the List of Building
Materialstheyhaveastatusofacode(Tunnel,2011).
Fibres for concrete (steel fibres and polymer fibres) have now been standardized
throughout Europe and their use in concrete, according to EN 2061/DIN 10452, is
allowed. Other fibres, according to DAfStB standard, may be added to the concrete;
however, their loadbearing effect may not be considered. Polymer fibres and steel
fibres formedintobundlesina meteringpackagerequire National Technical Approval
forprovingthattheycanbemixedevenlythroughouttheconcrete(VDZ,2009).
TheDAfStBdoesntchangethevalidityofthe:
DIN51220,WerkstoffprfmaschinenAllgemeineszuAnforderungenan
WerkstoffprfmaschinenundzuderenPrufungandKalibrierung;
DINRN123905,PrfungvonFestbetonTeil5:Biegezugfestigkeitvon
Probekrpernand
DVBMerkblattStahlfaserbetonAusgabe200110.
Theguidelineconsistsofthreeparts:
explanationaboutthesize/shapeofthebeam
production,designandconformityofmaterials

36


practicaldescriptionofthework.
TheGuidelineshasalimitationthatconsiststobevalidfornormalconcreteuntilthe
classC50/60.

TheformulaforthecalculationoftheshearcapacityinaSFRCbeamscontains two
terms:
f
VRd,ct VRd,ct VRd,cf
f
(Eq.3.18)

whereVfRd,ct,VRd,ct,VfRd,cfarethetotalshearcapacityoftheelement,theshearcapacity
carried out by the concrete and the shear capacity due to the fibres, respectively.
Moreover:
cf fctR,u
f
bw h
VRd,cf (Eq.3.19)
ctf
where fc is a coefficient taking into account long term and unfavourable effects of
SFRC(preferablevalue=1.00),ffctR,u isacharacteristicvalueofresidualtensilestrength
ofSFRCatthelargerdisplacementvalueand fctisapartialsafetyfactorforSFRCthat
couldbechosenaccordingtoSection2.4.2.4oftheEC2.

37


3.3 AlternativeIII:RILEMTC162TDF(2003)

RILEM(whichacronymcomes fromthenameinFrench Runion Internationaledes

LaboratoiresetExpertsdesMatriaux,systmesdeconstructionetouvrages)wasfounded
inJune1947,withtheaimtopromotescientificcooperationintheareaofconstruction
materialsandstructures.
Moreover,themissionoftheassociationistoadvancescientificknowledgerelatedto
construction materials, systems and structures and to encourage transfer and
applicationofthisknowledgeworldwide.
This mission is achieved through collaboration of leading experts in construction
practice and science including academics, researchers, testing laboratories, authorities
andaconstantproductionofmaterialseasilyavailableontheweb(RILEM,2011).
Inacontextwhereempiricalandsemiempiricaldesignmethodsbindthedesignerto
certaintypesoffibresanddonotallowthemtodeveloparationaloptimizedprocess,in
April1995theRILEMTechnicalCommittee162TDF(TestandDesignMethodsforSteel
FibreReinforcedConcrete)hasbeensetup.Mostofthememberswerealreadyactivein
standardizationwithregardtoSFRCintheirowncountry.
TheobjectivesofRILEMTC162TDFare:
to develop design methods to accurately evaluate the behaviour of SFRC in
structural applications (both in SLS and ULS) and to supply the lack of national and
Europeanbuildingcoderequirementsforthismaterial;
to make recommendations for appropriate test methods to characterize the
parametersthatareessentialinthedesignmethods(toughness)andnotonlytakepre
peak behaviour into account (typically Youngs modulus and compressive strength) as
happeneduptonow.
The work of the Technical Committee found its result in RILEM Recommendations
published in Materials & Structures in 2000 and 2001 and later in RILEM Final
Recommendations in2002and 2003.TheRILEMWorkshopinBochum(Germany,20
21March2003)gavebackgroundinformationtothepreviousRecommendations.

TheRILEMTechnicalCommitteebaseditsfirstapproachontheexperimentalresults
ofVandewalleandDupont(2000),whichperformedexperimentson43fullscalebeams.
The former, due to her valid contribution for the research in SFRC materials, was
electedChairladyoftheherebeforementionedcommittee.
During the RILEM Workshop in Bochum the results, of tests carried out for
investigating the design proposal, were analysed. Due to the results found within the
Brite/Euramproject(about38beamstested)itcanbeconcluded,thatthesheardesign
proposedbyRILEMTC162TDF(RILEM,2000b)isasimplewaytocalculatetheshear
resistance with a sufficient margin of safety. However, in the final draft of the RILEM
Recommendations(RILEMTC162TDF,2002)theequivalentflexuraltensilestrengthis
replacedbytheresidualflexuraltensilestrength;theequivalentflexuraltensilestrength
is derived from the contribution of the steel fibres to the energy absorption capacity
(area under the loaddeflection curve) while the residual flexural tensile strength is
derived from the load at a definitely crack mouth opening displacement (CMOD) or
midspandeflection(R).ThevaluewhichisusedfortheULSisfRk,4 (CMOD4=3.5mmor

R,4=3.0mm)isrelatedtothestrainof2.5%.Alsothefactorthattakesintoaccountthe
heightofthememberisreplacedbythefactorusedinthefinaldraftoftheEC2.

38


The RILEM Design Method is based on the European prestandard ENV 199211
(Eurocode 2). This method calculates the shear capacity V as consisting of 3 separate
contributions:
V Vc Vw Vf (Eq.3.20)
This is the equation given in the first draft of EC 2 (1993) with the addition of the
term for the contribution of the fibres Vf. However, the shear resistance of the plain
concrete Vc is taken from the second draft of the EC 2 (2001) with the partial safety
factorc=1.5.

Table3.1SheardesignforsteelfibrereinforcedconcretemembersaccordingtoRILEM
Recommendations(RILEMTC162TDF,2003a).

0.18
k 100l f fck 0.15 cp bw d
1/3
Vcd
c (Eq.3.21)
200
k 1 2
d

Vfd kf kl fdbwd (Eq.3.22)

fd 0.12 fR,4
h hf
kf 1 n f andkf 1.5
bw d (Eq.3.23)
200
kl 1 2
d

With:

fck charactersiticscylindercompressivestrength[N/mm2 ];

b widthofthebeam[mm];
d effectivedepthofthebeam[mm];
Asl
l 0.02; (Eq.3.24)
bw d

kf factorfortakingintoaccountthecontributionoftheflangesinTsection;itisequal
to1forrectangularsections;
hf theheightoftheflange;
bf thewidthoftheflange;

bw thewidthoftheweb;

39


a shearspan;
bf bw 3 bw
n 3andn (Eq.3.25)
hf hf
IntheRILEMRecommendations,dated2000,theinfluenceoftheheightfortheshear
resistance due to the steel fibers Vfd is taken into account by the factor defined in Eq.
(3.27).

kl 1600 d >1factorfortakingintoaccountthesizeeffectofthemember; (Eq.3.26)
1000
This is the factor kd used in the first draft of the EN 19921 (EC 2, 1993). It is
proposedtousethefactor
200
kl 1 2
d
used in the formula for the shear resistance of the plain concrete because this is
closertothefinaldraftoftheEurocode2(EC2,2001).
df 0.12 fRk,4 [N/mm2 ];

3 FR,4 L
fR,4 (Eq.3.27)
2 b hsp
2

whereFR,4istheloadcorrespondingtoaCMODof3.5mminthe3PBTsperformed,L
isthespanofthespecimen(500mm),bthewidthofthespecimenandhspisthedistance
betweenthetipofthenotchandthetopofthecrosssection(125mm).
Thetestprogrammeinvolvedbothplainconcreteandsteelfibrereinforcedconcrete.
Thevariableswerethecontentofsteelfibres,thelongitudinalreinforcementratio,the
conventional shear reinforcement ratio (stirrups) and the cross section shape (T or
rectangularsection).TheusedfibretypeforallspecimenswasDramixRC65/60BN.It
wasplannedtocheckifthereareinfluencesoftheadditionofsteelfibresontheshear
resistanceoftheplainconcreteVcd ortheshearresistanceduetothestirrupsVwd andif
thereareinfluencesofthevariedparameters(a/d, l, w,h,crosssectionshape)onthe
shear resistance due to the fibers Vfd. The amount of the tested beams was 38. All
specimen were singlespan beams. The reinforcements were chosen in that way, that
nearlyallbeamswereexpectedtofailinshear.Afewofthebeamswereforeseentofail
inflexuretocheckthe sensiblerangeoftheuseofsteelfibresasshearreinforcement.
ThevariationoftheparametersisshowninAppendixA.
It is really interesting to observe that the crack propagation occurred in different
ways. The course of the crack propagation was smoother for the beams with fibres.
Furthermore, the time dependent crack propagation in the region of the uncontrolled
crackpropagation(seeFigure3.3)couldbefollowedwiththeeyesforthebeamswith
fibreswhilethiswasnotpossibleforthebeamswithoutfibres.Forbeamswithoutfibres
thelaststepbeforethecompressionzonewaschoppedthrough,thecrackpropagation
growsinasuddenway.

40


Figure 3.3 Failure mechanism observed at beams with and without steel fibres,
respectively,andwithoutstirrups(RILEMTC162TDF,2003a).

Aminimumshearreinforcementisnotnecessaryforsteelfibrereinforcedconcrete
members.Anywayitmustbeguaranteedthatthefibredosagehasasignificantinfluence
ontheshearresistance.Thiscanbeassumediftheresidualflexuraltensilestrengthisat
leastfR,4 =1.0N/mm2.SimilarproposalsweremadeintheGermanDBVguideline(DBV,
2001),intheDAfStBguideline(Section3.2)andintheItalianguideline(Section3.4).
Rosenbusch and Teutsch, after their studies (2003), established that the RILEM
proposalwiththetwoadditionaltermsisasimplewaytocalculatetheshearresistance
with a sufficient margin of safety and due to the fact that it is a conservative design
method (standard method). Moreover, they said that the proposal also leads to a
sufficient margin of safety for the cases of higher fibre contents, shear reinforcement
ratiosandlongitudinalreinforcementratios.
ThisformulaissuitableforbothrectangularandTcrosssectionsandinpresenceor
absenceofstirrups.Thepresenceofaflange,inaTsection,increasestheultimateshear
loadcarrying capacity significantly in comparison with a rectangular beam. The test
results suggest that there is a limit in the flange depth beyond which there is a
significant increase in the loadcarrying capacity and ductility. For beams with lower
flange depth and rectangular beams there can be found no significant influence of the
flange depth on the firstcrack and maximum load while there is a big increase of the
loadsforthebeamwithalargeflangedepth.Theexactdepthlimitisnotdefinedwithin
thismasterthesis.

41


3.4 AlternativeIV:ItalianGuidelineCNRDT
2042006

TheItalianNationalResearchCouncil(CNR)isthelargestpublicresearchinstitution
in Italy, it is the only one under the Research Ministry performing multidisciplinary
activities. It was founded on November 18 of 1923. Since 1945, the National Research
Council(CNR)isapublicorganization.
Its mission is to perform research in its own Institutes, to promote innovation and
competitivenessofthenationalindustrialsystem,topromotetheinternationalizationof
thenationalresearchsystem,toprovidetechnologiesandsolutionstoemergingpublic
andprivateneeds,toadviceGovernmentandotherpublicbodies,andtocontributeto
the qualication of human resources. Since 14 July 2004 Prof. Fabio Pistella has been
CNRChairman.
CNR is framed in departments that are organizational units, structured by macro
areasoftechnologicalandscienticresearch,withthetaskofplanning,coordinatingand
monitoringresearchactivitiesintheaffiliatedinstitutes,byassuringthemthenecessary
nancial resources. Each department furthermore has its national and international
relations, dealing with its macroarea of interest. Every department sets up its own
research strategies and programmes, also in cooperation with other departments, and
follows up their implementation through specic research projects. The department
decides, together with its institutes, single projects scientic lines, identifying the
research groups to be entrusted with the relevant research tasks, at the same time
providing them with the necessary resources. Each group of researchers, in charge of
carryingoutasinglescienticline,thusgivesitscontributiontotheachievementofthe
projectgoals.
The11departmentsare:(1)Agrifood,(2)CulturalHeritage,(3)CulturalIdentity,(4)
EarthandEnvironment,(5)EnergyandTransport,(6)InformationandCommunication
Technologies,(7)LifeSciences,(8)MaterialsandDevices,(9)Medicine,(10)Molecular
Design,(11)ProductionSystems.
CNRisdistributedalloverItalythroughanetworkofinstitutesaimingatpromoting
awidediffusionofitscompetencesthroughoutthenationalterritoryandatfacilitating
contactsandcooperationwithlocalfirmsandorganizations(CNR,2011).
The Council was motivated by the belief that the development of design codes for
construction plays a crucial role in the outgrowth of a modern industrial community.
Furthermore, the council thinks that guidelines help meeting the safety requirements,
promoting the transfer of technological innovation, and opening the global market to
fairandequitablecompetition.
Withinthiscontext,theNationalResearchCouncil(CNR)hasplayedanactiverolein
the technical culture of Italy since its foundation. For more than fifty years, the CNR
activity, which resulted in the formulation of Design Codes, Instructions and specific
Recommendations,hasbeensupportedbygeneralagreement.
SincethepublicationoftheCNRDT200/2004,concerningcoatingofreinforcedand
prestressed concrete as well as masonry structures through the use of long fibres
reinforced composite materials (FRP), CNR started its activity in the composite
materials like SFRC, arriving at the publication of CNRDT 204/2006: Guide for the
DesignandConstructionofFiberReinforcedConcreteStructures.

42


Afteritspublication,CNRDT204/2006wassubjecttoapublichearingandafterthat
some modifications and integrations have been made to the document including
corrections of typos, additions of subjects that had not been dealt with in the original
versionandeliminationofothersdeemednottoberelevant.
This Technical Document has been approved as a final version on Nov. 28, 2007,
including the modifications derived from the public hearing, by the Advisory
CommitteeonTechnicalRecommendationforConstruction(CNR,2008).

Thedesignvaluefortheshearresistanceinmemberswithconventionallongitudinal
reinforcementandwithoutshearreinforcementisgivenby:
0.18
1

fFtuk 3
VRd,F k 100 1 1 7.5 fck 0.15 cp bw d (Eq.3.28)
fctk
c
Where:
cisthepartialsafetyfactorfortheconcretematrixwithoutfibres;
200
kisafactorthattakesintoaccountthesizeeffectandequalto k 1 2;
d
distheeffectivedepthofthecrosssection;
Asl
l= 0.02 isthereinforcementratioforlongitudinalreinforcement;
bw d
Aslisthecrosssectionalareaofthereinforcementwhichisbondedbeyondthe
consideredsection;
fFtukisthecharacteristicvalueoftheultimateresidualtensilestrengthfortheFRC,by
consideringwu=1.5mm;
fctkisthecharacteristicvalueofthetensilestrengthfortheconcretematrixin
accordancetothecurrentCodes;
fckisthecharacteristicvalueofcylindricalcompressivestrengthinaccordancetothe
currentCodes;
cp=NEd/Acistheaveragestressactingontheconcretecrosssection,
Ac,foranaxialforceNEdduetoloadingorprestressingactions(shallbeconsidered
positivecompressionstresses);
bwisthesmallestwidthofthecrosssectioninthetensilearea.
TheshearresistanceVRd,F,isassumedtobenotlessthantheminimumvalue,VRd,Fmin,
definedas:
VRd,Fmin vmin 0.15 cp bw d (Eq.3.29)

with:
3 1
vmin 0.035 k 2 fck 2 (Eq.3.30)
For members with loads applied on the upper side within a distance 0.5d a 2d
fromtheedgeofasupport(orcentreofbearingwhereflexiblebearingsareused),the

43


acting shear force may be reduced by = a/(2d). This is only valid provided that the
longitudinal reinforcement is fully anchored at the support. For a 0.5d the value a =
0.5d shouldbeused.
When point loads close to the support or in diffusive regions are present, the
verificationcanbecarriedoutwithstrut-and-tie models.

EquationChapter(Next)Section1

44


Chapter4

AnalysisandComparisonofthe

Specimens

4.1 Introduction

ThedeterminationoftheshearbehaviouroftheFRCischallengingduetothelarge
numberofparametersinvolved,e.g.shearspantodepthratio,scaleeffect,typeoffibre,
fibrecontentandorientation,bondingbetweenfibreandconcreteandalsocontribution
fromanylongitudinalreinforcementbarsplacedtosustaintheflexuralmoments.
ThereareseveralmethodsfordeterminingtheshearcapacityasshowinTable4.1.
Manyoftheseformulasarejustempiricalequationsbasedonfittingofalimitedseriesof
experiments that do not properly account for all parameters that influence the shear
capacity.Moreovertheseformulasdifferduetothedifferentdatarequiredinthem.
One hundred and sixtyfive shear failure tests are recorded in 28 references from
previouslyconductedshearfailuretestsinSFRCbeamswithoutstirrups,andfiftyeight
shear failure tests on reinforced concrete beams without any shear reinforcement are
included in the database of this thesis. A complete list of the tests used and their
referencesaretabulatedinAnnexB.

45


Table4.1Articlesandmodelscollectedinthethesisdatabase.
Paper

Designequationsfortheshearstrength[MPa] References

Vtot Vw Vc
Vw 0.9 cu bw d
R.Narayan
Vc 3.75 R bw d
Swamy,R.
1 lf Jonesand (Eq.4.1)
cu 0.41 Vf forlf lc
df AndyT.P.
Chiam
fu df
cu 0.41 1 fu Vf forlf lc
4 lf
Modificationof
ACIBuilding

vu 0.7 f c 7 F da 17.2 da equationby (Eq.4.2)
Ashouretal.
(1992)
fora / d 2.5
3 1
Modification
d 3
vu 2.11 3 fc 7F
a
ofZsuttys
equationby (Eq.4.3)
fora / d 2.5
Ashouretal.
1
(1992)

vu 2.11 3 fc 7F
a

d 3 2,5d
a
a
vb 2.5
d
Vf 0.24 U bw d f lf
Kaushiketal.
6 where (Eq.4.4)
(1987)
U ultimateinterfacialbondstressfibrematrix
Vu 0.504 fc 176 pw d / M / V tu bd
where
fc cylindercompressivestrengthofPC Salujaetal.
9 (Eq.4.5)
Pw ratioofareaiftensionsteeltoareaofweb (1992)
M / V ratioofmomenttoshear
tu ultimatetensilestrengthofferedbyfibre
0.25
d
10 vuf k f t Sharma(1986) (Eq.4.6)
a

46


Forbeamswitha/d<3
d
vn 0.22 fsp 217 0.834 vb
a Shinetal.
11 (Eq.4.7)
Forbeamswitha/d>3 (1994)
d
vn 0.19 fsp 93 0.834 vb
a
vu 0.517 0.283 cu Swamyetal.
12 (Eq.4.8)
where cu concreteflexuralstrength (1985)
0.46 '1/2 0.91 '0.38 0.96 a
2.33
vuf 0.97 s fc 0.2s fc f yl
d Dingetal.
15 (Eq.4.9)
l (2011)
1.75Ib st f yst 0.5 Vf f ctg
df
Hanaietal.
16 Vu 0.325 0.15V 0.51f fc bd /10 (Eq.4.10)
(2008)
1

vuc 10 f 'c d / as 3
as d 2.5
1 4
vuc 160 f 'c 3 d / as 3
as d 2.5
AlTaanetal.
22 (Eq.4.11)
vuf cu
h c l
0.5 vf f
h c (1990)
d df d
vu vuc vuf
13
2/3 d
vu 3.7efspfc 0.8vb
a
vb 0.41 F Kwaketal.
29 (Eq.4.12)
1fora / d 3.4 (2002)

e d
3.4 a fora / d 3.4

Alltestbeamswereloadedwithoneortwopointloadsandtheywereprovidedwith
highlongitudinalreinforcementratios sufficient tosecure shearfailure thatinvolves
web crushing rather than flexural or combined flexural and shear failure of tested
beams. Nonetheless, in 343 tests, other than aforementioned, failures are caused by
flexure or the combined effects of shear and flexure, which are not considered in this
study.ThatisbecausethisstudyonlyaddressesshearfailuresinordertofacilitateSFRC
ultimateshearstrengthprediction.

47


4.2 PresentationofalltheData

The intention, here, is to do a brief summary of all articles, papers and books
included in Appendix B highlighting the most salient and interesting concepts for the
purposesofthisthesis.

Paper1,Swamyetal.(1993).
This article concerns about SFRC beams done in lightweight concrete Ibeams (fly
ash, PFA, was used as a replacement for both the cement and the sand); it underlines
thatmost ofthe test reportedsofarareon rectangularbeams, whicharenotthe best
cross sections for flexural members. Fibres are also less effective in such members. In
account of the reduced modulus of elasticity and the lower tensile strength of
lightweightconcrete,thebenefitofaddingarelativelyhighmodulusfibre,suchsteel,on
thestrengthanddeformationcharacteristicsmaybemorepronouncedthanfornormal
weight concrete. The purpose of the paper is thus to assess the effectiveness of steel
fibresasshearreinforcementinlightweightconcretebeams.Asimpletheoreticalmodel
is presented to compute the ultimate strength in shear. This model leads to simple
equationstopredictultimateshearstrengthoflightweightandnormalweightconcrete
beams(seeTable4.1).Thefibreconcretebeamsdisplayedanincreasednumberofboth
flexural and shear cracks at closer spacing than the corresponding concrete beams
without fibres. The cracking behaviour clearly showed the ability of the steel fibres in
mobilizing the tension zone of the beam in resisting the shear forces. The method
presentedbytheauthorswasalsovalidtopredicttheshearstrengthofnormalweight
fibreconcretebeamscontainingsteelfibresasshearreinforcement.
InthisarticleprevioustestsdonebyMuhidinandRegan(1977)andLaFraughand
Moustafa (1975) are used to compare the validity of the formula proposed by the
authors.

Paper2,Dinhetal.(2010).
In this paper 28 relatively large SFRC beams subjected to shear, simply supported,
are investigated with the aim to investigate the effectiveness of the fibre as shear
reinforcementinabeamwithoutstirrupreinforcement.Theresultshowedthattheuse
of hooked steel fibres in a volume fraction equal or greater than to 0,75 % led to
multiple diagonal cracking and substantial increase in shear strength compared to
reinforced concrete (RC) beams without stirrup reinforcement. Moreover, all SFRC
beamssustainedapeakshearstressofatleast0.33,-/ .Thetestresultalsoindicated
that the hooked steel fibres evaluated in this investigation can safely be used as
minimumshearreinforcementinRCbeamsconstructedwithnormalstrengthconcrete
and within the range of member depths considered. Data presented herein provide
information on the effect of parameters such as fibre geometry, strength, volume
fractionandlongitudinalreinforcementratiosontheshearbehaviourofrelativelylarge
SFRCbeams. Theflexuralbehaviourofthe SFRCswas evaluatedthroughASTMC1609
(2005)fourpointbendingtest150x150x510mmbeams(455mmclearspan).Each
testwascontinueduptoamidspandeflectionof1/150ofthespanlength(3mm).

48


Figure4.1Deflectionundertheloadingpointandloadalongthehorizontalaxisand
verticalaxis,respectively(Dinhetal.,2010).

Theseresponsesrepresenttheaverageofthreeormoreindividualtests,exceptfor
Beam275,forwhich onlytwobeamsweretested.In thisgraphtheeffectofdifferent
additionoffibrescanbeseen.

Paper3,Ashouretal.(1992).
The authors present test results on 18 rectangular highstrength fibre reinforced
concrete beams subjected to combined flexure and shear. All beams, were singly
reinforced and without shear reinforcement. The main variables were the steel fibre
content,thelongitudinalsteelratioandtheshearspan/depthratio.Theconcretematrix
compressive strength was about 93 MPa containing only one type of fibre. Two
empirical equations are proposed to predict the shear strength of highstrength fibre
reinforcedconcretebeamswithoutshearreinforcement.ItisworthnotingthatHSFRCis
moredifficulttomixefficientlythanconventionalconcretebecauseoftherelativelylow
watercontent,highcementcontent,absenceoflargecoarseaggregateandpresenceof
fibres.Forthesereasonsasuperplasticizerwasusedandthemixingtimewasincreased
toproduceauniformmixwithoutsegregation.Theauthorsperformedthecalculations
of the shear capacity of the specimens with Narayanan and Darwishs equation and
Sharmas equation, too. Moreover, as shown in Table 4.1, the authors purposed two
modifications of the ACI building Code equation and of Zuttys equation; these were
definedafterthataregressionanalysiswascarriedoutonthe18testresults.Eventhe

49


good prediction of the shear strength for the tested beam the two equations are no
longerused.

Paper6,Kaushiketal.(1987).
Thispaperisanattempttostudytheultimatestrengthoffibrereinforcedconcrete
beamsvisavisshearfailure.Thescopeofthestudywaslimitedtoobservationonthe
gain in strength compared to ordinary R.C. beams without fibres, looking at the
deflections, the curvatures, the rotations and the crack pattern, too. The resistance
offered by the fibres crossing a major diagonal crack was evaluated using an effective
fibrespacingequationandthetotalforcedevelopedthroughthefibrelyinginavertical
plane.Thetestprogramconsistedof10series,with2beamsineachseries,classifiedas
A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,IandJ.AllthedetailsarereportedinAppendixA.Thefibresutilized
in the beams were obtained by cutting black annealed mild steel wires (26SWG) of
suitablelength.

Paper7,Murtyetal.(1987).
This investigation was designed to provide a comprehensive experimental and
analyticalevaluationofsteelfibresasshearreinforcement.Toobtainthisinformation,a
batchofrectangularbeamswastestedto failure.Variablesthatwerestudiedincluded
shear span/depth ratio, aspect ratio of the fibre and volume percentage of fibres. The
experimental programme involved tests on eleven reinforced concrete rectangular
beamsofsamecrosssectionundertwopointloading;outofelevenbeams,twobeams
werewithoutanywebreinforcement,twohadconventionalstirrupsandtheremaining
seven were provided with fibres in the test zone. The nontest zone was reinforced
againstshearfailurebyprovidingwebreinforcementintheformofverticalstirrups.

Paper8,Narayananetal.(1987a).
TheresearchreportedinthispaperestablishedtheformuladiscussedinSection3.1.
The authors investigated 49 shear tests carried out on simply supported rectangular
beam under symmetrically placed concentrated loads; out of 49 beams, 10 beams
contained conventional stirrups and 33 were reinforced with crimped steel fibers
insteadofwebreinforcement.Theparametersvariedwerethevolumefraction fofthe
fibres, fibres aspect ratio L/D, the concrete strength fcu, the amount of longitudinal
reinforcement and the shearspan/effective depth ratio a/d. Beams B1 to B6 were
similar except for the volume fraction of fibres which was increased from 0.5 percent,
BeamB1to3.0percentinBeamB6.BeamB1wasobservedtofailinshearwhileBeam
B2,whichhas f=1%,exhibitedaflexuralshearfailure.Increasingthevolumefraction
of fibres above 1 percent (Beam B3 to B6) the failure resulted in a predominantly
flexuralmode.Howthemodeoffailurechangedfromthesheartotheflexuraltypewhen
thevolumefractionoffibreswassignificantlyincreasedcanbeseeninFigure2.1.FRC
beams having a low volume fraction of fibres (i.e., less than 1 percent by volume)
exhibited a sudden failure at the ultimate stage, although this was less catastrophic
comparedwithconventionallyreinforcedbeamwithoutanyshearreinforcement.

50


Figure4.2CrackpatternsforbeamsB1,B2,B4andB7(Narayananetal,1987).

Narayanan and Darwish observed that the crack pattern that develops in SFRC
beams subjected to shear is similar to that observed in the corresponding reinforced
concrete beams with conventional stirrups. This remark comes from comparison
betweentheperformancesofbeamsreinforcedonlywithstirrupsandofbeamswithout
stirrups but prepared with SFRC using fibres in a percentage equivalent to that of the
stirrups in the shear span of the corresponding conventionally reinforced beam: the
improvement inthe ultimate meanshearstrengthis notsignificant,butthe firstcrack
shear strength increased noticeably. The same authors, in a subsequent paper
(Narayananetal.,1988)cametotheconclusion thatthefibres cannot entirelyreplace
the conventional shear reinforcement when the structural elements are subjected to
veryhighshearstress.

Paper9,Salujaetal.(1992).
In this paper, attempt has been made to suggest a method to have a reasonable
estimation of shear strength of fibre reinforced concrete beams (as reported in Table
4.1).Onaccountofthelackoffibrecharacteristicusedinthetests;inordertoworkin
the safe side the following assumptions have been taken: aspect ratio lf/df =100 and
shapeofthefibreasround.

Paper10,Sharma(1986).
The aim of the paper was to show that steel fibres added at the normal shear
reinforcementcanbeeffectivelyusedforincreasingtheshearstrengthofconcrete;tests
have shown that a combination of stirrups and fibre reinforcement forms an effective
system of shear reinforcement in a structural member. At any rate the only beam
included in this thesis are the one in PC and SFRC without any stirrups; out of seven
beams,theonesthesecharacteristicswerethree.

Paper11,Shinetal.(1994).
This paper reports the results of an investigation on the strength and ductility of
fibre reinforced high strength concrete beams (with concrete compression strength
equal to 80 MPa) with and without steel fibre reinforcement, the diagonal cracking
strengthaswellasthenominalshearstrengthofthebeamsweredetermined.22beam
specimens weretestedundermonotonicallyincreasingloadsappliedatmidspan.The
major test parameters included the volumetric ratio of steel fibres, the shearspanto

51


depth ratio, the amount of longitudinal reinforcement and the amount of shear
reinforcement.. Empirical equations are suggested for evaluating the nominal shear
strengthofSFRhighstrengthconcretebeams(Table4.1).

Paper12,Swamyetal.(1985).
The aim of this study was to quantify the contribution of steel fibres to the shear
resistanceofconcretemembers,inordertodevelopthedesignrulesforsuchmembers.
Thetestsreportedinthispaperweredesignedtoclarifyfurthertheroleofsteelfibrein
shear failures, and in particular, to evaluate the effectiveness of steel fibres in shear
strengthandsheardeformationofreinforcedconcretebeams.Thetestswereconducted
on Tbeams and rectangular beams, 3.4 m long. Nine Tbeams and two rectangular
beamsweretestedinthisstudy.Allthebeamsweresimplysupportedwithaclearspan
of2.8mandamoment/shearrationequalto4.5.

Paper13,Tanetal.(1995).
This paper presents a systematic study on the behaviour of partially prestressed
SFRC beams subjected to shear. A simple approach is developed to determine the
contributionofsteelfibres,whenusedaspartialorcompletereplacementofstirrups,to
theshearcarryingcapacityofpartiallyprestressedbeams.Atestprogramwascarried
outwiththe partial prestressing ratio,the shearspantoeffectivedepth ratioandthe
steel fibre content of the beam as major parameters. The partial prestressing ratio
(PPR) is a quantity used to represent the extent of prestressing in a beam and it is
defined as the ratio of the ultimate moment of resistance due to the prestressed
reinforcement(Mu)ptothe momentofresistance duetoalltensilesteelreinforcement
(Mu)p+s.

Paper14,Rosenbuschetal.(2003).
Thispapermainlydealswiththeworkcarriedoutwithintheframeworkofsubtask
4.2 Trial Beams in shear of the Brite/Euram project BRPRCT980813 and with the
change between the RILEM Recommendation TC 162TDF (2000) and the final
Recommendations (2003). In the latter the equivalent flexure tensile strength was
replacedbytheresidualflexuraltensilestrengthandthefactorwhichtakesintoaccount
theheightofthememberwasreplacedbythefactorusedintheEC2(Eq.3.26).
RosenbuschandTeutschlookingforacoefficienttoconvert-01,3to-4,5 established
thattheconversionfactorcouldbetakenequalto1.Thetestswereconductedon38T
beamsandrectangularbeams.Outof38beams, eightbeamswerewithsteelfibreand
stirrups,fivebeamswerewithoutanyshearreinforcementandtheleftbeamswerewith
fibres.

Paper15,Dingetal.(2011).
This paper presents the results of an experimental research program on the shear
behaviour of steel fibre reinforced SCC beams. The major aims of this program are to
evaluatethepossibilityofreplacingstirrupsbysteelfibres,tostudythehybrideffectof
steel fibres and stirrups on the mechanical behaviour of beams, and to analyze the
influenceofsteelfibresinthefailuremodeandshearstrength.Thebeamsstudiedinthe
testprogramhadacrosssectionof200mmx300mmand2400mmlength.Theywere
tested on a span of 2100 mm having two stirrups ratio and two fibre contents. They
were9beams,butonly3overtheseweresuitableforthe investigationcarriedinthis
work. Moreover the authors investigated the validity of the existing semiempirical

52


equationforpredictingtheshearstrengthandtheysuggestedanewformula(Table4.1).
Thisformulaisusedforpredictingthevaluesfromdatafromdifferentsourcesincluded,
intheirturn,inthedatabase(appendixA).Thearticlereportsthedataoftheworksof
Ashour(alreadyinpaper3),Kwak(partiallyincludedinpaper29),NoghabaiandZhang.

Paper16,Hanaietal.(2008).
This paper discusses the influence of steel fibre on both punching strength of flat
slabs and shear strength of concrete beams. Similarities in the structural behaviour of
analogous slab and beam were observed in many experimental analyses present in
literature, even in the DAfStB formulas for beams and slabs there is a strong analogy.
The authors designed concrete mixtures to attain different strength levels, from
ordinarytohighstrengthrange.Ultimateloadcapacityandductilityofanalogousslabs
andbeamsshowedthesameperformancetendenciesasthefibrecontentvariedfrom0
to2%.Themainconclusionofthestudyisthatsheartestsonprismaticbeamsprovide
usefulinformationforSFRCmixturedesignforslabapplication.Fiveseriesofanalogous
slabs and beams (S1 to S5) were tested for a total of 15 beams designed with four
differentconcrete mixes andwiththeinclusion ofhookedsteelfibreina 0%,0.75%,
1.50%volumefraction.TheACI318M02equationtoevaluatetheultimateshearforce
forbeamswithoutstirrups,inordertoconsiderthesteelfibreeffect,hasbeenmodified
asreportedinTable4.1.

Paper17,Limetal.(1999).
The purpose of this study was to explore the shear characteristics of reinforced
concretebeamscontainingsteelfibres.Thetestsreportedinthisarticleconsistofnine
beams reinforced with stirrups and steel fibres. The main aims of this study were to
investigate(1)themechanicalbehaviourofreinforcedconcretebeamscontainingsteel
fibres under shear, (2) the potential use of fibres to replace the stirrups and (3) the
combinations of stirrups and steel fibres for improvements in ultimate and shear
crackingstrengthsaswellasductility.Amethodofpredictingultimateshearstrengthof
beams,whenreinforcedwithstirrupsandsteelfibres,isproposed.

Paper18,Sachanetal.(1990).
This paper describes an experimental investigation to study the strength and
behaviourofSFRCdeepbeam.Intotal14beamsweretested.Thevariationofthefibre
content, the percentage of longitudinal reinforcement and the type of loading were
investigated. The ultimate load carrying capacity, the mode of failure and the load
deflection behaviour are reported. A simple model is proposed to predict the load
carryingcapacityofthebeams(Table4.1).
It is worthnotingthatthe nonlinearnature ofconcrete togetherwiththe cracking
owingtothelowtensilestrengthmakesthebehaviourofreinforceddeepbeamsmore
complex than can be predicted by theoretical studies of linear homogeneous elastic
material. Some really important information like the kind of steel fibres and the
presence of stirrups are missing. Even making some assumptions on the safe side the
results obtained performing Alternative I are not consistent and not included in the
database.

Paper19,Cucchiaraetal(2004).
Theaimofthepaperconsistsoftheevaluationoftheimprovementinthepostpeak
behaviourduetothepresenceoffibresandinparticulartothecoupledeffectsoffibres

53


and stirrups. The loaddeflection graphs recording the postpeak branch, allowing the
conclusion that the inclusion of fibres can modify the brittle shear mechanism into a
ductile flexural mechanism, thus allowing a larger dissipation of energy necessary
especially in seismic resistant reinforced concrete framed structures. The tests were
carriedoutbyconsideringtwodifferentvaluesofshearspan,differentvolumeoffibre
andstirrups,fortwoseriesofeightbeams.

Paper20,Robertsetal.(1982).
ThearticlepresentstheinvestigationofninedeepSFRCbeams.Thebeamscontained
conventionaltensilesteelreinforcementbutdifferentpercentagesofsteelfibresinplace
ofconventionalshearreinforcement.Allninebeamsweresimplysupportedandloaded
tofailurebyacentralloaddistributedthroughtwobearingplates.Theresultsconfirm
that steel fibres canprevent shear failure indeep beamsand also indicate the various
modesoffailureofdeepbeams.

Paper21,Adhikaryetal.(2006).
The paper presents the development of artificial neural network models for
predicting the ultimate shear strength of SFRC beams. Neural networks are being
applied to an increasing large number of real word problems. Neural networks
constitute an information processing techniques based on the way biological nervous
systems, such as the brain, process information. The fundamental concept of neural
networks is the structure of the information processing system. Composed of a large
number of highly interconnected processing elements or neurons, a neural network
system uses the humanlike technique of learning by example to solve problems. This
thesis does not focus on the neural network but the data used in the article, the ones
which come from the literature, can be included in the database of Appendix A. Even
some parameters are totally missing this bunch of tests can be used to perform the
NarayananandDarwishsformula.

Paper22,AlTaanetal.(1990).
In this paper predictive equations are suggested for evaluating the cracking and
ultimateshearstrengthofrectangularfibrereinforcedconcretebeamswithoutstirrups
(seeTable4.1).Themethodshowsgoodagreementwiththepublishedtestresultsof89
beams which failed in shear. The data relative to these beams were reported in
Appendix A but utilized for performing only the Alternative I owing to the lack of
parametersneededtoruntheotheralternatives.

Paper23,Tanetal.(1993).
This study presents an investigation of the behaviour of SFRC beams subjected to
predominant shear. Although several semiempirical relations have been suggested to
determine the ultimate shear capacity, the author wanted an analysis on the complete
shearresponsewithdetailedstrainmeasurementsinthebeams.
Tests were conducted on six simply supported beams in order to obtain strain
measurements in the steel reinforcement and the web of the SFRC beams under
predominantshearandgivingmoreattentionsonthepostcrackingtensilestrength.

Paper24,Batsonetal.(1972).
The purpose of this study was to investigate the various shapes of steel fibres, the
fibre size, the fibre volume concentration and the effectiveness when the fibres

54


substitutetheverticalstirrupsinconventionalreinforcedbeams.Theshearspanratio,
a/d,wasdecreasedwithincreasingsteelfibrecontent.The72beamhaveall101x152
mmcrosssectionwithaclearspanof915mm.
The authors, after their investigation, concluded that the replacement of vertical
stirrups by round, flat or crimped steel fibre provides effective reinforcement against
shearfailure.

Paper25,Londhe(2010).
ThemainaimofthispaperwastostudytheperformanceoftheRCbeamsinshear
experimentallyreinforcedwithlongitudinaltensionsteelonly,andreinforcedwithsteel
fibresandtoknowtherelativecontributionofthedifferentmechanismthroughwhich
sheararetransmittedbetweentwoadjacentplaneinareinforcedconcretebeam.
In this work an attempt is made to investigate shear strength and ductility of fiber
reinforcedconcretebeamsbyusinghookedsteelfibres.Allthetestbeamspecimenwere
100 mm in width, 150 mm in depth and 1200 mm in length and the primary variable
investigated were percentage of fibres (0.5 to 5 %), percentage longitudinal tension
steel(0.8to3.22%)andcubecompressivestrengthofconcrete(intherangeof34of41
MPa)foratotaloftwentybeams.Theshearspandepthratiowaskeptconstantat3.20.
Allthebeamspecimensweretestedunderfourpointloadingtestsetupandthefailure
load,crackpatternanddeflectionswererecorded.Thirtysixbeamswerecastandtested
forvariousfibrecontentsandlongitudinalreinforcements.

Paper26,Narayananetal.(1987b).
In their previous study Narayanan and Darwish (1987) were not able to locate the
influence of the fibres on the behaviour of prestressed concrete beams under
predominant shear loading. The studies reported in this paper are aimed at
investigating the combined (beneficial) influence of fibre reinforcement and pre
stressing.Theresultsof36sheartestsonprestressedconcretebeams,containingsteel
fibres as web reinforcement are presented and discussed. One analytical method of
predictingtheshearcapacityofprestressedconcretebeamsisdevelopedtoincludethe
effectoffibreincorporation(Table4.1).

Paper27,Vooetal.(2003).
This study reports the results of testing seven prestressed beams failing in shear.
Thebeamswerecastusing150170MPasteelfibrereinforcedreactivepowderconcrete
and were designed to assess the ability of steel fibre reinforced reactive powder
concrete to carry shear stresses in thin webbed prestressed beams without shear
reinforcement.Theauthors,comparingthe crack patterns ofspecimens, observedthat
the quantity and the types of fibres in the concrete mix did not significantly affect the
initial shear cracking load but, increasing the volume of fibres, the failure load is
increased.Moreoverthetestswerealsoanalyzedusingfiniteelementmodellingandthe
variableengagementconstitutivemodel(VEM).

Paper28,Pauwetal(2008).
Inthisexperimentalprogramthebehaviourofprecastpretensionedconcretebeams
made withsteelfibre concrete andwithoutordinaryshearreinforcementis compared
with the behaviour of a standard beam made with concrete without fibres but with
stirrups as shear reinforcement. Furthermore a beam made of plain concrete without
shear reinforcement is tested to investigate the effect of the shear reinforcement. The

55


beamswereloadedtofailureinathreepointbendingtest.Theresultsshowedthatthe
beamsmadewiththesteelfibreconcretecanresistshearforcesaswellasthestandard
beam with the stirrups. Four Ishaped beams with a total length of 10.9 m were
manufactured.Thispaperisreallyinterestingbecauseitreportsbothtestresultsonthe
small scale tests and on the full scale beams; the former provide the value on the
compression strength and the equivalent and flexural strength coming from both the
4PBT(accordingtotheBelgianstandardNBNB15238)andthe3PBT(accordingtothe
RILEMmethod);the latter,onthe otherhand,givethe most importantloadvaluesfor
eachbeamsliketheloadatfirstbendingcrack,theloadatfirstshearcrack,theloadat
finalmanualmeasurementandthefailureload.Thevalueof678 = 9:; /!7 isnotdirectly
explicitinthetextbutitisdeducedbyavaluethatcomesfromothercalculation;9:; is
the axial force in the crosssection due to loading or prestressing [in N] (9:; > 0 for
compression)and!7 istheareaoftheconcretecrosssection[mm2].

Paper29,Kwaketal(2004).
Twelvereinforcedconcretebeamsweretestedtofailuretoevaluatetheinfluenceof
fibrevolume fraction, a/d and concrete compressive strength on beam strength and
ductility. The beams denoted by the letters FHB (fibrereinforced, higherstrength
concretebeams)wereconstructedwithconcretehavingacompressivestrengthnear65
MPawhiletheonedenotedbyFNB2hadanaveragecompressivestrengthof31MPa.No
stirrupswereincludedintheshearspan,onlybehindthesupportsinordertopreclude
thepossibilityofanchoragefailureofthelongitudinalbars.
Theauthorsresultsdemonstratedthatthenominalstressatshearcrackingandthe
ultimateshearstrengthincreasedwithincreasingconcretecompressivestrength,fibre
volume,anddecreasingshearspandepthratio.Moreovertheresultsof139testsofFRC
beamswithoutstirrupswereusedtoevaluateexistingandproposedempiricalequation
for estimating shear strength (Table 4.1). The evaluation indicated that the equation
developed by Narayanan and Darwish and the equation proposed herein provided the
mostaccurateestimatesofshearstrength.

Paper30,Kearsleyetal(2004).
The authors of this paper investigated the effect of stainless steel fibres by casting
ninedifferentseriesofbeams.
Three beams in each series were cast, resulting in a total of 27 beams. Out of nine
series, one series was done in plain concrete without any shear reinforcement, three
series were with fibre reinforcement and five series were with both fibre and
conventional shear reinforcement. To evaluate the effect of the fibres, the equivalent
flexuraltensilestrengthoftheSFRconcretewasdeterminedapplyingloadincontrolof
displacementon150x150x750beamsinfourpointbendingtest(clearspanequalto
600mm).
The test values confirm that the stainless steel cast fibres are significantly less
effectiveinprovidingpostcrackedconcretestrengththandrawwirefibres.
FromTable4.1itcanbeobservedthatthecontributionoffibrestotheultimateshear
strength depends essentially on the volume fraction of the fibres, on their geometric
characteristicsandonthefibrematrixinterfacialbondthatdeterminestheresistanceto
fibrepullout.

56


4.3 ClassificationoftheSpecimensBasedon
theMainProperties

4.3.1 TestMethods&PostCrackingParameters
Fibres have no effect on the precracking mechanical material properties of plain
concrete unlessthe fibre dosageexceedsaround 80kg/m3 (~1%). The design ofhigh
performance composites (Vf >1 %) is not covered in this thesis although some tests
incorporatefibresupto2%(volumepercentage).Inthiswaythematerialpropertiesof
uncracked SFRC can be estimated by treating it as plain concrete (e.g. applying the
formulasgiveninEurocode2).ThematerialpropertiesofSFRCintensionarediscussed
below.
TheaxialtensilestrengthandtheflexuralstrengthofSFRCwithasofteningbehaviour
do not change from the ones of plain concrete. The differences between PC (plain
concrete)andSFRC(steelfibrereinforcedconcrete)arisebeyondthesetwostrengths.It
followsthatthe axial strengthandthe flexuralstrengthofSFRCaredeterminedinthe
samewayofthePCusing,forexample,theformulaproposedbytheEC2:
fctk(0.05) 0.21 fck2 3 (Eq.4.13)

fctm 0.3 fck2 3 C50/60

f (Eq.4.14)
fctm 2.12 ln(1 cm C50/60
10
where -7FG(H.HI) is the lower characteristic tensile strength of concrete, -7FJ is the
mean tensile strength of concrete and -7G is the characteristic cylinder strength in
compression. The true tensile strength of concrete can be determined in direct or
indirect(splitting)tests(seeSection2.3).
TheflexuralstrengthofSFRCiscalculatedfromthefailureloadinastandardbeam
tests,makingtheusualassumptionthatthestressdistributionislinearoverthedepthof
the section. The assumption of a linear stress distribution is reasonable up to first
crackingbutnotatthepeakload,whichcorrespondstotheflexuralstrength.Eurocode
2definestheflexuralstrengthofconcreteintermsofthetensilestrengthasfollow:
h
fctk,fl max 1.6 fctk(0.05) ; fctk(0.05) (Eq.4.15)
1000
h
fctm,fl max 1.6 fctm ; fctm (Eq.4.16)
1000
where -7FG,KL is the lower characteristic flexural strength, -7FJ,KL is the mean flexural
strength,histhesectiondepthinmmand-7FJ isthemeanvalueofaxialtensilestrength
(M )
ofconcretecalculatedlike-7FJ = 0,30-7G 3 C50/60.
SpecifictestsforthequalificationoftheSFRCmaterialductilityare:
beam tests for determining the residual flexural strength and, in some
tests,ameasureoftoughness,asalreadyintroducedinSection2.3;
plate tests for determining the toughness in terms of energy absorption

57


capacityandformorerealisticmodelsthebiaxialbendingthatcanoccurin
someapplications(theyarenotdealinthisthesis).
The results from these two kinds of test are not directly comparable in terms of
specifyingductility.Designersshouldbecarefulnottospecifydemandingrequirements
thatmaynotbedirectlyrelevanttoaparticulardesign.Normally,theresidualstrength
is required where the concrete characteristics are used in a structural design model,
whereas the energy absorption is required in more relevant situations such as rock
bolting in conjunction with shotcrete, i.e. where energy has to be absorbed during
deformationunderserviceconditions.
TheresidualflexuralstrengthofSFRCaftercrackingdependsonthefibretype,fibre
dosage and concrete strength. It is determined experimentally since it cannot be
calculatedreliablyintermsofthepropertiesoftheplainconcretematrixandthesteel
fibres. Standard test methods are available to determine the residual strength in
bending and tension as its toughness. Standard flexural test procedures have been
proposed by several organisations including RILEM, the Japanese Concrete Institute
(JCI),ASTM,theGermanCommitteeforStructuralConcrete(DAfStB),theEFNARC(the
EuropeanFederationofProducersandApplicatorsofSpecialistProductsforStructures)
andtheItalianNationalResearchCouncil(CNR)
Theoretically, uniaxial tension tests are preferable to beam tests since they can be
usedtocharacterisethestresscrackopening(w)responseofSFRC,whichisneeded
inadvanceddesign methods.Commonly,inpractice,beamtests arepreferredbecause
they are simpler to execute than tension tests and simulate the conditions in many
practicalapplications.Forthisreasonthemajorityoftheformulasconcerningthepost
cracking behaviour of SFRC are based on the parameters that can be determined
throughout the beamstests.Hereinonlythe test methodsproposedby DAfStB,RILEM
and CNR are presented, because they are necessary to perform calculations using
AlternativesII,IIIandIV(seeSections3.2,3.3and3.4)whichcorrespondrespectivelyto
their proposed formula for the evaluation of the shear capacity in SFRC beam without
shearreinforcement.
1) GermanCommitteeforStructuralConcrete(DAfStB)
The identification of the parameters necessary to characterize the postcracking
softeningbehaviourofSFRmixisdescribedintheDAfStBGuidelinesproposedin2011
(Section9.Baustoffe,DAfStB,2011b).Thecharacterizationisdeterminedthroughfour
pointbendingtest.Thetestspecimenisaconcretebeamof150x150mmcrosssection
with a fixed clear span of 600 mm and a total length of 700 mm (see Figure 4.3). The
beamisunnotchedandthedistancebetweenthetwoloadsisequaltoonethirdofthe
clearspan.

Figure4.3Positionoftheloadandsupportsofthebeamspecimen(DAfStB,2011).

58


During the test, the load at predefined displacements, different from the SLS
(identifiedbytheabbreviationL1)andtheULS(L2),arerecordedforeachspecimen.On
theloadmidspandeflectiongraph(Figure4.4)theloadatthedisplacementof0.5mm
(F0.5)andtheloadatthedisplacementof3.5mm(F3.5)arereadoutfortheSLSandthe
ULS,respectively.

Figure4.4Loaddeflectiondiagram(DAfStb).

K
Toobtainthetensilestrengthoftheconcrete(-7FS,T )requestedintheEq.3.19forthe
evaluationoftheshearcapacitythefollowingprocedureshastobedone:
plottheloaddeflectiongraphforthentestedspecimens(n6);
readoutthevalueofF3.5fromeachgraph;
K
calculate-7KLJ,UM usingthefollowingformula

1 n F l
f
fcflm,L2 3.5,i 2 (Eq.4.17)
n i 1 bi hi

wherelistheclearspanofthebeam,bisthewidthofthebeam,histhedepthofthe
beamandnisthenumberofspecimens;
K
calculate-7KLG,UM
f
e
Lf f
ks Ls 0.51 f f
fcflk,L2 cflm,L2
cflm,L2

where:
f
Lfcflm,L2
1
ln fcfl,L2,i
n
f

F l
f
fcfl,L2,i 3.5,i 2
bi hi

Lfcflm,L2 ln fcfl,L2,i
2
f f

Ls
n1
VW isthestandarddeviationfromTable4.2;

59


Table4.2Valuesofksbasedonthenumberoftests(DAfStb).

K
withthevalueof-7KLG,XY3.I,UM determineL2astheclosestvalueoftheones
K
standingonTable4(Figure)andtakethecorrespondentvalueof-7FH,T ;

Figure4.5TableforthecharacterizationoftheSFRCmix(DAfStb).

K
determine-7FS,T withthefollowingformula
f
fctR,u Ff Gf fct0,u
f

0.5forwalls
Ff
1forslabs b 5h
Gf 1.0 Actf 0.5 1.70
Actf 0.9 Ac

whereZ[K isthefactortotakeintoconsiderationthedimensionofthetest,Z\K isthe

factor to take into consideration the fibre orientation and!K7F is the area between two
cracks.

60


2) The International Union of Laboratories and Experts in Construction

Materials,SystemsandStructures(RILEM,fromthenameinFrench).
This test method evaluates the tensile behaviour of steel fibrereinforced concrete
eitherintermsofareasundertheloaddeflectioncurveorbytheloadbearingcapacity
atacertaindeflectionorcrackmouthopeningdisplacement(CMOD)obtainedbytesting
asimplysupportednotchedbeamunderthreepointloading(Figure4.6).

Figure4.6Positionoftheloadandsupportsofthebeamspecimen(RILEM2002b).

Thisstandardisnotintendedtobeappliedinthecaseofshotcrete.Thistestmethod
canbeusedforthedeterminationof:(i)thelimitofproportionality(LOP),i.e.thestress
which corresponds to the point on the loaddeflection or loadcrack mouth opening
displacement (CMOD) curve (U (that is equal to the highest value of the load in the
interval (] or CMOD) of 0.05 mm)(see Figure 4.7); (ii) two equivalent flexural tensile
strengths (-^_,` and -^_,5) which identify the material behaviour up to the selected
deflection; (iii) four residual flexural tensile strengths which identify the material
behaviour at selected deflections or CMODs. In the final RILEM Recommendations TC
162TDF(2003)theequivalentflexuraltensilestrength-^_,3 isreplacedbytheresidual
flexuraltensilestrength-S,5;duethischangeitmightbenecessarytoadjustthedesign
formulas:therelationbetween-^_,3 and-S,5 fortheSFRCsusedwithintheBrite/Euram
projectwasfoundtobe-S,5 = 0.87-^_,3 butinacasethatthebranchinthepostcracked
regionisnearlyonthesamelevel,thevaluefor-^_,3 and-S,5 willbeapproximatelythe
same, while in case of a great decrease in the postcracked branch the ratio -S,5 /-^_,3
maybelowerthan0.87.Soitisproposedtoreplace-^_,3 by-S,5 withoutadjustingthe
designformula(i.e.-^_,3 =-S,5).

Figure4.7LoadCMODdiagram(RILEM,2003b).

61


Thetestspecimenisaconcretebeamof150x150mmcrosssectionwithaminimum
lengthof550mm;moreoverthebeamisnotchedusingwetsawingandthenotchisnot
larger than 5 mm and the beam has an unnotched depth c8 of 125 mm 1 mm. The
clearspanlengthofthethreepointloadingtestis500mm(Figure4.8).
The residual flexural tensile strengths -S,` and -S,5 , respectively, are defined at the
followingcrackmouthopeningdisplacement(CMODi)ormidspandeflections(]S,e):
CMOD1=0.5mm ]S,` = 0.46mm
CMOD2=3.5mm ]S,M = 3.00mm
and, assuming a linear stress distribution among the cross section, can be
determinedbymeansofthefollowingexpression:
3 FR,i L
fR,i (Eq.4.18)
2 b hsp
2

where:
g = widthofthespecimen[mm]
c8 = distancebetweentipofthenotchandtopofcrosssection[mm](oftencalled
ligament)
y = spanofthespecimen[mm]
The relation between characteristic and mean residual flexural tensile strength,
accordingtoEC2incaseoflackoftestsfordevelopingstatisticvalues,is:
ffctk,fl 0.7 ffctm,fl

Hardened SFRC is classified using two parameters that are determined from the
residualflexuralstrengths-S,` and-S,5 .ThefirstparameterFL0.5 isgivenbythevalueof
fR,1 reducedtothenearestmultipleof0.5MPa,andcanvarybetween1and6MPa.The
secondparameterFL3.5isgivenbythevalueoffR,4 reducedtothenearestmultipleof0.5
MPa, and can vary between 0 and 4 MPa. These two parameters denote the minimum
guaranteed characteristic residual strengths at CMOD values of 0.5 and 3.5 mm,
respectively. The residual strength class is represented as FL (yH.I (y3.I , with the
correspondingvaluesofthetwoparameters.Forexample,aSFRCwithacharacteristic
cylindercompressivestrengthof30MPa,-S,` = 2.2MPaand-S,5 = 1.5MPawouldhave
(yH.I = 2.0MPa,(y3.I = 1.5MPaandwillbeclassifiedasC30/37FL2.0/1.5.

Figure4.8Arrangementofdisplacementmonitoringgaugesandspecimendimensions
(RILEM,2003b).

62


Figure4.9Detailofthenotch(RILEM,2003).

TheRILEMbeamtesthasalmostbeenincorporatedtotallyintoEN14651.
3) ItalianNationalResearchCouncil(CNR)
For the Italian National Research Council (CNRDT204/2006) the identification of
the constitutive parametersofsofteningbehaviourmaterialthroughbendingtests can
bedonewithalinearelasticmodelorwitharigidplasticmodel.
Thelinearelasticmodelidentifiestworeferencevalues,-[Fc and-[FT ,concerningSLS
andULSbehaviour,respectively.Theyhavetobedefinedthroughequivalentvaluesof
flexuralstrengthusingthefollowingequations:
fFts =0.45 feq1 (Eq.4.19)

w
fFtu =k fFts u fFts 0.5 feq2 0.2 feq1 0 (Eq.4.20)
wi2
Where:
-^_` isthepostcrackingequivalentstrengthusefulforSLS;
-^_M isthepostcrackingequivalentstrengthusefulforULS;
V is a coefficient equal to 0.7 for cross section fully subjected to tensile stresses and
equalto1inothercases;
~eM isthemeanvalueofthecrackopeningattheendpointsoftheintervalwhere-^_M is
evaluated(seeFigure4.10(b)).

Figure4.10TensileStrengthdeterminedthroughbendingtestinsofteningmaterials
(CNRDT204,2006).

Equations4.17and4.18arestillvalidwhenthelocalvalues-` and-M ,areconsidered

instead of the average values, under the condition that ~eM is assumed equal to the
largestvalueoftheconsideredinterval(CTOD2,Figure4.10(a)).Theseequationsmaybe

63


deduced through simple equilibrium considerations concerning rectangular section

under bending, corresponding to the critical section of the tested specimen assuming
(forcrackopeningvaluestypicalofserviceabilityconditions~ 0.6mm)thefollowing
assumptions:
planesectionsremainplaneafterbending;
elastoplastictensilebehaviour(withmaximumvalueequalto-[Fc ;Figure
4.10(b));
linearelasticcompressivebehaviour(Figure4.11(a)).

Figure4.11Stressdiagramsforthedeterminationofthetensilestrength(CNRDT204,
2006).

TheEquation 4.17is obtainedconsideringa linearconstitutive lawbetween points

withabscissawi1andwi2,uptothepointwithabscissa~T (Figure4.10(b)).
Therigidplasticmodelidentifiesauniquereferencevalue,-[FT ,basedontheultimate
behaviourthatisdeterminedas:
feq2
fFtu (Eq.4.21)
3
Equation 4.19 is obtained from the equilibrium as in the previous case (with
referencetoULS).
InaccordancetothestandardUNI11188andusingthesymbolofthestandardUNI
11039itisassumed:

64


Table 4.3 Four point bending test on notched and unnotched specimens with the
parametersinvolved(CNRDT204/2006).

Fornotchedspecimen Forunnotchedspecimen

-^_`G = -^_(HH.) -^_`G = -^_(HH.) = -`F[G
evaluatedintheinterval0 ~ 0.6mm evaluatedintheinterval3~ ~ 5~
-^_MG = -^_(H.3.H) -^_MG = -^_(H.3.H) = -[F[G
evaluatedintheinterval evaluatedintheinterval
0.6 ~ 3.5mm 0.8~T ~ 1.2~T
Inordertoconsiderthenotch,thevalueof where~ isthecrackopeningcalculatedat
thetensilestrengthmaybeassumed: crackingatthemaximumrecordedloadin
-[F = 0.9-7F the interval 0 ~ 0.1mm and
~T = 3mm

For structures subjected to bending with section depth less than 150 mm (or for
hardening bending behaviour) it is better to carry out the identification process of
materialpropertiesbytakingintoaccountthecastingdirectionandthesmallthickness
ofthestructurewithoutnotchingthespecimens.
AsshowninTable4.3,specimenscanhavedifferentdimensionsbutalwaysthesame
proportions; in order to obtain a more clear comparison between different specimens
geometries, experimental results from bending tests are reported in terms of nominal
stress definedaccordingtoalinearstressdistributionasreportedinEq.2.1.
Correlations between different test methods could significantly improve the
confidencelevelbetweentheresultsandperformanceclassification.Italsowouldhelpif
theresultsobtainedwithonespecifictestmethodcouldbeusedtodeduceparameters
needed for another design method (for another application). This would drastically
reducethenumberoftestsneededtoexplorespecificapplicationsforthematerial.The
resultspresentedintheliteratureshowthatthesecorrelationsexistanddependonthe
deflection/crackingload.

65


Table4.4ComparisonbetweenflexuraltestmethodsaccordingtoDAfStb,RILEMand
CNRrecommendations.

DAfStb RILEM CNRnotched CNRunnotched SCA

Typeofbending 4pointbending 3pointbending 4pointbending 4pointbending 4pointbending
(4PB) (3PB) (4PB) (4PB) (4PB)
Notchdepth[mm] 0 25 a 0 0
Spanlength[mm] 600 500 3l 3l 450
Beamlength[mm] 700 550 4l notspecified 500
Beamwidth[mm] 150 150 notspecified notspecified 125
Beamheight[mm] 150 150 h+a=l h 75
Netheight[mm] 150 125 h h 75
Slendernessl/h 3 3.33 3 3l/h 6

4.3.2 ModesofFailure
When beams are tested under a load up to the failure it is essential to record the
modeinwhichthebeamfailsobservingthecrackpathandpositionatfailure. Thetypes
andformationofcracksdependonboththespantodepthratioofthebeamandtheload.
Thesevariablesinfluencethemomentandshearalongthelengthofthebeam.Forasimply
supported beam under uniformly distributed load or concentrated load at the midspan,
withoutprestressing,threetypesofcracksareidentified(Amlanetal,2011):
Flexuralcracks:thesecracksarelocatednearthemidspan;theystartfrom
thebottomofthesectionandpropagateverticallyupwards.
Webshearcracks:thesecracksarelocatedneartheneutralaxisandclose
tothesupport,theypropagateinclinedtothebeamaxis.
Flexureshearcracks:thesecracksstartatthebottomofthebeamdueto
flexureandpropagateinclinedduetobothflexureandshear.
Beamswithlowspantodepthratioorinadequateshearreinforcementoftenpresenta
shearfailure.Afailureduetoshearissuddenifcomparedtoafailureduetoflexure,cracks
are more localized andmost of them are locatedabove andalong the inclined linejoining
thesupportwiththepointatwhichtheloadisapplied.Thefollowingfivemodesoffailure
duetoshearareidentified:
a) Diagonaltensionfailure:inthismode,aninclinedcrackpropagatesrapidly
duetoinadequateshearreinforcement;
b) Shear compression failure: there is crushing of the concrete near the
compressionflangeabovethetipoftheinclinedcrack;
c) Shear tension failure: due to inadequate anchorage of the longitudinal
bars,thediagonalcrackspropagatehorizontallyalongthebars;
d) Arch rib failure: for deep beams, the web may buckle and subsequently
crush.Therecanbeanchoragefailureorfailureofthebearing;
e) Webcrushingfailure:theconcreteinthewebcrushesowingtoinadequate
webthickness;
ThemodesareshownthroughsketchesinFigure4.12.

66


Figure4.12Modesoffailure:(a)diagonaltensionfailure,(b)shearcompressionfailure,
(c)sheartensionfailure,(d)archribfailureand(e)webcrushing failure(Amlanetal,
2011).

Theoccurrenceofamodeoffailuredependsonthespantodepthratio,loading,cross
section of the beam, amount and anchorage of reinforcement as well as the concrete
strength. The flexural failure, opposite to the shear one, is characterized by crack that
appearprogressively,allowingthebeamtoreachsignificantductility(Figure4.13)

Figure4.13Crackpatternsatflexuralultimatecondition(Chucchiaraetal.,2003)

4.3.3 StrengthofConcrete
ForthespecimensincludedinthedatabasetheSFRCspecifiedcompressivestrength
for standard cylinders, -7 , ranges from 12.3 to 171 MPa. 327 specimens have normal
specified compressive strength (less than 60 MPa), and the remaining 47 specimens
have high compressive strength -7 . The SFRC compressive strength for standard cube,

-7,7T^ ,rangesfrom14.8to187MPa.Thetensilestrengthobtainedfromsplittingtests
rangefrom1.87to10.9MPa
AlternativeII,IIIandIVsuggestthattheultimateshearcapacitypredictionsforsteel
fibrereinforcedconcrete(SFRC)beamscanbemadebasedonthepostcrackingtensile

67


strengthwhiletheAlternativeIrecommendstheuseoftensilestrengthobtainedusing
splitcylindertests.
Table4.5Rangesoftheconcretepropertiesfromthedatabase.

Min Max
, [N/mm2] 12.3 171
, [N/mm2] 14,8 187
[N/mm2] 1.87 10.9
[N/mm2] 18700 26300

4.3.4 Fibres&VolumePercentage
Thesixdifferenttypesofsteelfibresthatwereusedinthetestarehooked,crimped,
round,cut wire,stainless andduoform. Steelfibre tensilestrengthinmost ofthe tests
wasgreaterthan1100MPa.Thefibrevolumefractionsrangedfrom0.20to3.00%(per
unitvolumeofcuredSFRC).Theratiooffibrelengthtofibrediameter,Lf/Df,variesfrom
37to133andthefibrelengthsrangesbetween13and60mm.
Table4.6Rangesofthefibrepropertiesfromthedatabase.

Min Max
[mm] 0.20 1.05
[mm] 13 60
37 133
[%] 0.20 3
[GPa] 210 231

4.3.5 LongitudinalReinforcement
The longitudinal reinforcement ratio flex ranges from 0.80 to 9.4 %, depending on
thecrosssectionofthebeam(Table4.7).
Table4.7Rangesofthelongitudinalreinforcementfromthedatabase.

Min Max
[%] 0.80 9.4
[%] 0.13 3.7
[GPa] 200 235

4.3.6 SpecimenDimensions
Thebeamwidthsrangedfrom50to300mmandtheeffectivedepthsrangedfrom80
to810mm.Thebeamclearspansrangedfrom274to10300mm.Thespandepthratio
(a/d)rangedfrom0.81to6(Table4.8).

68


Table 4.8 Ranges of the geometrical properties of the specimens collected in the
database.

Min Max
0.81 6
[mm] 100 900
[mm] 50 230
[mm] 80 810
[mm] 50 300
[mm] 140 1000
[mm] 274 10300
[mm] 455 10900

4.3.7 OtherProperties
OtherpropertiesstandinTable4.9.
Table4.9Furtherpropertiesofthespecimensincludedinthedatabase.

Min Max
0.19 0.70
Agetest [] 7 60
Maxaggr.size[] 6.30 20
[] 30.9 1081
[/ ] 0.14 19,9

69


4.4 DataProcessing

Beforethebeginningofthecalculations,thedatabasehastobecleanedupfromthe
specimensthatfordifferentreasonsdonotfulfilthefollowingrequests:
Thematerialshavetobeclassifiedwiththecompressivestrength(either
cubesorcylinder),thefibrevolumeandthefibreaspectratioK K .
Thecrosssectionsofthebeamshavealwaystobereportedinthearticles.
The beams must not contain stirrups or other shear reinforcement
differentthanthefibresalongthespan.
Themodeoffailuremustbeinshear.
Particularlyattentionshouldbepaidtothelaststatement:theaimofthethesisisto
investigatetheshearbehaviouroftheSFRCbeamsbutthefailureofabeamcandepend
upon other phenomena, like the flexural failure, not directly related to the shear.
Normallythefailure modechangesfromthesheartotheflexureattheincreaseofthe
fibre percentage. Omitting those beams that do not have the characteristics stated
above,thenumberofspecimensbecomes573insteadof370.
Notallthebeamscontainedinthereduceddatabasearesuitabletodeveloptheback
analysis; this because only some articles (see Figure 4.14 Group 1) contain both RC
beamsandtherespectiveSFRCbeams.
Atthemomentoftheevaluationoftheshearstrengthaccordingtothefourformulas
reported in Chapter 3, it can easily be noted that, while the Narayanan and Darwishs
formulacanbeimmediatelyappliedtoallthosebeamscontainedinthedatabase,many
of the papers are not reporting the main parameters that are needed for using the
DAfStBformulaaswellastheRILEMoneandtheCNRone.Theparameteromittedfrom
all the articles (with the exception of article 14 for the RILEM formula) is the residual
flexuraltensilestrengths)estimatedaccordingtothedifferenttestssetupasshownin
Section4.3.1.
Thedirectcompressiontestonconcreteiswellestablishedandstandardizedandis
found by casting either cubes or cylinders and testing them in direct compression.
Unfortunatelyitisnotthesameregardingthepostcrackingcharacteristics.Thislackis
evident if we think that among a selection of about one hundred articles only five
characterize the specimens according, at least, to one of the standards explained in
Section4.3.1andamongtheseonlyoneissuitablefortheshearinvestigationcarriedout
inthisthesis.Thisscarcenessofdatachangeswhatwasthefirstaimofthethesis,i.e.a
comparisonbetweenshearstrengthcomingfromtheapplicationofdifferentformulas,
addingonemorepieceofwork:trytogetthemissingvalueusinganewrelationbased
ontheavailabledata.

70


Figure4.14Divisionofthedatabaseinthreedifferentgroupstosatisfytheanalysis
developedinthisSection.

In this section,in ordertoobtain the missingparameters,a backanalysis hasbeen

developed.Fromthebackanalysisitisexpectedtoobtainarelationabletodescribethe
postcracking behaviour, or, at least, an estimation of the residual flexural tensile
strength, necessary to use the Alternatives II, III and IV and to estimate the shear
capacityofSFRCbeam.

TheBackAnalysis
TheparamountconceptonwhichthebackanalysisisbasedisthattheSFRChasthe
samesafetyfactorasthecorrespondingRCbeam;thesafetyfactor^8 FFistheratio
between ^8 , the shear force experienced during the test, and FF, the shear force
calculatedbytheformula.Thepriorstatementaboutthesafetyfactormeanstoassume
that beams designed, performed and tested in the same laboratory and by the same
authorsareaffectedmainlybythesamevariables.Moreoverallthethreeformulashave

71


thepurposetobefeasibleevenincaseofRCwithoutanyaddictionofsteelfibres.This
factreinforcesthepreviousassumptionasitisnormaltothinkthataformulahasbeen
constructedinordertohaveasafetymargin^8 FF almostconstantallinteriorofits
domainofvalidity.Furthermorethisseemstobetheonlypossiblestartingpointofthe
analysisrelatedtothedatabasepossessedwhile,withadatabasewithmorearticlesthat
report the residual flexural tensile strengths, a direct linear regression on these could
alsohavebeenagoodalternative.
TobetterunderstandtheprocessthathasbeenusedlookatFigure4.15.
Oncethattheshearforce,underwhichthebeamfailed,isknown(fromtherunofthe
test)andthesafetyfactorisfixedforallthethreeformulas:

0.15 f f f b h

VRd,FDafStb f k 100l ffck 0.15 cp c ctR,uf w bw d
1/3

ct
ct

0.18


VRd,FRILEM f k 100l ffck 0.15 cp kf kl 0.12 fRk,4 bw d
1/3

ct

(Eq.4.22)
0.18
1

f 3
VRd,FCNR k 100 1 1 7.5 Ftuk f
ck 0.15 cp bw d

fctk
c
K
theonlyunknownsremainrespectively-7FS,T ,-SG,5and-[FTG .
Applying the following inverse formulas the unknowns can be obtained for each
specimen:
VRd,FDafStb 0.15 ctf
f k 100l ffck 0.15 cp
1/3
f
fctR,u
ct bw h c
f
bw d

VRd,F 0.18 1
f k 100l ffck 0.15 cp
1/3
fRk,4 RILEM

k k 0.12
bw d ct f l

f 1 VRd,FCNR c
3
fFtuk ctk 1
7.5 100 l fck 0.18 k bw d

TheyarefortheDafStB,RILEMandCNRalternative,respectively.
The process is depicted in Figure 4.15; once that all the residual flexural tensile
strengths have been calculated there is the need to find the parameters that influence
thepostcrackingbehaviourandthatwillbeincludedlikevariablesoftheformulation.
The variables that seem to affect mostly the shear capacity and the postcracking
behaviourare:

Theratioindexdefinedas = K thatincludesthe effectsofthefibre

percentageandtheiraspectratio;itisexpressedinpercentage.
Thecylindricalcompressivestrengthoftheconcrete-7 usedtomakethe
beamtests.
TheratioindexRIisusedasvariablealongthexaxiswhilethecompressivestrength
-7 is used to obtain a nondimensional factor; the nondimensional factor, that varies
alongtheyaxis,isdefinedas-^c -7 where-^c istheresidualflexuraltensilestrength

72


at the defined displacement. It is good to remind that the process herein explained is
done three times and that each time, according to the Guidelines considered, the
,
,
nondimensionalfactor isspecifically , and forDafStB,RILEMandCNR

Guidelines,respectively.
On the defined graph all the SFRC beams are included that come from the same
article;doingaregressionanalysisonthebunchoftestsitispossibletogettwodifferent
lines:
= + g that defines a line with an intercept equal to b; for
convenience this kindof lines are identified with the uppercase letter I
(Intercept).
= thatdefinesalinewithaninterceptequalto0,crossingtheorigin
oftheCartesianplane;forconveniencethiskindoflinesareidentifiedwith
theuppercaseletterO(Origin).
Requiring the passage ofthe linethroughthe origin ofthe Cartesian planeleadsto
lines with a higher slope m than the line of I type and, moreover, farther from the
realistic valuethatthespecimens show (especiallyforhigh valuesof RI).Anyway,this
lineisnecessaryforconnectingtheIlinetotheorigin:itiseasytounderstandthatthe
formula, in case of absence of fibre added in the mix (RI = 0 because Vf = 0), have to
satisfytheboundaryconditionwiththeRCbeams.LookingattheEquations4.22,thisis
possible only by establishing a relation that for RI = 0 returns to a residual flexural
tensilestrengthvalueequalto0.TheprocessisexplainedinFigure4.15.

73


Figure4.15Descriptionoftheprocessfollowedforthecreationofacleanbundleof
lines.

Everyarticlewillhavesixequations,threeoftheItypeand3oftheOtype,twofor
every code. As first check the formulas obtained are applied back on the specimens
whichtheycome from like ina design process(DafStB=1.25and RILEM =CNR =1.50).
Obviously the results are on the safe side with values of Vexp/Vtot almost all the time
higherthan1(thankstotheapplicationofthesafetycoefficient).
Plottingalltheequationsobtainedonthesamegraph,oneforeachcode,dividingthe
Ilines fromthe Olines,we obtain the graphs depictedin Figure 4.17,Figure 4.18 and
Figure4.19.

74


Figure4.16Developmentofthebundleoflines.

75


Figure4.17GraphsoftheDafStBCode.Thefirstthreegraphsareobtainedbythe
processdescribedinFigure4.15whilethebottomrightgraphcomesfromtheprocess
depictedinFigure4.20.

Analyzing Figure 4.17 it seems that there is a light dependence on the cylindrical
compressive strength fc (as expected) beingmost of all the lines placed in descending
orderoffcfromthebottomtothetop.Fromthegraphswecanimmediatelynoticethat
articles A07 and A26 are practically horizontal, articles A19 and A28 have a negative
slopeandthatarticlesA02,A14,A13andA15arepositionedfarfromthebundleoflines
thatisdelimitedfromarticlesA23andA11.Figure4.16showstheprocessfollowedto
obtainthebundleoflines.
LookingattheIlines,Figure4.17,thesearetheconclusions:
A02cannotbeincluded,thecausecouldbethepresenceofstirrupsalong
halfofthespanofthebeams;
A14 presents a wide range of beam characteristics (like the longitudinal
reinforcement KL^ that ranges from 1,15 to 3,56) for this reason it is
dividedinsubpopulationswithsimilarKL^ ;howeverthenewequations
arenotcontainedinthebundleoflinesandtheyaredeleted.Thisarticleis
handled more in detail in Section 4.4 The Check because it is the only
one,amongallthearticles,thatcontainsthevaluesoftheresidualflexural
tensilestrengthaccordingtoRILEMCode.
A13 and A15 contain only two beams, this could be the reason why the
linearregressiondoesnotgivesatisfactoryresults,withequationsthatgo
outofthebundlesoflines;nothingcanbedonemorethanexcludetheseto
articles.

76


A19 has a negative slope m that is not a realistic value; in fact the shear
strengthissupposedtoimproveattheincreasingoftheRIoratleastupto
thelimitvalue.
A08andA16aredividedinsubpopulationsaccordingtothecompressive
strengthoftheirbeams;theequationsobtainedaresatisfactory.
A26 needs to be divided in subpopulations because its beams differ to
much in cross section and flexural reinforcement KL^ ; only one of three
equationshasbeenincludedinthebundleoflines.
A28asA19havenegativeslopeandonlytwobeamsthatdonotpermitthe
creationofanysubpopulations.
NoanalysisandreasoningcanbedoneonthesecondgraphDafStBO(Figure4.17
toprightcorner)morethandeletingtherespectivelyOlinesoftheonesdeletedinthe
graphDafStBI.

77


Figure4.18GraphsoftheRILEMCode.Thefirstthreegraphsareobtainedbythe
processdescribedinFigure4.15whilethebottomrightgraphcomesfromtheprocess
depictedinFigure4.20.

TheanalysisfortheRILEMbundleoflines(seeFigure4.18)reachesthesameresults
oftheDafStBone:withthesamedeletedarticlesandthesamesubdivisions.Theonly
differenceisthatA16isnotdividedinsubpopulationsbecauseequationsstandoutof
the bundle (by the way also this subdivision shows to be under the influence of the
compressivestrengthfc).
This similarity on the behaviour might be attributed at the similarities in the
structureofthetwoformulas(DafStBandRILEM)thataddthecontributionofthefibres
at the shear strength of members not requiring the design of the shear reinforcement
(accordingtoEC2,Equation6.2.a).

78


Figure4.19GraphsoftheCNRCode.Thefirstthreegraphsareobtainedbytheprocess
describedinFigure4.15whilethebottomrightgraphcomesfromtheprocessdepicted
inFigure4.20.

The graph CNRI looks different than the previous graphs (see Figure 4.19); this
might be because the formula is slightly different and the contribution of the fibres is
taken into account modifying the equation for the shear strength of members not
requiringthedesignoftheshearreinforcement(EC2,Eq.6.2.a).
The graphs CNRI and CNRO show fewer differences between themselves
comparedtotheothergraphs(DafStBIvsDafStBOandRILEMIvsRILEMO)
probablyduetothestructureoftheformula(Eq.4.22).
Anywaythearticlesthatgiveproblemsstandingoutofthedelineatedbundleoflines
are always the same; this is comfortable because it means that those articles for
different reason (like the test setup or because outside the domain investigated), are
notsuitableforthisinvestigationthroughthedifferentCodes.
For CNR the articles A13, A14 and A15 make an exception being included for the
calculationoftheaverageequationline(Aaverage).
Consideration: The dislocation of the lines within the bundle has been investigated
according to the compressive strength fc, the a/d ratio and the longitudinal
reinforcementKL^ buttheydonotlookaffectedbythesequantitiesexceptthatforthe
fc;mostofallthelinesareplacedindescendingorderoffcfromthebottomtothetop
especiallyintheDafStBandRILEMgraphs.
Now that the bundles are defined from these it is useful to get a unique equation
named Aaverage; it is obtained by the weighted average on the number of beams from
whicheveryequationcomefrom.

79


Anotherinvestigationthatcanbedevelopedistheoneonthecloudofpoints.Inthe
cloudofpointsitislessinterestingtoconsiderfromwhicharticlethebeamscomefrom.
During this step the criteria for deleting specimens from the cloud (and get new
equationfromthelinearregressiononthewholebatchoftests)were:
fres>fres,lim;
fres<0;
boththeaforementionedcriteriaatthesametime.
TheprocessisschematizedinFigure4.20;fromthisfourformulasareobtained:(1)
Equation B from the whole cloud of points; (2) Equation C from the cloud of points
withoutthespecimensthathaveacomputedresidualflexuralstrengthhigherthanthe
limit value (according to the different codes); (3) Equation D from the cloud of points
without the specimens that have a computed residual flexural strength less than zero
and(4)EquationEfromthe cloudofpointswithout the specimenspreviouslydeleted
fortheEquationCandD.

Figure4.20Processfollowedfortheanalysisofthecloudofpoints.

Now we have five equations, four (B, C, D and E) plus one (A) from the weighted
average among the bundle of lines, for each of the three alternatives; their values are
showninTable4.10.

80


EquationsAEhavebeendrawninFigure4.17,Figure4.18andFigure4.19(bottom
rightcorner)thedifferencesamongthemarefewbutnotnegligible
Table4.10EquationsA,B,C,DandEfortheDafStB,RILEMandCNR'sGuidelines.

DafStB RILEM CNR

m b m b m b
A I 0,010 0,852 0,045 2,610 0,038 0,795
(averagelines) O 0,021 0,000 0,078 0,000 0,044 0,000
B I 0,006 1,279 0,029 4,537 0,027 2,194
(cloudpoints) O 0,019 0,000 0,073 0,000 0,048 0,000
C I 0,003 1,026 0,016 3,434 0,023 1,636
(<f ct0,u) O 0,014 0,000 0,054 0,000 0,039 0,000
D I 0,005 1,393 0,026 4,933 0,025 2,400
(>0) O 0,019 0,000 0,074 0,000 0,048 0,000
E I 0,004 1,288 0,013 3,795 0,022 1,800
O 0,016 0,000 0,055 0,000 0,039 0,000

After the previous statements and considerations it is clear that the shape of the
equation that will describe the postcracking behaviour of a SFRC material will be a
straightlinewiththreebranchesastheonedrawninFigure4.21:
(a) thefirstbranchistheOlinethatlinkitspointofintersectionwiththe
Ilinetotheorigin;
(b) thesecondbranchistheIline:
(c) the third branch is an horizontal line that represents the upper limit
thatcannotbeovercame.

f res / f c min m0 RI ; m RI b ; f res,lim / f c

' '

Figure4.21Idealshapeoftheresearchedequationforthecharacterizationofthepost
crackingbehaviourofaSFRCbeam.Itconsistinthreebranches:(a),(b)and(c).

Withregardtothefirstbranch(a)somefurtherexplanationsarenecessary.Itshould
bebuiltonlywiththespecimenscontainedinitsrangeofvalidity(about0< RI50);
oneattemptinthiswayshowsthatnotallthearticlescontaintestinthisrangeandthat
eventheonesthathavethetests,giveaslopeofthe linesalmostclosetotheonethat
comes from the inverse analysis on the whole batch of specimens (that is the one
performed,finally).

81


Multiplying the nondimensional factor for the cylindrical compressive strength -7

theequationvariesasshowninFigure4.22.

f res min m0 RI f c ; m RI b f c ; f res,lim

' '

Figure4.22Developmentoftheresearchedequationforthedifferentcylindrical
compressivestrength-/ .

82


TheCheck
BeforeapplyingtheformulasbackonGroup3andGroup1itissuitabletocheckthe
results and their goodness for the only article that presents the postcracking
characterization:A14(Table4.11).
Table4.11Valuesreportedinthearticle A14forthecharacterizationoftheconcrete
accordingtotheRILEMRecommendationsandevaluationofthevalueofV exp/Vtotdueto
themeasuredvalueof-4,5 .

f Rk,4 <4MPa

f eq,3f Rk,4 V* f <4 V* f /f '

beam V exp /V* Rk,4 V exp /V* Rk,4 c
MPa MPa kN MPa kN (%)

1.2/1 0,00 0,00 95,91 1,89 0,00 95,91 1,89 0,00

1.2/1 0,00 0,00 95,91 1,89 0,00 95,91 1,89 0,00
1.2/2 1,49 1,30 120,78 1,82 1,30 120,78 1,82 2,66
1.2/3 3,05 2,65 142,36 1,69 2,65 142,36 1,69 5,85
1.2/4 4,85 4,22 173,07 1,79 4,00 169,21 1,83 8,43
2.2/1 0,00 0,00 173,32 2,42 0,00 173,32 2,42 0,00
2.2/1 0,00 0,00 173,32 2,42 0,00 173,32 2,42 0,00
2.2/2 1,91 1,66 241,58 2,32 1,66 241,58 2,32 3,89
2.2/3 5,60 4,87 371,31 1,62 4,00 335,74 1,79 11,65
2.3/1 0,00 0,00 99,78 1,57 0,00 99,78 1,57 0,00
2.3/1 0,00 0,00 99,78 1,57 0,00 99,78 1,57 0,00
2.3/2 1,35 1,17 131,98 1,25 1,17 131,98 1,25 2,83
2.3/3 4,13 3,59 197,30 1,09 3,59 197,30 1,09 8,95
2.4/1 0,00 0,00 116,06 2,07 0,00 116,06 2,07 0,00
2.4/1 0,00 0,00 116,06 2,07 0,00 116,06 2,07 0,00
2.4/2 1,35 1,17 148,26 1,46 1,17 148,26 1,46 2,83
2.4/3 4,13 3,59 213,39 1,35 3,59 213,39 1,35 8,95
2.6/1 0,00 0,00 80,03 1,87 0,00 80,03 1,87 0,00
2.6/1 0,00 0,00 80,03 1,87 0,00 80,03 1,87 0,00
2.6/2 1,91 1,66 111,55 1,48 1,66 111,55 1,48 3,89
2.6/3 5,60 4,87 171,45 1,36 4,00 155,02 1,51 11,65
3.1/1 5,45 4,74 194,10 0,97 4,00 179,02 1,06 12,12
3.1/1F2 5,58 4,85 197,34 1,14 4,00 179,96 1,25 12,06
3.1/2 5,45 4,74 281,85 0,88 4,00 260,27 0,96 12,12
20*50 5,58 4,85 285,43 0,95 4,00 260,14 1,05 12,06
3.1/3 5,45 4,74 343,58 0,77 4,00 316,72 0,84 12,12
3.1/3F2 5,58 4,85 349,34 1,10 4,00 318,38 1,20 12,06
8*50 5,58 4,85 340,43 0,99 4,00 308,04 1,10 12,06
3.2/1 5,45 4,74 349,35 0,82 4,00 318,95 0,90 12,12
10*50F2 5,58 4,85 355,48 0,75 4,00 320,44 0,83 12,06
3.2/2 5,45 4,74 369,78 1,21 4,00 336,18 1,33 12,12
15*50F2 5,58 4,85 376,40 0,73 4,00 337,68 0,82 12,06
23*50F2 5,58 4,85 392,27 1,09 4,00 350,75 1,22 12,06
3.2/3 5,45 4,74 385,27 1,13 4,00 349,25 1,25 12,12
3.2/4 5,45 4,74 385,27 1,07 4,00 349,25 1,18 12,12
Average 1,36 Average 1,41

AsitispossibletoseeinTable4.12thevaluesarequitedifferentandtheequivalent
flexural strengths reported into the article (recognizable by the star *) are rather

83


biggerthantheonecalculatedwiththefivedifferentformulas(AE)developedforthe
RILEMCode.
Actually the reported values were the equivalent flexural tensile strength -^_,3
(accordingtothefirstdraftoftheRILEMCode)thattheauthorsofthepapertuneinto
the residual flexural tensile strength -SG,5 (from the last draft) with the relation
-SG,5 = 0.87-^_,3.
Eventhroughthisreductionthecomputedvaluesaretoofarfromthetestvaluesand
thisfactcanbeattributedtothefactthatatthebeginningofthebackanalysisasafety
factorfortheSFRCbeamswasimposedequaltotherespectivelyRCbeamsandalmost

ofallofthelatterhadasafetyfactor = 2.


Itisworthnothingthat
hasanaveragevalueequalto1.41usingalimitforthe
valueof-SG,5(asimposedbytheRILEMRecommendation(2003)-SG,5 < 4)orequalto
1.36usingthevaluefoundbythetests(Table4.11).

84


Table4.12ComparisonbetweenthevaluesreportedinthearticleA14andthevalues
estimatedbyusingtheformulasobtainedfromthebackanalysis.

f* V f * V e/ V* fA f*f A V e/ V fB f*f B V e/ V fC f*f C V e/ V fD f*f D V e/ V fE f*f E V e/ V

MPa kN MPa kN MPa kN MPa kN MPa kN MPa kN

0,00 0 1,89 0,00 0,00 1,89 0,00 0,00 1,89 0,00 0,00 1,89 0,00 0,00 1,89 0,00 0,00 1,89
0,00 23 1,82 1,41 0,11 1,79 0,61 0,69 2,02 0,45 0,85 2,08 0,61 0,69 2,02 0,45 0,84 2,08
1,30 47 1,69 2,44 0,21 1,73 1,13 1,52 2,08 0,84 1,82 2,17 1,14 1,51 2,07 0,84 1,81 2,17
2,65 70 1,83 3,29 0,71 1,98 1,87 2,13 2,35 1,38 2,62 2,52 1,88 2,12 2,35 1,40 2,60 2,51
4,22 0 2,42 0,00 0,00 2,42 0,00 0,00 2,42 0,00 0,00 2,42 0,00 0,00 2,42 0,00 0,00 2,42
0,00 68 2,32 1,21 0,45 2,51 0,52 1,14 2,87 0,39 1,28 2,95 0,53 1,14 2,87 0,39 1,27 2,95
0,00 163 1,79 2,74 1,26 2,11 1,56 2,44 2,54 1,15 2,85 2,73 1,56 2,44 2,54 1,16 2,84 2,73
1,66 0 1,57 0,00 0,00 1,57 0,00 0,00 1,57 0,00 0,00 1,57 0,00 0,00 1,57 0,00 0,00 1,57
4,87 32 1,25 1,18 0,00 1,25 0,51 0,67 1,45 0,38 0,80 1,50 0,51 0,66 1,45 0,38 0,80 1,50
0,00 99 1,09 2,63 0,97 1,26 1,49 2,10 1,55 1,10 2,49 1,68 1,50 2,09 1,54 1,11 2,48 1,67
0,00 0 2,07 0,00 0,00 2,07 0,00 0,00 2,07 0,00 0,00 2,07 0,00 0,00 2,07 0,00 0,00 2,07
1,17 32 1,46 1,18 0,00 1,46 0,51 0,67 1,66 0,38 0,80 1,71 0,51 0,66 1,66 0,38 0,80 1,71
3,59 99 1,35 2,63 0,97 1,54 1,49 2,10 1,85 1,10 2,49 1,99 1,50 2,09 1,85 1,11 2,48 1,98
0,00 0 1,87 0,00 0,00 1,87 0,00 0,00 1,87 0,00 0,00 1,87 0,00 0,00 1,87 0,00 0,00 1,87
0,00 31 1,48 1,21 0,45 1,60 0,52 1,14 1,83 0,39 1,28 1,89 0,53 1,14 1,83 0,39 1,27 1,88
1,17 75 1,51 2,74 1,26 1,78 1,56 2,44 2,15 1,15 2,85 2,31 1,56 2,44 2,14 1,16 2,84 2,30
3,59 81 1,06 2,10 1,90 1,35 0,98 3,02 1,61 0,72 3,28 1,68 0,98 3,02 1,61 0,73 3,27 1,68
0,00 81 1,25 2,17 1,83 1,58 1,00 3,00 1,89 0,74 3,26 1,98 1,01 2,99 1,89 0,75 3,25 1,98
0,00 116 0,96 2,10 1,90 1,21 0,98 3,02 1,45 0,72 3,28 1,51 0,98 3,02 1,44 0,73 3,27 1,51
1,66 118 1,05 2,17 1,83 1,32 1,00 3,00 1,59 0,74 3,26 1,66 1,01 2,99 1,58 0,75 3,25 1,66
4,87 145 0,84 2,10 1,90 1,07 0,98 3,02 1,28 0,72 3,28 1,34 0,98 3,02 1,28 0,73 3,27 1,34
4,74 145 1,20 2,17 1,83 1,52 1,00 3,00 1,82 0,74 3,26 1,91 1,01 2,99 1,82 0,75 3,25 1,91
4,85 152 1,10 2,17 1,83 1,42 1,00 3,00 1,74 0,74 3,26 1,83 1,01 2,99 1,74 0,75 3,25 1,83
4,74 164 0,90 2,10 1,90 1,19 0,98 3,02 1,47 0,72 3,28 1,55 0,98 3,02 1,47 0,73 3,27 1,55
4,85 164 0,83 2,17 1,83 1,08 1,00 3,00 1,34 0,74 3,26 1,42 1,01 2,99 1,34 0,75 3,25 1,42
4,74 181 1,33 2,10 1,90 1,78 0,98 3,02 2,24 0,72 3,28 2,38 0,98 3,02 2,24 0,73 3,27 2,37
4,85 181 0,82 2,17 1,83 1,08 1,00 3,00 1,37 0,74 3,26 1,45 1,01 2,99 1,36 0,75 3,25 1,45
4,85 194 1,22 2,17 1,83 1,63 1,00 3,00 2,08 0,74 3,26 2,22 1,01 2,99 2,08 0,75 3,25 2,21
4,74 194 1,25 2,10 1,90 1,70 0,98 3,02 2,16 0,72 3,28 2,30 0,98 3,02 2,16 0,73 3,27 2,30
4,85 194 1,18 2,10 1,90 1,60 0,98 3,02 2,04 0,72 3,28 2,17 0,98 3,02 2,03 0,73 3,27 2,16
Average 1,41 1,08 1,61 1,97 1,87 2,20 1,96 1,97 1,87 2,19 1,96

Atthispointitisinterestingtotrytodoalmostthesameanalysisdonepreviouslyfor
theotherarticlesbutinthiscasethesafetyfactorVexp/VtotitsubstitutedbyVexp/V*that
is not affected by the one of the formula for members not requiring design shear
reinforcement in absence of fibres. Plotting the point on the graph (RI,-SG,5 /-7 ) and
getting the linear regression the results obtained are not satisfactory; this because RI
rangesbetween17and50%andbeingalimitedintervalthelinehasabigslopethatfor
values of RI = 100 % gives improbable high values (Figure 4.23). A logarithmic
regressionseemstofitbetterthebehaviourofthefRk,4attheincreasingratioindexRI.
TheequationhastobetranslatedonordertosatisfytherequestoffRk,4=0forRI=0(at
theargumentofthenaturallogarithmicisaddedthevalueofRIforwhichln(RI)=0
RI=9.2).Moreover,lookingattheshapeoftheequation(Figure4.25,(I)),oncethatthey
aremultipliedbythecylindricalcompressivestrength,forfc=30MPaandRI>50the
limit value is reached incurring into an overestimation of the fRk,4; for that reason the

85


formula has been tuned imposing a coefficient of reduction that has an inverse
proportionwiththe cylindricalcompressive strengthfc.Thecoefficientofreduction is
chosen fixing the coefficient of reduction for the fc = 20 MPa and fc = 90 MPa. Two
differentpossibilitiesareinvestigated:
20=0.80and90=0.35(Figure4.25,(II)).
20=0.70and90=0.35(Figure4.25,(III)).
Theformulaoftheequationis:
6.346 ln(RI 9,2) 14.126
fRk,4
100 f 'c (Eq.4.23)

Whereisthecoefficientofreductionasimposed(Table4.13).Itstrendisdepicted
inFigure4.24whileinFigure4.25(II)and(III)canbeseentheresultsoftheapplication
of.

Figure4.23AnalysisandregressiononthearticleA14.

Table 4.13 Values of the coefficient of reduction for the logarithmic formula at the
variationofthecylindricalcompressivestrength-/ .

f' c II III
0,8 20 0,80 0,70
0,35 25 0,77 0,68
30 0,74 0,65
35 0,70 0,63
0,006428571 40 0,67 0,60
0,928571429 45 0,64 0,58
50 0,61 0,55
55 0,58 0,53
60 0,54 0,50
70 0,48 0,45
80 0,41 0,40
90 0,35 0,35

86


Figure4.24Variationofthecoefficientofreductionaccordingtothetwodifferent
alternatives.

87


f Rk,4 min 6.346 ln RI 9.2 14.126

f 'c
100

; 4 20 1.0 & 90 1.0

(I)

f Rk,4 min 6.346 ln RI 9.2 14.126

f 'c
100

; 4 20 0.8 & 90 0.35

(II)

f Rk,4 min 6.346 ln RI 9.2 14.126

f 'c
100

; 4 20 0.7 & 90 0.35

(III)

Figure4.25Differentpossibilitiesatthevariationoftheimposedcoefficientofreduction.In
(I),wherethereisnoreductions,itcanbeseenthatforfc>30MPathelimitoffRk,4 =4MPais
reachedalreadyfor RI>50andthisisnotrealistic.(II)and(III)havebeenmodelledwithtwo
differentcoefficientsofreductioninordertoobtainamorerealisticshapeofthegraph.

88


As reported in Table 4.14 the two equations are able to decrease the difference
betweenthemeasuredvaluesandtheestimatedones.Theequationwithanintervalof
thecoefficientofreduction,thatrangesfrom0.80to0.35,hasabetterperformancewith
anaveragevalueofVexp/Vtotequalto1.52againstthevalueof1.41thatcomesfromthe
dataofthearticle.
Table4.14ComparisonbetweenthevaluesreportedinthearticleA14andthevalues
estimatedbyusingtheformulasobtainedfromthebackanalysisperformedonlyonthe
specimenscontainedinA14.

f* V f * V e/ V* f II f*f II V e/ V f III f*f III V e/ V

MPa kN MPa kN MPa kN

0,00 0 1,89 0,00 0,00 1,89 0,00 0,00 1,89
0,00 23 1,82 1,96 0,67 1,66 1,77 0,48 1,70
1,30 47 1,69 2,81 0,16 1,65 2,53 0,12 1,71
2,65 70 1,83 3,60 0,40 1,91 3,26 0,74 1,98
4,22 0 2,42 0,00 0,00 2,42 0,00 0,00 2,42
0,00 68 2,32 1,81 0,15 2,26 1,62 0,04 2,33
0,00 163 1,79 3,26 0,74 1,96 2,92 1,08 2,06
1,66 0 1,57 0,00 0,00 1,57 0,00 0,00 1,57
4,87 32 1,25 1,78 0,60 1,11 1,59 0,42 1,15
0,00 99 1,09 3,18 0,41 1,16 2,84 0,75 1,22
0,00 0 2,07 0,00 0,00 2,07 0,00 0,00 2,07
1,17 32 1,46 1,78 0,60 1,31 1,59 0,42 1,35
3,59 99 1,35 3,18 0,41 1,43 2,84 0,75 1,49
0,00 0 1,87 0,00 0,00 1,87 0,00 0,00 1,87
0,00 31 1,48 1,81 0,15 1,44 1,62 0,04 1,49
1,17 75 1,51 3,26 0,74 1,66 2,92 1,08 1,74
3,59 81 1,06 2,58 1,42 1,26 2,30 1,70 1,31
0,00 81 1,25 2,63 1,37 1,48 2,35 1,65 1,54
0,00 116 0,96 2,58 1,42 1,14 2,30 1,70 1,18
1,66 118 1,05 2,63 1,37 1,24 2,35 1,65 1,29
4,87 145 0,84 2,58 1,42 1,00 2,30 1,70 1,04
4,74 145 1,20 2,63 1,37 1,43 2,35 1,65 1,48
4,85 152 1,10 2,63 1,37 1,32 2,35 1,65 1,38
4,74 164 0,90 2,58 1,42 1,10 2,30 1,70 1,15
4,85 164 0,83 2,63 1,37 1,00 2,35 1,65 1,05
4,74 181 1,33 2,58 1,42 1,64 2,30 1,70 1,72
4,85 181 0,82 2,63 1,37 1,00 2,35 1,65 1,05
4,85 194 1,22 2,63 1,37 1,50 2,35 1,65 1,58
4,74 194 1,25 2,58 1,42 1,56 2,30 1,70 1,64
4,85 194 1,18 2,58 1,42 1,47 2,30 1,70 1,54
Average 1,41 0,66 1,52 0,89 1,57

FortheRILEMalternativetherearenowsevenequations,fivecomingfromtheback
analysis overall the articles and the data processing of the cloud of points and two
comingfromthebackanalysisofthearticleA14,only.Comparingtheformula,applying
them on the specimens of article A14, the most promising one is the logarithmic
equationswith20=0.80MPaand90=0.35MPabutafurtherstepisthecomparison
over the whole database. This is carried out in the Section The Choice of the Best
Formula.

89


TheChoiceofthe BestFormula
Forthechoiceofthebestformulaamongallthoseobtaineditisessentialtestiton:
Group3(whichcontainsallthearticlesthatdonotsatisfytherequestsand
cannotbeaddedinGroup1andGroup2);
Group1(becausealsosometestscontainedinthisarticleshavenotbeen
includedinthebackanalysis);
thewholedatabase.
With a first glance it is possible to individuate the articles for which the formulas
foundarenotsuitable(fortheDafStBthosespecimensthathasVexp/Vtothigherthan3.0
andlowerthan0.8areconsiderednotsuitablewhile,forRILEMandCNR;theoneswith
Vexp/Vtot higher than 2.5 and lower than 0.66). This diversification on the Vexp/Vtot is
done taking into account the security coefficient that should be applied in the design
stage,equalto1.25forDafStBandto1.5forRILEMandCNR.Pickingoutthesearticleit
isfeasibletodecreasetheaveragevalueofVexp/Vtotanditsstandarddeviationaswellas
puttingthefinishingtouchestothedomainofapplicationoftheformulas.
Before to get any statistical analysis these articles have to be deleted from the
database;thearticlesare:
A02duetothepresenceofstirrupsonhalfofthespan;
A13 gives too high safety factor owing to its a/d ratio equal to 2.5 and
perhaps because the prestressed reinforcement has much more
importancethantheflexuralone.
A14 has only two tests that do not perform well with the formula; this
becausetheyhaveaa/dratioequalto1.54.
A20confirmsthattheadditionoffibrescanimproveshearstrengtheven
indeepbeambutwhenthea/dratioisreducedtovalueminorthan1.60
theformulasdonotworkanymore.
A24 does not fit the formulas mainly for three specimens that has a a/d
ratiothatrangesfrom1.20to1.80moreoveritisworthnotingthatthose
beamshaveapercentageoffibreVfequalto1.76.
A27 shows a diffuse trend to minimize the shear strength that reactive
powderconcretecancarryobtainingvalueofVexp/Vtotalwayshigherthan
2.3; the compressive strength around 150170 MPa, more than the
presenceofprecompression,couldbethereasonoftheunderestimation
oftheresidualflexuraltensilestrength.
The CNR alternative, might due to its structure, seems to fit more articles without
givingvalueofVexp/VtottoohighandsotheonlyarticlesthatgiveproblemsareA02,A20
andA24.
Looking at DafStB, Table 4.15, it is possible to see that the equation that better
perform the value of Vexp/Vtot is Equation A with an average value of Vexp/Vtot equal to
1.95andastandarddeviationequalto0.59.EquationAistheequationobtained,inthe
previoussectionTheBackAnalysis,astheweightaverageofalltheparametersofthe
linesfoundonthesuitablearticles(Group1).TheequationisdrawninFigure4.26.

90


Table4.15ComparisonoftheaveragevaluesofthesafetyfactorVexp/Vtotandits
standarddeviationsamongthefivepossibleequationsfortheDafStBalternative.

DafStB
Eq.A Eq.B Eq.C Eq.D Eq.E
averagevalue 1,95 1,98 2,10 1,98 2,04
Wholedatabase
standarddeviation 0,59 0,60 0,63 0,60 0,62
averagevalue 1,92 1,95 2,08 1,95 2,01
Group1
standarddeviation 0,58 0,59 0,63 0,59 0,61
averagevalue 2,06 2,09 2,20 2,09 2,15
Group3
standarddeviation 0,56 0,57 0,58 0,57 0,58

f DafStB min m0 RI f c ; m RI b f c ; f res,lim
' '

Figure4.26EquationoftheDafStBalternativeforthedifferentcylindricalcompressive
strength.fc.

InTable4.16,fortheRILEMalternative,itcanbeseenthattheequationthatbetter
performthevalueofVexp/VtotisEquation(II)withanaveragevalueofVexp/Vtotequalto
1.451andastandarddeviationequalto0.45.Equation(II)istheequationobtainedin
theprevioussectionTheCheck(atpage83)thathasalogarithmicshapetranslatedin
theoriginandtunedwithacoefficientofreductionthatchangelinearlyfrom0.80to
0.35 for the cylindrical compressive strength equal to 20 and 90, respectively. Figure
4.27showstheplotoftheselectedequation.
Table4.16ComparisonoftheaveragevalueofthesafetyfactorVexp/Vtotandits
standarddeviationamongthesevenpossibleequationsfortheRILEMalternative.

RILEM
Eq.A Eq.B Eq.C Eq.D Eq.E Eq.(II) Eq.(III)
averagevalue 1,38 1,65 1,76 1,65 1,76 1,40 1,43
Wholedatabase
standarddeviation 0,44 0,49 0,52 0,49 0,52 0,42 0,43
averagevalue 1,34 1,63 1,75 1,63 1,75 1,39 1,43
Group1
standarddeviation 0,41 0,48 0,52 0,48 0,52 0,39 0,40
averagevalue 1,48 1,73 1,83 1,73 1,83 1,45 1,49
Group3
standarddeviation 0,45 0,48 0,49 0,48 0,49 0,45 0,45

91


f Rk,4 min 6.346 ln RI 9.2 14.126
f 'c
100

; 4 20 0.7 & 90 0.35

Figure4.27EquationoftheRILEMalternativeforthedifferentcylindricalcompressive
strength.fc.

For CNR alternative, as shown in Table 4.17 , the equation that better perform the
value of Vexp/Vtot is Equation D with an average value of Vexp/Vtot equal to 1.49 and a
standard deviation equal to 0.45. Equation D is the equation obtained in the previous
sectionTheBackAnalysis;this,astheDafStBone,isathreebrancheslinedefinedfrom
thecloudofpointsdeletingthoseteststhathavefFtuk<0(seeFigure4.20).Theequation
isdepictedinFigure4.28.
Table4.17ComparisonoftheaveragevaluesofthesafetyfactorVexp/Vtotandits
standarddeviationsamongthefivepossibleequationsfortheCNRalternative.

CNR
Eq.A Eq.B Eq.C Eq.D Eq.E
averagevalue 1,52 1,50 1,57 1,49 1,56
Wholedatabase
standarddeviation 0,46 0,45 0,47 0,45 0,46
averagevalue 1,50 1,48 1,56 1,48 1,55
Group1
standarddeviation 0,51 0,49 0,52 0,49 0,52
averagevalue 1,60 1,58 1,64 1,57 1,64
Group3
standarddeviation 0,43 0,43 0,44 0,43 0,44

92


f CNR min m0 RI f c ; m RI b f c ; f
' '
res,lim

Figure4.28EquationoftheCNRalternativeforthedifferentcylindricalcompressive
strength.fc.

NowthattheformulasforthedeterminationoftheDafStB,theRILEMandtheCNR
parametershavebeenchosenthecomparisonbetweenthetestdatafromliteratureand
thetheoreticalformulasofChapter3canbecarriedout.
For completing this analysis it is here finally reported the value of Vexp/Vtot for the
NarayananandDarwishsalternative;theperformanceoftheformulaonthedatabase,
excludingtheprestressedbeams,givesandaveragevalueofVexp/Vtotequalto1.58with
astandarddeviationequalto0.60.

93


4.5 ComparisonbetweentheTestDatafrom
LiteratureandtheTheoreticalFormulasof
Chapter3

Isitgoodtomakehereapreciseresumeoftheequationsthatwillbeusedtodevelop
thecomparisonbetweenthetestdataandthecalculatedones.
AlternativeI:Narayanan&Darwish(1987)(Section3.1)

FF = ! -c8K7 + + 0.41( g
AlternativeII:DafStB(2011)(Section3.2)
K
0.15 7K -7FS,T g
FF = V (100-7G )`/3 + 0.15678 g +
7FK 7FK
where
K
1.15 100 -7
-7FS,T = min 0.0186 ; 0.0097 + 0.8516;
-7 100
AlternativeIII:RILEM(2003)(Section3.3)
H.`
FF = V (100-7G )`/3 + 0.15678 + 0.12VK V` -SG,5 g

where

-SG,5 = min [6.346 ln( + 9.2) 14.126] `HH ; 4
AlternativeIV:CNR(2010)(Section3.4)
`/3
H.`
FF = V 100 1 + 7.5 -7G + 0.15678 g

where
`HH
-[FTG = min 0.0484 ; 0.0252 + 2.3997; `HH

NarayananandDarwishsformulacanbeappliedonlyonthearticlesthatcontainRC
orSFRCbeamsbutitisnotdesignedforelementsthathaveprecompression.Thesame
authorsproposedanotherformulaforprestressedSFRCbeams.
Since they contain pretension forces, the articles A01, A13, A26, A27 and A28 are
notinvestigatedforthisoption.
Narayanan and Darwishs equation on the database herein studied present an
averagevalueoftheVexp/Vtotequalto1.53andastandarddeviationof0.60.

94


4.5.1 Effectofa/dRatio

Figure4.29Graphsofthefouralternativesatthevariationoftheparameter:a/d.

AsdepictedinFigure4.29theNarayananandDarwishsalternativeshowsasensible
increasingofthe Vexp/Vtotforhighervalueof thea/dratio.DafStB,RILEMandCNRdo
notshowanyinfluenceofthisparameter.
Fromthesegraphsitispossibletofigureouthowthefourdifferentformulasspread
theVexp/Vtot factoralongtheverticalaxis;NarayananandDarwishsformulaistheone
that reaches the lowest values; DafStB is the alternative that has the larger range of
Vexp/VtotandthatreachesthehighestvalueofVexp/Vtot;RILEMonehasaquitecompact
distributionoftheVexp/VtotvaluesbutalotoftestsfallbelowthelineVexp/Vtot=1;finally
CNRalternativehasthemostofthetestswithVexp/Vtotbetween1and2,withthehighest
valuecloseto3andfewspecimenswithVexp/Vtotsmallerthan1.
Itisworthnotingthatallthevalueshereinreportedhavebeendevelopedwithallthe
safetyfactor=1andthat,differentlythantheotherones,DafStBinthedesignshould
have1.25insteadof1.50.Thinkingtobeonthedesignstage,theVexp/Vtot rangesshould
bealmostequalizedamongtheDafStB,theRILEMandtheCNRalternatives.

95


4.5.2 EffectoftheMaximumAggregateSize

Figure4.30Graphsofthefouralternativesatthevariationoftheparameter:maximum
aggregatesize[mm].

Many articles of the database miss the information about the maximum aggregate
sizeusedintotheconcretemix.Thesecannotbeincludedinthisanalysis.
NarayananandDarwishsgraphshowsascatterdiminutionoftheVexp/Vtotvaluesfor
highervaluesofthemaximumaggregatesize.
DafStB,RILEMandCNRgraphsdonotshowanytrend.

96


4.5.3 EffectofFibresPercentage

Figure4.31Graphsofthefouralternativesatthevariationoftheparameter:fibres
percentage[%].

TheVexp/Vtotratioseemstodecreaseattheincreasingofthefibrespercentage.
This trend is more visible in the Narayanan and Darwishs graph than in the other
three.MoreoveritcanbenotedthattheDafStB,theRILEMaswellastheCNRalternative
fortheteststhathavethevaluesofVfequalto1.001.502.002.50showadecreaseof
thecorrespondentvalueofVexp/Vtot,too.ThepointsstandingbetweenVf=0andVf=1.00
lookmoreuntidybutalwayswithafeelingofdescendingtrend;thisrange(Vf=01.00)
istheonemostlyinvestigated.

97


4.5.4 EffectofLongitudinalReinforcement

Figure4.32Graphsofthefouralternativesatthevariationoftheparameter:flexural
reinforcementflex[%].

From the graphs depicted in Figure 4.32 no trend can be drawn except that for
Narayanan andDarwishs.It hasa light growingtrendatthe increasingofthe flexural
reinforcement.

98


4.5.5 EffectoftheCylindricalCompressive
Strength

Figure4.33Graphsofthefouralternativesatthevariationoftheparameter:
cylindricalcompressivestrength[MPa].

AlsofromtheFigure4.33notrendcanbedrawn.
Itcanbeseenthatamong30articlesthemostinvestigatedconcreteistheonewitha
cylindricalcompressivestrengththatrangesbetween30MPaand60MPa.Amongthese
testsitispossibletonotehowmuchthevalueof Vexp/Vtotcanvaryandhowtheshear
behaviourisinfluencedforsurebyotherparameters.

99


4.5.6 EffectoftheRIandtheFibreFactorF

Figure4.34Graphsofthefouralternativesatthevariationoftheparameter:ratio
indexRI[%].

AllthefourgraphsreportedinFigure4.34showadependenceontheratioindexRI.
The trend is a decrease of the Vexp/Vtot ratio at the increase of RI. Narayanan and
Darwishsgraphshowsamoresharpinfluenceofthiseffect.Fortheotherthreegraphs
itmaybejustanopticaleffectduetotheconcentrationofthetestsintheleftpartofthe
graphs.
ThegraphslookdifferentthantheonesdrawninFigure4.31becausetheratioindex
includes also the aspect ratio of the fibres giving a more disperse cloud of points. The
mostcommonRIrangesfrom30%to80%.
In Figure 4.34 and Figure 4.31 check the behaviour of the formula in absence of
fibres.Infactfor = 0or = 0thevaluesoftheRCbeamsarereportedalongthey
axis.
It is worth noting that the Narayanan and Darwishs formula contains in itself the
fibrefactor F L / D f df thatitistheratioindexRIbutmultipliedfortheterm d f
thatisthebondfactorthataccountsfordifferentbondcharacteristicsofthefibre(with
values from 0.50 to 1.00). Fantilli et al. (2008) demonstrated how the different bond
characteristics of the fibre act only when the fibres are perfectly orthogonal to crack
surfaces; otherwise, in the case of fibres randomly inclined with respect to crack
surfaces, the effect of the kind of the end of the fibre is replaced by the socalled
frictionalsnubbingeffect.

100


In addition, since Vexp/Vtot decreases with increasing RI, Narayanan and Darwishs
formulaseemstoexaggeratetheRIinfluence.
ThisiswhyinthisthesistheratioindexRIhasbeenconsideredmorereliablethan
thefibrefactorF.

Figure4.35Graphsofthefouralternativesatthevariationoftheparameter:ratio
indexF.

However, since the fibre factor F is directly included into the Narayanan and
Darwishsformula,itisalsointerestingseethetrendatthevariationofF.Eveninthis
case, as depicted in Figure 4.35, Narayanan and Darwishs formula has a marked
decreasingtrendwhenthevalueofFincreaseswhiletheotherthreealternativeskeep
alwaysthesamesteadytrend.

101


4.5.7 EffectoftheEffectiveDepthd

Figure4.36Graphsofthefouralternativesatthevariationoftheparameter:effective
depthd[mm].

NotrendcanbedrawnfromthegraphsinFigure4.36.
It is worthnotingthat the majorityofthe tests have aneffectivedepththat ranges
from80mmupto250mm.

102


Get dependences and relations from the plotting of these graphs is hard and
complicated.
Anyway,somedifferencesamongthefourformulascanbeunderstood:
Narayanan and Darwishs formula looks to be more affected by the
variation of the parameters investigated; in fact it shows a slightly
dependence on the flexural reinforcement flex, on the a/d ratio, on the
maximumaggregatesize,ontheVfandtheratioindexRI.
On the contrary the other three alternatives are less affected by the
variationoftheinvestigatedparametersandthisisagoodqualitybecause
it means that the formula used is already able to catch the parameters
variationwithinitself.
DafStB,RILEMandCNRalternativesinmanygraphsseemtohavealmost
the same dislocation of the points but only tuned by a scale factor;
moreovertheyshowamoreuniformvaluesofVexp/Vtotatthevariationof
theparametersinvestigated.
Sincetheliteratureisfullofarticlesthatshowagoodagreementoftheir
proposedformula(performedonthesamebatchofspecimenstheycome
from)itisworthhighlightingthatthehereinproposedformulashavethe
samevaluesofVexp/Vtotbothforthedatatheycomefrom(Group1)aswell
astheGroup3,thatwasnotutilizedduringthebackanalysis.
Make a clear decision in the next chapter will not be feasible because all the
calculationshavebeenperformedwithapproximationrelatedtothepurposedformula
forthemissingvalues.
OntopofthattheNarayananandDarwishsformulaiscompletelydifferentthanthe
otherthreebecauseitdoesnottakecareofthepostcrackingbehaviouroftheconcrete
whiletheotherthreealternativesarerelatedtoit.

103


Chapter5

ConclusionandFuture

Perspectives

5.1 DiscussionoftheResults

Nowadays,fibrereinforcedconcreteisinitsfourthdecadeofdevelopmentandithas
establisheditselfasoneofthemajorbuildingmaterial;nevertheless,comparedwithits
high performances, it is still not widely used. One of its greatest qualities is the
improvementinshearcapacityandthepossibilityofthesubstitutionofthetransversal
reinforcement, earning, in this way, in terms of saving labour time and increasing
durabilityofthestructures.
In 1987 Narayanan and Darwish, after their studies, proposed a formula for the
evaluation of the shear strength of SFRC beam (Section 3.1) that it is still competitive
whencomparedwiththemostmodernformulaslikeDafStB(2011),RILEM(2003)and
CNR(2010).
Thisworkis focusedon howthe Narayanan andDarwishsformulastillgivesgood
results,evenifitisasemiempiricalformula,whencomparedwithotherformulasthat
arebasedonthepostcrackingcharacterizationoftheSFRconcrete.
Notwithstanding the effort done by the standardization bodies like DafStB, RILEM
andCNR, twoproblemsstillinfluencethe researchinthisfield.Firstly,the majorityof
theresearchersanddesignersareusedtoNarayananandDarwishsformulaforwhich
allthedataareeasilyavailable.Secondlythescientificcommunityhasnotyetproduced
such a number of tests that it permits a direct comparison between empirical
formulationandcodesbasedonthepostcrackingcharacterizationoftheconcrete.
The two problems are closely related since the Narayanan and Darwishs formula
gives, with less efforts, an average value of Vexp/Vtot not too far from the one that has

105


been found for the other three alternatives; this fact did not encourage the scientific
communitytodeeplyinvestigatetheothersformulas.
The second problem has been bypassed, in this thesis, using a back analysis for
estimatingtheresidualflexuraltensilestrengththatwasmissedinallthearticlesexcept
one.Theresultsofthisbackanalysisshowagoodagreementwiththetestsreportedin
thedatabase;anywaytheformulasthathavebeenfoundareonlyapalliativetoestimate
the residual flexural tensile strength in case of absence of the characterization of the
material according to one of the standards available in literature, it is worth to stress
thattheseformulasarenotadesigninstrumentsbutjustatoolheredevelopedtohave
thepossibilitytocomparethefouralternatives.
It is supposed that the major factor contributing to the differences and variation
betweentheestimatedandthemeasuredresidualflexuraltensilestrengthisrelatedto
theassumptiondoneatthebeginningofSection4.4aboutthesafetyfactorVexp/Vtot.
InparticularithasbeenassumedthattheSFRCbeamsshouldhavethesameVexp/Vtot
as the RC beams without fibres almost always tested as a comparison by the
researchers. It is well known that the formula for the shear strength of member not
requiringshearreinforcementhasadifferentbackgroundthanthepartaddedinalmost
allofthenewgenerationformulasforkeepingintoaccountthefibreeffect.Thisaspect
couldprobablyleadtohighervalueofVexp/Vtot.
ArticleA14,thatistheonlyonethatreportsboththepostcrackingcharacterization
and the shear tests, shows the real potential of those formulas that use the residual
flexuraltensilestrengthtoevaluatetheshearcapacity.

5.2 ProposaloftheBestAlternative.

With the inverse analysis it has been possible to determine a three linear
relationshipbetweenthefibreratioindexRIandtherelativeresidualstrengthfres/fcfor
theDafStBalternativeandtheCNRalternativewhilefortheRILEMalternativetherehas
been found a logarithmic relationship with an upper limit that is depicted as an
horizontal branch. The average value of Vexp/Vtot for the four formulas are reported in
Table5.1.
Table5.1AveragevaluesandstandarddeviationsofVexp/Vtotforthefouralternatives

N&D DafStB RILEM CNR

AveragevalueofVexp/Vtot 1.58 1.95 1.40 1.49
StandarddeviationofVexp/Vtot 0.60 0.59 0.42 0.45

Sincethecomparisonisaffectedbythe inverseanalysisitisdifficulttostatewhich
formulathatisthebest.However,furtherobservationscanbedoneanalysingthegraphs
performedinSection4.5:
TheNarayananandDarwishsformula,inmostofthesegraphs,showsthe
aptitudetochangetherangeofVexp/Vtotatthevariationoftheinvestigated
parameter. The other three alternatives do not show the same aptitude.

106


ThisisadrawbackoftheNarayananandDarwishsformulathatisnotable
to keep almost a constant range of the safety factor Vexp/Vtot when the
variables change; moreover, Narayanan and Darwishs formula has not
beendesignedforbeamwithprestressingforces.
RILEM and DafStB alternatives have a similar behaviour probably due to
thestructureoftheirformulasthataddthefibrecontributeasaseparate
addendum. RILEM has the lowest value of the average of Vexp/Vtot and
standarddeviationamongthefourinvestigatedequations;thetwovalues
are 1.40 and 0.42 respectively. DafStB, on the opposite, has the highest
valuesoftheseparameters(seeTable5.1).
CNRalternativehasthemostcompactrangeofVexp/Vtot(between1and2)
butanaveragevalueofVexp/Vtot(amongthedatabase)slightlyhigherthan
the RILEM one; the average value of Vexp/Vtot is equal to 1.49 with a
standarddeviationequalto0.45.
InconclusiontheadvantagesoftheNarayananandDarwishsformulaarethatthey
donotrequireanysophisticatedtestingequipmentbecauseitisenoughtoconsiderthe
measurementofthe concretecompressive strength.Moreover,even ifitdoesnottake
careofthepostcrackingbehaviourofthematerialneitheritstoughness,ithasshowna
goodaveragevalueofVexp/Vtot(1.58withastandarddeviationequalto0.60).
However, it seems that the RILEM and CNR alternatives have a high potential to
describe and estimate the shear capacity of SFRC beam; especially because they are
basedonthesamefundamentalsasthedesignofnormalreinforcedconcrete.Thisbelief
isalsosupportedbytheanalysiscarriedoutinSection4.4,wheretheaveragevalueof
Vexp/Vtot(thatcomesfromthemeasuredvaluesoftheresidualflexuraltensilestrength)
is equal to 1.41. In addition, since different mixes can have the same residual flexural
tensilestrength,theadvantageofdeterminingitisthatthisquantitycanbeviewedasan
intrinsic material property although it also (besides the concrete mix) depends on the
specimensize,fibrepercentageandkindoffibres;moreover,oncethatthematerialhas
been chosen and the mechanism behind the shear behaviour has been identified, the
designoptimizationtoachievethedesiredshearstrengthperformanceofthebeamcan
be realized by optimizing only the geometry. This is what already happens when we
workwithconcretewithguaranteedperformance.Thedesignershouldnotthinkabout
thematerialsthathavetobeincludedinthemixbuthemustindicatethematerial(and
itscompressivestrength)thatheusedinthedesignphase.
Anotheradvantageisthattheycanincludetheprestressingforcewhenitispresent.
Since the RILEM Recommendation set up the limit of 50/60 MPa for the compressive
strength of the concrete for which its formulation is still valid (as well as the DafStB
alternative does), the CNR covers a larger domain of concrete because it does not
establishanylimit;amongthethreenewgenerationformulasCNRalternativeseems
tobethemostreliable.

107


5.3 FuturePerspectives

Although the research literature on Steel Fibre Reinforced Concrete (SFRC) is

extensive,thereisstillneedoffurtherstudiesespeciallyforthosecodesthatrequirethe
postcracking characterization of the concrete. In fact, as aforementioned, there is a
strongneedofincreasingthenumberofteststhat,asarticleA14does,reportthepost
crackingproperties.Thesetestscouldbeusedtocarryoutamoreprecisecomparisonof
theformulasfortheevaluationoftheshearcapacity.
Inanycase,thereisstillroomforfurtherimprovementsregardingdesignrulesand
themainchallengesistotrytogetauniquetestsetupthatcanbeincludedinEC2.
If all the needs will be satisfied and a unique formula will be recognized by all the
research community and the normative bodies, it will be possible to cover the lack of
Eurocode 2 about the determination of the shear capacity of steel fibre reinforced
concreteelements.
Regardingthisthesis,thefutureworksthatcanbedevelopedare:
Check the validity of the suggested approach for the evaluation of the
residualflexuraltensilestrengthonawiderpopulationofbeamsthathave
theirowncharacterization(accordingtoSection4.3.1);
Developadesignsoftwareandtoolsthatpractisingengineercanuse.
Provide further developments towards standardization of the methods
DafStB,RILEMandCNR inorder thattheycan be usedindifferently,as a
naturalsteptodeterminematerialproperties.
Investigate highstrength fibre reinforced concrete beams subjected to
shear. Since highstrength concrete is a brittle material the addition of
fibreisagoodcompromisebetweenstrengthandductilitythatisworthto
befurtheranalyzed.
Extend the field of investigation/validity for the phenomenon of the
punchinginslabthat,aspointedoutbyDeHanaietal.inthepapershere
contained in Appendix B [A16] and by the DafStB Guideline too, can be
representedbythesamestrengthmechanismsastheshearinbeams.
Future studies should approach the recent Model Code 2010, too; it seems to be
successfulontheharmonizationofdifferentideasaboutthedesignprocedureforshear
andpunchinginRCaswellasSFRC.

108


References

ACI116(2000):CementandConcreteTerminology.ACICommittee116,Report116R00,
AmericanConcreteInstitute,Detroit,USA.
ACI 544 (1996): StateoftheArt Report on Fiber Reinforced Concrete. ACI Committee
544,Report544.1R96,AmericanConcreteInstitute,Detroit,USA.
Amlan, K. S. & Devdas, M. (2011): Analysis for Shear. [Online] Available at:
http://ddenptel.thapar.edu/courses/Webcoursecontents/IIT
MADRAS/Pre_Stre_Conc_Stru/pdfs/[Accessedon15June2011]
ASTMC101897:StandardTestMethodforFlexuralToughnessandFirstCrackStrength
of FiberReinforced Concrete (Using Beam With ThirdPoint Loading) (Withdrawn
2006).ASTMInternational,WestConshohocken,Pennsylvania,USA,1997.
ASTM C1609 C1609M10: Standard Test Method for Flexural Performance of Fiber
Reinforced Concrete (Using Beam With ThirdPoint Loading). ASTM International,
WestConshohocken,Pennsylvania,USA,2005.
Balaguru, P. N. & Shah, S.P. (1992): FiberReinforced Cement Composites. McGraw Hill,
NewYork,USA,pp.350.
Banthia, N. (2008): Fiber Reinforced Concreye [Online] Available at:
http://www.watancon.com/technical.htm[Accessedon25March2011].
Bentur, A., & Mindess, S. (1990): Fibre Reinforced Cementitious Composites. Elsevier
SciencePubl.Ltd.London,England,UK.
Brencich,A.(1992):"LeOriginidelCementoArmato:unabreverassegnastorica"DISEG
Dipartimento di Ingegneria Strutturale e Geotecnica Universit degli Studi di
Genova.(InItalian)
CEN (2004): EN 199211:2004 Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures Part 11:
GeneralRulesandRulesforBuildings.Brussels,Belgium,2004.
CEN (2006): EN 148891:2006 Fibres for Concrete Part 1: Steel Fibres Definitions,
SpecificationsandConformity.Brussels,Belgium.
CNR (2006): Guide for the Design and Construction of FiberReinforced Concrete
StructuresCNRDT204/2006.Rome,Italy,November2007.
CNR(2011):AboutCNR[Online]Availableat:http://www.cnr.it/sitocnr.html[Accessed
on5May2011].

109


DAfStb (2011a): the German Committee for Structural Concrete [Online] Available at:
http://www.dafstb.de/[Accessedon4May2011].
DAfStb guidelines (2011): DAfStbRichtlinie Stahlfaserbeton. Deutscher Ausschuss fr
StahlbetonDAfStb,Berlin,German.(InGerman)
DBV (2001): Deutscher Beton und BautechnikVerein E.V. DBV. Merkblatt
Stahlfaserbeton,FassungOktober,Berlin,German.(InGerman)
Di Prisco, M. (2007): FibreReinforced Concrete for Strong, Durable and CostSaving
StructuresandInfrastructures.StarrylinkEdition,Italy,170pp.
Dssland, .L. (2008): Fibre Reinforcement in Load Carrying Concrete Structures.
Doctoral Thesis, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim,
Norway.
EUROCODE 2 (1993): Design of Concrete Structures. European Committee for
StandardizationUNIENV199212,Brussels,Belgium.
EUROCODE 2 (2001): Design of Concrete structures. European Committee for
StandardizationUNIENV199212,Brussels,Belgium.
Fantilli, A.P., Mihashi,H. & Vallini, P. (2007): Effect of BondSlip on the Crack Bridging
Capacity of Steel Fibers in CementBased Composites. ASCE Journal of Materials in
CivilEngineering,Vol.20,No.9,September2008,pp.588598.
Fib Bulletin 55 (2010): Model Code 2010, First complete draft, Volume 1. Draft model
code,Lausanne,Swiss,pp.318.
FibBulletin57(2010):ShearandPunchingShearinRCandFRCelements.Workshop15
16October2010,Sal(Italy).
Giaccio, G., & Zerbino, R. (1998): Combined Effects of Coarse Aggregates and Strength
Level.AdvancedCementBasedMaterials,Volume7,No.2,pp.4148.
He,M.Y.& Hutchinson,J.W.(1989): Crack DeflectionatanInterfacebetweenDissimilar
ElasticMaterials.JournalofSolidsStructures,Volume25,No.9,pp.10531067.
IB39 (2009): Fibre Reinforced Concrete. Information Bulletin of Cement & Concrete
AssociationofNewZealand,Wellington,NewZealand,December2009,18pp.
JCI (2007): JCIS0032007. Method of Test for Bending MomentCurvature Curve of
FibreReinforced Cementitious Composites. [Online] Available at: http://www.jci
net.or.jp/e/guideline/index.html[Accessedon25March2011].
Kani, G.N.J. (1964): The Riddle of the Shear Failure and its Solution. ACI Journal,
Volume61,No.4,pp.441465.
Lawer, J.S., Wilhelm, T., Zampini, D. & Shah, S.P. (2003): Fracture Process of Hybrid
FiberReinforcedMortar.MaterialsandStructures,Volume36,No.3,pp.197208.
Li, V. C. (2002): Large Volume, HighPerformance Applications of Fibers in Civil
Engineering. Journal of Applied Polymer Science, Volume 83, No. 3, University of
Michigan,AnnArbor,Michigan,pp.660686.

110


Loehnert, S. & Belytschko, T. (2007): Crack Shielding and Amplification due to

Multiple Microcracks Interacting with a Macrocrack. International Journal of the
Fracture,Volume145,No.1,pp.18.
Lfgren,I.(2008):FibreReinforcedConcreteforIndustrialConstruction A Fracture
Mechanics Approach to Material Testing and Structural Analysis. Doctoral Thesis,
ChalmersUniversityofTechnology,DepartmentofCivilandEnvironmentalEngineering,
StructuralEngineering,Gteborg,Sweden.
Minelli, F (2005): Plain and Fiber Reinforced Concrete Beams under Shear Loading:
StructuralBehaviourandDesignAspects.DoctoralThesis,UniversityofBrescia,Brescia,
Italy,429pp.
Narayanan,R.&Darwish,I.Y.S.(1987):UseofSteelFibersasShearReinforcement.ACI
StructuralJournal,Volume84,No.3,Detroit,USA,pp.216227.
Narayanan,R.,&Darwish,I.Y.S.(1988):ShearinMortarBeamsContainingFibresand
FlyAsh.JournalStructuralEngineeringASCE.Volume114,No.1,pp.84102.
Nelson,P.K.,Li,V.C.&Kamada,T.(2002):FractureToughnessofMicrofiberReinforced
CementComposites.JournalsofMaterialsinCivilEngineering,Volume14,No.5,pp.384
391.
PCA (1994): Concrete Technology Today: HighStrength Concrete. Portland Concrete
Association.Skokie,Illinois,USA,Volume15,No.1,pp.8.
RILEM (2000): Test and Design Methods for Steel Fibre Reinforced Concrete:
DesignMethod,(ChairladyL.Vadewalle).MaterialsandStructures,Volume33,No.226,
pp.7581.
RILEM (2002): Bending Test Final Recommendation. RILEM TC 162TDF: Test and
DesignMethodsforSteelFibreReinforcedConcrete.MaterialsandStructures/Matriaux
etConstructions,Volume35,No.253,pp.579582.
RILEM (2003b): Design Method Final Recommedation. RILEM TC 162TDF:Test
and design methods for steel fibre reinforced concrete. Materials and
Structures/MatriauxetConstructions,Volume36,No.262,pp.560567.
RILEM (2011): About Rilem [Online] Available at:
http://www.rilem.net/gene/main.php?base=500178[Accessedon4May2011].
RILEM TC 162TDF (2002): Test and Design Methods for Steel Fibre Reinforced
ConcreteDesignofSteelFibreReinforcedConcreteUsingthewMethod:Principlesand
Application. Materials and Structures/Matriaux et Constructions, Volume 35, No. 249,
pp.262267.
Rilem TC 162TDF (2003): Test and Design Methods for Steel Fibre Reinforced
Concrete: Background and Experiences. Proceedings of the RILEM TC 162TDF
Workshop, eds. B. Schntgen and L. Vandewalle. PRO 31, RILEM Publications S.A.R.L.,
Bagneaux.
Romualdi, J.P & Batson, G.B. (1963): Mechanics of Crack Arrest in Concrete.
Proceeding, American Society of Civil Engineering, Journal, Engineering Mechanics
Division,Volume89,EM3,pp.147168.

111


Romualdi, J.P. & Mandel, J.A. (1964): Tensile Strength of Concrete Affected by
Uniformly Distributed and Closely Spaced Short Lengths of Wire Reinforcement. ACI
JournalProc,Volume61,No.6,Detroit,USA,1964,pp.657671.
SCA (1997): Steel Fibre Reinforced Concrete Recommendations for Design,
Construction and Testing. (Stlfiberbetong rekommendationer fr konstruktion,
utfrandeochprovning).ConcreteReportNo.4,2nd Edn,Stockholm,Sweden,1997.(in
Swedish)
Shah, S. P., Ouyang, C. & Swartz S. E. (1995): Fracture Mechanics of Concrete:
Applications of Fracture Mechanics to Concrete, Rock and other Brittle Materials. John
WileyandSons,NewYork,USA.
Silfwerbrand,J.,(2008):CodesforSFRCStructuresASwedishProposal.Proceedings,
fibSymposiumTaylor Made Concrete Structures,Amsterdam, TheNetherlands,May
1921,6pp.
Sivakumar, A. & Manu, S. (2007): Mechanical Properties of High Strength Concrete
ReinforcedwithMetallicandNonMetallicFibre.Cement&ConcreteComposites,Volume
29,pp.603608.
Sorelli, L. G., Meda, A.& Plizzari, G.A. (2005): Bending and Uniaxial Tensile Tests on
Concrete Reinforced with Hybrid Steel Fibers. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering
ASCE,Volume17,No.5,pp.519527.
Swamy,R.N.,Mangat,P.S.&Rao,C.V.S.K.(1974):TheMechanicsofFiberReinforced
in Cement Matrices. Fiber Reinforced Concrete, SP44, American Concrete Institute,
Detroit,USA,pp.128.
TasderiandKarihaloo,(2001):EffectofTypeandVolumeFractionofAggregateonthe
FracturePropertiesofConcrete.Borstetal.(eds),Swets&Zeitlinger,Lisse,Netherlands,
pp.123129.
Technical Report No. 63 (2007): Guidance for the Design of SteelFibreReinforced
Concrete.ReportofaConcreteSocietyWorkingGroup.Camberley,UK.
Tunnel (2011): SteelFibreReinforced Segmental Linings: StateoftheArt and
Completed Projects [Online] Available at: http://www.tunnel
online.info/en/artikel/tunnel_201101_Steelfibrereinforced_segmental_linings_State
oftheart_and_completed_1076896.html[Accessedon16May2011]
UNI 11039 (2003): Steel Fibre Reinforced Concrete Definitions, Classification and
Designation. UNICEMENTO Ente di Normazione dei Leganti Idraulici, Malte,
CalcestruzzieCementoArmato,Febbraio2003,pp.13.(InItalian)
vanMier,J.G.M.(1991):ModeIFractureofConcrete:DiscontinuousCrackGrowthand
CrackInterfaceGrainBridging.CementandConcreteResearch,Volume21,No.1,pp.1
15.
van Mier, J.G.M. (1997): Fracture Processes of Concrete. CRC Press, Boca Raton,
Florida.
Vrkoly,L.(2001):FatigueCrackTipClosureConcept(HistoricalReview,Methodsand
Equipment For Experimental Observation, Methods of Computer Modeling). Seria:

112


Mechanika z. 67, No. 269/2001, Departmentof MaterialEngineering, the University of

ilina,SlovakRepublic.
VDZ (2009): VDZ Activity Report 2007 2009. V Concrete Constituents, Concrete
Technology and Concrete Engineering. DeutscherC Zementwerke e.V.
ForschungsinstitutderZementindustrie.Dsseldorf,Germany,2009.
Zsutty, T. (1971): Shear Strength Prediction for Separate Categories of Simple Beam
Tests.ACIJournal,Volume68,No.2,Detroit,USA,pp.138143.

113


AppendixA

Thearticlesareherereportedwithacode(e.g.A01).Allthereferencesarereported
inAppendixB.
Thefollowinglegendshouldbeusedtoreadthedatabase.

A1

Beamsize
Specimens Fibres Concrete ShearForceat[kN]
Mix FlexuralReinforcement Crosssection

Ageattest
l Shea Ultimate

Kindofcross
Maximum
Modeof

aggregate
w/cratio
f ys f' c.

ssize
(days)

section
Article cp
flex h h f db w b f clear L d f l f V f f cu.28,m r shear kind failure

type
By average a/d SFtype l f /d f cyl,m
No. [N/mm ] (%) [MPa]
2 [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] span [mm] [mm] [mm] (%) [MPa] [MPa] force stress oftest S=Shear
[MPa] F=Flexure
[mm] [kN] [MPa]
A01 1TL1 0,40 28 14 4,31 530 2,00 I 300 52 265 55 295 3000 3500 0,00 3,98 36,8* 44,3 49,3 3,38 4PBT S
1TLF1 0,40 28 14 4,31 530 2,00 I 300 52 265 55 295 3000 3500 crimped 0,50 50 100 1,00 3,98 36,9* 44,5 80,3 5,51 4PBT S
1TL2 0,40 28 14 4,31 530 3,43 I 300 52 265 55 295 3000 3500 0,00 3,98 34,9* 42,0 19,0 1,30 4PBT S
2
LytagSandcubestrngth40/45N/mm

1TLF2 0,40 28 14 4,31 530 3,43 I 300 52 265 55 295 3000 3500 crimped 0,50 50 100 1,00 3,98 42,4* 51,1 59,0 4,05 4PBT S
1TL3 0,40 28 14 4,31 530 4,91 I 300 52 265 55 295 3000 3500 0,00 3,98 35,4* 42,6 17,5 1,20 4PBT S
1TLF3 0,40 28 14 4,31 530 4,91 I 300 52 265 55 295 3000 3500 crimped 0,50 50 100 1,00 3,98 37,4* 45,0 42,5 2,92 4PBT S
2TL1 0,40 28 14 2,76 530 2,00 I 300 52 265 55 295 3000 3500 0,00 3,98 37,8* 45,6 36,5 2,50 4PBT S
2TLF1 0,40 28 14 2,76 530 2,00 I 300 52 265 55 295 3000 3500 crimped 0,50 50 100 1,00 3,98 39,2* 47,2 71,9 4,93 4PBT S
2TL2 0,40 28 14 2,76 530 3,43 I 300 52 265 55 295 3000 3500 0,00 3,98 34,6* 41,7 17,8 1,22 4PBT S
2TLF2 0,40 28 14 2,76 530 3,43 I 300 52 265 55 295 3000 3500 crimped 0,50 50 100 1,00 3,98 34,4* 41,4 45,6 3,13 4PBT S
2TL3 0,40 28 14 2,76 530 4,91 I 300 52 265 55 295 3000 3500 0,00 3,98 37,4* 45,1 15,5 1,06 4PBT S
2TLF3 0,40 28 14 2,76 530 4,91 I 300 52 265 55 295 3000 3500 crimped 0,50 50 100 1,00 3,98 37,3* 44,9 42,8 2,94 4PBT SF
3TL1 0,40 28 14 1,55 530 2,00 I 300 52 265 55 295 3000 3500 0,00 3,98 38,8* 46,7 31,5 2,16 4PBT S
3TLF1 0,40 28 14 1,55 530 2,00 I 300 52 265 55 295 3000 3500 crimped 0,50 50 100 1,00 3,98 37,0* 44,6 67,8 4,65 4PBT SF
3TL2 0,40 28 14 1,55 530 3,43 I 300 52 265 55 295 3000 3500 0,00 3,98 34,0* 41,0 15,0 1,03 4PBT S
3TLF2 0,40 28 14 1,55 530 3,43 I 300 52 265 55 295 3000 3500 crimped 0,50 50 100 1,00 3,98 35,8* 43,1 41,5 2,85 4PBT F
3TL3 0,40 28 14 1,55 530 4,91 I 300 52 265 55 295 3000 3500 0,00 3,98 35,1* 42,3 15,1 1,04 4PBT S
3TLF3 0,40 28 14 1,55 530 4,91 I 300 52 265 55 295 3000 3500 crimped 0,50 50 100 1,00 3,98 33,7* 40,6 29,5 2,02 4PBT F
TF1 2,00 2,80 16503,27 61 duoform 93,8 2,13 4,98 37,9* 45,7 71,3
TF2 2,00 2,80 16492,45 43 duoform 63 2,25 4,98 41,3* 49,8 81,0
TF3 2,00 2,80 16550,93 14 duoform 63 0,75 4,98 54,9* 66,1 64,5
TF4 2,00 2,80 16521,23 28 duoform 63 1,50 4,98 44,9* 54,1 61,0
TF5 2,00 2,80 16507,11 57 duoform 63 3,00 4,98 43,6* 52,5 78,9
TF6 2,00 2,80 16500,15 55 duoform 80 2,25 4,98 35,3* 42,5 59,6
TF7 2,00 2,80 16485,79 64 duoform 93,8 2,25 4,98 35,1* 42,3 76,4
TF8 2,00 2,80 16054,42 35 duoform 80 1,50 4,98 43,3* 52,2 65,0
Gravel

TF9 2,00 2,80 16507,94 36 duoform 80 1,50 4,98 20,2* 24,3 55,0
TF10 2,00 2,80 16507,94 36 duoform 80 1,50 4,98 63,3* 76,3 69,5
TF11 2,00 2,80 23083,90 51 duoform 80 1,50 4,98 45,7* 55,0 93,8
TF12 2,00 2,80 9886,62 22 duoform 80 1,50 4,98 45,7* 55,0 55,4
TFL1 2,00 2,80 16009,07 35 duoform 80 1,50 4,98 50,7* 61,1 62,4
TFL2 2,00 2,80 18503,40 41 duoform 80 1,50 4,98 40,7* 49,0 81,4
TFL3 2,00 2,80 16099,77 7 duoform 80 0,30 4,98 40,8* 49,1 36,9
TFL4 2,00 2,80 16029,14 18 duoform 80 0,75 4,98 34,9* 42,1 45,0
TFL5 2,00 2,80 16002,42 27 duoform 80 1,13 4,98 43,8* 52,8 57,4
TFL6 2,00 2,80 15985,47 53 duoform 80 2,25 4,98 44,9* 54,1 60,6
1 2,00 2,80 76205,45 73 plain 62,5 1,00 4,15 40,3* 48,6 215,8
Grav
el

2 2,00 2,80 76209,15 117 plain 100 1,00 4,15 47,8* 57,6 191,4
A02 B180a 41MPa 10 2,70 3,43 R 455 381 152 2136 2440 0 0,00 42,8 51,6* #### 1,10 3PBT DT
B180b 41MPa 10 2,70 3,43 R 455 381 152 2136 2440 0 0,00 42,8 51,6* 99,11 1,10 3PBT DT
B181a 41MPa 10 2,00 3,43 R 455 381 152 2136 2440 hooked 0,55 30 55 0,75 44,8 54,0* #### 2,90 3PBT SC+ST
B181b 41MPa 10 2,00 3,43 R 455 381 152 2136 2440 hooked 0,55 30 55 0,75 44,8 54,0* #### 2,80 3PBT ST+DT
B182a 41MPa 10 2,00 3,50 R 381 152 2236 2440 hooked 0,55 30 55 1,00 38,1 45,9* #### 3,00 3PBT ST+DT

A2

Beamsize
Specimens Fibres Concrete ShearForceat[kN]
Mix FlexuralReinforcement Crosssection

Ageattest
l Shea Ultimate

Kindofcross
Maximum
Modeof

aggregate
w/cratio
f f' c.
flex ys

ssize
(days)

section
Article cp h h f db w b f clear L d f l f V f f cu.28,m r shear kind failure

type
By average a/d SFtype l f /d f cyl,m
No. [N/mm ] (%) [MPa]
2 [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] span [mm] [mm] [mm] (%) [MPa] [MPa] force stress oftest S=Shear
[MPa] F=Flexure
[mm] [kN] [MPa]
B182b 41MPa 10 2,00 3,50 R 381 152 2236 2440 hooked 0,55 30 55 1,00 38,1 45,9* #### 3,10 3PBT ST+DT
B182c 41MPa 10 2,70 3,50 R 381 152 2236 2440 hooked 0,55 30 55 1,00 38,1 45,9* #### 3,50 3PBT NA
B182d 41MPa 10 2,70 3,50 R 381 152 2236 2440 hooked 0,55 30 55 1,00 38,1 45,9* #### 2,60 3PBT NA
B183a 41MPa 10 2,70 3,43 R 381 152 2136 2440 hooked 0,55 30 55 1,50 31,0 37,3* #### 2,60 3PBT ST+DT
B183b 41MPa 10 2,70 3,43 R 381 152 2136 2440 hooked 0,55 30 55 1,50 31,0 37,3* #### 3,40 3PBT SC+ST
B183c 41MPa 10 2,70 3,43 R 381 152 2136 2440 hooked 0,55 30 55 1,50 44,9 54,1* #### 3,30 3PBT ST+DT
B183d 41MPa 10 2,70 3,43 R 381 152 2136 2440 hooked 0,55 30 55 1,50 44,9 54,1* #### 3,30 3PBT ST+DT
B185a 41MPa 10 2,70 3,43 R 610 152 2136 2440 hooked 0,75 60 80 1,00 49,2 59,3* #### 3,00 3PBT DT
B185b 41MPa 10 2,70 3,43 R 610 152 2136 2440 hooked 0,75 60 80 1,00 49,2 59,3* #### 3,80 3PBT ST+DT
B187a 41MPa 10 2,70 3,43 R 610 152 2136 2440 hooked 0,38 30 80 0,75 43,3 52,2* #### 3,30 3PBT ST+DT
B187b 41MPa 10 2,00 3,43 R 610 152 2136 2440 hooked 0,38 30 80 0,75 43,3 52,2* #### 3,30 3PBT ST+DT
B271a 41MPa 10 2,00 3,50 R 610 203 3558 4320 hooked 0,55 30 55 0,75 50,8 61,2* #### 2,90 3PBT ST+DT
B271b 41MPa 10 2,00 3,50 R 610 203 3558 4320 hooked 0,55 30 55 0,75 50,8 61,2* #### 2,70 3PBT DT
B272a 41MPa 10 2,00 3,50 R 610 203 3558 4320 hooked 0,75 60 80 0,75 28,7 34,6* #### 2,80 3PBT SC+ST
B272b 41MPa 10 2,00 3,50 R 610 203 3558 4320 hooked 0,75 60 80 0,75 28,7 34,6* #### 2,80 3PBT DT
B273a 41MPa 10 1,60 3,50 R 610 203 3558 4320 hooked 0,55 30 55 0,75 42,3 51,0* #### 2,70 3PBT F
B273b 41MPa 10 1,60 3,50 R 610 203 3558 4320 hooked 0,55 30 55 0,75 42,3 51,0* #### 2,80 3PBT SC+ST
B274a 41MPa 10 1,60 3,50 R 610 203 3558 4320 hooked 0,75 60 80 0,75 29,6 35,7* #### 2,10 3PBT ST+DT
B274b 41MPa 10 1,60 3,50 R 610 203 3558 4320 hooked 0,75 60 80 0,75 29,6 35,7* #### 1,80 3PBT ST+DT
B275 41MPa 10 2,10 3,50 R 610 203 3558 4320 hooked 0,55 30 55 1,50 44,4 53,5* #### 3,50 3PBT SC+ST
B276 41MPa 10 2,10 3,50 R 610 203 3558 4320 hooked 0,75 60 80 1,50 42,8 51,6* #### 3,40 3PBT ST+DT
B277 41MPa 10 1,60 3,50 R 610 203 3558 4320 hooked 0 0,00 37,0 44,6* #### 1,30 3PBT DT
B278 41MPa 10 1,60 3,50 R 610 203 3558 4320 stirrup 0 0,00 37,0 44,6* #### 1,80 3PBT DT
A03 B21.0L 0,25 10 0,37 470 2 R 250 215 125 1360 1680 30hooked 0,80 60 75 1,00 76,4* 92,0 90,2 1,68 4PBT
PortlandcementHighStrengthFiberReinforcedConcrete.

B41,0L 0,25 10 0,37 470 4 R 250 215 125 2220 2540 30hooked 0,80 60 75 1,00 76,9* 92,6 48,0 0,89 4PBT S
B61,0L 0,25 10 0,37 470 6 R 250 215 125 3080 3400 30hooked 0,80 60 75 1,00 77,8* 93,7 30,1 0,56 4PBT
B10,5A 0,25 10 2,84 470 1 R 250 215 125 930 1250 30hooked 0,80 60 75 0,50 82,2* 99,0 480,0 9,09 4PBT
B20,5A 0,25 10 2,84 470 2 R 250 215 125 1360 1680 30hooked 0,80 60 75 0,50 82,3* 99,1 265,0 4,82 4PBT
B40,5A 0,25 10 2,84 470 4 R 250 215 125 2220 2540 30hooked 0,80 60 75 0,50 79,2* 95,4 122,0 2,27 4PBT S
B60,5A 0,25 10 2,84 470 6 R 250 215 125 3080 3400 30hooked 0,80 60 75 0,50 79,5* 95,8 112,0 1,95 4PBT
B11,0A 0,25 10 2,84 470 1 R 250 215 125 930 1250 30hooked 0,80 60 75 1,00 79,1* 95,3 680,0 12,74 4PBT F
B21,0A 0,25 10 2,84 470 2 R 250 215 125 1360 1680 30hooked 0,80 60 75 1,00 79,1* 95,3 325,0 6,06 4PBT
B41,0A 0,25 10 2,84 470 4 R 250 215 125 2220 2540 30hooked 0,80 60 75 1,00 80,9* 97,5 172,0 3,17 4PBT S
B61,0A 0,25 10 2,84 470 6 R 250 215 125 3080 3400 30hooked 0,80 60 75 1,00 83,4* 100,5 103,0 1,96 4PBT F
B11,5A 0,25 10 2,84 470 1 R 250 215 125 930 1250 30hooked 0,80 60 75 1,50 80,0* 96,4 745,0 13,95 4PBT
B21,5A 0,25 10 2,84 470 2 R 250 215 125 1360 1680 30hooked 0,80 60 75 1,50 80,2* 96,6 385,0 7,21 4PBT
B41,5A 0,25 10 2,84 470 4 R 250 215 125 2220 2540 30hooked 0,80 60 75 1,50 80,6* 97,1 187,0 3,51 4PBT S
B61,5A 0,25 10 2,84 470 6 R 250 215 125 3080 3400 30hooked 0,80 60 75 1,50 84,1* 101,3 105,0 1,98 4PBT
B21,0M 0,25 10 4,58 470 2 R 250 215 125 1360 1680 30hooked 0,80 60 75 1,00 78,4* 94,5 360,0 6,73 4PBT S
B41,0M 0,25 10 4,58 470 4 R 250 215 125 2220 2540 30hooked 0,80 60 75 1,00 77,9* 93,8 208,0 3,88 4PBT S
B61,0M 0,25 10 4,58 470 6 R 250 215 125 3080 3400 30hooked 0,80 60 75 1,00 78,9* 95,0 156,0 2,93 4PBT F
A04 B3 4,40 R 0,22 33,6 40,5*
C2 4,20 R 0,22 33,6 40,5*

A3

Beamsize
Specimens Fibres Concrete ShearForceat[kN]
Mix FlexuralReinforcement Crosssection

Ageattest
l Shea Ultimate

Kindofcross
Maximum
Modeof

aggregate
w/cratio
f ys f' c.

ssize
(days)

section
Article cp
flex h h f db w b f clear L d f l f V f f cu.28,m r shear kind failure

type
By average a/d SFtype l f /d f cyl,m
No. [N/mm 2 ] (%) [Mpa] [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] span [mm] [mm] [mm] (%) [Mpa] [Mpa] force stress oftest S=Shear
[Mpa] F=Flexure
[mm] [kN] [MPa]
D2 4,30 R 0,22 33,6 40,5*
F1 4,00 R 0,44 40,2 48,4*
G3 4,40 R 0,22 33,2 40,0*
L1 4,00 R 0,22 33,2 40,0*
M1 4,60 R 0,22 33,2 40,0*
M3 4,40 R 0,22 33,2 40,0*
N1 5,00 R 0,22 33,2 40,0*
N2 4,80 R 0,22 33,2 40,0*
P2 4,20 R 0,44 40,2 48,4*
R1 3,20 R 0,88 39,7 47,8*
R2 3,40 R 0,88 39,7 47,8*
S3 3,40 R 0,88 39,7 47,8*
W1 1,20 R 1,76 39,8 47,9*
W2 1,20 R 1,76 39,8 47,9*
U1 2,80 R 1,76 39,8 47,9*
V2 1,80 R 1,76 39,8 47,9*
A1 2,37 R 152 203 2000 0,40 36,5 44,0* 115,6 S
A2 3,56 R 152 203 2000 0,40 36,5 44,0* 93,4 S
A3 4,74 R 152 203 2000 0,40 36,5 44,0* 81,8 S
B1 2,37 R 152 203 2000 0,80 37,2 44,9* 161,0 S
B2 3,56 R 152 203 2000 0,80 37,2 44,9* 106,8 S
B3 4,74 R 152 203 2000 0,80 37,2 44,9* 0,9 F
C1 2,37 R 152 203 2000 0,40 42,7 51,5* 1,7 S
C2 3,56 R 152 203 2000 0,40 42,7 51,5* 1,4 S
C3 4,74 R 152 203 2000 0,40 42,7 51,5* 1,2 S
D1 2,37 R 152 203 2000 0,80 40,0 48,2* 1,7 S
D2 3,56 R 152 203 2000 0,80 40,0 48,2* 1,4 S
D3 4,74 R 152 203 2000 0,80 40,0 48,2* 1,3 S
A05 1 0,43 R 0,00 0,2 0,3* 4PBT
2 0,46 R 2,50 0,4 0,5* 4PBT
3 0,47 R 2,00 0,4 0,5* 4PBT
4 0,46 R 1,40 0,4 0,5* 4PBT
A06 A 0,62 10 1,72 670 2,34 R 150 131 100 1080 1220 21,0 25,3* 22,09 3PBT S

Blackannealedsteelwire
B 0,62 10 1,72 670 2,34 R 150 131 100 1080 1220 0,46 46 100 1,50 1,52 27,8 33,5* 36,9 3PBT S
C 0,62 10 1,72 670 2,34 R 150 131 100 1080 1220 0,46 46 100 1,00 1,52 24,1 29,0* 33,0 3PBT S
Portlandcement

D 0,62 10 1,72 670 2,34 R 150 131 100 1080 1220 0,46 46 100 0,50 1,52 21,9 26,4* 29,8 3PBT S

(26SWG)
E 0,62 10 1,72 670 2,34 R 150 131 100 1080 1220 0,46 37 80 1,50 1,52 22,5 27,1* 34,8 3PBT S
F 0,62 10 1,72 670 2,34 R 150 131 100 1080 1220 0,46 37 80 1,00 1,52 23,0 27,7* 32,7 3PBT S
G 0,62 10 1,72 670 2,34 R 150 131 100 1080 1220 0,46 37 80 0,50 1,52 22,1 26,7* 31,9 3PBT S
H 0,62 10 1,72 670 2,34 R 150 131 100 1080 1220 0,46 28 60 1,50 1,52 22,6 27,2* 33,3 3PBT S
I 0,62 10 1,72 670 2,34 R 150 131 100 1080 1220 0,46 28 60 1,00 1,52 21,7 26,2* 31,2 3PBT S
J 0,62 10 1,72 670 2,34 R 150 131 100 1080 1220 0,46 28 60 0,50 1,52 21,2 25,6* 28,4 3PBT S

A4

Beamsize
Specimens Fibres Concrete ShearForceat[kN]
Mix FlexuralReinforcement Crosssection

Ageattest
l Shea Ultimate

Kindofcross
Maximum
Modeof

aggregate
w/cratio
f f' c.
flex ys

ssize
(days)

section
Article cp h h f db w b f clear L d f l f V f f cu.28,m r shear kind failure

type
By average a/d SFtype l f /d f cyl,m
No. [N/mm ] (%) [MPa]
2 [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] span [mm] [mm] [mm] (%) [MPa] [MPa] forcestress oftest S=Shear
[MPa] F=Flexure
[mm] [kN] [MPa]
A07 A21 18 1,26 510 2,00 R 200 180 100 1296 1600 0,00 1,87 18,7* 22,5 19,2 4PBT S
A22 25 1,26 510 2,00 R 200 180 100 1296 1600 0,54 27 50 0,50 2,65 23,8* 28,7 30,5 4PBT S

chopping

(circular)
binding
wire
A23 25 1,26 510 2,00 R 200 180 100 1296 1600 0,54 54 100 0,50 2,88 26,7* 32,2 36,1 4PBT S
A24 23 1,26 510 2,00 R 200 180 100 1296 1600 0,54 27 50 1,00 2,67 24,1* 29,0 40,5 4PBT S
A25 23 1,26 510 2,00 R 200 180 100 1296 1600 0,54 54 100 1,00 2,90 27,1* 32,6 50,8 4PBT F
A26 25 1,26 510 2,00 R 200 180 100 1296 1600 stirrups 0,00 1,93 22,8* 27,5 51,6 4PBT F
B31 23 1,26 510 3,00 R 200 180 100 1646 1950 0,00 1,90 22,2* 26,8 22,3 4PBT S

binding
B32 23 1,26 510 3,00 R 200 180 100 1646 1950 0,54 27 50 1,00 2,87 26,6* 32,1 29,5 4PBT S

choppi

wire
ng
B33 25 1,26 510 3,00 R 200 180 100 1646 1950 0,54 54 100 1,00 2,88 26,8* 32,3 36,8 4PBT S
B34 23 1,26 510 3,00 R 200 180 100 1646 1950 0,54 27 50 1,50 2,92 27,2* 32,8 45,1 4PBT F
B35 23 1,26 510 3,00 R 200 180 100 1646 1950 stirrups 0,00 1,91 21,2* 25,6 35,7 4PBT F
A08 SP1 A 0,40 2,00 530 2,00 R 150 130 85 900 50,0* 60,2 29,3 2,30 4PBT
SP2 A 0,40 2,00 530 2,50 R 150 130 85 1030 50,0* 60,2 20,8 1,63 4PBT
SP3 A 0,40 2,00 530 3,00 R 150 130 85 1160 50,0* 60,2 20,1 1,58 4PBT
SP4 B 0,55 2,00 530 2,00 R 150 130 85 900 35,9* 43,3 23,7 1,86 4PBT
SP5 B 0,55 2,00 530 2,50 R 150 130 85 1030 30,5* 36,7 18,7 1,47 4PBT
SP6 B 0,55 2,00 530 3,00 R 150 130 85 1160 35,9* 43,3 21,8 1,71 4PBT
SS1 A 0,40 2,00 530 2,00 R 150 130 85 900 62,3* 75,0 37,0 2,90 4PBT

STIRRUPspacing80/130
mmwithrv =0,25/2and
SS2 A 0,40 2,00 530 2,50 R 150 130 85 1030 50,0* 60,2 28,8 2,26 4PBT
SS3 A 0,40 2,00 530 3,00 R 150 130 85 1160 50,0* 60,2 28,3 2,22 4PBT
SS4 B 0,55 2,00 530 2,00 R 150 130 85 900 35,9* 43,3 32,0 2,51 4PBT
SS5 B 0,55 2,00 530 2,50 R 150 130 85 1030 30,5* 36,7 29,8 2,34 4PBT

f=3/6
SS6 B 0,55 2,00 530 3,00 R 150 130 85 1160 35,9* 43,3 30,0 2,35 4PBT
S18 A 0,40 5,72 530 3,10 R 150 126 85 1160 47,5* 57,2 41,1 3,22 4PBT
S24 A 0,40 5,72 530 3,10 R 150 126 85 1160 47,5* 57,2 59,5 4,67 4PBT
S25 A 0,40 5,72 530 3,10 R 150 126 85 1160 47,5* 57,2 75,6 5,93 4PBT
S26 A 0,40 5,72 530 3,10 R 150 126 85 1160 47,5* 57,2 86,3 6,77 4PBT
SF1 A 0,40 2,00 530 2,00 R 150 130 85 900 0,30 30 100 0,25 4,15 51,2* 61,7 37,7 2,96 4PBT S
SF2 A 0,40 2,00 530 2,50 R 150 130 85 1030 0,30 30 100 0,25 4,15 51,2* 61,7 34,0 2,67 4PBT S
SF3 A 0,40 2,00 530 3,00 R 150 130 85 1160 0,30 30 100 0,25 4,15 51,2* 61,7 35,3 2,77 4PBT S
SF4 B 0,55 2,00 530 2,00 R 150 130 85 900 0,30 30 100 0,25 4,15 33,1* 39,9 34,6 2,71 4PBT S
SF5 B 0,55 2,00 530 2,50 R 150 130 85 1030 0,30 30 100 0,25 4,15 33,1* 39,9 26,4 2,07 4PBT S
SF6 B 0,55 2,00 530 3,00 R 150 130 85 1160 0,30 30 100 0,25 4,15 33,1* 39,9 24,7 1,94 4PBT S
B1 A 0,40 2,00 530 3,00 R 150 130 85 1160 0,30 40 133 0,50 4,15 51,2* 61,7 41,2 3,23 4PBT S

crimped
B2 A 0,40 2,00 530 3,00 R 150 130 85 1160 0,30 40 133 1,00 4,15 59,3* 71,5 46,7 3,66 4PBT FS
B3 A 0,40 2,00 530 3,00 R 150 130 85 1160 0,30 30 100 1,50 4,15 63,7* 76,7 46,4 3,64 4PBT F
B4 A 0,40 2,00 530 3,00 R 150 130 85 1160 0,30 30 100 2,00 4,15 66,0* 79,5 47,7 3,74 4PBT F
B5 A 0,40 2,00 530 3,00 R 150 130 85 1160 0,30 30 100 2,50 4,15 64,1* 77,2 47,9 3,76 4PBT F
B6 A 0,40 2,00 530 3,00 R 150 130 85 1160 0,30 30 100 3,00 4,15 62,9* 75,8 49,1 3,85 4PBT F
B7 B 0,55 2,00 530 3,00 R 150 130 85 1160 0,30 40 133 0,50 4,15 35,1* 42,3 25,1 1,97 4PBT S
B9 B 0,55 2,00 530 3,00 R 150 130 85 1160 0,30 30 100 1,00 4,15 34,4* 41,4 37,9 2,97 4PBT S
B11 A 0,40 2,00 530 2,00 R 150 130 85 900 0,30 40 133 0,50 4,15 51,2* 61,7 58,9 4,62 4PBT S
B12 A 0,40 2,00 530 2,50 R 150 130 85 1030 0,30 40 133 0,50 4,15 51,2* 61,7 47,0 3,69 4PBT S

A5

Beamsize
Specimens Fibres Concrete ShearForceat[kN]
Mix FlexuralReinforcement Crosssection

Ageattest
fys l Shea Ultimate

Kindofcross
Maximum
Modeof

aggregate
w/cratio
f' c.

ssize
(days)

section
Article cp
flexaverag h h f db w b f clear L d f l f V f f cu.28,m r shear kind failure

type
By a/d SFtype l f /d f cyl,m
No. [N/mm 2 ] (%) e [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] span [mm] [mm] [mm] (%) [MPa] [MPa] forcestress oftest S=Shear
[MPa] F=Flexure
[MPa] [mm] [kN] [MPa]
B13 A 0,40 2,00 530 3,50 R 150 130 85 1290 0,30 40 133 0,50 4,15 46,2* 55,7 33,3 2,61 4PBT S
B14 A 0,40 2,00 530 2,00 R 150 130 85 900 0,30 40 133 1,00 4,15 55,8* 67,2 71,0 5,57 4PBT S
B15 A 0,40 2,00 530 2,50 R 150 130 85 1030 0,30 40 133 1,00 4,15 55,8* 67,2 56,4 4,42 4PBT S
B16 A 0,40 2,00 530 3,50 R 150 130 85 1290 0,30 40 133 1,00 4,15 59,7* 71,9 37,9 2,97 4PBT S
B17 A 0,40 3,69 530 3,00 R 150 128 85 1160 0,30 40 133 0,50 4,15 46,2* 55,7 37,7 2,96 4PBT S
B18 A 0,40 5,72 530 3,10 R 150 126 85 1160 0,30 40 133 0,50 4,15 46,2* 55,7 45,3 3,55 4PBT S
B19 B 0,55 3,69 530 3,00 R 150 128 85 1160 0,30 40 133 0,50 4,15 35,1* 42,3 28,6 2,24 4PBT S
B20 B 0,55 5,72 530 3,10 R 150 126 85 1160 0,30 40 133 0,50 4,15 35,1* 42,3 29,7 2,33 4PBT S

crimped
B23 A 0,40 3,69 530 3,00 R 150 128 85 1160 0,30 40 133 1,00 4,15 59,7* 71,9 55,7 4,37 4PBT S
B24 A 0,40 5,72 530 3,10 R 150 126 85 1160 0,30 40 133 1,00 4,15 59,7* 71,9 63,8 5,00 4PBT S
B25 A 0,40 5,72 530 3,10 R 150 126 85 1160 0,30 30 100 1,50 4,15 55,6* 67,0 61,8 4,85 4PBT S
B26 A 0,40 5,72 530 3,10 R 150 126 85 1160 0,30 30 100 2,00 4,15 46,4* 55,9 62,9 4,93 4PBT S
B27 A 0,40 3,69 530 3,00 R 150 128 85 1160 0,30 30 100 1,50 4,15 55,6* 67,0 56,9 4,46 4PBT S
B28 A 0,40 5,72 530 2,00 R 150 126 85 900 0,30 30 100 0,50 4,15 49,2* 59,3 69,6 5,46 4PBT S
B29 A 0,40 5,72 530 2,00 R 150 126 85 900 0,30 30 100 1,00 4,15 49,8* 60,0 86,3 6,77 4PBT S
B30 A 0,40 5,72 530 2,00 R 150 126 85 900 0,30 30 100 1,50 4,15 55,6* 67,0 91,2 7,15 4PBT S
B31 A 0,40 5,72 530 2,00 R 150 126 85 900 0,30 30 100 2,00 4,15 46,4* 55,9 80,3 6,30 4PBT S
A09 1 0,58 28 1,18 2,00 R 150 133 100 800 850 0,00 2,36 13,1* 15,8 19,9 1,49
2 0,58 28 1,18 2,00 R 150 133 100 800 850 100 0,25 2,36 13,5* 16,3 22,5 1,69
3 0,58 28 1,18 2,00 R 150 133 100 800 850 100 0,50 2,36 13,8* 16,6 25,0 1,87
4 0,58 28 1,18 2,00 R 150 133 100 800 850 100 0,75 2,36 14,0* 16,9 27,3 2,05
5 0,58 28 1,18 2,00 R 150 133 100 800 850 100 1,00 2,36 14,3* 17,3 29,8 2,23
6 0,58 28 1,18 2,00 R 150 133 100 800 850 100 1,25 2,36 14,5* 17,4 32,0 2,40
7 0,58 28 1,18 2,00 R 150 133 100 800 850 100 1,50 2,36 14,7* 17,7 34,0 2,55
A10 S1 28 1,34 1,90 R 300 263 150 1600 42,3 51,0* 64,5 1,57 4PBT S
Portlandcement

S2 32 1,34 1,90 R 300 263 150 1600 43,2 52,0* 126,9 2,82 4PBT S
S3F 34 1,34 1,90 R 300 263 150 1600 collated 0,60 50 80 0,96 48,6 58,6* 136,4 3,03 4PBT
D1 30 2,18 1,90 R 300 263 150 1600 47,7 57,5* 128,3 2,85 4PBT
D2 32 2,18 1,90 R 300 263 150 1600 46,8 56,4* 139,1 3,1 4PBT
D3F 31 2,18 1,90 R 300 263 150 1600 collated 0,60 50 80 0,96 47,7 57,5* 171,9 3,82 4PBT
D4F 31 2,18 1,90 R 300 263 150 1600 steelwith 0,60 50 80 0,96 43,2 52,0* 182,3 4,05 4PBT
A11 1 0,30 13,00 4,71 2,00 R 200 175 100 700 0,00 80,0 96,4* 125,0 6,25 3PBT
Type2PortlandcementHPSC80

2 0,30 13,00 4,71 2,00 R 200 175 100 700 roundstraigth0,40 40 100 0,50 80,0 96,4* 136,8 6,84 3PBT
3 0,30 13,00 4,71 2,00 R 200 175 100 700 roundstraigth0,40 40 100 1,00 80,0 96,4* 148,0 7,40 3PBT
4 0,30 13,00 4,71 3,00 R 200 175 100 1050 0,00 80,0 96,4* 57,4 2,87 3PBT
5 0,30 13,00 4,71 3,00 R 200 175 100 1050 roundstraigth0,40 40 100 0,50 80,0 96,4* 63,8 3,19 3PBT
6 0,30 13,00 4,71 3,00 R 200 175 100 1050 roundstraigth0,40 40 100 1,00 80,0 96,4* 82,0 4,10 3PBT
MPa

7 0,30 13,00 4,71 3,00 R 200 175 100 1050 0,00 80,0 96,4* 132,4 6,62 3PBT
8 0,30 13,00 4,71 3,00 R 200 175 100 1050 0,50 80,0 96,4* 134,0 6,70 3PBT
9 0,30 13,00 4,71 3,00 R 200 175 100 1050 1,00 80,0 96,4* 131,8 6,59 3PBT
10 0,30 13,00 4,71 3,00 R 200 175 100 1050 0,00 80,0 96,4* 143,4 7,17 3PBT
11 0,30 13,00 4,71 3,00 R 200 175 100 1050 0,50 80,0 96,4* 140,0 7,00 3PBT
12 0,30 13,00 4,71 3,00 R 200 175 100 1050 1,00 80,0 96,4* 146,4 7,32 3PBT

A6

Beamsize
Specimens Fibres Concrete ShearForceat[kN]
Mix FlexuralReinforcement Crosssection

Ageattest
fys l Shea Ultimate

Kindofcross
Maximum
Modeof

aggregate
w/cratio
f' c.

ssize
(days)

section
Article cp
flexaverag h h f db w b f clear L d f l f V f f cu.28,m r shear kind failure

type
By a/d SFtype l f /d f cyl,m
No. [N/mm 2 ] (%) e [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] span [mm] [mm] [mm] (%) [MPa] [MPa] force stress oftest S=Shear
[MPa] F=Flexure
[MPa] [mm] [kN] [MPa]
13 0,30 13,00 4,71 3,00 R 200 175 100 1050 0,00 80,0 96,4* 147,2 7,36 3PBT
14 0,30 13,00 9,42 3,00 R 200 175 100 1050 0,00 80,0 96,4* 63,0 3,15 3PBT
Type2Portlandcement

15 0,30 13,00 9,42 3,00 R 200 175 100 1050 0,00 80,0 96,4* 149,8 7,49 3PBT
16 0,30 13,00 9,42 3,00 R 200 175 100 1050 0,00 80,0 96,4* 152,8 7,64 3PBT
HPSC80Mpa

17 0,30 13,00 4,71 4,50 R 200 175 100 1575 0,00 80,0 96,4* 51,8 2,59 3PBT
18 0,30 13,00 4,71 4,50 R 200 175 100 788 roundstraigth0,40 40 100 0,50 80,0 96,4* 55,6 2,78 3PBT
19 0,30 13,00 4,71 4,50 R 200 175 100 788 roundstraigth0,40 40 100 1,00 80,0 96,4* 68,8 3,44 3PBT
20 0,30 13,00 9,42 4,50 R 200 175 100 1575 0,00 80,0 96,4* 52,4 2,62 3PBT
21 0,30 13,00 4,71 6,00 R 200 175 100 2100 0,00 80,0 96,4* 46,6 2,33 3PBT
22 0,30 13,00 9,42 6,00 R 200 175 100 2100 0,00 80,0 96,4* 54,6 2,73 3PBT
A12 B51 0,45 28 10,00 4,00 445490 4,50 T 250 50 207 175 500 2800 3400 0,00 39,4* 47,5 65,0 1,79 4PBT DT
Type1Portlandcement4045MPa

B52 0,45 28 10,00 4,00 445490 4,50 T 250 50 207 175 500 2800 3400 crimped 0,50 50 100 0,40 36,9* 44,4 79,5 2,19 4PBT DT
B53 0,45 28 10,00 4,00 445490 4,50 T 250 50 207 175 500 2800 3400 crimped 0,50 50 100 0,80 38,8* 46,8 114,0 3,14 4PBT S,SC
B54 0,45 28 10,00 4,00 445490 4,50 T 250 50 207 175 500 2800 3400 crimped 0,50 50 100 1,20 41,3* 49,8 115,0 3,17 4PBT S,SC
B55 0,45 28 10,00 3,05 445490 4,50 T 250 50 207 175 500 2800 3400 crimped 0,50 50 100 0,80 39,6* 47,7 118,2 3,26 4PBT SC,FT
B56 0,45 28 10,00 1,95 445490 4,50 T 250 50 207 175 500 2800 3400 crimped 0,50 50 100 0,80 43,4* 52,3 96,4 2,66 4PBT FT
B57S 0,45 28 10,00 4,00 445490 4,50 T 250 50 207 175 500 2800 3400 stirrup 0,80 39,8* 47,9 142,0 3,91 4PBT SC,FT
B58S 0,45 28 10,00 4,00 445490 4,50 T 250 50 207 175 500 2800 3400 stirrup 0,80 37,7* 45,4 145,0 3,99 4PBT SC,FT
B59 0,45 28 10,00 4,00 445490 4,50 T 250 50 207 175 500 2800 3400 0,00 39,0* 47,0 69,0 1,90 4PBT DT
28 445490 4,50 207 175 2800 3400 crimped 0,50 50 100 0,80 38,6* 46,5 0,00 4PBT
B61R 0,45 28 10,00 1,95 445490 4,50 R 250 207 175 2800 3400 0,00 44,6* 53,7 57,9 1,60 4PBT DT
B63R 0,45 28 10,00 1,95 445490 4,50 R 250 207 175 2800 3400 crimped 0,50 50 100 0,80 36,4* 43,9 75,5 2,08 4PBT FT
A13 TB21 0,45 7 9,50 3,25 530 2,50 T 250 60 165 75 250 1125 1950 0,00 33,7 40,6* 80,1 4PBT WC
TB22 0,45 7 9,50 3,25 530 2,50 T 250 60 165 75 250 1125 1950 0,50 30 60 0,50 34,7 41,8* 87,5 4PBT DT

steelhookended
TB23 0,45 7 9,50 3,25 530 2,50 T 250 60 165 75 250 1125 1950 0,50 30 60 1,00 40,5 48,8* 113,0 4PBT DT
TB24 0,45 7 9,50 3,25 530 2,00 T 250 60 185 75 250 1040 1865 0,50 30 60 1,00 12,3 14,8* 156,4 4PBT WC
TB25 0,45 7 9,50 2,90 530 3,00 T 250 60 185 75 250 1310 2135 0,50 30 60 1,00 38,2 46,0* 80,0 4PBT DT
TB26 0,45 7 9,50 4,87 530 2,50 T 250 60 165 75 250 1125 1950 0,50 30 60 1,00 39,1 47,1* 110,1 4PBT DT
TB27 0,45 7 9,50 6,50 530 2,50 T 250 60 165 75 250 1125 1950 0,50 30 60 1,00 38,5 46,4* 91,2 4PBT DT
TB28 0,45 7 9,50 0,00 530 2,50 T 250 60 165 75 250 1125 1950 0,50 30 60 1,00 34,0 41,0* 93,5 4PBT DT
TB23A 0,45 7 9,50 3,25 530 2,50 T 250 60 165 75 250 1125 1950 stirrup 0,50 31,5 38,0* 93,5 4PBT DT
TB23B 0,45 7 9,50 3,25 530 2,50 T 250 60 165 75 250 1125 1950 stirrup 0,00 34,5 41,6* 99,0 4PBT DT
A14 1.2/1 3,56 3,46 R 300 260 200 1800 0,90 60 67 0,00 45,7* 55,0 181,0 3,48 3PBT S
1.2/2 3,56 3,46 R 300 260 200 1800 Dramix 0,90 60 67 0,25 48,7* 58,7 220,0 4,23 3PBT S
1.2/3 3,56 3,46 R 300 260 200 1800 RC65/60 0,90 60 67 0,50 45,4* 54,7 240,0 4,61 3PBT S
1.2/4 3,56 3,46 R 300 260 200 1800 BN 0,90 60 67 0,75 50,1* 60,3 310,0 5,96 3PBT S
1.3/1 3,56 3,46 R 300 260 200 1800 0,90 60 67 0,00 51,7* 62,3 240,0 4,61 3PBT S
1.3/2 3,56 3,46 R 300 260 200 1800 0,90 60 67 20,00 52,0* 62,7 295,0 5,67 3PBT S
1.3/3 3,56 3,46 R 300 260 200 1800 0,90 60 67 40,00 45,1* 54,3 356,0 6,84 3PBT S
1.3/4 3,56 3,46 R 300 260 200 1800 0,90 60 67 60,00 52,3* 63,0 395,0 7,59 3PBT S
1.4/1 3,56 3,46 R 300 260 200 1800 0,90 60 67 0,00 50,4* 60,7 340,0 6,54 3PBT S
1.4/2 3,56 3,46 R 300 260 200 1800 0,90 60 67 20,00 50,6* 61,0 435,0 8,36 3PBT S
1.4/3 3,56 3,46 R 300 260 200 1800 0,90 60 67 40,00 42,9* 51,7 440,0 8,46 3PBT S

A7

Beamsize
Specimens Fibres Concrete ShearForceat[kN]
Mix FlexuralReinforcement Crosssection

Ageattest
fys l Shea Ultimate

Kindofcross
Maximum
Modeof

aggregate
w/cratio
f' c.

ssize
(days)

section
Article cp
flexaverag h h f db w b f clear L d f l f V f f cu.28,m r shear kind failure

type
By a/d SFtype l f /d f cyl,m
No. [N/mm 2 ] (%) e [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] span [mm] [mm] [mm] (%) [MPa] [MPa] forcestress oftest S=Shear
[MPa] F=Flexure
[MPa] [mm] [kN] [MPa]
1.4/4 3,56 3,46 R 300 260 200 1800 0,90 60 67 60,00 52,6* 63,3 500,0 9,61 3PBT S
2.2/1 1,81 1,54 R 300 747 200 2300 0,90 60 67 0,00 42,4* 51,0 420,0 2,81 3PBT S
2.2/2 1,81 1,54 R 300 747 200 2300 Dramix 0,90 60 67 0,20 42,7* 51,5 560,0 3,75 3PBT S
2.2/3 1,81 1,54 R 300 747 200 2300 RC65/60 0,90 60 67 0,75 41,8* 50,4 600,0 4,02 3PBT S
2.3/1 1,15 2,50 R 300 460 200 2300 0,90 60 67 0,00 41,6* 50,2 157,0 1,71 3PBT S
2.3/2 1,15 2,50 R 300 460 200 2300 Dramix 0,90 60 67 0,25 41,5* 50,1 165,0 1,79 3PBT S
2.3/3 1,15 2,50 R 300 460 200 2300 RC65/60 0,90 60 67 0,70 40,1* 48,4 216,0 2,35 3PBT S
2.4/1 1,81 2,50 R 300 460 200 2300 0,90 60 67 0,00 41,6* 50,2 240,0 2,61 3PBT S
2.4/2 1,81 2,50 R 300 460 200 2300 Dramix 0,90 60 67 0,25 41,5* 50,1 216,0 2,35 3PBT S
2.4/3 1,81 2,50 R 300 460 200 2300 RC65/60 0,90 60 67 0,75 40,1* 48,4 288,0 3,13 3PBT S
2.6/1 1,81 4,04 R 300 285 200 2300 0,90 60 67 0,00 42,4* 51,0 150,0 2,63 3PBT S
2.6/2 1,81 4,04 R 300 285 200 2300 Dramix 0,90 60 67 0,25 42,7* 51,5 165,0 2,90 3PBT S
2.6/3 2,83 4,04 R 300 285 200 2300 RC65/60 0,90 60 67 0,75 41,8* 50,4 234,0 4,11 3PBT S
3.1/1 2,83 3,50 T 300 0 314 200 200 2200 0,90 60 67 0,50 39,1* 47,1 189,0 3,01 3PBT S
3.1/1F2 3,09 3,50 T 300 0 314 200 200 2200 0,90 60 67 0,50 40,3* 48,5 225,0 3,58 3PBT S
3.1/2 2,73 3,34 T 450 0 494 200 200 3300 0,90 60 67 0,50 39,1* 47,1 249,0 2,52 3PBT S
20*50 2,73 3,37 T 500 0 504 200 200 3400 0,90 60 67 0,50 40,3* 48,5 272,0 2,70 3PBT S

DramixRC65/60BN
3.1/3 2,73 3,48 T 600 0 647 200 200 4500 0,90 60 67 0,50 39,1* 47,1 265,0 2,05 3PBT S
3.1/3F2 2,80 3,48 T 600 0 647 200 200 4500 0,90 60 67 0,50 40,3* 48,5 383,0 2,96 3PBT S
8*50 2,80 3,37 T 500 80 564 200 500 3800 0,90 60 67 0,50 40,3* 48,5 338,0 3,00 3PBT S
3.2/1 2,80 3,37 T 500 100 564 200 500 3800 0,90 60 67 0,50 39,1* 47,1 286,0 2,54 3PBT S
10*50F2 2,80 3,37 T 500 100 564 200 500 3800 0,90 60 67 0,50 40,3* 48,5 265,0 2,35 3PBT S
3.2/2 2,80 3,37 T 500 150 564 200 500 3800 0,90 60 67 0,50 39,1* 47,1 446,0 3,96 3PBT S
15*50F2 2,80 3,37 T 500 150 564 200 500 3800 0,90 60 67 0,50 40,3* 48,5 276,0 2,45 3PBT S
23*50F2 2,80 3,37 T 500 230 564 200 500 3800 0,90 60 67 0,50 40,3* 48,5 427,0 3,79 3PBT S
3.2/3 2,80 3,37 T 500 150 564 200 750 3800 0,90 60 67 0,50 39,1* 47,1 437,0 3,88 3PBT S
3.2/4 2,80 3,37 T 500 150 564 200 1000 3800 0,90 60 67 0,50 39,1* 47,1 412,0 3,65 3PBT S
TypeISPortland TypeISPortland Portland

A15 SFSCCB0 0,50 10,00 2,80 460 3,00 R 300 263 200 2100 2400 0,00 32,6* 39,3 79,3 1,51 4PBT S
28120
C42,5R

SFSCCB25 0,50 10,00 2,80 460 3,00 R 300 263 200 2100 2400 hooked 0,55 35 65 0,32 34,7* 41,8 105,0 2,00 4PBT S
SFSCCB50 0,50 10,00 2,80 460 3,00 R 300 263 200 2100 2400 0,55 35 65 0,64 40,3* 48,5 142,3 2,71 4PBT S
A16 V1A 0,65 6,30 1,54 3,53 R 100 85 120 600 0,00 23,1 27,8* 24,9 3PBT S
V1B 0,65 6,30 1,54 3,53 R 100 85 120 600 0,00 23,1 27,8* 29,7 3PBT S
25MPa

V2A 0,65 6,30 1,54 3,53 R 100 85 120 600 0,55 30 55 1,00 24,4 29,4* 43,7 3PBT S
hooked
V2B 0,65 6,30 1,54 3,53 R 100 85 120 600 0,55 30 55 1,00 24,4 29,4* 47,2 3PBT S
circular
V3A 0,65 6,30 1,54 3,53 R 100 85 120 600 0,55 30 55 2,00 28,1 33,9* 55,1 3PBT S
section
V3B 0,65 6,30 1,54 3,53 R 100 85 120 600 0,55 30 55 2,00 28,1 33,9* 51,1 3PBT S
V4A 0,34 6,30 1,54 3,53 R 100 85 120 600 0,00 57,0 68,7* 36,3 3PBT S
V4B 0,34 6,30 1,54 3,53 R 100 85 120 600 0,00 57,0 68,7* 36,4 3PBT S
56MPa

V5A 0,34 6,30 1,54 3,53 R 100 85 120 600 0,55 30 55 1,00 59,7 71,9* 72,8 3PBT S
hooked
V5B 0,34 6,30 1,54 3,53 R 100 85 120 600 0,55 30 55 1,00 59,7 71,9* 66,6 3PBT S
circular
V6A 0,34 6,30 1,54 3,53 R 100 85 120 600 0,55 30 55 2,00 52,4 63,1* 57,2 3PBT S
section
V6B 0,34 6,30 1,54 3,53 R 100 85 120 600 0,55 30 55 2,00 52,4 63,1* 53,9 3PBT S
V7A 0,34 6,30 1,59 3,55 R 170 155 130 1100 0,00 57,0 68,7* 54,8 3PBT S

A8

Beamsize
Specimens Fibres Concrete ShearForceat[kN]
Mix FlexuralReinforcement Crosssection

Ageattest
fys l Shea Ultimate

Kindofcross
Maximum
Modeof

aggregate
w/cratio
f' c.

ssize
(days)

section
Article cp
flexaverag h h f db w b f clear L d f l f V f f cu.28,m r shear kind failure

type
By a/d SFtype l f /d f
No. [N/mm 2 ] (%) e [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] span [mm] [mm] [mm] (%) [MPa] cyl,m [MPa] force stress oftest S=Shear
[MPa] F=Flexure
[MPa] [mm] [kN] [MPa]
V7B 0,34 6,30 1,59 3,55 R 170 155 130 1100 0,00 57,0 68,7* 46,4 3PBT S
Portland56
TypeIS

V8A 0,34 6,30 1,59 3,55 R 170 155 130 1100 0,55 30 55 1,00 59,7 71,9* 68,3 3PBT S
hooked
MPa

V8B 0,34 6,30 1,59 3,55 R 170 155 130 1100 0,55 30 55 1,00 59,7 71,9* 80,1 3PBT S
circular
V9A 0,34 6,30 1,59 3,55 R 170 155 130 1100 0,55 30 55 2,00 52,4 63,1* 81,2 3PBT S
section
V9B 0,34 6,30 1,59 3,55 R 170 155 130 1100 0,55 30 55 2,00 52,4 63,1* 104,9 3PBT S
TypeIPrdinaryPortland TypeIIIPortland TypeISPortland

VP1A 0,50 6,30 1,54 3,53 R 100 85 120 600 0,00 36,1 43,5* 28,4 3PBT S
VP1B 0,50 6,30 1,54 3,53 R 100 85 120 600 0,00 36,1 43,5* 27,0 3PBT S
40MPa

V10A 0,50 6,30 1,54 3,53 R 100 85 120 600 1,05 50 48 0,75 36,6 44,1* 42,7 3PBT S
hooked
V10B 0,50 6,30 1,54 3,53 R 100 85 120 600 1,05 50 48 0,75 36,6 44,1* 39,0 3PBT S
circular
V11A 0,50 6,30 1,54 3,53 R 100 85 120 600 1,05 50 48 1,50 46,1 55,5* 50,0 3PBT S
section
V11B 0,50 6,30 1,54 3,53 R 100 85 120 600 1,05 50 48 1,50 46,1 55,5* 61,8 3PBT S
V12A 0,34 6,30 1,84 1,94 R 100 155 110 600 0,00 75,3 90,7* 64,4 3PBT S
V12B 0,34 6,30 1,84 1,94 R 100 155 110 600 0,00 75,3 90,7* 50,8 3PBT S
73MPa

V13A 0,34 6,30 1,84 1,94 R 100 155 110 600 0,67 25 37 0,75 73,5 88,6* 62,6 3PBT S
hooked
V13B 0,34 6,30 1,84 1,94 R 100 155 110 600 0,67 25 37 0,75 73,5 88,6* 51,4 3PBT S
circular
V14A 0,34 6,30 1,84 1,94 R 100 155 110 600 0,67 25 37 1,50 73,1 88,1* 67,5 3PBT S
section
V14B 0,34 6,30 1,84 1,94 R 100 155 110 600 0,67 25 37 1,50 73,1 88,1* 55,1 3PBT S
A17 S0.00V0 10,00 3,30 420 3,33 R 180 122 100 1300 1700roundstraight0,70 42 60 0,00 34,0 41,0* 43,4 3,56 4PBT S
S0.50V0 10,00 3,30 420 3,33 R 180 122 100 1300 1700 50%stirrup 60 0,00 34,0 41,0* 65,3 5,35 4PBT S
S0.75V0 10,00 3,30 420 3,33 R 180 122 100 1300 1700 75%stirrup 60 0,00 34,0 41,0* 77,6 6,36 4PBT S
cement35MPa

S1.00V0 10,00 3,30 420 3,33 R 180 122 100 1300 1700 stirrup 60 0,00 34,0 41,0* 85,4 7,00 4PBT S
S0.00V1 10,00 3,30 420 3,33 R 180 122 100 1300 1700roundstraight0,70 42 60 1,00 38,7 46,6* 54,8 4,49 4PBT F
S0.50V1 10,00 3,30 420 3,33 R 180 122 100 1300 1700 50%stirrup 60 1,00 38,7 46,6* 69,9 5,73 4PBT F
S0.75V1 10,00 3,30 420 3,33 R 180 122 100 1300 1700 75%stirrup 60 1,00 38,7 46,6* 85,4 7,00 4PBT F
S0.00V2 10,00 3,30 420 3,33 R 180 122 100 1300 1700roundstraight0,70 42 60 2,00 42,4 51,1* 69,9 5,73 4PBT F
S0.00V2 10,00 3,30 420 3,33 R 180 122 100 1300 1700 50%stirrup 60 2,00 42,4 51,1* 83,0 6,80 4PBT F
A18 DB1000 0,60 20,00 0,00 433 2,00 300 280 100 600 800 100 0,00 20,90 50,0 3PBT F

datomancante:hp=roundsteelfibre
DB1005 0,60 20,00 0,00 433 2,00 300 280 100 600 800 100 0,50 24,50 50,0 3PBT F
DB1010 0,60 20,00 0,00 433 2,00 R 300 280 100 600 800 100 1,00 32,60 75,0 3PBT F
PortlandPozzolanaCement

DB1020 0,60 20,00 0,00 433 2,00 R 300 280 100 600 800 100 2,00 25,50 80,0 3PBT F
DB1200 0,60 20,00 0,36 433 2,00 R 300 280 100 600 800 100 0,00 20,90 125,0 3PBT F
DB1205 0,60 20,00 0,36 433 2,00 R 300 280 100 600 800 100 0,50 24,50 155,0 3PBT F
DB1210 0,60 20,00 0,36 433 2,00 R 300 280 100 600 800 100 1,00 32,60 165,0 3PBT F
DB1220 0,60 20,00 0,36 433 2,00 R 300 280 100 600 800 100 2,00 25,50 230,0 3PBT F
DB1300 0,60 20,00 0,54 433 2,00 R 300 280 100 600 800 100 0,00 20,90 180,0 3PBT S
DB1305 0,60 20,00 0,54 433 2,00 R 300 280 100 600 800 100 0,50 24,50 200,0 3PBT S
DB1310 0,60 20,00 0,54 433 2,00 R 300 280 100 600 800 100 1,00 32,60 240,0 3PBT F
DB1320 0,60 20,00 0,54 433 2,00 R 300 280 100 600 800 100 2,00 25,50 270,0 3PBT F
DB2310 0,60 20,00 0,54 433 0,67 R 300 280 100 600 800 100 1,00 32,60 270,0 4PBT S
DB1510 0,60 20,00 0,90 433 2,00 R 300 280 100 600 800 100 1,00 32,60 270,0 3PBT S
Portland

A19 A00 0,36 10,00 1,91 610 2,80 R 250 219 150 2300 2500 0,00 41,2 49,6* 40,5 1,23 4PBT S
Cement
Type

A01 0,36 10,00 1,91 610 2,80 R 250 219 150 2300 2500 0,00 41,2 49,6* 89,5 2,72 4PBT S
A02 0,36 10,00 1,91 610 2,80 R 250 219 150 2300 2500 0,00 41,2 49,6* 114,0 3,47 4PBT F

A9

Beamsize
Specimens Fibres Concrete ShearForceat[kN]
Mix FlexuralReinforcement Crosssection

Ageattest
l Shea Ultimate

Kindofcross
Maximum
Modeof

aggregate
w/cratio
f f' c.
flex ys

ssize
(days)

section
Article cp h h f db w b f clear L d f l f V f f cu.28,m r shear kind failure

type
By average a/d SFtype l f /d f cyl,m
No. [N/mm ] (%)
2 [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] span [mm] [mm] [mm] (%) [Mpa] [Mpa] forcestress oftest S=Shear
[Mpa] [Mpa] F=Flexure
[mm] [kN] [MPa]
B00 0,36 10,00 1,91 610 2,00 R 250 219 150 2300 2500 0,00 41,2 49,6* 49,5 1,51 4PBT S
B01 0,36 10,00 1,91 610 2,00 R 250 219 150 2300 2500 0,00 41,2 49,6* 60,2 1,83 4PBT S
PortlandCementType42,5

B02 0,36 10,00 1,91 610 2,00 R 250 219 150 2300 2500 0,00 41,2 49,6* 142,6 4,34 4PBT S
A10 0,36 10,00 1,91 610 2,80 R 250 219 150 2300 2500 hookedend 0,50 30 60 1,00 40,9 49,2* 96,4 2,93 4PBT S
A20 0,36 10,00 1,91 610 2,80 R 250 219 150 2300 2500 hookedend 0,50 30 60 2,00 43,2 52,1* 103,3 3,15 4PBT F
A11 0,36 10,00 1,91 610 2,80 R 250 219 150 2300 2500 hookedend 0,50 30 60 1,00 40,9 49,2* 99,7 3,03 4PBT S
A12 0,36 10,00 1,91 610 2,80 R 250 219 150 2300 2500 hookedend 0,50 30 60 1,00 40,9 49,2* 115,8 3,53 4PBT F
A21 0,36 10,00 1,91 610 2,80 R 250 219 150 2300 2500 hookedend 0,50 30 60 2,00 43,2 52,1* 123,0 3,74 4PBT F
B10 0,36 10,00 1,91 610 2,00 R 250 219 150 2300 2500 hookedend 0,50 30 60 1,00 40,9 49,2* 115,1 3,50 4PBT S
B20 0,36 10,00 1,91 610 2,00 R 250 219 150 2300 2500 hookedend 0,50 30 60 2,00 43,2 52,1* 115,5 3,52 4PBT S
B11 0,36 10,00 1,91 610 2,00 R 250 219 150 2300 2500 hookedend 0,50 30 60 1,00 40,9 49,2* 120,8 3,68 4PBT S
B12 0,36 10,00 1,91 610 2,00 R 250 219 150 2300 2500 hookedend 0,50 30 60 1,00 40,9 49,2* 156,6 4,77 4PBT F
B21 0,36 10,00 1,91 610 2,00 R 250 219 150 2300 2500 hookedend 0,50 30 60 2,00 43,2 52,1* 173,3 5,28 4PBT F
A20 PCB1 0,50 60 10,00 2,37 2,41 R 200 170 50 820 1000 0,38 38 100 0,00 32,5* 39,2 23,5 2,76 3PBT S

Duoformbrasscoated
F30B1 0,50 60 10,00 2,37 2,41 R 200 170 50 820 1000 0,38 38 100 0,85 32,5* 39,1 32,8 3,86 3PBT S
F45B1 0,50 60 10,00 2,37 2,41 R 200 170 50 820 1000 0,38 38 100 1,30 39,8* 47,9 36,2 4,26 3PBT FS
PCB2 0,50 60 10,00 2,37 1,62 R 200 170 50 552 725 0,38 38 100 0,00 32,5* 39,2 45,3 5,33 3PBT S
F30B2 0,50 60 10,00 2,37 1,62 R 200 170 50 552 725 0,38 38 100 0,85 32,5* 39,1 50,9 5,99 3PBT F
F45B2 0,50 60 10,00 2,37 1,62 R 200 170 50 552 725 0,38 38 100 1,30 39,8* 47,9 54,1 6,37 3PBT F
PCB3 0,50 60 10,00 2,37 0,81 R 200 170 50 274 455 0,38 38 100 0,00 32,5* 39,2 74,5 8,76 3PBT S
F3OB3 0,50 60 10,00 2,37 0,81 R 200 170 50 274 455 0,38 38 100 0,85 32,5* 39,1 81,2 9,55 3PBT S
F45B3 0,50 60 10,00 2,37 0,81 R 200 170 50 274 455 0,38 38 100 1,30 39,8* 47,9 107,6 12,66 3PBT F
A21 2,20 3,00 R 102 60 1,00 22,7 27,3* 3,16 S

crimpedand
hookedsteel
Li,Wardand

1,10 3,00 R 102 60 1,00 22,7 27,3* 2,43 S

Hamza

1,10 1,50 R 102 60 1,00 22,7 27,3* 5,64 S

2,20 3,00 R 102 100 1,00 26,0 31,3* 3,55 S
2,20 3,00 R 204 60 1,00 22,7 27,3* 3,05 S
1,34 2,00 R 197 60 0,50 29,1 35,1* 2,54 S
Narayanana Lim,Paramavisam Mansur,Ongand
Paramasivam

1,34 2,80 R 197 60 0,50 29,1 35,1* 1,78 S

hooked
1,34 3,60 R 197 60 0,50 29,1 35,1* 1,52 S
2,00 2,80 R 197 60 0,75 29,1 35,1* 2,20 S
2,00 2,80 R 197 60 0,75 20,6 24,8* 2,03 S
2,00 2,80 R 197 60 0,75 33,4 40,2* 2,91 S
1,10 2,50 R 221 60 0,50 34,0 41,0* 1,73 S
2,20 1,50 R 221 60 0,50 34,0 41,0* 4,02 S

hooked
andLee

2,20 2,50 R 221 60 0,50 34,0 41,0* 1,90 S

2,20 3,50 R 221 60 0,50 34,0 41,0* 1,47 S
2,20 1,50 R 221 60 1,00 34,0 41,0* 4,39 S
2,20 2,50 R 221 60 1,00 34,0 41,0* 2,46 S
2,00 2,00 R 130 100 0,25 61,0 73,5* 2,96 S
andDarwish

crimped
2,00 3,00 R 130 100 0,25 61,0 73,5* 2,77 S
2,00 3,00 R 130 133 0,50 36,0 43,4* 1,97 S
2,00 3,00 R 130 100 1,00 36,0 43,4* 2,97 S

A10

Beamsize
Specimens Fibres Concrete ShearForceat[kN]
Mix FlexuralReinforcement Crosssection

Ageattest
l Shea Ultimate

Kindofcross
Maximum
Modeof

aggregate
w/cratio
f f' c.
flex ys

ssize
(days)

section
Article cp h h f db w b f clear L d f l f V f f cu.28,m r shear kind failure

type
By average a/d SFtype l f /d f cyl,m
No. [N/mm 2 ] (%) [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] span [mm] [mm] [mm] (%) [Mpa] [Mpa] force stress oftest S=Shear
[Mpa] [Mpa] F=Flexure
[mm] [kN] [MPa]
2,00 3,50 R 130 133 0,50 49,0 59,0* 2,61 S
Narayanana
andDarwish

2,00 2,00 R 130 133 1,00 57,4 69,2* 5,57 S

crimped
3,69 3,00 R 130 133 0,50 36,0 43,4* 2,24 S
5,72 3,10 R 130 133 0,50 36,0 43,4* 2,33 S
5,72 3,10 R 130 133 1,00 57,4 69,2* 5,00 S
2,84 1,00 R 215 75 0,50 99,0 119,3* 9,09 S
Ashour,Hasanainand

2,84 2,00 R 215 75 0,50 99,0 119,3* 4,82 S

2,84 1,00 R 215 75 1,00 95,0 114,5* 12,74 S

hooked
Wafa

2,84 1,00 R 215 75 1,50 96,0 115,7* 13,95 S

2,84 2,00 R 215 75 1,50 96,0 115,7* 7,21 S
4,58 2,00 R 215 75 1,00 94,0 113,3* 4,89 S
4,58 4,00 R 215 75 1,00 94,0 113,3* 3,88 S
4,00 4,50 R 210 100 0,40 44,4 53,5* 2,16 S
Swamy

crimpe
Bahia
and

4,00 4,50 R 210 100 0,80 46,8 56,4* 3,10 S

d
4,00 4,50 R 210 100 1,20 49,8 60,0* 3,13 S
3,55 0,70 R 350 100 0,50 60,0 72,3* 9,42 S
3,55 0,47 R 350 100 1,00 60,0 72,3* 13,16 S
Narayananand

3,55 0,92 R 350 100 1,00 60,0 72,3* 9,97 S

crimped
Darwish

3,55 0,70 R 350 100 1,00 67,0 80,7* 11,48 S

3,55 0,70 R 350 100 1,00 38,0 45,8* 8,52 S
3,55 0,70 R 350 100 1,00 42,0 50,6* 9,65 S
3,55 0,70 R 350 100 1,25 68,0 81,9* 11,39 S
3,59 2,00 R 175 100 0,50 80,0 96,4* 6,84 S
Shin,OhandGoosh

3,59 3,00 R 175 100 0,50 80,0 96,4* 3,19 S

3,59 4,50 R 175 100 0,50 80,0 96,4* 2,78 S

plain
3,59 2,00 R 175 100 1,00 80,0 96,4* 7,40 S
3,59 3,00 R 175 100 1,00 80,0 96,4* 4,10 S
3,59 4,50 R 175 100 1,00 80,0 96,4* 3,44 S
2,15 1,35 R 557 60 0,75 54,0 65,1* 3,30 S
Mindess,St.
Pierreand

2,15 1,35 R 557 60 1,50 50,0 60,2* 3,87 S

Adebar,

hooked
Olund

2,15 1,35 R 557 60 0,40 55,0 66,3* 2,44 S

2,15 1,35 R 557 60 0,60 56,0 67,5* 2,77 S
2,15 1,35 R 557 100 0,40 47,0 56,6* 2,95 S
1,22 2,00 R 186 50 0,50 28,7 34,6* 1,64 S
Venkatachartulu
Murthyand

1,22 2,00 R 186 100 0,50 32,2 38,8* 1,94 S

1,22 2,00 R 186 50 1,00 29,0 34,9* 2,18 S

plain
1,22 3,00 R 186 50 1,00 32,1 38,7* 1,58 S
1,22 3,00 R 186 100 1,00 32,3 38,9* 1,98 S
1,22 3,00 R 186 50 1,50 32,8 39,5* 2,42 S
3,89 2,00 R 340 60 0,50 35,0 42,2* 10,68 S
Paramasivam
Murugappan

3,89 2,00 R 340 60 0,75 33,0 39,8* 8,87 S

hooked
Tan,

and

3,89 2,00 R 340 60 1,00 36,0 43,4* 10,31 S

3,89 2,50 R 340 60 1,00 36,0 43,4* 7,56 S
3,89 1,50 R 340 60 1,00 36,0 43,4* 15,05 S

A11

Beamsize
Specimens Fibres Concrete ShearForceat[kN]
Mix FlexuralReinforcement Crosssection

Ageattest
fys l Shea Ultimate

Kindofcross
Maximum
Modeof

aggregate
w/cratio
f' c.

ssize
(days)

section
Article cp
flexaverag h h f db w b f clear L d f l f V f f cu.28,m r shear kind failure

type
By a/d SFtype l f /d f cyl,m
No. [N/mm 2 ] (%) e [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] span [mm] [mm] [mm] (%) [MPa] [MPa] force stress oftest S=Shear
[MPa] F=Flexure
[MPa] [mm] [kN] [MPa]
4,31 2,00 R 265 100 1,00 44,5 53,6* 5,51 S
Swamy,Jones
andChiam

4,31 3,43 R 265 100 1,00 51,1 61,6* 4,05 S

crimped
4,31 4,91 R 265 100 1,00 45,0 54,2* 2,92 S
2,76 3,43 R 265 100 1,00 41,4 49,9* 3,13 S
1,55 2,00 R 265 100 1,00 44,6 53,7* 4,65 S
A22 2,20 1,50 R 200 182 100 60 0,75 3,78 53,0 63,9* 99,0 5,44 S
2,20 2,00 R 200 182 100 60 0,75 3,78 53,0 63,9* 65,0 3,57 S
2,20 2,50 R 200 182 100 60 0,75 3,78 53,0 63,9* 62,1 3,41 S
2,00 2,50 R 300 280 100 60 0,75 3,78 53,0 63,9* 90,2 3,22 S

Indentedcutwire
2,00 3,00 R 300 280 100 60 0,75 3,78 53,0 63,9* 73,6 2,63 S
3,54 1,50 R 100 80 100 60 1,50 3,78 50,0 60,2* 52,2 6,52 S
3,54 2,00 R 100 80 100 60 1,50 3,78 50,0 60,2* 44,6 5,58 S
1,84 1,50 R 100 85 100 60 1,50 3,78 50,0 60,2* 46,8 5,51 S
2,20 1,00 R 200 182 100 60 1,50 3,78 50,0 60,2* 131,8 7,24 S
Uomotoetal.(1986)

2,20 1,50 R 200 182 100 60 1,50 3,78 50,0 60,2* 109,6 6,02 S
2,20 2,00 R 200 182 100 60 1,50 3,78 50,0 60,2* 77,0 4,23 S
2,00 2,00 R 300 280 100 60 1,50 3,78 50,0 60,2* 106,7 3,81 S
1,16 2,00 R 150 130 100 53 0,75 3,78 48,0 57,8* 31,1 2,39 S
2,20 1,50 R 200 182 100 53 0,75 3,78 48,0 57,8* 82,8 4,55 S
2,20 2,00 R 200 182 100 53 0,75 3,78 48,0 57,8* 57,3 3,15 S
2,20 2,50 R 200 182 100 53 0,75 3,78 48,0 57,8* 46,0 2,53 S
2,20 3,00 R 200 182 100 53 0,75 3,78 48,0 57,8* 41,9 2,30 S

Sheared
2,20 3,50 R 200 182 100 53 0,75 3,78 48,0 57,8* 36,8 2,02 S
2,00 2,00 R 300 280 100 53 0,75 3,78 48,0 57,8* 68,6 2,45 S
1,16 1,50 R 150 130 100 53 1,50 3,78 54,0 65,1* 52,0 4,00 S
2,20 1,50 R 200 182 100 53 1,50 3,78 54,0 65,1* 97,4 5,35 S
2,20 2,00 R 200 182 100 53 2,00 3,78 54,0 65,1* 60,1 3,30 S
2,20 2,50 R 200 182 100 53 2,50 3,78 54,0 65,1* 58,2 3,20 S
2,00 2,00 R 300 280 100 53 2,00 3,78 54,0 65,1* 101,9 3,64 S
1,55 2,50 R 150 135 75 50 0,75 3,61 31,4 37,8* 21,8 2,15 S

Duoform
&Saeed
(1986)
Kadir

1,55 2,50 R 150 135 75 63 0,75 3,61 30,6 36,9* 24,0 2,37 S
1,55 2,50 R 150 135 75 83 0,75 3,61 29,2 35,2* 27,5 2,72 S
1,55 2,50 R 150 135 75 100 0,75 3,61 31,2 37,6* 27,3 2,70 S
1,34 2,00 R 225 197 150 0,50 30 60 0,50 3,30 29,1 35,1* 75,1 2,54 S
1,34 2,80 R 225 197 150 0,50 30 60 0,50 3,30 29,1 35,1* 52,6 1,78 S
Mansuretal.(1986)

1,34 3,60 R 225 197 150 0,50 30 60 0,50 3,30 29,1 35,1* 44,9 1,52 S

Hookedend
1,34 2,00 R 225 197 150 0,50 30 60 0,75 3,30 29,9 36,0* 85,1 2,88 S
1,34 2,80 R 225 197 150 0,50 30 60 0,75 3,30 29,9 36,0* 60,0 2,03 S
2,00 2,80 R 225 197 150 0,50 30 60 0,75 3,30 29,9 36,0* 65,0 2,20 S
1,34 2,80 R 225 197 150 0,50 30 60 0,75 3,30 20,6 24,8* 44,9 1,52 S
2,00 2,80 R 225 197 150 0,50 30 60 0,75 3,30 20,6 24,8* 60,0 2,03 S
2,00 2,80 R 225 197 150 0,50 30 60 0,75 3,30 33,4 40,2* 86,0 2,91 S
A23 1 0,50 7 19,00 3,90 460 2,00 I 375 50 340 60 140 1910 0,00 34,0 41,0* 63,15 0,31 4PBT S

A12

Beamsize
Specimens Fibres Concrete ShearForceat[kN]
Mix FlexuralReinforcement Crosssection

Ageattest
fys l Shea Ultimate

Kindofcross
Maximum
Modeof

aggregate
w/cratio
f' c.

ssize
(days)

section
Article cp
flexaverag h h f db w b f clear L d f l f V f f cu.28,m r shear kind failure

type
By a/d SFtype l f /d f cyl,m
No. [N/mm 2 ] (%) e [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] span [mm] [mm] [mm] (%) [MPa] [MPa] force stress oftest S=Shear
[MPa] F=Flexure
[MPa] [mm] [kN] [MPa]
2 0,50 7 19,00 3,90 460 2,00 I 375 50 340 60 140 1910 0,50 30 60 0,50 34,0 41,0* 109,0 0,53 4PBT S

endedsteel
Ordinary
Portland

3 0,50 7 19,00 3,90 460 2,00 I 375 50 340 60 140 1910 0,50 30 60 0,75 34,0 41,0* 90,5 0,44 4PBT S

hooked
Cement

fibres
4 0,50 7 19,00 3,90 460 2,00 I 375 50 340 60 140 1910 0,50 30 60 1,00 34,0 41,0* 105,2 0,52 4PBT S
5 0,50 7 19,00 3,90 460 2,50 I 375 50 340 60 140 1910 0,50 30 60 1,00 34,0 41,0* 77,1 0,38 4PBT S
6 0,50 7 19,00 3,90 460 1,50 I 375 50 340 60 140 1910 0,50 30 60 1,00 34,0 41,0* 153,5 0,75 4PBT S
A24 A1 0,60 28 3,12 4,80 R 152 127 101 1966 1981 0,00 35,1 42,3* 42,4 3,30 4PBT S
A2 0,60 28 3,12 4,80 R 152 127 101 1967 1982 0,00 35,1 42,3* 41,4 3,23 4PBT S
A3 0,60 28 3,12 4,80 R 152 127 101 1968 1983 0,00 35,1 42,3* 45,6 3,56 4PBT S
B3 0,60 28 3,12 4,40 R 152 127 101 1969 1984 round 0,25 25 102 0,22 33,2 40,0* 55,6 4,33 4PBT S
C1 0,60 28 3,12 4,20 R 152 127 101 1970 1985 round 0,25 25 102 0,22 33,2 40,0* 55,4 4,32 4PBT S
C2 0,60 28 3,12 4,20 R 152 127 101 1971 1986 round 0,25 25 102 0,22 33,2 40,0* 49,1 3,82 4PBT S
C3 0,60 28 3,12 4,20 R 152 127 101 1972 1987 round 0,25 25 102 0,22 33,2 40,0* 44,2 3,45 4PBT S
D2 0,60 28 3,12 4,30 R 152 127 101 1973 1988 round 0,25 25 102 0,22 33,2 40,0* 52,0 4,05 4PBT S
D3 0,60 28 3,12 4,30 R 152 127 101 1974 1989 round 0,25 25 102 0,22 33,2 40,0* 49,2 3,84 4PBT S
F1 0,60 28 3,12 4,00 R 152 127 101 1975 1990 round 0,25 25 102 0,44 40,7 49,1* 58,2 4,54 4PBT S
F2 0,60 28 3,12 4,00 R 152 127 101 1976 1991 round 0,25 25 102 0,44 40,7 49,1* 54,8 4,27 4PBT S
F3 0,60 28 3,12 4,00 R 152 127 101 1977 1992 round 0,25 25 102 0,44 40,7 49,1* 58,2 4,54 4PBT S
G1 0,60 28 3,12 4,40 R 152 127 101 1978 1993 round 0,25 25 102 0,22 33,2 40,0* 49,8 3,88 4PBT S
G3 0,60 28 3,12 4,40 R 152 127 101 1979 1994 round 0,25 25 102 0,22 33,2 40,0* 47,3 3,69 4PBT S
L1 0,60 28 3,12 4,00 R 152 127 101 1980 1995 crimped 0,51 25 50 0,22 33,2 40,0* 52,9 4,13 4PBT S
L2 0,60 28 3,12 4,00 R 152 127 101 1981 1996 crimped 0,51 25 50 0,22 33,2 40,0* 53,1 4,14 4PBT S
L3 0,60 28 3,12 4,00 R 152 127 101 1982 1997 crimped 0,51 25 50 0,22 33,2 40,0* 58,2 4,54 4PBT S
M1 0,60 28 3,12 4,60 R 152 127 101 1983 1998 crimped 0,51 25 50 0,22 33,2 40,0* 45,5 3,54 4PBT S
M2 0,60 28 3,12 4,40 R 152 127 101 1984 1999 crimped 0,51 25 50 0,22 33,2 40,0* 47,6 3,71 4PBT S
M3 0,60 28 3,12 4,40 R 152 127 101 1985 2000 crimped 0,51 25 50 0,22 33,2 40,0* 45,2 3,52 4PBT S
N1 0,60 28 3,12 5,00 R 152 127 101 1986 2001 crimped 0,51 25 50 0,22 33,2 40,0* 42,8 3,34 4PBT S
N2 0,60 28 3,12 4,80 R 152 127 101 1987 2002 crimped 0,51 25 50 0,22 33,2 40,0* 47,3 3,69 4PBT S
O1 0,60 28 3,12 4,00 R 152 127 101 1988 2003 crimped 0,51 25 50 0,44 40,7 49,1* 55,3 4,31 4PBT S
P1 0,60 28 3,12 4,20 R 152 127 101 1989 2004 crimped 0,51 25 50 0,44 40,7 49,1* 59,3 4,63 4PBT S
P2 0,60 28 3,12 4,20 R 152 127 101 1990 2005 crimped 0,51 25 50 0,44 40,7 49,1* 52,9 4,13 4PBT S
P3 0,60 28 3,12 4,20 R 152 127 101 1991 2006 crimped 0,51 25 50 0,44 40,7 49,1* 57,1 4,46 4PBT S
R1 0,60 28 3,12 3,20 R 152 127 101 1992 2007 crimped 0,51 25 50 0,88 40,2 48,5* 64,5 5,03 4PBT S
R2 0,60 28 3,12 3,40 R 152 127 101 1993 2008 crimped 0,51 25 50 0,88 40,2 48,5* 60,3 4,70 4PBT S
S1 0,60 28 3,12 3,40 R 152 127 101 1994 2009 crimped 0,51 25 50 0,88 40,2 48,5* 58,2 4,54 4PBT S
S2 0,60 28 3,12 3,40 R 152 127 101 1995 2010 crimped 0,51 25 50 0,88 40,2 48,5* 73,7 5,74 4PBT S
S3 0,60 28 3,12 3,40 R 152 127 101 1996 2011 crimped 0,51 25 50 0,88 40,2 48,5* 69,4 5,41 4PBT S
V2 0,60 28 3,12 1,80 R 152 127 101 1997 2012 crimped 0,51 25 50 1,76 40,3 48,6* 135,5 10,56 4PBT S
W1 0,60 28 3,12 1,20 R 152 127 101 1998 2013 crimped 0,51 25 50 1,76 40,3 48,6* 255,4 19,91 4PBT S
W2 0,60 28 3,12 1,20 R 152 127 101 1999 2014 crimped 0,51 25 50 1,76 40,3 48,6* 245,3 19,12 4PBT S
X1 0,60 28 3,12 4,80 R 152 127 101 2001 2016 crimped 0,51 25 50 0,22 33,2 40,0* 42,7 3,33 4PBT S
X2 0,60 28 3,12 4,80 R 152 127 101 2002 2017 crimped 0,51 25 50 0,22 33,2 40,0* 41,1 3,20 4PBT S
X3 0,60 28 3,12 4,80 R 152 127 101 2003 2018 crimped 0,51 25 50 0,22 33,2 40,0* 45,8 3,57 4PBT S

A13

Beamsize
Specimens Fibres Concrete ShearForceat[kN]
Mix FlexuralReinforcement Crosssection

Ageattest
fys l Shea Ultimate

Kindofcross
Maximum
Modeof

aggregate
w/cratio
f' c.

ssize
(days)

section
Article cp
flexaverag h h f db w b f clear L d f l f V f f cu.28,m r shear kind failure

type
By a/d SFtype l f /d f cyl,m
No. [N/mm 2 ] (%) e [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] span [mm] [mm] [mm] (%) [MPa] [MPa] force stress oftest S=Shear
[MPa] F=Flexure
[MPa] [mm] [kN] [MPa]
A25 A C35 0,47 28 0,00 0,80 3,20 R 150 125 100 1000 1200 0,00 32,5* 39,2 14,4 1,15 S
B 0,47 28 0,00 0,80 3,20 R 150 125 100 1000 1200 hooked 1,00 51 50 0,50 34,1* 41,1 15,3 1,22 S
C 0,47 28 0,00 0,80 3,20 R 150 125 100 1000 1200 hooked 1,00 51 50 1,00 35,3* 42,5 18,5 1,48 S
D 0,47 28 0,00 0,80 3,20 R 150 125 100 1000 1200 hooked 1,00 51 50 1,50 35,9* 43,2 20,5 1,64 S
E 0,47 28 0,00 0,80 3,20 R 150 125 100 1000 1200 hooked 1,00 51 50 2,00 36,6* 44,0 21,1 1,69 S
F 0,47 28 0,00 0,80 3,20 R 150 125 100 1000 1200 hooked 1,00 51 50 2,50 37,9* 45,6 21,4 1,71 S
G 0,47 28 0,00 0,80 3,20 R 150 125 100 1000 1200 hooked 1,00 51 50 3,00 38,3* 46,1 21,5 1,72 S
A26 P1 0,40 6,27 3,13 530 3,00 R 150 114 85 900 0,30 30 100 0,00 44,7 53,9* 27,0 2,79 4PBT
P2 0,40 6,27 3,13 530 3,00 R 150 114 85 900 crimped 0,30 30 100 0,30 55,0 66,3* 36,0 3,72 4PBT
P3 0,40 6,27 3,13 530 3,00 R 150 114 85 900 crimped 0,30 30 100 0,60 56,0 67,5* 40,0 4,13 4PBT
P4 0,40 6,27 3,13 530 3,00 R 150 114 85 900 crimped 0,30 30 100 0,90 54,4 65,5* 50,0 5,16 4PBT
P5 0,40 6,27 3,13 530 3,00 R 150 114 85 900 crimped 0,30 30 100 1,20 56,8 68,4* 58,6 6,05 4PBT
P6 0,40 6,27 3,13 530 3,00 R 150 114 85 900 crimped 0,30 30 100 1,50 55,3 66,6* 55,4 5,72 4PBT
P7 0,40 6,27 3,13 530 3,00 R 150 114 85 900 crimped 0,30 30 100 2,00 66,2 79,8* 51,1 5,27 4PBT
P8 0,40 6,27 3,13 530 3,00 R 150 114 85 900 crimped 0,30 30 100 3,00 0,0 0,0* 0,0 0,00 4PBT
P9 0,40 4,71 3,13 530 3,00 R 150 114 85 900 crimped 0,30 30 100 0,30 65,0 78,3* 35,1 3,62 4PBT
P10 0,40 4,71 3,13 530 3,00 R 150 114 85 900 crimped 0,30 30 100 0,60 67,8 81,7* 40,0 4,13 4PBT
P11 0,40 4,71 3,13 530 3,00 R 150 114 85 900 crimped 0,30 30 100 0,90 59,1 71,2* 55,4 5,72 4PBT
P12 0,40 4,71 3,13 530 3,00 R 150 114 85 900 crimped 0,30 30 100 1,20 61,3 73,9* 50,1 5,17 4PBT
P13 0,40 4,71 3,13 530 3,00 R 150 114 85 900 crimped 0,30 30 100 2,00 66,2 79,8* 49,5 5,11 4PBT
P14 0,40 4,71 3,13 530 3,00 R 150 114 85 900 crimped 0,30 30 100 3,00 0,0 0,0* 0,0 0,00 4PBT
nocoarseaggregate

P15 0,40 3,14 3,13 530 3,00 R 150 114 85 900 crimped 0,30 30 100 0,30 63,3 76,3* 30,0 3,10 4PBT
P16 0,40 3,14 3,13 530 3,00 R 150 114 85 900 crimped 0,30 30 100 0,60 66,3 79,9* 42,3 4,37 4PBT
P17 0,40 3,14 3,13 530 3,00 R 150 114 85 900 crimped 0,30 30 100 0,90 53,8 64,8* 46,3 4,78 4PBT
P18 0,40 3,14 3,13 530 3,00 R 150 114 85 900 crimped 0,30 30 100 1,20 54,8 66,0* 49,8 5,14 4PBT
P19 0,40 3,14 3,13 530 3,00 R 150 114 85 900 crimped 0,30 30 100 2,00 61,5 74,1* 52,0 5,37 4PBT
P20 0,40 3,14 3,13 530 3,00 R 150 114 85 900 crimped 0,30 30 100 2,50 63,5 76,5* 54,5 5,62 4PBT
P21 0,40 7,84 4,47 530 3,00 R 150 100 85 900 crimped 0,30 30 100 0,30 63,3 76,3* 46,4 5,46 4PBT
P22 0,40 7,84 4,47 530 3,00 R 150 100 85 900 crimped 0,30 30 100 0,60 66,3 79,9* 53,5 6,29 4PBT
P23 0,40 7,84 4,47 530 3,00 R 150 100 85 900 crimped 0,30 30 100 0,90 53,8 64,8* 50,3 5,92 4PBT
P24 0,40 7,84 4,47 530 3,00 R 150 100 85 900 crimped 0,30 30 100 1,20 54,8 66,0* 51,3 6,04 4PBT
P25 0,40 7,84 4,47 530 3,00 R 150 100 85 900 crimped 0,30 30 100 2,00 60,0 72,3* 60,9 7,16 4PBT
P26 0,40 7,84 4,47 530 3,00 R 150 100 85 900 crimped 0,30 30 100 2,50 66,0 79,5* 57,4 6,75 4PBT
P27 0,40 3,14 3,13 530 2,00 R 150 114 85 900 crimped 0,30 30 100 0,00 55,4 66,7* 34,3 3,54 4PBT
P28 0,40 3,14 3,13 530 2,00 R 150 114 85 900 crimped 0,30 30 100 1,00 56,3 67,8* 59,3 6,12 4PBT
P29 0,40 3,14 3,13 530 2,00 R 150 114 85 900 crimped 0,30 30 100 2,00 61,5 74,1* 59,7 6,16 4PBT
P30 0,40 3,14 3,13 530 2,00 R 150 114 85 900 crimped 0,30 30 100 2,50 63,5 76,5* 68,1 7,03 4PBT
P31 0,40 7,84 4,47 530 2,00 R 150 100 85 900 crimped 0,30 30 100 0,00 55,4 66,7* 53,4 6,28 4PBT
P32 0,40 7,84 4,47 530 2,00 R 150 100 85 900 crimped 0,30 30 100 1,00 56,3 67,8* 71,1 8,36 4PBT
P33 0,40 7,84 4,47 530 2,00 R 150 100 85 900 crimped 0,30 30 100 2,00 60,0 72,3* 75,8 8,92 4PBT
P34 0,40 7,84 4,47 530 2,00 R 150 100 85 900 crimped 0,30 30 100 2,50 66,0 79,5* 69,3 8,15 4PBT
P35 0,40 0,00 3,13 530 2,00 R 150 114 85 900 52,0 62,7* 34,8 3,59 4PBT
P36 0,40 0,00 3,13 530 2,00 R 150 114 85 900 crimped 0,30 30 100 1,00 53,0 63,9* 36,4 3,76 4PBT

A14

Beamsize
Specimens Fibres Concrete ShearForceat[kN]
Mix FlexuralReinforcement Crosssection

Ageattest
fys l Shea Ultimate

Kindofcross
Maximum
Modeof

aggregate
w/cratio
f' c.

ssize
(days)

section
Article cp
flexaverag h h f db w b f clear L d f l f V f f cu.28,m r shear kind failure

type
By a/d SFtype l f /d f cyl,m
No. [N/mm 2 ] (%) e [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] span [mm] [mm] [mm] (%) [MPa] [MPa] force stress oftest S=Shear
[MPa] F=Flexure
[MPa] [mm] [kN] [MPa]
P37 0,40 0,00 3,13 530 2,00 R 150 114 85 900 crimped 0,30 30 100 0,00 52,0 62,7* 54,3 5,60 4PBT
P38 0,40 0,00 3,13 530 2,00 R 150 114 85 900 53,0 63,9* 59,9 6,18 4PBT
A27 1 0,20 90 0,00 7,26 3,33 I 650 100 600 50 400 4000 4500 straight 0,20 13 65 2,50 161,0 176,0 430,0 3PBT S
2 0,21 85 14,83 7,26 3,33 I 650 100 600 50 400 4000 4500 straight 0,20 13 65 2,50 160,0 178,0 497,0 3PBT S
3 0,22 65 7,15 7,26 3,33 I 650 100 600 50 400 4000 4500 straight 0,20 13 65 2,50 149,0 166,0 428,0 3PBT S
4 0,20 58 7,15 7,26 3,33 I 650 100 600 50 400 4000 4500 straight 0,20 13 65 1,25 164,0 180,0 336,5 3PBT S
5 0,19 49 7,15 7,26 3,33 I 650 100 600 50 400 4000 4500 mix 0,32 19,80 62 2,50 171,0 187,0 440,0 3PBT S
6 0,22 34 7,15 7,26 3,33 I 650 100 600 50 400 4000 4500 hooked 0,50 30 60 2,50 157,0 168,0 330,0 3PBT S
7 0,21 34 7,15 7,26 3,33 I 650 100 600 50 400 4000 4500 mix 0,32 20 62 2,50 169,0 185,0 400,0 3PBT S
A28 1 27 14,00 13,08 1,58 2,35 I 900 100 810 80 300 10300 10900 52,3* 63,0 437,6 0,68 3PBT S
CementR
Portland

2 26 14,00 13,08 1,58 2,35 I 900 100 810 80 300 10300 10900 54,3* 65,4 528,5 0,82 3PBT S
52,5

3 38 14,00 13,08 1,58 2,35 I 900 100 810 80 300 10300 10900 hooked 0,75 60 80 0,51 51,8* 62,4 542,4 0,84 3PBT S
4 37 14,00 13,08 1,58 2,35 I 900 100 810 80 300 10300 10900 hooked 0,75 60 80 0,76 46,2* 55,7 509,4 0,79 3PBT S
A29 1 0,50 7 19,00 3,90 460 2,00 I 375 50 340 60 140 1910 0,00 34,0 41,0* 63,15 0,31 4PBT S
PortlandCement

2 0,50 7 19,00 3,90 460 2,00 I 375 50 340 60 140 1910 0,50 30 60 0,50 34,0 41,0* 109,0 0,53 4PBT S
Ordinary

endedsteel
3 0,50 7 19,00 3,90 460 2,00 I 375 50 340 60 140 1910 0,50 30 60 0,75 34,0 41,0* 90,5 0,44 4PBT S

hooked

fibres
4 0,50 7 19,00 3,90 460 2,00 I 375 50 340 60 140 1910 0,50 30 60 1,00 34,0 41,0* 105,2 0,52 4PBT S
5 0,50 7 19,00 3,90 460 2,50 I 375 50 340 60 140 1910 0,50 30 60 1,00 34,0 41,0* 77,1 0,38 4PBT S
6 0,50 7 19,00 3,90 460 1,50 I 375 50 340 60 140 1910 0,50 30 60 1,00 34,0 41,0* 153,5 0,75 4PBT S
A30 1 0,70 9,50 1,08 450 2,87 R 230 209 150 1800 0,00 44,8 54,0* 42,5 0,14 4PBT S
2 0,70 9,50 1,08 450 2,87 R 230 209 150 1800 stirrup 0,69 42 60 0,00 44,8 54,0* 50,0 0,16 4PBT F
3 0,70 9,50 1,08 450 2,87 R 230 209 150 1800 stirrup 0,69 42 60 0,00 44,8 54,0* 52,0 0,17 4PBT F
4 0,70 9,50 1,08 450 2,87 R 230 209 150 1800 0,69 42 60 0,57 45,2 54,5* 48,5 0,15 4PBT S
5 0,70 9,50 1,08 450 2,87 R 230 209 150 1800 0,69 42 60 1,15 40,7 49,0* 66,5 0,21 4PBT F
6 0,70 9,50 1,08 450 2,87 R 230 209 150 1800 0,69 42 60 1,72 34,3 41,3* 74,0 0,24 4PBT F
7 0,70 9,50 1,08 450 2,87 R 230 209 150 1800 stirrup 0,69 42 60 0,57 45,2 54,5* 65,5 0,21 4PBT F
8 0,70 9,50 1,08 450 2,87 R 230 209 150 1800 stirrup 0,69 42 60 1,15 40,7 49,0* 71,5 0,23 4PBT F
9 0,70 9,50 1,08 450 2,87 R 230 209 150 1800 stirrup 0,69 42 60 1,72 34,3 41,3* 74,0 0,24 4PBT F

A15


AppendixB

SFRCPapersandReferences

[A01] Swamy, N.R., Roy, J. & Chiam A.T.P (1993): Influence of Steel Fibers in the Shear
ResistanceofLightweightConcreteIBeam.ACIStructuralJournal,Volume90,No.1,
pp.103114.

[A02] Dinh,H.H.,ParraMontesinos,G.J.&Wight,J.K.(2010):ShearBehaviorofSteelFiber
Reinforced Concrete Beams without Stirrup Reinforcement. ACI Structural Journal
Volume107,No.5,pp.597606.

[A03] Ashour, S.A., Hasanain, G.S. & Wafa, F.F. (1992): Shear Behavior of HighStrength
FiberReinforcedConcreteBeams.ACIStructuralJournalVolume89,No.2,pp.176
183.

[A04] Batson, G.B. & Youssef, A.G. (1994): Shear Capacity of Fiber Reinforced Concrete
BasedonPlasticityofConcrete:AReview.FiberReinforcedConcrete:Developments
and Innovations, SP142 (Eds.: Daniel, J.I & Shah, S.P.) American Concrete Institute,
Detroit,USA,pp.141165.

[A05] Henager, C.H., Asce, M. & Doherty, T.J. (1976): Analysis of Reinforced Fibrous
ConcreteBeams.JournaloftheStructuralDivision,ASCEVolume102,No.1,pp.177
188.

[A06] Kaushik, S.K., Gupta, V.K. & Tarafdar, N.K. (1987): Behaviour of Fiber Reinforced
Concrete Beams in Shear. Proceedings of the International Symposium of Fibre
ReinforcedConcrete,Madras,India,December1619,pp.133149.

[A07] Murty, D.S.R. & Venkatacharyulu, T. (1987): Fibre Reinforced Concrete Beams
Subjected to Shear Force. Proceedings of the International Symposium of Fibre
ReinforcedConcrete,Madras,India,December1619,pp.125131.

[A08] Narayanan, R. & Darwish, I.Y.S. (1987): Use of Steel Fibers as Shear Reinforcement.
ACIStructuralJournal,Volume84,No.3,pp.216227.

B1

[A09] Saluja,S.K.,Kumar,S.,Samra,M.S.&Singh,A.P.(1992):FlexuralandShearStrengthof
FibreReinforcedConcreteBeams.JournalofStructuralEngineering,Volume19,No.
3,pp.101105.

[A10] Sharma, A.K. (1986): Shear Strength of Steel Fiber Reinforced Concrete Beams. ACI
Journal,Volume83,No.4,pp.624628.

[A11] Shin, S.W., Oh, J.G. & Ghosh, S.K. (1994): Shear Behavior of LaboratorySized High
Strength Concrete Beams Reinforced with Bars and Steel Fibers. Fiber Reinforced
ConcreteDevelopmentsandInnovations.ACISP142,Detroit,Michigan,pp.181200.

[A12] Swamy, R.N & Bahia, H.M. (1985): The Effectiveness of Steel Fibers as Shear
Reinforcement.ConcreteInternational,Volume7,No.3,pp.3540.

[A13] Tan, K.H., Paramasivam, P. & Murugappan, K. (1995): Steel Fibers as Shear
ReinforcementinPartiallyPrestressedBeams.ACIStructuralJournal,Volume92,No.6,
pp.643652.

[A14] Rosenbusch, J.& Teutsch, M. (2003): Shear Design with Method.Test and Design
MethodsforSteelFibreReinforcedConcrete.RILEMTC162TDFWorkshop,Bochum,
Germany,pp.105117.

[A15] Ding,Y.,You,Z.&Jalali,S.(2011):TheCompositeEffectofSteelFibresandStirrupson
the Shear Behaviour of Beams Using SelfConsolidating Concrete. Engineering
Structures,Volume33,No.1,pp.107117.

[A16] De Hanai, J.B. & Holanda, K.M.A. (2008): Similarities between Punching and Shear
StrengthofSteelFiberReinforcedConcrete(SFRC)SlabsandBeams.IbraconStructures
andMaterialsJournal,Volume1,No.1,pp.116.

[A17] Lim,D.H.&Oh,B.H.(1999):ExperimentalandTheoreticalInvestigationontheShearof
SteelFibreReinforcedConcreteBeams.EngineeringStructures,Volume21,No.10,pp.
937944.

[A18] Sachan,A.K.&KameswaraRao,C.V.S.(1990):BehaviourofFibreReinforcedConcrete
DeepBeams.Cement&ConcreteComposites,Volume12,No.3,pp.211218.

[A19] Cucchiara, C., La Mendola, L. & Papia, M. (2004): Effectiveness of Stirrups and Steel
FibresasShearReinforcement.Cement&ConcreteComposites,Volume26,No.7,pp
777786.

[A20] Roberts, T.M. & Ho, N.L. (1982): Shear Failure of Deep Fibre Reinforced Concrete
Beams. The International Journal of Cement Composites and Lightweight Concrete,
Volume4,No.3,pp.145152.

[A21] Adhiraky,B.B.&Mutsuyoshi,H.(2006):PredictionofShearStrengthofSteelFiberRC
Beams Using Neural Networks.Elsevier Edition Construction and Building Materials,
Volume20,No.9,pp.801811.

[A22] AlTa'an, S.A. & AlFeel, J.R. (1990): Evaluation of Shear Strength of FibreReinforced
ConcreteBeams.Cement&ConcreteComposites,Volume12,No.2,pp.8794.

B2

[A23] Fico,R.,Prota,A.&Manfredi,G.(2008):AssessmentofEurocodelikeDesignEquations
for the Shear Capacity of FRP RC Members. (Elsevier Edition) Composites: Part B,
Volume39,No.5,pp.792806.

[A24] Batson, G., Jenkins, E. & Spatney, R. (1972): Steel Fibers as Shear Reinforcement in
Beams.ACIJournal,Volume69,No.10,pp.640644.

[A25] Niyogi,S.K.&Dwarakanathan,G.I.(1985):FiberReinforcedBeamsunderMomentand
Shear.JournalofStructuralEngineering,Volume111,No.3,pp.516527.

[A26] Narayanan, R. & Darwish, I.Y.S. (1987): Shear in Prestressed Concrete Beams
Containing Steel Fibres. The International Journal of Cement Composites and
LightweightConcrete,Volume9,No.2,pp.8190.

[A27] Voo,Y.L.,Foster,S.J.&Gilbert,I.R.(2003):ShearStrengthofFibreReinforcedReactive
Powder Concrete Gilders without Stirrups. School of Civil and Environmental
Engineering,TheUniversityofNewSouthWales,UNSWSydney,Australia.

[A28] De Pauw, P., Taerwe, L., Van De Buverie, N. & Moerman, W. (2008): Replacement of
Shear Reinforcement by Steel Fibres in Pretensioned Concrete Beams. Tailor Made
ConcreteStructuresWalraven&Stoelhorstedition.London,U.K.,2008.pp.391397.

[A29] Kwak, Y.K, Eberhard, M.O., Kim, W.S.& Kim,J. (2002): Shear Strength of SteelFiber
ReinforcedConcreteBeamswithoutStirrups.ACIStructuralJournal,Volume99,No.4,
pp.530538.

[A30] Kearsley, E.P. & Mostert, H.F. (2004): The Effect of Fibres on the Shear Strength of
Reinforced Concrete Beams. Proceedings of the Sixth RILEM Symposium on Fibre
ReinforcedConcrete(FRC).BEFIB2004,Varenna,Italy.Volume2,pp.955964.

B3


 TRITABKN.MasterThesis331,
StructuralDesignandBridges2011
ISSN11034297
ISRNKTH/BKN/EX331SE

www.kth.se