Fracture Mechanics of Concrete and Concrete Structures -

High Performance, Fiber Reinforced Concrete, Special Loadings and Structural Applications- B. H. Oh, et al. (eds)
ⓒ 2010 Korea Concrete Institute, ISBN 978-89-5708-182-2

Shear strength of steel fiber-reinforced lightweight concrete beams

T. H.-K. Kang & W. Kim
University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, USA

ABSTRACT: Experimental data were utilized to investigate the effect of steel fibers on the shear strength of a
lightweight concrete beam. Prior tests of steel fiber-reinforced lightweight concrete (SFRLC) beams or small-
scale concrete mockups were reviewed. Only two large-scale test programs on SFRLC beams are available to
date. The variables studied in these programs included the shear span-to-depth ratio and steel fiber volume
fraction. The addition of steel fibers with steel fiber volume fractions of 0.5% to 0.75% increased the shear
strength by roughly 25% to 45%. It is also found that the shear-to-depth ratio adversely affected the shear
strength. Several models for the shear strength of steel fiber-reinforced concrete beams were evaluated using
the re-assessed data to evaluate the shear strength of the SFRLC specimens. Finally, design shear strength
equations for SFRLC beams without stirrups have been proposed based on the calibration results.

1 INTRODUCTION normalweight concrete have been conducted by

many investigators over the past decades (Naraya-
Use of steel fiber-reinforced concrete (SFRC) is in- nan & Darwish 1987, Kwak et al. 2002, Ashour et
creasingly popular in the U.S. and other countries, as al. 1992, Swamy et al. 1993, Choi et al. 2007, Kang
it tends to improve mechanical properties and struc- et al. 2009) (see Fig. 3). Given this gap, a review of
tural performance relative to conventionally rein- experimental studies of the shear behavior of
forced concrete (with the same steel volume frac- SFRLC beams without stirrups is carried out.
tion). The addition of steel fibers (Fig. 1) to a
reinforced concrete (RC) beam is known to improve
shear and flexural behavior. The improved behavior
of SFRC members is associated with the post-
cracking tensile strength of SFRC; thus, the use of
SFRC helps in reducing the degree and width of
cracking (Fig. 2). Along with these advantages, one
of the most useful applications of SFRC is to relieve
steel congestion by reducing the amount of shear or
confining transverse reinforcement without sacrific-
ing structural performance.
A similar improvement may be anticipated in
steel fiber-reinforced lightweight concrete (SFRLC);
however, the application of minimum steel fiber vo- Figure 1. Discrete hooked steel fibers.
lume fraction to lightweight concrete is question-
able. To address this question, mechanical properties
of SFRLC need to be first identified, and then struc-
tural performance needs to be verified through large-
scale experimental testing. Finally, a database would
be compiled and studied for development or support
of design models and provisions. In this paper, these
procedures are conducted using previous and current
research on SFRLC materials and structural mem-
bers.
Available studies on the structural behavior for
large-scale steel fiber-reinforced members with
lightweight concrete are scarce, although a large
number of studies on SFRC structural members with Figure 2. Steel fibers that restrain crack opening during shear
testing (at Fears Lab of the University of Oklahoma).
 The objectives of this study are (1) to verify the (failure modes were − D (h, T )∇h 2) the steel fiber vol-
J = different);
effectiveness of steel fibers in lightweight concrete, ume fractions (Vf) of both 0.5% and 0.75% increased
(2) to assess the shear behavior of SFRLC beams the shear strength of Theplain
proportionality
concrete by coefficient
about 25% D(h,T)
quantitatively, and (3) to develop design shear moisture permeability and span-to-
and 45%, respectively; and 3) the shear it is a nonlinea
strength equations for SFRLC beams. of theaffected
depth ratio adversely relative thehumidity and temperature
shear hstrength of
SFRLC beams. Here, λ
& Najjar 1972). The moisture mass balanc
is the modification factor re-
that mechanical
flecting the reduced the variationproperties
in time ofofthe water mas
light-
weight concrete, volume of concrete (water content
all relative to normalweight con-w) be eq
crete of the same divergence
compressive of strength
the moisture fluxCh.
(as per J 2
of ACI 318-08).
Theodorakopoulos & Swamy (1993) investigated
− ∂w = ∇ • and
punching shear behavior J strength of SFRLC
∂t
slab-column connections. Twenty connection speci-
mens were tested under various
The water parameters
content w can of be steel
expressed a
fiber shapes, Vf (0.5% and 1%), reinforcing
of the evaporable water we (capillaryratios of wa
tension and compression slab steel (0.32%
vapor, and adsorbed water) and the non-e and
0.57%), column size (100, 150,bound)
(chemically and 200water
mm), and wn (Mil
concrete compressive strength (f’
Pantazopoulo & Mills 1995).
c = 17.8 to 58.6It is reas
MPa). Overall, the addition
assume thatoftheallevaporable
types of steel waterfi- is a fu
bers in SFRLC slab-column connections increased
relative humidity, h, degree of hydration
the gravity load atdegree
first cracking
of silica (by
fume 33% to 50%),
reaction, αs, ati.e. we=w
Figure 3. Four-point loading of a steel fiber-reinforced beam
(at Fears Lab of the University of Oklahoma). yielding (by 12%=to 80%), and at punching (by
age-dependent sorption/desorption 30%
to 100%). Usage (Norling
of paddleMjonell
steel fibers1997). Under 1%
with V f = this assum
resulted in the greatest punching shear strength.
by substituting Equation 1 into Equati
2 PREVIOUS EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAMS obtains
∂w ∂h
e + ∇ • ( D ∇h) = ∂we ∂w
To date, studies on the use of steel fibers in light-
weight concrete have been sparse. Most previous −
h α&c + e α&s + w
∂h ∂t ∂α ∂α
tests of SFRLC materials were performed using ap- c s
proximately 100 x 100 x 360 mm prisms (see Fig.
4), 150 x 300 mm cylinders (see Figs. 4 and 5), and where ∂we/∂h is the slope of the sorption/
small-scale shear specimens (e.g., 80 x 80 x 155 isotherm (also called moisture capac
mm) (Balaguru & Ramakrishman 1987, Balaguru & governing equation (Equation 3) must be
Dipsia 1993, Balaguru & Foden 1996, Swamy & Jo- by appropriate boundary and initial conditi
jagha 1982a, b, Kayali et al. 1999, Gao et al. 1997, The relation between the amount of e
Higashiyama & Banthia 2008). Only 3 large-scale water and relative humidity is called ‘‘
structural testing programs of SFRLC members were Figure 4. Modulus of isotherm”
rupture testingif measured
(per ASTM C1609) with increasing
and
reported (Swamy et al. 1993, Theodorakopoulos & humidity
splitting tensile strength testing and ‘‘desorption
(per ASTM
mixes (at Fears Lab of the University of Oklahoma).
C496) ofisotherm”
concrete in th
Swamy 1993, Kang & Kim 2009). case. Neglecting their difference (Xi et al.
the following, ‘‘sorption isotherm” will be
2.1 Large-scale structural tests reference tests
2.2 Small-scale materials to both sorption and desorption c
Experimental studies
By the
were
way, if theby Balaguru
conducted
hysteresis&of the
Swamy et al. (1993) tested seven large-scale speci- isotherm
Dipsia (1993) andrelation,Balaguru
would be taken
& Fodenwater (1996)
intotoaccount,
as- humi
two
mens of SFRLC I-section beams with a span length
sess the applicability
evaporable
of discrete steel fibers
vs relative
of 3 m. The test results indicated that the ultimate
proving mechanical
be used according
properties of
signforofim-
tonormal-strength
the the varia
shear strength was dependent upon span-to-depth ra- relativity
(42 MPa) and high-strength
humidity.
(62.1 MPa)
The shape
lightweight
of the
tio (a/d) and tension reinforcing ratio (ρ), and that isotherm for programs
concrete. The experimental
HPC is influenced byofmany p
consistedextent
SFRLC with a steel fiber volume fraction (Vf) of 1%
third-point loading
especially those
tests reactions
that
of prismsand,
influence
per inASTM
and
showed significantly greater shear strength (by 60% chemical
C1018, splitting structure
tensile and compressive
turn, determ
strength (water-
to 210%) than equivalent beams without steel fibers.
tests of cylinders ratio,
per ASTM
andC496/496M,
pore size distribution
and direct
Kang & Kim (2009) reported monotonic four-
shear tests. In their
cement chemical
experimental studies,
composition,
it was mix
SF
point loading tests of nine SFRLC and three SFRC
found that the addition
curing time
of the
and method,
steelliterature
fibers to various
temperature,
lightweight
beams, where the parameters of the shear span-to-
concrete increased
etc.).
the
In
compressive strength
formulatio
(f’c) isotherm
by
depth ratio (2, 3, and 4) and steel fiber volume frac-
30% to 40%, splitting
found to
tensile
describe
strength
the(f
sorption
) by 80% to in th
tion (Vf = 0%, 0.5%, and 0.75%) are evaluated. It
100%, and modulus
concrete
of
(Xi et (Eal.) 1994).
elasticity by
sp
5%
However,
to 25%.
was reported that 1) the shear strength of SFRC
The improved mechanical
paper theproperties
semi-empirical
c
expression pro
were observed
beams was slightly larger than that of SFRLC beams Norling Mjornell (1997)
for all combinations of the fiber lengths (30, 50, and
is adopted b

Proceedings of FraMCoS-7, May 23-28, 2010

 − D (h, Tand
J = mm)
60 )∇h steel fiber volume fractions (0.55%,
(1) explicitly
plain shapes. accounts for the evolution of hydration
0.75%, 0.9%, and 1.1%). reaction
Based and SFreviews
on the content.of This sorption
the prior tests, isotherm
steel fi-
The proportionality coefficient D(h,T) is called readsin lightweight concrete appear to be equally ef-
bers
moisture permeability and it is a nonlinear function fective in improving mechanical properties and
of the relative humidity h and temperature T (Bažant structural performance ⎡as steel fibers in ⎤normal-
& Najjar 1972). The moisture mass balance requires weight concrete. However,
we (h, α cassessment ⎢
, α ) = G (α , α ) 1 −
further 1rational ⎥and sta-
+
that the variation in time of the water mass per unit tistical s 1 cof the
s ⎢ increased
10(g α
∞properties
− α )h ⎥ would
volume of concrete (water content w) be equal to the be needed to judge whether ⎢
⎣ e the 1λ cfactorc of⎥⎦ 0.75(4)is
divergence of the moisture flux J generally applicable for most cases with relatively
∞ α )h ⎤ in λ is
10(g αthe −variation
small variations. In this ⎡⎢study, 1 c c − 1⎥
not considered for
K1 (α cdesign
,α ) e
s ⎢ model simplification and
− ∂ = ∇•J
w
(2) to be consistent with the⎣ current ACI 318-08
⎥
⎦ code
∂ t
provisions (§8.6.1).
The water content w can be expressed as the sum where the first term (gel isotherm) represents the
of the evaporable water we (capillary water, water physically bound (adsorbed) water and the second
vapor,5.and
Figure adsorbedstrength
Compressive water)tests
andofthe non-evaporable
SFRLC cylinders per
3term (capillary isotherm)
DEVELOPMENT represents theOFcapillary
& CALIBRATION
(chemically
ASTM C496, withbound)
two strainwater (Millsto measure
wn cylinder
gauges per 1966, water. This expression
DESIGN SHEAR STRENGTH is valid only for low content
EQUATIONS
Pantazopoulo
strains & ofMills
(at Fears Lab 1995). ofItOklahoma).
the University is reasonable to
Note that of SF. The coefficient G1 represents the amount of
assume that the evaporable water is a function of
red gravels exposed are expanded shale lightweight aggregates. water
In the per unit volume
preceding held most
section, in theavailable
gel pores previous
at 100%
relative humidity, h, degree of hydration, αc, and relative humidity,
experimental and on
research it can be expressed
SFRLC (Norling
was summarized.
Similar
degree of experiments
silica fume were αconducted
reaction, for high-
s, i.e. we=we(h,αc,αs)
Mjornell
In 1997)the
this section, as shear strength equations available
strength SFRLC (≥ 70 MPa) by Gao
= age-dependent sorption/desorption isotherm et al. (1997) for SFRC beams were evaluated as to whether or not
and
(Norling Mjonell 1997). Under this assumptionet and
for normal-strength SFRLC by Kayali al. they
G1 (α are c α c + k s to
alsokapplicable SFRLC beams, in consid- (5)
(1999), and similar results were obtained
by substituting Equation 1 into Equation 2 one with the fi- erationc , αof
s ) =the
vgACI c 318 ss
vg α specified lightweight con-
ber length of about 25 mm and the volume fraction
obtains crete factor (λ). Results from the prior SFRLC beam
of 0.25% to 1.65%. tests kcvg andby
wherereported are material
ksvgSwamy et al. parameters.
(1993) and From Kang the&
Higashiyama & Banthia (2008) evaluated rela-
∂w ∂h ∂w we maximum amount of water per unit volume that can
Kim (2009) were used for this evaluation.
− e
tions between e α& + ∂toughness
shear and flexural
+ ∇ • ( D ∇h ) = α&s + w&n for both
(3) fillAs
all part
poresof(both capillary pores
the analyses, the effectand gel pores),
of the one
dosage
∂h ∂t h ∂α c
α
SFRC and SFRLC. Two fiber volume fractions (Vf =
∂ can calculate
rate of steel fibersK1 as on oneshear
obtainsstrength is investigated.
c s
0.5% and 1%) were selected for third-point loading According to the new provision of ACI 318-08
tests in accordance with ASTM C1609 and for direct (§5.6.6.2(a)), steel fiber-reinforced ⎛concrete ⎞ should
where ∂w /∂h is the slope of the sorption/desorption
shear tests.e The results indicated that for a given fi- be considered acceptable for
⎡
shear
⎢ 10 ⎜ g α − α ⎟h ⎥
∞
c c
resistance
⎤
when
isotherm (also called moisture capacity). The
ber type and volume fraction, SFRC exhibited better
w − 0.188 α s + α s −G ⎢ −e
c 0.22

the dosage rate of deformed steel s 1

⎝
1 ⎠
⎥
fibers is not⎥ less
governing equation (Equation 3) must be completed (6)
0 1
⎢
shear and flexural toughness properties than SFRLC. K (α c 60
than α )kg/m 3
. This rate is ⎣
equivalent to a mix⎦ with
by Swamy
appropriate boundary and initial conditions. ,
s =

Vf = 0.75%. Although ⎜⎝ gthe c − α c ⎟⎠h −

⎛ ⎞
α specimens
∞
1
& Jojagha (1982a) performed a variety of investigated
The relation between the amount of evaporable
10

workability tests for both SFRC and SFRLC in the e 1

(Swamy et al. 1993, Kang & Kim 2009) were built

1

water and relative humidity is called ‘‘adsorption

fresh state, including inverted slump cone tests, before the inclusion of §5.6.6.2
isotherm” if measured with increasing relativity
standard slump and flow table tests, and vibrator-
The material parameters kcvg in
series, 12 of 15 specimens satisfied
andtheksthis
ACI 318 code
vg and g1 can
minimum
humidity and ‘‘desorption isotherm” in the opposite
based remolding tests. It was concluded that pulver-
be calibrated by fitting experimental data relevant
requirement (60 kg/m3 or Vf = 0.75%).
to
case. Neglecting their difference (Xi et al. 1994), in
ized fuel ash and water-reducing-plasticizing admix-
freeAccording
(evaporable) water content in concrete at
to ACI 318-08 (§5.6.6.2), where
the following, ‘‘sorption isotherm” will be used with
ture should be added to release inter-locking friction
various ages (Di Luzio & Cusatis 2009b).
ASTM C1609 is referred to, a mid-span deflection
reference to both sorption and desorption conditions.
between fibers and aggregates. From similar tests of (δmid) should also be measured during the modulus
By the way, if the hysteresis of the moisture
Balaguru & Ramakrishen (1987), it was concluded 2.2rupture
of Temperature
testing if evolution
a member is designed for shear
isotherm would be taken into account, two different
that toughness and energy absorption for SFRLC resistance (see Fig. 4). The ACI 318 provision speci-
relation, evaporable water vs relative humidity, must
were equivalent to those for SFRC.
Note that, at early age, since the chemical reactions
fies that SFRC should be considered acceptable for
be Swamy
used according to the sign of the variation of the
& Jojagha (1982b) experimentally as-
associated with cement hydration and SF reaction
shear resistance only if the prism flexural strength at
relativity humidity. The shape of the sorption
sessed material characteristics of SFRC and SFRLC
are exothermic, the temperature field is not uniform
δmid = L/300 is neither less than 90% of the peak nor
isotherm for HPC is influenced by many parameters,
under impact loads by means of a drop hammer test
for non-adiabatic systems even if the environmental
90% of cracking moment (Mcr), and the strength at
especially those that influence extent and rate of the
and a drop ball test in accordance with ACI 544.2R-
temperature is constant. Heat conduction can be
δmid = L/150 is neither less than 75% of the peak nor
chemical reactions and, in turn, determine pore
78. Three and four mixes were tested for normal-
described in concrete, at least for temperature not
0.75Mcr. Here, Mcr is calculated using the modulus
structure and pore size distribution (water-to-cement
weight and lightweight concrete, respectively. Both
exceeding 100°C (Bažant & Kaplan 1996), by
of rupture (fr) = 0.63λ√f’c MPa per §9.5.2.3 and L is
ratio, cement chemical composition, SF content,
SFRC and SFRLC with Vf = 1% had greater impact
Fourier’s law, which reads
the prism span length.
curing time and method, temperature, mix additives,
resistance than those without steel fibers by a sub- In order to develop design shear strength mod-
etc.). In the literature various formulations can be
stantial degree up to a factor of 10. The effects of
q = − λ ∇T
el(s) for SFRLC beams without stirrups, the follow- (7)
found to describe the sorption isotherm of normal
steel fiber shape and geometry were evident by the ing three steps of the calibration approach were
concrete (Xi et al. 1994). However, in the present
fact that the number of shocks needed to fail was whereFirst,
used. q ismost theavailable
heat flux, is themodels
shear Tstrength absolute
for
paper the semi-empirical expression proposed by
536 and 793 for paddle and hooked shapes, respec- temperature, and λ is the heat conductivity;
SFRC beams (none lightweight) were extracted from in this
Norling Mjornell (1997) is adopted because it
tively, but much less (124 and 192) for crimped and the literature. Detailed equations are not provided in

Proceedings of FraMCoS-7, May 23-28, 2010

this paper for the sake of brevity. Second, the light- cate that the modelsJ = − D (by
h, T )Narayanan
∇h & Darwish
weight concrete modification factor of λ (= 0.75) (1987), Ashour et al. (model A; 1992), and Kwak et
was accounted for by replacing f’c with λ2f’c for The proportionality
al. (2002) have reasonable safety margins coefficient
(about D(h,T)
SFRLC beams. Although the constant λ is too sim- 30%), whereas the moisture permeability and it is a nonlinea
models by Ashour et al. (model
plified for predicting the shear strength of various B; 1992) and Shin of the relative
et al. (1994) humidity
have smallh andsafety
temperature
lightweight concrete, this process is analogous to the margins of 16%, & onNajjar
average.1972). The moisture mass balanc
Even the (v u /vn ) ratios
application in the current ACI 318-08 code as shown for about 15% ofthat the variation
the specimens areinbelow
time of 1.0the water mas
(min-
in eqution. (1): imum: 0.86 and volume
0.84 forofAshour
concrete (water contentB;w) be eq
et al. (model
1992) and Shin etdivergence
al. (1994),of respectively).
the moisture flux TheJra-
vc for lightweight concrete λ fc' λ 2 f c' ther unconservative models may not be appropriate
= = (1) for the development∂wof the shear strength model for
vc for normalweight concrete fc' fc' an SFRLC beam, −given = ∇•J
∂t the brittleness nature of the
shear failure modes. On the other hand, the model by
Finally, the ratio (vu/vn) of measured peak shear Narayanan & Darwish (1987)content
The water somewhatw canoveresti-
be expressed a
stress to shear stress capacity calculated based on the mates the shear strength
of the evaporable water we≥(capillary
(20% of specimens 1.64, wa
existing model, except for the replacement of f’c by with maximum ofvapor,1.87),andandadsorbed
the models by Khuntia
water) and the non-e
λ2f’c, was determined for each specimen to make a et al. (1999), Sharma (1986), and
(chemically Choi etwater
bound) al. (2007)
wn (Mil
direct comparison between the models. Here, as- are overly conservative or provide substantial
Pantazopoulo & Mills 1995). scatter
It is reas
measured material properties are used for the calcu- in their predictions (Tablethat
assume 1). the evaporable water is a fu
lation of vn, and vu and vn are defined as the maxi- relative humidity, h, degree of hydration
Table 2. Steepness (slope) of the linear regression line for the
mum shear force (Vu) and the nominal shear strength
ratio of measured peakdegree ofstress
shear silica(vu)
fumeto reaction,
calculated α s, i.e. we=w
shear
(Vn), divided by the beam web width (bw) and effec- = age-dependent sorption/desorption
stress capacity (vn), with the consideration of lightweight con-
tive depth (d), respectively. Thus, (vu/vn) is the same crete factor (λ= 0.75)(Norling Mjonell 1997). Under this assum
(see Fig. 4).
as (Vu/Vn). The mean, standard deviation, and mini- by substituting Equation 1 into
_________________________________________ Equati
mum and maximum values of the ratios, as well as Independent variableobtains
f’c a/d Vf 　
the slope of the linear regression lines were com- MPa - % %
pared in this study (Tables 1 and 2). It is noted that _________________________________________
∂w ∂w ∂w
∂h
− e
0.1237 0.1827e 0.0010 e
&+ &+
this analysis is based on limited data (only 2 test Narayanan et al. (1987) 0.0077
+ ∇ • ( D ∇h ) = αc αs w
programs and 15 SFRLC specimens). The lack of h ∂t 0.0002h 0.2418
Ashour et al. [model A]∂0.0106 ∂α 0.0210 ∂α
(1992) [model B] 0.0225 0.0997 0.5945c 0.1431 s
data warrants additional large-scale experimental Kwak et al. (2002) 0.0006 0.1524 0.0474 0.0274
studies. Khuntia et al. (1999)where ∂we/∂h
0.0318 is the 1.0577
0.4688 slope of0.2575
the sorption/
Table 1. Comparisons of measured peak stresses (vu) and
Sharma (1986)
Imam et al. (1997)
isotherm
0.0759 (also
0.1845 called
2.2406
0.0346 0.2397 0.5747 0.0283
moisture
0.3732 capac

shear stress capacities (vn) based on the available SFRC shear Shin et al. (1994)
governing equation (Equation 3) must be
0.0046 0.0115 0.1108 0.0307
strength models except the replacement of f’c by 　2f’c for Li et al. (1992) by appropriate
0.0348 0.2258 boundary and0.1704
1.1878 initial conditi
SFRLC beams. Choi et al. (2007) The relation
0.0868 0.1262 between
2.5708the0.5114
amount of e
_________________________________________ water and relative humidity is called
_________________________________________ ‘‘
Model Mean Stdev. Max. Min. isotherm” if measured with increasing
_________________________________________ humidityofand
The slope (steepness) the ‘‘desorption
linear regression isotherm”
line in th
Narayanan et al. (1987) 1.37 0.22 1.87 1.05 case.
for (vu/vn) ratios is oneNeglecting
of the mosttheir difference
robust (Xi et al.
statistical
Ashour et al. [model A]
(1992) [model B]
1.33
1.16
0.14
0.22
1.57
1.79
1.11
0.86
the following,
indicators to evaluate ‘‘sorption
the sensitivity of theisotherm”
depend-will be
Kwak et al. (2002) 1.30 0.25 1.79 1.02 ent variable (vu/vnreference
) to each to both sorption
independent and desorption
variable. Ta- c
Khuntia et al. (1999) 2.05 0.70 3.40 1.19 By the way, if the
ble 2 indicates that the models by Narayanan & hysteresis of the
Sharma (1986) 1.60 0.62 2.72 0.72 Darwish (1987), isotherm
Ashour would
et al. be taken A;
(model into1992),
account, two
Imam et al. (1997) 1.38 0.36 2.02 0.75 Kwak et al. (2002) relation,
and Shin evaporable waterarevsoverall
et al. (1994) relative humi
Shin et al. (1994)
Li et al. (1992)
1.16
1.32
0.14
0.43
1.34
2.01
0.84
0.69
satisfactory in thisbe aspect.
used according
Based on to the
the sign
reviewof the
in varia
Choi et al. (2007) 1.39 0.71 2.88 0.54 this and previous paragraphs, the models by Ashour of the
relativity humidity. The shape
_________________________________________ isotherm
et al. (model A; 1992) and for
by HPC
Kwakisetinfluenced
al. (2002) by aremany p
Stdev.: Standard deviation of (vu/vn)’s for 15 SFRLC beams. chosen to proposeespecially
design shearthosestrength
that influence
model(s)extent
for and
Max: Maximum of (vu/vn)’s for 15 SFRLC beams. SFRLC beams. Figure chemical reactionstheand,
6 illustrates in turn, determ
distributions
Min: Minimum of (vu/vn)’s for 15 SFRLC beams. of (vu/vn) ratios structure
against fourand different
pore size independent
distribution (water-
ratio,that
variables. It is shown cement
these chemical composition,
selected models are SF
The standard deviation is a good statistical indi- not overly sensitivecuringto time and method,
the variation temperature,
of these four mix
cator of consistent accuracy. The models by Naraya- etc.). In with
main variables, compared the literature
the other various
models thatformulatio
nan & Darwish (1987), Ashour et al. (1992), Kwak found to describe the sorption
are quite sensitive to each variable (Figs 6(c), 6(f), isotherm
et al. (2002), and Shin et al. (1994) showed lower 6(i) and 6(l); rightconcrete
column).(Xi et al. 1994). However, in th
standard deviations (average = 0.19) relative to other The first design paper
shearthe semi-empirical
strength expression pro
equation proposed
models (Table 1). The mean values of (vu/vn) indi- for SFRLC beams Norling
is the Mjornell
modified (1997)
version isof adopted
the b

Proceedings of FraMCoS-7, May 23-28, 2010

 J = − Dshear
SFRC ( h , T )∇ h
strength equations developed by Ashour(1)
et explicitly
of the SFRLCaccounts
beamsfor
andthe
theevolution
feasibilityof
of hydration
using the
al. (model A; 1992), as given in equtions. (2) and (3). reactionavailable
readily and SF design
content.shear
This models
sorptionandisotherm
light-
The proportionality coefficient D(h,T) is called reads concrete modification factor (λ).
weight
moisture
⎛ permeability ⎞and⎛ it dis⎞ a nonlinear function
vn =
of the⎜⎝ 2.11
relative
3
f c′ + 7 F ⎟ 3h⎜and
λ 2 humidity ρ temperature
⎟ (MPa) T (Bažant
(2) Measured f'c [ksi]
⎡5 6 7 6⎤
cMeasured f'c [ksi] Measured f' [ksi]
⎠ ⎝ a⎠ 4 5 6 4
7 5 4 7 0
& Najjar 1972). The moisture mass balance requires we (3h, α c (mean
,α ) = G+ 1.76
⎢ -0.0006x + 1.33 1
(α , α ) y1= −
⎥ + 4.7
+
s = 1.33; σ1= 0.14)c s (mean
y = -0.016x y = -0.0759x

thatforthe(a/d)
variation
≥ 2.5. in time of the water mass per unit ⎢ = 1.3; σ = 0.25)∞
10(g α − α c )h ⎥⎥ σ = 0.62)
(mean = 1.6;

1 c
volume
vn = [ Eq.of(2)concrete
⎛
2.5 (water
d⎞ ⎛ content
− ⎟w)(MPa)
a ⎞ be equal to the ⎢ e (4)
of] ⎜⎝the
⎣ ⎦
divergence ⎟ + vb ⎜ 2.5
moisture flux J
(3) 2
a⎠ ⎝ d⎠ ⎡ 10(g α ∞

(vu / v n )
− α c )h ⎤
for (a/d) < 2.5. K1 (α c , α s )⎢e 1 c − 1⎥
− ∂ = ∇•J (2) ⎢ ⎥
w
1
⎣ ⎦
∂ f’c is the cylinder concrete strength of SFRLC
here,t (a) Ashour et al.(1992)
(model A) (c) Sharma(1986)
in MPa; As is the area of tension flexural reinforce- where the first term (gel 40isotherm) represents the
(b) Kwak et al.(2002)

Thevbwater
is thecontent w can be expressed
(= 0.41as theand
sumτ
0
ment; fiber pullout stress τF); physically
30
bound
40
f' [MPa](adsorbed)
50 30
water Measured
50
and thef' [MPa]
30 40
second
50 0

of the evaporable water w (capillary

is the average fiber matrixe interfacial bond stress, water, water Measured
term 6.(capillary
Figure
Measured f' [MPa]
The ratio ofisotherm) represents
(vu/vn) vs. measured f’c the
c

capillary
(continued).
c c

vapor, and taken

tentatively adsorbed water)
as 4.15 MPa andbasedthe non-evaporable
on the recom- water. This expression is valid only for low content
(chemically by bound)
mendations water Swamy
Li et al. (1992), wn (Mills 1966,
et al. (1993), of SF.0 The coefficient G (a/d)
(a/d)
represents the(a/d)
amount of
Pantazopoulo & Mills 1995). It
and Kwak et al. (2002). The lightweight concrete is reasonable to water
1 2 3 4 5 0 1 21 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
per unit volume held in the gel pores at 100%
assume that the evaporable water
modification factor (λ) of 0.75 was applied as per is a function of 3

relative humidity, and it can be expressed (Norling

y = -0.0002x + 1.33 y = -0.1524x + 1.8 y = -0.469x + 3.6

relative
ACI humidity, h, provisions
degree of (§8.6.1).
hydration,The αc,fiber
and (mean = 1.33; σ = 0.14) (mean = 1.3; σ = 0.25) (mean = 2.1;
the 318-08 code Mjornell 1997) as
σ = 0.7)

degree(F)
factor of silica
is equal fume reaction,
to (L f/D )V
f f fd α
, s, i.e.
where w e
L=f w
ise( h,
the α , αs)
steel
c 2
= age-dependent sorption/desorption
fiber length; Df is the steel fiber diameter; Vf is the isotherm (v u / vn)

(Norling
fiberMjonell
volume 1997). Under
and dthis
c α c+ ks α s
steel fraction; f is assumption
the bond factor and G (α c α s ) = k vg c vg s, (5)
by 0.5
(= substituting
for circular Equation
section1 plain
into Equation
fiber, 0.75 2 onefor
1 1

obtains fiber or hooked fiber, and 1 for indented fi-

crimped
where andA) ksvg are(e)material parameters.
(f) Khuntia etFrom
al.(1999)the
(d) Ashour et al.(1992)
ber (Narayanan & Darwish 1987). kcvg(model Kwak et al.(2002)

w ∂h
∂Alternatively, ∂w
the second ∂w shear strength maximum
0
0 1 2 amount3 4 5 of 0 water
1 2 3per 4 unit
5 0 volume
1 2 3 that 4 5 can
e α& design
6

− e
equation • ( D ∇h) beams
+ ∇ SFRLC
for = is + e α& + w&
c proposed s based on (3)
the fill all pores(a/d)
(both capillary(a/d)pores and gel (a/d) pores), one
∂h ∂t h ∂α ∂α n
can calculate
Figure 6. The ratioK1ofas(vone obtains (continued).
u/vn) vs. (a/d)
SFRC shear strength equation c developed s by Kwak et
al. (2002), as given in eqution (4). Vf [%] Vf [%] Vf [%]
where ∂we/∂h is the slope of the sorption/desorption 0 0.5 1 0 1⎡
⎢
0⎛
10⎜
0.5 ∞
0.5
−
1⎞ ⎤
⎟ ⎥
0
g αc αc h
isotherm (also2/3 called moisture capacity). The w α s α s G e
3
− 0.188+ 1.12 + 0.22y = 0.0474x ⎝ 1 ⎠
c− ⎢ −
s
y = 0.2418x +11.26 y = 1.1878x + 0.31
⎥
⎛ d⎞
vn = 3.7e ( fequation
spfc )
0 = 1.33; σ = 0.14) (mean = 1.3;1σ = 0.25) (mean = 1.32; σ = 0.43)
(6)
(mean
governing 3
⎜ (Equation
ρ ⎟ + 0.83)vb must(MPa)be completed
(4) K (α2c α s
⎢
⎣
⎥
⎦
by appropriate boundary ⎝ a ⎠and initial conditions. 1
, )=
⎛ ∞ ⎞
g αc αc h
(vu / vn)

−
The relation between the amount of evaporable
10⎜ ⎟
⎝ 1 e ⎠ −1

watere and
here, is therelative
arch actionhumidity
factor,is taken
calledas‘‘adsorption
1.0 if (a/d) 1
>isotherm”
3.4, otherwise if measuredtaken aswith increasing
3.4(d/a); vb is therelativity
fiber The(g)material parameters kcvg and ksvg and g1 can
humiditystress
pullout and (= ‘‘desorption
0.41τF); and isotherm” in splitting
fspfc is the the opposite
ten- be calibrated by fitting(h)experimental
Ashour et al.(1992)
(model A) Kwak et al.(2002) (i)data relevant to
Li et al.(1992)
case.strength
sile Neglecting computedtheir difference
using eqution (Xi(5).
et al. 1994), in free (evaporable)
0
water content in 0.5concrete at
the following, ‘‘sorption isotherm” will be used with various agesV (Di[%] Luzio & Cusatis 2009b).V [%]
0 0.5 1 0 0.5 1 0 1 0
V [%]
referenceλto2 f cuf both sorption and desorption conditions.
f f f

Figure 6. The ratio of (vu/vn) vs. Vf (continued).

By the way, if + the
f spfc = 0.7 +hysteresis of the moisture
(MPa) (5)
( )
F
20 −
isotherm would be taken into account, two different
F 2.2 Temperature ρ [%] evolutionρ [%] ρ [%]
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
relation, evaporable water vs relative humidity, must Note3 that, at early age, since the chemical reactions y = 0.511x + 0.2
be used fcuf according
is the cubeto strengththe sign ofof SFRLC.
the variation of the
y = 0.021x + 1.28 y = 0.0274x + 1.28

here, The cylin- associated with cement hydration and SF reaction

(mean = 1.33; σ = 0.14) (mean = 1.3; σ = 0.25) (mean = 1.39;
σ = 0.71)
relativity humidity. The shape
der strength (f’c) is typically 0.75% to 0.95% of the of the sorption are 2exothermic, the temperature field is not uniform
isotherm for HPC is ainfluenced
value of fby many parameters, for non-adiabatic systems even if the environmental
(vu / v n)

cube strength; thus, cuf equal to 1.2f’c is

recommended as was used by Kwak and
especially those that influence extent rate(2002).
et al. of the temperature is constant. Heat conduction can be
chemical reactions and, in
This model empirically considers the arch action, turn, determine pore described
1 in concrete, at least for temperature not
structure and pore size distribution
which tends to occur when (a/d) is less than about (water-to-cement exceeding 100°C (Bažant & Kaplan 1996), by
ratio,In thecement chemical modelcomposition,
of equations (2)SFandcontent, Fourier’s law,A)which reads
(j) Ashour et al.(1992)
(k) Kwak et al.(2002) (l) Choi et al.(2007)
3.4. first design (3), the (model
curing time and method, temperature, mix isadditives,
0
extra shear strength due to the arch action conser- 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

etc.). In considered
vatively the literature when various
(a/d) isformulations
less than 2.5.can Notebe q = − λ ∇T ρ [%] ρ [%]
Figure 6. The ratio of (vu/vn) vs. ρ.
ρ [%]
(7)
found to describe the sorption
that quantification of the effect of arch action for isotherm of normal
concrete
steel (Xi et al. 1994).
fiber-reinforced beamsHowever,
was part ofinthe theprevious
present where
Figureq 6is(left
the and
heatcenter
flux,columns)
T is the absolute
depicts that
paper the semi-empirical expression
studies (Ashour et al. 1992, Kwak et al. 2002), and proposed by these two modified models correspond well to this
temperature, and λ is the heat conductivity; in the
this work was limited to evaluating the performanceit
Norling Mjornell (1997) is adopted because current and prior data of SFRLC beams in terms of

Proceedings of FraMCoS-7, May 23-28, 2010

the prediction (mean), consistency (standard devia- 4) The ACI 318 − D (h, T )∇hrequirement of 0.75%
J =minimum
3
tion), random variation (slope of linear regression (i.e., 60 kg/m ) for shear resistance (§5.6.6.2(a))
line), safety (minimum greater than unity) and struc- could be reduced toThe proportionality
improve coefficient D(h,T)
concrete workability,
tural efficiency (maximum less than 1.8). These when (a/d) is 3 ormoisture
less. permeability and it is a nonlinea
models are only applicable to the SFRLC beams 5) Two shear of the relative
strength models humidity
for SFRLCh andbeams
temperature
without stirrups. & Najjar 1972). The moisture mass
without stirrups [eqution (2) & (3) and eqution (4) & balanc
The measured peak shear forces of the tested that the variation in time of the water mas
(5)] have been proposed based on available SFRC re-
SFRLC beams (Kang & Kim, 2009) are at least 30% volume with
search and in accordance of concrete
the ACI(water
318-08content
(§11.2)w) be eq
larger than the ACI 318 shear strengths (Vn) of im- provision for thedivergence
lightweightof concrete
the moisture flux J
modification
aginary beams with the same details but without factor (λ = 0.75). These models correspond well to the
steel fibers, also assuming that the ACI 318 speci- existing data with reasonable
∂w = ∇ • J precision and repeatabil-
fied minimum amount of shear stirrups are provided. ity. Perhaps these −two∂t models could be conservatively
Here, the minimum amount is determined based on used for precast, prestressed SFRLC girders, which
ACI 318-08, §11.6.4.1(f), and Vn is calculated from are increasingly popularTheinwater
the United
contentStates.
w can be expressed a
equations (11-2), (11-3) and (11-15) of ACI 318-08. 6) The reported results signal
of the evaporable thatwater
all thewconven-
e (capillary wa
The results signal that all the conventional stirrups tional stirrups could
vapor, and adsorbed water)steel
be replaced by use of and fi-
the non-e
could be replaced by use of steel fibers for light- bers for lightweight concrete (asbound)
(chemically permittedwater
for SFRC wn (Mil
weight concrete (as permitted for SFRC by ACI by ACI 318-08, §11.6.4.1(f));
Pantazopoulo however, & Mills it1995).
is recom-It is reas
318-08, §11.6.4.1(f)); however, it is recommended mended that this assume
study notthat be the
considered conclusive
evaporable water is a fu
that this study not be considered conclusive on this on this point due relative
to the lack of data hand
humidity, the absence
, degree of hydration
point due to the lack of data and the absence of of comparative studies
degreebetween
of silica SFRLC beams α
fume reaction, with
s, i.e. we=w
comparative studies between SFRLC beams with and without stirrups.
= age-dependent sorption/desorption
and without stirrups. This study also signals that the (Norling Mjonell 1997). Under this assum
limitation of f’c (41.4 MPa) in Section 11.4.6.1(f) by substituting Equation 1 into Equati
could be increased. For these expansions, more ex- 5 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
obtains & FUTURE STUDY
perimental data on SFRLC beams both with and
without stirrups would be very useful. The work presented in this paper was sponsored by
∂w ∂h ∂w ∂w
− e
the Oklahoma Transportation + ∇ • (DCenter
∇h) = under e α&Grant
c +
e α& + w
h t h
No. OTCREOS9.1-27. Research assistants cand REUs s
∂ ∂ ∂ α ∂α
4 SUMMARY & FINDINGS students (Kah Mun Lam, Michael Van Zandt, Kyu
Kim, Saagar Patel,whereand∂w John Paul Badasci) at the
e/∂h is the slope of the sorption/
The study herein was comprised of a re-assessment University of Oklahoma
isotherm (OU),(alsoNorman,
called aremoisture
heartily capac
of data from previous structural and material tests, acknowledged for their energetic
governing equation and enthusiastic
(Equation 3) must be
and model calibrations using the prior data. The data participation. Thebysupport from
appropriate the faculty
boundary andinitial
and staff conditi
were evaluated mainly in terms of the steel fiber vo- of OU is highly appreciated,
The relation as well.
between the amount of e
lume fraction and the shear span-to-depth ratio. Oth- Also, Prof. Yoon-Keun
water and Kwak at Kumoh
relative humidity National
is called ‘‘
er variables related to steel fibers, material and rein- Insititute of Technology
isotherm” and ifProf. Sung-Gulwith
measured Hongincreasing
at
forcing properties, or unit weight of concrete were Seoul National University,
humidity both‘‘desorption
and in Korea, are grate- in th
isotherm”
also examined. Based on the study, the following fully thanked for their willing
case. Neglecting discussion
their and support.
difference (Xi et al.
were found: Finally, the authors
the would like
following, to recognize
‘‘sorption Prof.will be
isotherm”
1) The shear strength of the steel fiber-reinforced Leonardo Massone at the University
reference of Chile,
to bothin sorption andSanti-
desorption c
normalweight concrete beam is slightly larger than ago, for his activeByparticipation
the way, if the
the project. Prof.of the
hysteresis
that of the steel fiber-reinforced lightweight concrete Leonardo Massone and Prof.
isotherm wouldThomas
be novel Kanginto
taken (PI)account,
are two
beam; however, for design models, the lightweight currently co-developing
relation, robust and
evaporable water nonlinear
vs relative humi
concrete modification factor (λ) of 0.75 is conserva- modeling techniques
be usedfor according
steel fiber-reinforced
to the sign ofcon-
the varia
tively applicable to the steel fiber-reinforced beam. crete members susceptible
relativity to flexure-shear
humidity. The interac-
shape of the
This is mainly due to the brittle nature of shear fail- tive failures. As isotherm
part of this ongoing
for carried
HPC is out work,
influenced large-
by many p
ure and the lack of available experimental data. scale experimental testing isthose
especially that by theextent
influence au- and
2) The addition of steel fibers with Vf of 0.5% to thors of this paperchemical
at the Donald G. Fears
reactions and, Structural
in turn, determ
0.75% improves the resistance to structural damage Engineering Laboratory
structure of
and OU,
pore while
size extensive (water-
distribution
and ultimate shear strength in SFRLC by roughly calibration analysis is presently
ratio, cement underway
chemical atcomposition,
OU. SF
25% to 45% (based on the research by Kang & Kim curing time and method, temperature, mix
2009). etc.). In the literature various formulatio
3) The shear span-to-depth ratio adversely affects REFERENCES found to describe the sorption isotherm
the shear strength of the lightweight fiber-reinforced concrete (Xi et al. 1994). However, in th
beam. Thus, a term associated with the moment- ACI Committee 318. 2008. Building Code Requirements for
shear interaction (e.g., a/d) should be included in the
paper
Structural Concrete (ACIthe semi-empirical
318-08) expression
and Commentary (318R- pro
shear strength equation of SFRLC beams.
Norling Mjornell (1997) is adopted b

Proceedings of FraMCoS-7, May 23-28, 2010

 − D (American
J =08). h, T )∇h Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, (1) MI, explicitly accounts for
crete Developments and the evolution
Innovations, of hydration
SP-142, American
USA: 456. reaction and SF content. This sorption isotherm
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, USA: 181-200.
ACI Committee 544. 1978. Measurement of Properties of Fiber
The proportionality
Reinforced Concrete (ACI coefficient
544.2R-78).D(h,T)ACI Journal,is called
Pro-
reads
Swamy, R.N. & Jojagha, A.H. 1982a. Workability of Steel Fi-
bre Reinforced Lightweight Aggregate Concrete. Interna-
moisture
ceedings,permeability
75 (7): 283-290. and it is a nonlinear function tional Journal of Cement Composites and Lightweight Con-
of the relative
Ashour, humidity
S.A., Hassanain, h and
G.S. temperature
& Wafa, F.F. 1992.TShear (Bažant
Be- crete, 4 (2): 103-109. ⎡ ⎤
& Najjar
havior of1972). The moisture mass balance requires
High-Strength Fiber- Reinforced Concrete Beams. Swamy, R.N. & Jojagha, A.H.
weSteel
(h, α Fibre
⎢ 1982b. Impact
= G1 (α c , αLightweight
Resistance
⎥ of
c , α s )Reinforced s )⎢1 − 10(g Concrete. +
1

that ACI Structural Journal, 89 (2): 176-184.

the variation in time of Aggregate.
the water Annual mass per Bookunit
∞ ⎥
International
α − α )hConcrete,
1 c c ⎥⎦ (4)4
ASTM. 1993. Concrete Mineral of Journal of Cement Composites
volume
ASTM Standards, West Conshohocken, PA, USA. to the
of concrete (water content w ) be equal (4): 209-220.
⎢
⎣ eand Lightweight
divergence
ASTM. 2008. of the moisture
American Society flux J
for Testing and Materials An- Swamy, R. N., Jones, R. & Chiam,
α ∞ − α )h ⎤ Con-
⎡ 10(g A.T.P. 1993. Influence of
Steel Fibers onK the 1 c of Lightweight
c − 1⎥
(α , α ) e
nual Book of ASTM Standards. 04.09, West Consho- Shear ⎢Resistance
c s ⎢ Journal, 90 (1): 103-114.
− ∂w = ∇ P.
hocken, PA, USA. crete I-Beams. ACI Structural ⎥
(2)
1

Balaguru, • J& Dipsia, M.G. 1993. Properties of Fiber Rein- Theodorakopoulos, D.D. & Swamy, ⎣ ⎦
R.N. 1993. Contribution
∂forced
t
High-Strength Semilightweight Concrete. ACI Mate- of Steel Fibers to the Strength Characteristics of Light-
rials Journal, 90 (5): 399-405.
The water
Balaguru, content
P. & Foden, w canProperties
A. 1996. be expressedof FiberasReinforced
the sum where
weighttheConcrete
first term (gel isotherm)
Slab-Column represents
Connections Failing the
Punching Shear. ACI Structural Journal, 90 (4): 342-355.
in

of Structural
the evaporable water
Lightweight we (capillary
Concrete. ACI Structural water,Journal,
water physically bound (adsorbed) water and the second
vapor, and adsorbed water) and the non-evaporable
93 (1): 62-78. term (capillary isotherm) represents the capillary
Balaguru, P. & Ramakrishman, V. 1987. Fiber Reinforced
(chemically bound) water wn Fiber (MillsReinforced
1966, water. This expression is valid only for low content
Concrete Properties and Applications.
Pantazopoulo & Mills 1995). It is reasonable to of SF. The coefficient G1 represents the amount of
Concrete Properties and Applications, SP-105, American
assume that the evaporable water is a function of water per unit volume held in the gel pores at 100%
Choi,
Concrete Institute, Detroit, MI, USA: 305-322.
relativeK.-K.,humidity,
Park, H.-G.h& , degree
Wight, J.K. of 2007.
hydration, αc, and
Shear Strength of
relative humidity, and it can be expressed (Norling
degree of silica fume reaction, αs, i.e. we=we(h,αc,αs)
Steel Fiber-Reinforced Concrete Beams with Web Rein- Mjornell 1997) as
= age-dependent
forcement. sorption/desorption
ACI Structural Journal, 104 (1): 12-22.isotherm
Gao, J., Sun, W. & Morino, K. 1997. Mechanical Properties of
(Norling Mjonell 1997).High-Strength,
Under this assumption and c α c+ ks α s
G (α c α s ) = k vg (5)
Steel Fiber-Reinforced,
by crete.
substituting
Lightweight Con- ,
c vg s
Cement andEquation 1 into Equation 2 one 1
Concrete Composites, 19: 307-313.
obtains H. & Banthia, N. 2008. Correlating Flexural and
Higashiyama,
Shear Toughness of Lightweight Fiber-Reinforced Con- where kcvg and ksvg are material parameters. From the
crete. ACI Materials Journal,
∂w ∂h ∂w
105 (3):
∂w
251-257. maximum amount of water per unit volume that can
Imam,e M., e &+
Vandewalle, L., Mortelmans, e α& VanwGemert,(3)
F. &+ & D. fill all pores (both capillary pores and gel pores), one
− + ∇ • ( D ∇h ) =
h α
∂h ∂t Shear Domain
1997. of∂αFibrec Reinforced
∂α s High-Strength
n
can calculate K1 as one obtains
Concrete Beams. Engineering c Structures, s 19 (9): 738-747.
Kang, T.H.-K., Kim, W., Lam, K.M., Van Zandt, M., Patel, S.
where ∂we/∂hJ.P.is 2009.
& Badasci, the slope
Reliefof of the sorption/desorption
Reinforcing Congestion in ⎡
⎢ 10⎜
⎛
g α c∞ − α c ⎞⎟h ⎤⎥
isotherm
Highway (also called moisture capacity).
Bridges Using Steel Fibers, Headed Bars The
and w α s + 0.22α s G
− 0.188
c s − ⎢1 − e ⎝ 1 ⎠
⎥
Self-Consolidating Concrete. 2009 OTC-ODOT Research
governing equation (Equation 3) must be completed (6)
0 1
⎢ ⎥
Day, Oklahoma City, OK, USA. K (α c α s ) = ⎣ ⎦
by appropriate
Kang, T.H.-K. & Kim, boundary andLightweight
W. 2009. initial conditions.
Concrete Beams 1
,
⎛
g αc − αc h
∞ ⎞

The Steel
relation between the amount of evaporable
10⎜ ⎟
with Fiber Shear Reinforcement. Research in Progress e ⎝ 1 ⎠− 1

water and 2009

Session, relative
ACI humidity is called
Fall Convention, New ‘‘adsorption
Orleans, LA,
isotherm”
USA. if measured with increasing relativity The material parameters kcvg and ksvg and g1 can
humidity
Kayali, and
O., Haque, ‘‘desorption
M.N. & Zhu, isotherm”
B. 1999. Drying in the
Fibre-Reinforced Lightweight Aggregate Concrete Contain-
opposite
Shrinkage of
be calibrated by fitting experimental data relevant to
case.ing Neglecting
Fly Ash. Cement their difference
and Concrete (XiResearch,
et al. 1994), in
29 (11): free (evaporable) water content in concrete at
the1835-1840.
following, ‘‘sorption isotherm” will be used with various ages (Di Luzio & Cusatis 2009b).
referenceM.,to Stojadinovic,
Khuntia, both sorptionB. and desorption
& Goel, S. C. conditions.
1999. Shear
ByStrength
the way, if theandhysteresis
of Normal High-Strength of Fiberthe Reinforced
moisture 2.2 Temperature evolution
isotherm
Concrete would be taken into account, two different
Beams
96 (2): 282-289.
without Stirrups. ACI Structural Journal,
relation, evaporable water vs relative humidity, must
Kwak, Y.-K., Eberhard, M.O., Kim, W.-S. & Kim, J. 2002. Note that, at early age, since the chemical reactions
be Shear
used Strength
according to theFiber-Reinforced
of Steel sign of the variationConcrete of the
Beams associated with cement hydration and SF reaction
relativity humidity. The shape of
without stirrups. ACI Structural Journal, 99 (4): 530-538.the sorption are exothermic, the temperature field is not uniform
isotherm
Li, V., Ward, forR.HPC is influenced
& Hamza, A.M. 1992. bySteel
many parameters,
Synthetic Fibers for non-adiabatic systems even if the environmental
especially those that influence extent and rate of (5):
as Shear Reinforcement. ACI Materials Journal, 89 the temperature is constant. Heat conduction can be
chemical
499-508. reactions and, in turn, determine pore
Narayanan, R. & Darwish, I.Y.S. 1987. Use of Steel Fibers as
described in concrete, at least for temperature not
structure and pore sizeACI
Shear Reinforcement. distribution (water-to-cement
Structural Journal, 84(3): 216- exceeding 100°C (Bažant & Kaplan 1996), by
ratio,
227. cement chemical composition, SF content, Fourier’s law, which reads
curing time
Sharma, and method,
A.K. 1986. temperature,
Shear Strength mix additives,
of Steel Fiber Reinforced
etc.). In theBeams.
Concrete literature various formulations
ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings, can be
83 (4): q = − λ ∇T (7)
found to
624-628. describe the sorption isotherm
Shin, S.-W., Oh, J.-K. & Ghosh, S.K. 1994. Shear Behavior of
of normal
concrete (Xi et al. 1994). However, in the present
Laboratory-Sized High-Strength Concrete Beams Rein- where q is the heat flux, T is the absolute
paper the
forced with semi-empirical expression
Bars and Steel Fibers. proposedCon-
Fiber Reinforced by temperature, and λ is the heat conductivity; in this
Norling Mjornell (1997) is adopted because it

Proceedings of FraMCoS-7, May 23-28, 2010