Steel

Reinforcement and Polypropylene

r e i n f o r c I n g

Fibres in Concrete Slabs and Pavements

Dr. Mark Patrick - March 1999

Summary Polypropylene fibres have been used in concrete slabs and pavements with the expectation that, once the concrete hardens, they will act as a substitute for so-called shrinkage-and-temperature reinforcement. However, the fibre concentration typically used is only about 0.1% by volume, and laboratory test results show that at this, and even significantly higher concentrations, the fibres make no discernible difference to the relevant properties of the hardened concrete. Field surveys are now supporting this conclusion, and many cases of uncontrolled cracking are occurring in slabs that should otherwise have been better jointed, reinforced with steel, or had better foundation preparation. Consequently, it is recommended that concrete slabs and pavements constructed using polypropylene fibres should be designed as if they were plain concrete elements. Moreover, it follows that polypropylene fibres provide no benefit during the life of the slab in the hardened state. Polypropylene fibres are also specified with the expectation that they will reduce the amount of plastic shrinkage cracking at the slab surface, prior to the concrete hardening. However, it has not been established that, when the normal protective measures are taken, the polypropylene fibres provide any significant improvement. Furthermore, in situations when these protective measures are not taken and severe drying conditions are unavoidable, it has not been proven that polypropylene fibres provide sufficient reduction in plastic shrinkage cracking to produce a satisfactory surface. Therefore, the benefit to be gained from using polypropylene fibres to control plastic shrinkage cracking is difficult to quantify. A series of statements is given to support these conclusions, and to explain the role of steel reinforcement. The topics covered are: material properties; cracking in plastic concrete; cracking in hardened concrete without steel reinforcement; cracking in hardened concrete with steel reinforcement; comparison of steel reinforcement with polypropylene fibres; slab-on-ground applications (including residential slabs, industrial pavements and general pavements); and suspended composite slab applications. It follows from above that the ABSAC appraisals prepared for these forms of construction, which suggest that polypropylene fibres can be used to control plastic shrinkage cracking and as a replacement for shrinkage-and-temperature reinforcement, should be treated with extreme caution.

Contents 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Material Properties Cracking in Plastic Concrete Cracking in Hardened Concrete without Steel Reinforcement Cracking in Hardened Concrete with Steel Reinforcement Comparison of Steel Reinforcement with Polypropylene Fibres Slab-on-Ground Applications Suspended Composite Slab Applications Conclusions

OneSteel Reinforcing

Page 1

Steel Reinforcement and Polypropylene Fibres in Concrete Slabs and Pavements Dr. Mark Patrick - March 1999

On the basis of the available technical literature, it is possible to make the following statements. 1. Material Properties 1.1. Concrete is a non-homogeneous material, and measurements of its properties in either the plastic or hardened states typically show a large amount of variability. Substantial numbers of tests under carefully controlled conditions are therefore required to demonstrate differences between mixes at a statistically significant level. Furthermore, several

independently-conducted series of tests are necessary to prove the consistency of an effect. 1.2. Laboratory tests show that polypropylene fibres at their normal dosage rate (0.1% by volume or less) have no statistically significant effect on the static strength and stiffness properties of hardened concrete, including compressive strength, direct tensile strength, indirect tensile strength, flexural tensile strength and modulus of elasticity [1, 2]. Moreover, it is reported that no consistent increase in these strength properties occurs for fibre volumes below 2% [1]. 1.3. Polypropylene fibres at significantly higher than their normal dosage rate (i.e. 0.3-0.5%) can improve the toughness of concrete. This property provides little if any benefit for the types of construction being considered. 1.4. Construction practices have a much more significant affect on the abrasion (wear) resistance and permeability of concrete than the addition of polypropylene fibres. These construction practices include compaction, finishing and curing. 1.5. Workability problems arise when the fibre volume reaches about 0.3% and are severe at 1%. Significant reductions in slump have been reported for concrete containing 0.1% by volume of polypropylene fibres, but in general the reduction in workability will not be significant at this concentration. The use of superplasticisers will mitigate against this

problem, but will further increase the cost of the mix. 2. Cracking in Plastic Concrete 2.1. Prior to the concrete hardening, plastic cracking can arise from either plastic settlement (which results from differences in density of the mix components), or plastic shrinkage (which results from evaporation of bleed water), or a combination of both.

OneSteel Reinforcing

Page 2

2.2.

Plastic settlement cracking results from uneven settlement of the concrete mix, which can occur at changes in thickness of the concrete, and in the vicinity of discrete obstructions such as steel reinforcing bars or larger pieces of aggregate. There are many established practices for reducing plastic settlement. These include: using cohesive concrete mixes; using air-entrainer; increasing cover to top reinforcement; and adjusting the placing rate. It remains to be established, however, whether the normal dosage rate of polypropylene fibres is sufficient to reduce plastic settlement cracking to an acceptable level for realistic site conditions.

2.3.

Plastic shrinkage cracking is likely to occur when there is rapid loss of bleed water, which might occur by evaporation or possibly by absorption into the adjacent formwork or subgrade. Experienced practitioners will normally take measures to avoid these problems, including dampening the subgrade, sealing the forms, erecting windbreaks and covering the exposed surface of the concrete as early as possible after finishing. Polypropylene fibres have been shown to produce some reduction the area of plastic shrinkage cracks at the slab surface under severe drying conditions. However, it has not been established that, when the abovementioned protective measures are taken, the polypropylene fibres provide any significant additional benefit. Furthermore, in situations when these protective

measures are not taken and severe drying conditions are unavoidable, it has not been established that polypropylene fibres provide sufficient reduction in plastic shrinkage cracking to produce a satisfactory surface. 3. Cracking in Hardened Concrete without Steel Reinforcement 3.1. Because of the inherent variability of concrete (see paragraph 1.1), the strength of members without steel reinforcement is difficult to predict. 3.2. When the tensile strength of the concrete is reached at a cross-section either due to flexure or direct tension, or a combination of both, the concrete cracks and the strength of the cross-section is then negligible. Once cracked, therefore, a concrete cross-section without steel reinforcement cannot provide flexural or tensile restraint to the adjoining concrete segments. Also, diminished shear strength results (see paragraph 3.7). 3.3. As described in Section 2, the inclusion of polypropylene fibres appears in certain situations to be able to limit the extent of cracking in the plastic state. However, it has not been established that reduced cracking in the plastic state (so called "micro-cracking") enhances the tensile strength of the concrete and results in a reduced severity of cracking in the hardened state. 3.4. Because of the large number of unknown factors which might impact on the performance of a slab, the extent of crack formation is normally difficult to predict. The possibility of

unexpected overloading events, and also the extreme effects of other factors such as thermal movement, drying shrinkage, longitudinal restraint, vertical ground movement and

OneSteel Reinforcing

Page 3

repeated loading are difficult to quantify, and are able to cause substantial cracking. Some of these effects are illustrated in Figs 1-2.

Fig. 1 Some major factors which cause movement are temperature changes (which lead to thermal expansion or contraction), drying shrinkage, and ground heave or sag
Slab drag

Integral beams

Adjacent construction

Fig. 2 Restraint to movement can be caused by slab drag, integral beams, adjacent construction, and is also affected by the type and location of joints 3.5. In slab-on-ground applications (see Section 6), both the foundation conditions and the use of contraction joints at an appropriate spacing become important considerations in controlling cracking if steel reinforcement is omitted. 3.6. Through-depth cracking, whether at or between contraction joints, combined with settlement, can result in unacceptable differential vertical movement across cracks. As shown in Park & Paulay [3], the shear stiffness from aggregate interlock across a crack with no steel reinforcement reduces rapidly with increasing crack width. (For example, the case given in this reference indicates that the shear stiffness for a 0.5 mm wide crack is one-sixth

OneSteel Reinforcing

Page 4

of that for a 0.13 mm crack.) Hence, the shear strength generated for a given differential vertical movement is much less for a wider crack (see Fig. 3). It is clear that the risk of a problem arising in this regard increases significantly with crack width. As a general rule, problems are particularly likely to occur in situations subject to settlement if crack widths exceed about 1.0 mm. This affects the determination of the contraction joint spacing.

0.13 Shear Stress

0.25

Crack width 0.5mm

Shear Displacement
Fig. 3 Shear strength of cracked concrete rapidly diminishes with increasing crack width

4.

Cracking in Hardened Concrete with Steel Reinforcement 4.1. When the tensile strength of the concrete is reached at a cross-section under flexure and/or direct tension, the concrete cracks and the strength of the cross-section is then strongly dependent on the position and amount of steel reinforcement. Once cracked, a concrete cross-section with steel reinforcement can develop flexural, tensile and shear strength, by which adjoining concrete segments are held together. 4.2. The strength of members with steel reinforcement can be more reliably predicted than that of members without steel reinforcement, provided the height of the reinforcement is known. Placement of the reinforcement is most critical for shallow members, and can be controlled by following proper construction practice.

OneSteel Reinforcing

Page 5

4.3.

A sufficient quantity of properly-detailed reinforcement is able to limit the width of cracks. A limiting crack width of 0.3 mm to 0.5 mm may be acceptable in typical applications, based on both durability and aesthetic considerations (see Fig. 4).
free-shrinkage position reinforcement critical volume

full restraint narrow cracks little or no reinforcement

Crack Control

No Crack Control wide cracks

Fig. 4 Sufficient reinforcement can control cracking in restrained situations 4.4. A sufficient quantity of properly-detailed reinforcement is able to limit differential vertical movement across a through-depth crack. The resistance to movement results from a

combination of dowel action and aggregate interlock. Aggregate interlock is enhanced by the presence of steel reinforcement. This comes about by the steel developing tensile force as it resists further separation of adjacent crack faces under the action of shear (see Fig. 5).

Fig. 5 Aggregate interlock is significantly enhanced by the presence of steel reinforcement 4.5. Since there is always some risk that cracking will occur sometime within the lifetime of a structure, the presence of reinforcement provides insurance against the damaging effects of cracking.

OneSteel Reinforcing

Page 6

5.

Comparison of Steel Reinforcement with Polypropylene Fibres 5.1. A critical volume of either polypropylene fibres or steel reinforcement may be defined such that the strength immediately after cracking is just equal to that immediately before cracking. At this volume an applied tensile force or bending moment can be transmitted through the first crack, which in regions under reasonably uniform tension or bending, permits the formation of other cracks at close spacings and thus limits the width of each crack, and more particularly, the maximum crack width. 5.2. For polypropylene fibres, the critical volume ranges from 1% to 2%, depending upon, amongst other factors, whether the section is under flexure or direct tension, respectively, the bond properties of the fibres, etc. This is much greater than the volume typically used of 0.1%, and would clearly be uneconomic. It is also impractical (see paragraph 1.5). 5.3. For steel reinforcement, the critical volume for a section under direct tension is typically about 0.4%, which is similar in magnitude to that typically used of 0.2% (minor crack control to AS 3600) to 0.6% (strong crack control to AS 3600) when designing for shrinkage and temperature effects. Under flexure, the critical volume is typically about 0.2% which is the minimum required in many situations, e.g. stiffened rafts in residential slabs, suspended slabs, etc. 5.4. The modulus of elasticity of steel is approximately 50 times that of polypropylene. In

addition, the random orientation of the fibres typically reduces their effective volume by a factor of six [1, 4, 5, 6]. Hence, it may be stated that if the same volume of steel

reinforcement and polypropylene fibres were used, each being above its respective critical volume, then the crack width would be 300 times (i.e. 506) greater for the polypropylene than for the steel. If steel was used at 0.2% and fibres were used at 1.0%, being the respective critical volumes for a member in flexure, then for a given applied force across a crack, the crack width for polypropylene fibres would be 60 times (i.e. 3000.2/1.0) that for steel. Therefore, polypropylene fibres are relatively ineffective in controlling cracking in hardened concrete, even when used at such unrealistically high levels. This is illustrated in Fig. 6.

OneSteel Reinforcing

Page 7

6.

Slab-on-Ground Applications 6.1. Industrial and general pavements may in certain cases be satisfactorily constructed without steel reinforcement. Guidelines from the Cement and Concrete Association [7] describe the importance of site classification (soil conditions), sub-base condition, and jointing. As a general principle, the amount of reinforcement and the spacing of contraction joints are inversely related. No contraction joints are required in pavements with a sufficient amount of continuous steel reinforcement. 6.2. It follows from paragraph 1.2 that slabs constructed using concrete only containing low volumes of polypropylene fibres must be designed as plain concrete slabs. 6.3. Contraction joints in pavements add to the cost of construction and require maintenance for satisfactory long-term performance. These costs should be considered when contemplating using more joints to reduce the required amount of steel reinforcement.
RC 0.4%
Crack Crack Crack 1 2 3 Crack 2

Stress

Concrete Cracking Stress PF 2.0%

Strain

Displacement - controlled tension test

Fig. 6 Very low stiffness and random orientation of polypropylene fibres (PF) are factors that significantly reduce their effectiveness at controlling cracking compared with steel reinforcement in reinforced concrete (RC) 6.4. If pavements are constructed without steel reinforcement, and random cracking occurs for any reason (such as warping), then it will be uncontrolled. 6.5. Steel reinforcement in pavements can control cracking between contraction joints caused by restraint due to shrinkage. These cracks form due to friction which develops between the concrete and the sub-base. If the reinforcement is carried through contraction joints, it also provides tying action and thus limits differential movement across these joints (see paragraph 3.7).

OneSteel Reinforcing

Page 8

6.6.

Residential slabs nearly always require steel reinforcement. Contraction joints are generally not feasible because of the difficulty of finding suitable locations for the joints. Walsh and Cameron [8] state "If (contraction joints are) used it is essential that the entire structure be adequately articulated for lateral and rotational movement at the joint and this may not be easy to achieve without good design and supervision. Consequently, control (i.e.

contraction) joints are discouraged in AS 2870 and indeed the standard designs do not apply to structures with control joints." The provision of a preformed sub-base is also generally uneconomic.

More severe

Wall Site H-D

FM

AFM

MV

AMV

CF SR WR

None OK

SF H

More severe

M-D SR SF M FS S WR(1) A WR(2)

Most common: M & AMV & SR

FS

All OK

Site Classifications H-D Highly-reactive clay, Deep H Highly-reactive clay M-D Moderately-reactive clay, Deep M Moderately-reactive clay S Slightly-reactive clay A Sand or rock, not reactive

Wall Types FM Full Masonry AFM Articulated FM MV Masonry Veneer AMV Articulated MV CF Clad Frame

Footing Systems SR Stiffened Raft SF Strip Footing WR Waffle Raft FS Footing Slab (1) 1 storey (2) 2 storey

Fig. 7 Use of different types of footing systems as a function of site soil classification and building wall type according to AS 2870 6.7. The use of the standard footing systems defined in AS 2870 depends on site classification and wall type as shown in Fig. 7 [9]. Of particular relevance is the use of footing slabs and stiffened rafts. Walsh and Cameron [8] state that "Generally footing slabs for reactive sites are built with the footing and slab being separated by an only temporary construction joint, so the eventual structure is essentially a stiffened raft and complies with the design

OneSteel Reinforcing

Page 9

requirements for that form of construction." Also, normal and articulated masonry veneer and articulated full masonry for class M and H sites (see central shaded area in Fig. 7) encompass the majority of slabs, for which stiffened rafts are applicable. For these

reasons, it is important to understand the basis on which steel reinforcement is required in stiffened rafts. 6.8. For the standard designs in AS 2870, Walsh [10] states that: stiffened rafts are designed for conditions where the ground support is uneven due to the influence of swelling and shrinking soils, which are represented by centre or edge heave; steel reinforcement may be required for flexural strength under certain defined conditions; in all cases, steel reinforcement is required to provide ductility under overload conditions, which is achieved by ensuring that Mu1.2Mcr , where Mu is the nominal moment capacity of the cracked reinforced cross-section and Mcr is the cracking moment; under the condition of centre heave, the slab must be able to withstand differential deflections of the order of 80 to 100 mm, in order to allow remedial work to be performed; and centre heave causes an imposed deformation to occur over a large area of the raft, and the whole width of fabric used in the slabs is considered to act structurally in conjunction with the stiffening beams, and the fabric therefore serves multiple roles including providing flexural strength in negative bending and controlling cracking due to shrinkage. 6.9. Attempts to define some steel reinforcement as structural and other reinforcement as nonstructural are not soundly based. In particular, so-called "shrinkage-and-temperature

reinforcement" plays an important structural role and its exclusion can lead to unacceptable cracking and premature failure. This cracking will appear similar to the cracking resulting from leaving out "structural" reinforcement. 6.10. It has not been demonstrated that the use of polypropylene fibres provides equivalent crack performance to the use of shrinkage-and-temperature reinforcement. In fact,

considerations of the modulus of elasticity and critical volume as described above indicate that the fibres are not able to perform a similar function to steel reinforcement after cracking of the concrete. 6.11. Hence, it cannot be claimed that polypropylene fibres are a substitute for steel reinforcement in slab-on-ground applications.

OneSteel Reinforcing

Page 10

7.

Suspended Composite Slab Applications 7.1. Composite slabs require steel reinforcement perpendicular to the ribs of the profiled steel sheeting in order to control cracking along the tops of these ribs when longitudinal slip occurs. This is an additional function normally performed by the so-called shrinkage-andtemperature reinforcement. In slabs where no such reinforcement has been used, this function would not be satisfactorily performed by polypropylene fibres (see paragraph 1.2). 7.2. Transverse reinforcement may also be required when concentrated loads are applied such as from moving vehicles. It should be placed as low as possible in the slab, preferably sitting on top of the sheeting ribs. This reinforcement provides transverse flexural strength and increases the width of slab over which the loads are distributed, i.e. serves as so-called "distribution steel". 7.3. Composite slabs are commonly used in conjunction with composite beams. The shear connectors connecting the steel section to the slab require steel reinforcement in the surrounding concrete to guard against splitting in this region under the influence of high local dowel forces. polypropylene fibres. 7.4. Composite slabs are commonly required to satisfy fire resistance requirements. The steel sheeting is assumed to make no contribution to the strength of the slab in fire, and therefore both longitudinal and transverse steel reinforcement are required in the slab, in particular to provide flexural capacity to sections cracked due to significant thermal effects. function of the steel reinforcement cannot be performed by polypropylene fibres. 7.5. Composite slabs may require longitudinal steel reinforcement in the vicinity of sheeting terminations, and in regions in which the sheeting has only partial shear connection, to provide sufficient flexural and shear strength. Midspan regions may require supplementary steel reinforcement to provide additional flexural strength where the tensile capacity of the sheeting alone is inadequate, particularly in long-spanning or heavily loaded cases. This function of the steel reinforcement cannot be performed by polypropylene fibres. This This function of the steel reinforcement cannot be performed by

OneSteel Reinforcing

Page 11

8.

Conclusions 8.1. Slabs constructed on the ground using concrete only containing polypropylene fibres (2.0% or less by volume) must be designed as plain concrete slabs. 8.2. In slab-on-ground construction, steel reinforcement: limits the width of cracks; limits the differential vertical movement across cracks; reduces the required number of contraction joints; enables flexural strength to be reliably predicted after cracking; provides flexural strength in excess of the cracking moment, and therefore provide ductility under overload conditions; and serves multiple roles, and therefore cannot be classified as only "shrinkage-andtemperature reinforcement", "distribution steel", etc. 8.3. In suspended composite slab applications, steel reinforcement: 8.4. provides flexural and shear strength; controls cracking along the tops of the ribs of profiled steel sheeting; distributes concentrated loads; guards against splitting in the vicinity of shear connectors; and provides fire resistance.

Polypropylene fibres enhance certain surface properties but cannot be used as a substitute for steel reinforcement.

OneSteel Reinforcing

Page 12

References: 1. Guirguis, S. and Potter, R.J., "Polypropylene Fibres in Concrete", Cement and Concrete Association of Australia, Technical Report No. TR/F90, May, 1985. 2. Holden, O.F., "The Use of Polypropylene Fibres in Slabs-On-Grade", Current Practice Note 23, Concrete Institute of Australia, March, 1988. 3. Park, R. and Paulay, T., "Reinforced Concrete Structures", (Fig. 7.28, p. 323), John Wiley & Sons, 1975. 4. Hannant, D.J., "Fibre Reinforcement in the Cement and Concrete Industry", Materials Science and Technology, Vol. 11, September, 1995, pp. 853-860. 5. Hannant, D.J., "Fibres in Industrial Ground-Floor Slabs", Concrete, January/February, 1994, pp. 1619. 6. 7. 8. Beaudoin, J.J., "Handbook of Fibre-Reinforced Concrete", Noyes Publications, New Jersey, 1990. Cement and Concrete Association of Australia, "Industrial Pavements", 1997. Walsh, P. and Cameron, D., "The Design of Residential Slabs and Footings", Standards Australia, 1997. 9. Proe, D.J., Schafer, B.L. and Patrick, M., "Design of Residential Slabs and Industrial Pavements, and the Use of Polypropylene Fibres", Proceedings Concrete 97 Conference, Concrete Institute of Australia, May, 1997, pp. 211-220. Walsh, P., "Report to BHP - Preliminary Investigation into Ductility Requirements of Stiffened Rafts", University

OneSteel Reinforcing

Page 13