Sunteți pe pagina 1din 11

Cement and Concrete Research 68 (2015) 2434

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Cement and Concrete Research


journal homepage: http://ees.elsevier.com/CEMCON/default.asp

Cracking behavior in reinforced concrete members with steel bers: A


comprehensive experimental study
Giuseppe Tiberti, Fausto Minelli , Giovanni Plizzari
University of Brescia, DICATAM Department of Civil Engineering, Architecture, Land, Environment and Mathematics, Italy

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 28 December 2013
Accepted 24 October 2014
Available online xxxx
Keywords:
Tensile properties (C)
Fracture toughness (C)
Durability (C)
Fiber reinforcement (E)
Crack control

a b s t r a c t
The addition of bers in concrete determines a cracking phenomenon characterized by narrower and more closely spaced cracks, with respect to similar members without bers. Fiber Reinforced Concrete (FRC) may signicantly improve the tension stiffening into the undamaged portions of concrete among cracks, and, in addition,
may provide noticeable residual stresses at a crack due to the bridging effect provided by its enhanced toughness.
This paper aims at further investigating the ability of bers in controlling cracks by discussing more than ninety
tension tests on Reinforced Concrete (RC) prisms, carried out at the University of Brescia, having different sizes,
reinforcement ratios, amount of bers and concrete strengths. In particular the inuence of FRC in reducing the
crack spacing and the crack width is evaluated as a function of the FRC toughness.
Finally, the most recent available models for predicting the crack spacing of FRC composites are evaluated and
critically discussed.
2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The employment of Fiber Reinforced Concrete (FRC) is becoming
more and more prominent as numerous researches have demonstrated
its effectiveness in many structural applications, both with reference to
Serviceability Limit States (SLS) and Ultimate Limit States (ULS). Moreover, a number of physical, semi-empirical and empirical models have
been recently developed toward the formulation of appropriate design
procedures useful for practitioners, especially for strain-softening materials. The recent inclusion of FRC in the b Model Code 2010 [1], referred
to as MC2010 in the following, in national codes as well as the organization of conferences devoted to FRC [24] conrms this positive
development.
FRC has been particularly used in structural elements when crack
propagation control is of primary importance, i.e. in precast tunnel segments [5] or in beams where little or no shear reinforcement is provided
[6]. In several of these applications, the reinforcement generally consists
of a combination of conventional rebars and bers [7]. In the case of
rather tough FRC, a total substitution of the secondary or web reinforcement could be also achieved [8].
If the addition of bers in a classical beam, having longitudinal reinforcement, does not necessarily provide benets in terms of exural
bearing capacity and, especially, ductility at ultimate limits states
(ULS) [9], there is a general consensus that FRC signicantly improves
Corresponding author at: DICATAM Department of Civil Engineering, Architecture,
Land, Environment and Mathematics, University of Brescia, Via Branze, 43, 25123 Brescia,
Italy. Tel.: +39 030 3711 223.
E-mail address: fausto.minelli@unibs.it (F. Minelli).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2014.10.011
0008-8846/ 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

the behavior at SLS, with respect to crack and deection control. In service conditions, steel-to-concrete bond allows the transfer of tensile
stresses from the rebar to the surrounding concrete (between cracks),
which stiffens the response of a Reinforced Concrete (RC) member subjected to tension; this stiffening effect is referred to as tension stiffening. Several authors already studied this mechanism in traditional RC
elements [1012], generally made of Normal Strength Concrete (NSC).
In brous RC elements, the transfer of non negligible residual stresses
at crack provides an additional signicant mechanism that inuences
the member response. The combination of these two mechanisms
(tension stiffening and the post-cracking residual stresses provided by
bers at any crack, referred to as residual strength or tension softening in the following) results in a different crack pattern, characterized
by a reduced crack spacing and crack width. In addition, the collapse
mode and the ductility of FRC elements may also be affected by stress
concentrations due to enhanced bond and the residual tensile stress at
a crack [9].
A number of research studies have been carried out so far on the tensile behavior of FRC members since late 90s. Mitchell and Abrishami
[13] presented one of the rst studies; more recently, Bischoff [14,15]
performed monotonic and cyclic tests and included shrinkage effects
in the analysis. Noghabai [16] proposed an analytical model describing
the behavior of tie-elements based on the observation of experimental
tests. Physical analytical models predicting the behavior of FRC tension
members were also recently proposed by other researches [17,18].
However, none of the experimental studies mentioned were broad
enough to clearly identify the inuence of the FRC toughness, which is
a performance based parameter useful for designers and depends on
the ber content, material, combination, volume fraction and aspect

G. Tiberti et al. / Cement and Concrete Research 68 (2015) 2434

ratio. Moreover, none of these studies have been comprehensive in


terms of the number of specimens tested or in the parameters
considered.
The present paper describes the main results obtained from 97 tests
on tension-ties to the aim of evaluating crack formation and development in FRC structures. Tests were carried out by varying numerous parameters, i.e. the element size, the reinforcement ratio, the bar diameter,
the concrete cover, the ber volume fraction, the ber geometry and the
FRC toughness.
Preliminary results on a rst experimental phase (52 tests) are already published in [19]. In a second phase, further 45 tests were carried
out with the principal aims to improve the range of parameters studied
(e.g. new longitudinal steel ratios, diameter over reinforcement ratio
were included) and to obtain a more reliable crack pattern together
with a more accurate crack spacing evaluation. Different from the previous experimental program [19], special attention was devoted to specimen curing in order to avoid shrinkage phenomena resulting in a more
reliable reading of specimen average strains. This allowed a more deep
investigation of crack formation and development in tie-elements, compared to the rst phase.
The global research work herein presented is a part of a joint research project with the University of Toronto, who tested similar members made of HSC [20], allowing for the investigation of the inuence of
concrete strength on crack control [21].
This paper will mainly focus on a comprehensive description of the
tests carried out at the University of Brescia in the two previously mentioned stages, with emphasis on the inuence of bers in terms of crack
formation and development: the crack initiation, the crack formation
stage, the crack spacing and its progression will be evaluated. The results will be also compared against the formulations proposed by CEB
Model Code 1978 [22], b MC 2010 [1] and RILEM TC 162-TDF [23].
In addition, this experimentation aims to provide a useful database,
linking the experimental evidence (crack spacing and mean crack
width) to the performance parameter required by MC2010 (i.e. the codied residual strengths of the corresponding FRC materials). Moreover,
these experiments might also be useful toward the development of
improved formulations for crack spacing, crack width and tension stiffening behavior in FRC elements.
2. Experimental investigation
Unlike previous researches [1316], valuable but rather limited in
the parameters being investigated, the experimental program was designed so that a comprehensive database of uni-axial tension tests of
Reinforced Concrete (RC) and Steel Fiber Reinforced Concrete (SFRC)
members containing one central steel rebar could be obtained. These brous and non-brous members will be identied as RC and SFRC tensile ties, respectively. The following key-parameters were investigated:
- Mean value of concrete cylinder compressive strength (fcm) from
27 MPa to 47 MPa;
- Element size: square prism having side from 50 to 200 mm;
- Clear concrete cover: from 20 to 85 mm;
- Effective reinforcing ratio, eff: from 0.98 to 3.26%;
- Rebar diameter : 10, 20 and 30 mm;
- /eff ratio: from 306 to 2043 mm;
- Specimen length: from 950 to 1500 mm;
- Volume fraction of bers Vf: 0, 0.5 and 1.0%.
Note that the effective reinforcement ratio (eff) is the rebar area
over the area of concrete in tension surrounding the reinforcement: in
the present samples, = eff.
2.1. Uni-axial tension RC and SFRC test specimen congurations
A total number of 97 RC prismatic members were cast. The research
was developed in two phases. In the rst stage, 52 specimens having the

25

geometry shown in Fig. 1a were cast and tested. Each specimen was
950 mm long and ve square cross sections were selected: 50, 80,
100, 150 and 200 mm in size. Reinforcing bars having a diameter of
10, 20 and 30 mm (B450C steel, according to European standard EN
10080 [24]), corresponding to a reinforcement ratio () varying from
1.25% to 3.26%, were employed.
In a second phase, the same reinforcing bar diameters were used,
whereas four square cross sections (one less) were selected (80, 120,
180 and 200 mm in size) and a reinforcement ratio from 0.98% to
2.23% was adopted. The specimens having a rebar diameter of 20 and
30 mm were longer with respect to those of the previous phase
(1500 mm vs. 950 mm): in fact, the average crack spacing could be better evaluated in longer elements as the number of expected cracks is
higher. Members with a rebar diameter of 10 mm were 1000 mm
long. Geometry and reinforcement details of specimens of the second
phase are depicted in Fig. 1b. Note that, in the 2nd phase, holed steel
plates were welded at both the rebar ends and a different test set-up
was used, as explained in the next paragraph. The properties of the reinforcing bars used in tie elements are reported in Table 1.
Principal aim of the 2nd phase was to investigate with more details
members having large rebar diameter (e.g. 30 mm), enabling to improve the range of the signicant parameter /eff under investigation. Moreover, a wider number of experiments together with the
adoption of a better curing procedure allow a more in-depth evaluation
of the crack formation and development. The concrete cover was, in all
cases, at least 23 times the bar diameter to prevent splitting phenomena during the tests [13,25].
All samples were cast with the same concrete matrix designed to obtain a normal strength concrete (NSC), C30/37 according to Eurocode 2
[26]. The same basic mix design was used for all batches [19], i.e. cement
content of 400 kg/m3; water to cement ratio of 0.47; sand (04 mm)
610 kg/m3; coarse aggregate (410 mm) 1132 kg/m3; superplasticizer
3.3 l/m3. With bers, the amount of aggregate lowers up to a small 4%.
Different dosages and two types of steel bers, the macro ber 30/
0.62 and the micro ber 13/0.20, were utilized. Table 2 summarizes
the main characteristics of the two bers employed. Note that the
ber designation denotes the ber length as the rst number and the
ber diameter as the second (both in millimeters).
The micro bers were only used in addition to macro bers, determining a hybrid system that can help both with regard to early cracking
(controlled by micro bers) and for diffused macro-cracking (mainly
controlled by macro bers). Based on the different combinations of
type of ber and dosage, member dimension and steel reinforcement
ratio, 7 test series were investigated corresponding to two RC and ve
SFRC series, as summarized in Table 3. For each series, Table 3 reports
the material identication (batch ID), the volume fraction of steel bers
and ber designations.
Each combination of ber reinforcement, member dimension and
steel reinforcement ratio denes a specic set of tests, whose repetitions
and notations are listed in Table 4, in which the entire experimental
program is reported in detail. Three specimens were in general tested
for each material combination. Note that Table 4 reports the mean experimental crack spacing srm. The mean crack spacing of a single specimen was evaluated by measuring the distance between visible cracks
on the surface. Furthermore, the mean crack spacing of each set of samples (srm) was calculated as the mean value of the measured mean
values of each single specimen.
2.2. Material properties
A number of tests were conducted in order to determine the material properties. Standard tests on 150 mm cubes were carried out for the
determination of the concrete compressive strength. The tensile
strengths (direct tension test) were measured from cyl 80210 mm
cylinders (rst phase) and cyl 150300 mm cylinders (second phase).
Young modulus (secant static modulus in compression according to

26

G. Tiberti et al. / Cement and Concrete Research 68 (2015) 2434

(b)

Variation of the longitudinal


steel ratio =3.26% to 1.25%

L=1500 (L=1000 for 10 bar)

200

180

Bar diameter
30

Variation of the
specimen side, b

180

150
200

200

Bar diameter
20

180

120

200

50
100

150
150

1150

150

Variation of the
rebar diameter

100

80
Bar diameter
10

80

80
80

50

Variation of the longitudinal


steel ratio =2.23% to 0.98%

180

2nd phase

300

1st phase

120

(a)

Variation of the
specimen side, b

300

Reinforcement

Fig. 1. Geometry and reinforcement details of specimens (1st (a) and 2nd (b) phases). Measures given in mm.

UNI 6556 [27]), was determined on the same cylinders (before


performing direct tensile tests) by carrying out three loading cycles
with a maximum stress equal to 1/3 of concrete compressive strength,
fcm. The stabilized secant modulus of elasticity was calculated in the
unloading branch of the third cycle by considering a lower bound reference stress equal to 1/10 fcm. Table 3 reports the main values of cylindrical compressive/tensile strengths and young modulus for the 7
materials tested: the former was determined from the experimental
cubic strength by adopting the relationship fcm = 0.83fcm,cube.
In addition, among many standards available for the material characterization [28], all SFRC materials were characterized according to
the European Standard EN 14651 [29] and MC2010 [1], which require
that three point bending tests (3PBT) be performed on small notched
beams (150150550 mm). Typical experimental curves, concerning
the nominal stress vs. Crack Mouth Opening Displacement (CMOD)
are depicted in Fig. 2, for SFRC 0.5M and SFRC 1M series (2nd phase).
Based on these curves, the residual strengths fR,j (evaluated at 4 different CMOD values, i.e. 0.5, 1.5, 2.5 and 3.5 mm [29]), and the exural tensile strength (limit of proportionality) fL were calculated, as listed in
Table 5 (mean values).
In a more recent and reliable philosophy, well acknowledged by the
most recent guidelines and documents on FRC (one above all, the MC
2010 [1]), the FRC toughness (i.e. the fR,j parameters) is the most
comprehensive parameter that should be evaluated for a better representation of the mechanical behavior of FRC. The toughness is a reliable

Table 1
Properties of steel reinforcing bars.
Rebar

As (mm2)

(mm)

Es (GPa)

fy (MPa)

sh (103)

fult (MPa)

10
20
30-1a
30-2a

78
314
707
707

10
20
30
30

204
192
192
189

522
515
554
484

29.7
20.2
15.8
17.9

624
605
672
604

The 30 bars came from two different production heats.

parameter representing the post-cracking behavior of any FRC composite that, on the contrary, would not be accurately described by using the
ber geometry and content themselves.
The following discussion will be based more on the inuence on
cracking of the residual strengths fR,j rather than on the classical parameters being investigated, i.e. the ber length, aspect ratio and content Vf.

2.3. Set-up and instrumentation


In the rst phase (samples having a length of 950 mm) tests were
performed by means of a hydraulic universal servo-controlled (closedloop) testing machine, under stroke control (by clamping both the
rebar ends), by monitoring the specimen behavior up to the onset of
the rebar strain-hardening. The deformation rate varied from 0.1 to
0.2 mm/min up to the rebar yield; then the rate was progressively increased up to 1 mm/min, the latter beyond an average member strain
of approximately 2%.
Referring to the rst phase of research, all specimens without bers
(RC) and SFRC series 1M were stored in a fog room (R.H. N 95%; T =
20 2 C) until 2 or 3 days before testing; then they were air dried in
the laboratory. All the other specimens were moist cured with wet burlap under plastic sheet until 2 or 3 days before testing, since it was not
possible, for space restriction, using the same fog room. For these latter
specimens, shrinkage effects were not likely totally controlled, even
though the member response could be corrected by taking into account
the effect of the initial shrinkage strain, as proposed by Bischoff [30];
however, it was conrmed that shrinkage does not signicantly
Table 2
Characteristics of bers employed.
Fiber ID

Type of steel

Shape

fuf [MPa]

Lf [mm]

f [mm]

Lf/f []

30/0.62
13/0.20

Carbon
High carbon

Hooked-end
Straight

1270
2000

30
13

0.62
0.20

48.39
65.00

27

G. Tiberti et al. / Cement and Concrete Research 68 (2015) 2434


Table 3
Mechanical properties of concrete and ber contents.
Batch ID
1st phase

34

0.5M

42

1M

58

1M + m
2nd phase

Days after casting

0 Plain

116

0 Plain

43

0.5M

36

1M

120

fcm [MPa]

fctm [MPa]

Ec [GPa]

Fibers 30/0.62 [%]vol.

Fibers 13/0.20 [%]vol

Vf,tot [%]vol

40.5
(5.01%)
39.7
(8.38%)
36.4
(9.36%)
43.3
(11.78%)
47.2
(4.91%)
40.8
(8.48%)
27.4
(10.66%)

3.71
(4.44%)
3.37
(14.65%)
3.50
(2.86%)
2.81
(12.75%)
3.50
(9.68%)
3.35
(7.31%)
2.85
(13.54%)

29.5
(11.04%)
23.7
(19.52%)
30.7
(8.31%)
27.5
(17.16%)
33.9
(3.54%)
32.6
(4.24%)
27.8
(9.05%)

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

Relative standard deviation was reported in round brackets.

inuence the nal crack pattern and the crack spacing (the main scope
of this paper), whereas it does inuence the rst cracking load.
In the second phase (longer specimens), tests were carried out by
means of a steel reacting frame conveniently modied for the scope
(Fig. 3). Two steel plates, with bolt-holes previously machined, were
welded at the ends of the specimen (see Fig. 1b), which was connected
by pins in vertical position to the strong oor and to the steel frame
(both acting as reacting system, Fig. 3). The upper end of the specimen
was connected to an electromechanical screw jack, with a maximum capacity of 1500 kN. Note that these plates and the corresponding welding
did not change the behavior of the bare bar as preliminary veried
through uni-axial tests on the welding joint.
Tests were carried out under stroke control and by assuming the
same load-procedure of the rst phase. In the fog room, shrinkage
strains were measured by means of free shrinkage prisms: since the

measured strains were negligible (around 2025 micro-strains), noshrinkage offset strains were herein applied.
A typical instrumented specimen is shown in Fig. 4a: four Linear
Variable Differential Transformers (LVDTs, one for each side), were
employed to measure the mean deformation of the specimen over a
length ranging from 900 mm to 1400 mm, the former in the 950/
1000 mm long specimens, and the latter for the remaining experiments
(Fig. 4b).
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Typical tensile tie behavior
The diagrams reported in Fig. 5a and in Fig. 5b provide typical axial
load vs. average tensile member strain (the average strain of the rebar

Table 4
Experimental program, specimen notation and mean crack spacing (srm).
Phase

Rebar

Batch ID

1st phase

10

0 Plain
0.5M
1M
1M + m
0 Plain
0.5M
1M
1M + m
0 Plain
0.5M
1M
1M + m
0 Plain
0.5M
1M
1M + m
0 Plain
0 Plain
0 Plain
0.5M
1M
0 Plain
0.5M
1M
0 Plain
0.5M
1M
0 Plain
0.5M
1M
0 Plain
0.5M
1M

10

20

20

2nd phase

30
30
10

20

20

30

30

b [mm]

Length, L [mm]

Reinf. ratio (%)

Clear cover, c [mm]

Specimen ID

Spec. #

srm [mm]

N 50/10 0
N 50/10 0.5M
N 50/10 1M
N 50/10 1 M + m
N 80/10 0
N 80/10 0.5M
N 80/10 1M
N 80/10 1M + m
N 100/20 0
N 100/20 0.5M
N 100/20 1M
N 100/20 1M + m
N 150/20 0
N 150/20 0.5M
N 150/20 1M
N 150/20 1M + m
N 150/30 0
N 200/30 0
N 80/10 0
N 80/10 0.5M
N 80/10 1M
N 120/20 0
N 120/20 0.5M
N 120/20 1M
N 180/20 0
N 180/20 0.5M
N 180/20 1M
N 180/30 0
N 180/30 0.5M
N 180/30 1M
N 200/30 0
N 200/30 0.5M
N 200/30 1M

3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3

120
59
61
50
150
109
94
96
147
112
113
87
213
105
160
135
212
278
144
105
102
170
151
127
358
234
223
232
198
145
310
220
197

50

950

3.26

20

80

950

1.25

35

100

950

3.24

40

150

950

1.42

65

150
200
80

950
950
1000

3.24
1.80
1.25

60
85
35

120

1500

2.23

50

180

1500

0.98

80

180

1500

2.23

75

200

1500

1.80

85

28

G. Tiberti et al. / Cement and Concrete Research 68 (2015) 2434

9.0

3PBT - EN - 14651
8.0

Nominal stress N [MPa]

SFRC 0.5M
7.0
SFRC 1M

One should notice that there is no clear evidence about a possible relationship between strain at crack stabilized stage and SFRC toughness,
differently from one would expect: the higher number of cracks reported in SFRC elements, in fact, form in the same range of average strains as
in RC elements.

6.0
5.0

3.2. Benets of brous reinforcement in combination with rebars

4.0

The typical responses of FRC tensile ties reported in Fig. 5 enable to


emphasize one of the two main advantages related to the combination
of rebars and bers; that is the global stiffness increase caused by the
transmission of noticeable residual stress across cracks. This tendency
can be recognized also during the crack formation stage but it is especially clear during the stabilized crack stage: in fact, as schematically
depicted in Fig. 5a, the difference in tensile resistance at a particular
stain level, denoted by N, illustrates the role of bers. Hence, the tension stiffening increases with respect to that of RC samples.
In the same way, by referring to a certain axial member load, a
considerable reduction of the average member strain (tension stiffening
strain, denoted as sm in Fig. 5b) occurs. This phenomenon is rather
crucial in design, with signicant inuence on the crack width
calculation.

3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

CMOD [mm]
Fig. 2. Experimental results of 3PBT SFRC notched beams according to EN 14651 (SFRC
series of 2nd phase).

embedded in a prismatic tie, sm) plots of SFRC and RC specimens, for rebars having a diameter of 20 mm and 30 mm (2nd phase), respectively.
The average member strain sm was calculated as the mean elongation
of the 4 LVDTs, divided by the length of the base measurement. In
both the diagrams, a comparison between one typical RC (plain) and
corresponding SFRC member is provided. In addition, the response of
the corresponding bare bar is reported.
Even though tests were conducted well beyond, the results are
plotted up to a maximum average strain of 5103, in order to properly
describe the tensile behavior at SLS, where the crack and deformation
control are of main importance, and also to assess the behavior at rst
yielding.
The diagrams indicate that brous and non-brous samples present
approximately the same load at rst cracking since bers generally do
not affect the concrete tensile strength, at least for volume fractions
lower than 1% and in the case of strain-softening material (note that
the tensile strength of these two series is rather similar, as reported in
Table 3).
In control samples it emerges that, after rst cracking, the force
generally drops down as soon as a new crack forms. This phenomenon
is less clear in FRC specimens since bers ensure a residual strength
through cracks (tension softening effect in this case), which smoothly
reduces the saw-tooth steeply phenomenon detected in the experimental curves. The phase where no new cracks occur, and those existing
widen, is denoted as the stabilized crack stage: it takes place for
sm = 0.85103 and 1.45103 in series N 120/20 and N 200/30, respectively (Fig. 5). Considering the entire sets of tests, the stabilized
crack stage forms in the range of sm = 0.51.5103.

3.3. Evolution of the mean crack spacing


A signicant aspect investigated concerns the crack pattern and its
evolution in terms of mean crack spacing (srm). The latter was calculated
for each specimen as the mean distance between cracks. Furthermore,
for each set of samples, srm was calculated by averaging srm of each single specimen.
In Fig. 6a and b, the evolution of the mean crack spacing srm is plotted
as a function of the average strain up to the end of the crack formation
stage for specimens N 120/20 and N 200/30 (2nd phase), respectively.
From this plot, the reduction of the mean crack spacing, which represents the second main advantage due to the addition of bers, can
be clearly noticed. The residual post-cracking strength provided by
steel bers (at any crack) contributes to the reduction of the transmission length (lt) necessary to transfer tensile stresses in concrete through
bond. This effect can be considerable even if it is assumed, as a rst approximation, that the bond stresses between rebar and surrounding
concrete are not affected by bers, assumption currently also supported
by MC 2010 [1]. Nevertheless, Plizzari [31] has demonstrated that, in the
case of splitting, bers improve the bond (bm) whereas, if the pull-out
occurs, ber contribution on bond tends to be negligible [25,32].
Comparing responses at a specic value of average strain, as the
FRC toughness increases, the mean crack spacing decreases; this tendency is consistent for a given average strain and it also applies, as expected, once the stabilized crack stage is reached. Furthermore, this
trend is more pronounced in N 200/30 specimens (Fig. 6b), since the

Table 5
Residual strengths of the SFRCs according to EN 14651.
Fracture parameters of the SFRCs according to EN-14651

1st phase

Batch ID

fLm [MPa]

fR1m [MPa]

fR2m [MPa]

fR3m [MPa]

fR4m [MPa]

0.5M

5.46
(2.06%)
4.81
(6.03%)
5.97
(9.46%)
4.60
(6.61%)
4.64
(8.54%)

5.00
(1.94%)
5.09
(3.12%)
6.30
(19.02%)
4.12
(18.86%)
5.43
(13.86%)

4.55
(3.97%)
4.12
(6.38%)
5.35
(22.35%)
4.07
(17.24%)
4.89
(16.73%)

4.05
(5.98%)
3.42
(4.80%)
4.35
(18.35%)
3.35
(13.19%)
4.36
(15.59%)

3.46
(9.45%)
3.01
(11.74%)
3.54
(12.00%)
2.69
(16.28%)
3.86
(15.57%)

1M
1M + m
2nd phase

0.5M
1M

Relative standard deviation was reported in round brackets.

29

G. Tiberti et al. / Cement and Concrete Research 68 (2015) 2434

Fig. 3. Schematic of a specimen 1500 mm long, of the reacting frame and of the test set-up (measures given in mm).

longitudinal rebar steel ratio () is lower and tension softening is more


prominent.

3.4. Evolution of the tension stiffening strain


It is now rather clear that, in general, the expected mean crack width
of a SFRC member diminishes because of the post-cracking toughness of

(b)

4 LVDTs,
one for each side
of the specimen

900 (1st/2nd phase), 1400 (2nd phase)

Base of
measurement

L=950/1000 (1st/2nd phase), 1500 (2nd phase)

(a)

SFRC, involving two important contributions: a reduction of both the average member strain (sm) and the mean crack spacing (srm).
The former aspect has been investigated in the diagrams reported in
Fig. 7a/b for series N 120/20 and N 200/30, respectively. The average
member strain of brous and non-brous tensile ties (sm) is provided
as a function of the bare bar strain s. Consider rst a range of strains
up to 2.4103, corresponding to the stabilized crack stage up to the
onset of yielding. By referring to a given applied force, represented by

Steel reinforcing
central bar

LVDT

Fig. 4. Typical conguration of the tensile tie during test (a) and instrumentation (b). Measures given in mm.

30

G. Tiberti et al. / Cement and Concrete Research 68 (2015) 2434

(a)

(b)

200

Specimens 120x120 -

20 -

500

= 2.23%

180

450

160

400

30 -

= 1.80%

350

Axial force [kN]

140

Axial force [kN]

Specimens 200x200 -

N
120
100
80
Bare bar 20

300
sm

250
200
Bare bar 30
150

60

N 200/30 - 0

N 120/20 - 0
100

40

N 200/30 - 0.5M

N 120/20 - 0.5M
50

20

0
0

Average member strain,

sm

[]

Average member strain,

sm

[]

Fig. 5. Typical response of brous and non-brous N 120/20 (a) and N 200/30 tie elements (b).

a certain bare bar strain (s), in RC elements the average member strain
sm is lower (tension-stiffening strain). Moreover, in presence of bers a
further reduction can be seen (Fig. 7a/b). From this plot, a reduction of
about 20% is noted between SFRC 0.5M and RC series. This reduction
strictly depends on the FRC toughness, without any inuence of the tensile strength, which, as already mentioned, is similar in the two series
herein considered, as well depicted by the elastic ranges of the two
plots.
3.5. Main factors inuencing the mean crack spacing: /eff and FRC
toughness
In Fig. 8a the mean crack spacing (srm) is plotted versus the key
parameter /eff, which is generally included in many building codes
for the prediction of srm. In particular, the experimental results are plotted for reference RC members, SFRC members with a volume fraction
Vf = 0.5% and 1.0% (the latter includes macro bers, macro + micro bers according to the batches 1M and 1M + m, presented in Table 3).
The diagrams reported in Fig. 8a conrm the tendency previously observed in Fig. 6: for the same value of /eff, the use of bers results in
a considerable reduction of the mean crack spacing due to the enhanced
material toughness. In comparison with RC samples, the global mean reductions of srm equals to 30% for SFRC with Vf = 0.5% and 37% for SFRC
with Vf = 1% (24% higher).
Since several formulations proposed in the literature or in design
codes dene the crack spacing to be linearly proportional to the

(a)

parameter /eff, a linear regression was utilized in order to evaluate


the dispersion of results. As depicted in Fig. 8a, the coefcient of correlation R2 is equal to 0.92 for RC (plain control) samples whereas it
results 0.75 and 0.93 for SFRC members with Vf of 0.5% and 1.0%, respectively. Basically, a possible linear relationship between srm and /eff
could be reliable, even though, for SFRC, that should be considered
with the addition of a further built-in parameter taking into account
the post-cracking residual strength provided by bers.
Among the fracture parameters fR,j suggested by EN 14651 [29], fR1m
seems to better capture the experimental tendency, as the ratio between fR1m (Vf = 0.5%) and fR1m (Vf = 1.0%) is 22% (Table 5). In fact,
fR1m denes the residual post-cracking SFRC strength at CMOD =
0.5 mm, corresponding to crack width ranges typical of crack formation
at stabilized crack stages.
Besides the mean crack spacing, also the minimum crack spacing
was evaluated by measuring the minimum distance between visible
cracks on the surface (at stabilized crack stage). Furthermore, the minimum crack spacing of each set of samples (srmin) was calculated as
the mean value of the measured minimum values of each single specimen. The latter can be a signicant parameter since it can be considered
approximately equal to the transmission length (lt), as well underlined
by Borosnyi and Balzs [12]. In Fig. 8b, srm is reported as a function of
the minimum crack spacing (srmin). A linear regression was also applied
in this case. The corresponding coefcient of correlations R2 and equations are plotted in Fig. 8b, from which quite high values of R2 (ranging
for 0.86 to 0.92) can be noticed in all cases. This suggests an almost

(b)
800

800

Specimens 120x120 -

20 - = 2.23%

Specimens 200x200 -

30 - = 1.80%

700

700

RC

RC
SFRC 0.5M

SFRC 0.5M

600

Crack spacing [mm]

Crack spacing [mm]

600

SFRC 1M
500
400
300

SFRC 1M
500
400
300
Final crack spacing
200

200
Final crack spacing

100

100

0
0.0

0.5

1.0
1.5
2.0
Average member strain, sm []

2.5

3.0

0.0

0.5

1.0
1.5
2.0
Average member strain, sm []

2.5

Fig. 6. Evolution of the mean crack spacing of brous and non-brous series: N 120/20 (a) and N 200/30 tie elements (b).

3.0

31

G. Tiberti et al. / Cement and Concrete Research 68 (2015) 2434

(a)

(b)

2.5

Average member strain,


[]

Average member strain,


[]

sm

sm

2.5

1.5

1.5

0.5

0.5

0
0.0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

Bare bar strain,

2.0

0.0

2.4

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

Bare bar strain,

s []

2.0

2.4

s []

Fig. 7. Evolution of the tension-stiffening strain of brous and non-brous series: N 120/20 (a) and N 200/30 tie elements (b).

constant ratio between srm/srmin, varying from 1.18 (RC series) to


1.4 1.45 (SFRC series). The latter couple of values are quite close to
the expected ratio in presence of a mean crack spacing equal to 1.5 lt,
which is the case of a member having innite length [25]. The estimated
ratio for plain series is not far from 1.3srmin (=lt), which corresponds
to the value suggested by Bigaj van Vliet [25] in order to take into account the limited member length.
Further experimental evidences can be globally found looking at
all diagrams abovementioned and at the mean crack spacing values
reported in Table 4. Firstly, for a given bar diameter, an increase in
reinforcement ratio eff decreases the mean crack spacing of both
SFRC and RC samples. However, the rate of decrease is rather lower
in SFRC than in RC, especially in the case of = 20 mm (Table 4): in
fact, for the minimum eff = 0.98%, the ratio srm,RC/srm,SFRC 0.5M = 1.53
whereas, for the highest eff = 3.24%, the ratio srm,RC/srm,SFRC 0.5M =
1.31. Therefore, SFRC results more effective in controlling the cracking
phenomenon for lower reinforcement ratios, as already notices in
Fig. 6a and b.
Moreover, for a given reinforcement ratio, an increase in the rebar
diameter increases the mean crack spacings of both SFRC and nonbrous concrete (with similar trend).
In addition, the combination of micro and macro bers enhances
micro-cracking control, as also depicted by notched beam tests, which
show fairly higher values of residual post-cracking stresses, especially
for fR1m (Table 5). Furthermore, with higher reinforcement ratios, the

(a)

3.6. Discussion of crack spacing formulations


A number of crack spacing formulations for RC members can be
found in literature or in building codes. In this section, the following

(b)
Mean crack spacing vs.

500
eff

350
RC

R = 0.92

200x200 30

SFRC Vf=0.5%

300

SFRC Vf=1%

180x180 30

250
150x150 30

180x180 20
2
R = 0.75
2
R = 0.93

200
100x100 20

150

Mean crack spacing vs. minimum crack


spacing
RC

450
2

50x50 10
120x120 20

100

150x150 20

Mean crack spacing [mm]

400

Mean crack spacing [mm]

adoption of micro bers (in addition to macro-bers) is slightly more effective as they are especially efcient at early-cracking stages.
Finally, for the same type of bers (macro), Vf = 1% is not signicantly more efcient than Vf = 0.5% in terms of crack spacing, especially for
high reinforcement ratios. This is also due to fairly similar fracture properties (Table 5), which are probably due to higher porosity in the SFRC
elements with 1% of bers even if no direct measurements were done.
Fig. 9 reports the mean crack spacing vs. fR1m plot for the SFRC specimens, for 4 different ranges of / parameters. Results concerning all
SFRC specimens are herein plotted. The graph strongly conrms that
an increase in the residual strength fR1m leads to a signicant decrease
of crack spacing. Four linear regression lines are also reported, with similar slopes for / b 1500.
This graph further proves that the cracking behavior in SFRC composites can be properly described and modeled by using fR1m, which is
a suitable parameter related to SLS. Nevertheless, this possible trend
should be better conrmed with future research based on experimental
campaigns specically designed for evaluating a larger range of the residual strength fR1m values (higher values of fR1m should be especially
investigated).

400
SFRC Vf=0.5%
350
SFRC Vf=1%
srm = 1.45srmin
250

srm = 1.18srmin

srm= 1.40srmin

300

R = 0.92

R = 0.91

R = 0.86

200
150
100

80x80 10

50

50

0
0

500

1000

1500
eff [mm]

2000

2500

50

100

150

200

250

Minimum crack spacing [mm]

Fig. 8. Crack spacing vs. /eff non-brous series/brous series: mean crack spacing (a), minimum crack spacing (b).

300

350

32

G. Tiberti et al. / Cement and Concrete Research 68 (2015) 2434

300

250

Mean crack spacing [mm]

Recalling Eq. (1) [22], this expression can be derived:

Mean crack spacing vs. fR1m - SFRC series


Vf<1%

#
$
1 f ctm
:
$
srm 1:17 $ ls; max 1:17 $ k $ c $
4 eff bm

Referring to RC members, plots of the mean crack spacing predicted


by MC 1978 and MC 2010 against those observed from experiments are
presented in Fig. 10a and b, respectively. Good agreement can be seen
with experimental data (mean percentage error MPE, around 24%
for both formulations).
Regarding SFRC elements, one of the earliest introduced models and
most frequently used was proposed by RILEM committee TC 162-TDF
[23]. This approach modies the Eurocode 2 [33] expression for nonbrous concrete with a factor related to the ber aspect ratio:

200

150

100
/ <500
500< / <1000

50

1000< / <1500
/ >1500

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

fR1m [MPa]
Fig. 9. Mean crack spacing vs. fR1m.

formulations will be considered and compared against the experimental


results herein reported:
- MC 1978 22";
- MC 2010 1":
MC 1978 introduced the following models for the evaluation of the
expected crack width wk and mean crack spacing srm [mm]:
wk 1:7 $ wm 1:7 $ sm $ srm

!
s"

k1 $ k2 $
srm 2 $ c
10
eff :

The coefcients k1 and k2 depend on the rebar bond properties and


the distribution of tensile stress within the section, respectively. In
this case, it was assumed k1 = 0.4 (deformed bars) and k2 = 0.25
(pure tension).
The starting point of the MC 2010 [1] approach is the introduction of
the design crack width (wd), which corresponds to the maximum crack
width (wmax) dened as follows:
wd wmax 2 $ sm $ ls; max :

(a)

where Lf/f is the ber aspect ratio and the term in round brackets 50/
(Lf/f) should be not greater than 1.0. This expression was applied by assuming K1 equal to 0.8 (for deformed reinforcing bars) and K2 equal to 1
(elements under pure tension). The comparison between Eq. (5) and
the experimental results is presented in Fig. 11a. Unlike the rather
good tting of Fig. 10, the prediction of this relationship is rather poor
(MPE about 100%), which was reasonably expected since this approach
takes into account only the ber aspect ratio and does not explicitly consider the mechanical properties of the SFRC composite.
More recently, MC 2010 [1] proposed a different relationship, in
which the inuence of bers is taken into account by means of a reduction of the introduction length (ls,max, generally assumed for RC elements as for Eq. (4)), according to the factor fFtsm, which includes the
FRC toughness at SLS (fFtsm = 0.45 fR1m). Accordingly, the following expression can be derived:
#
$
1 f ctm f Ftsm
$
srm 1:17 $ ls; max 1:17 $ k $ c $
4 eff
#
$bm
1 f ctm 0:45 $ f R1m
:
1:17 $ k $ c $
$
4 eff
bm

500

Prediction of the mean c.spacing- RC series

400

Mean crack spacing (measured)[mm]

450
MC1978

350
300
250
200
150
100
MPE=24.7%

50

Prediction of the mean c.spacing- RC series

450
MC2010,
Final draft

400
350
300
250
200
150
100

MPE=24.0%

50
0

0
0

100

200

300

400

Mean crack spacing (predicted)[mm]

500

Eq. (6) has been applied based on the residual strengths (mean
values) reported in Table 5. The factor k was assumed equal to 1,
while the bond stress (bm) over the concrete tensile strength (fctm)
ratio was assumed equal to 1.8 even for SFRC specimens [1]. The predictions of Eq. (6) are reported in Fig. 11b. A quite good agreement with
test results emerges (MPE = 28%), even though in the 5% of samples
(all belonging to 1M + m series; see Table 3) the term in the round

(b)

500

Mean crack spacing (measured)[mm]

! '
(
50
$
50 0:25 $ K1 $ K2
s;eff
L f = f

srm

0
3.0

100

200

300

400

Mean crack spacing (predicted)[mm]

Fig. 10. Crack spacing prediction for non-brous series: MC1978 (a), MC2010 (b).

500

33

G. Tiberti et al. / Cement and Concrete Research 68 (2015) 2434

(a)

(b)
300

Mean crack spacing (measured)[mm]

Mean crack spacing (measured)[mm]

300

250

200

150

100

50

250

200

150

100

50

0
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Mean crack spacing (predicted)[mm]

50

100

150

200

250

300

Mean crack spacing (predicted)[mm]

Fig. 11. Crack spacing prediction for brous series, RILEM TC-162 DCF (a), MC2010 (b).

brackets (Eq. (6)) does not have any physical meaning as it results negative (i.e. fFtsm = 0.45 fR1m N fctm). In those cases, a positive value of srm is
still obtained as it is coincidentally balanced by the effect of the concrete
cover kc. Based on the experimental results presented herein, Eq. (6)
reasonably includes the parameter fR1m, which is representative of the
member behavior at SLS. However, enhanced crack spacing formulations can be obtained by using the broad experimental results herein
reported.
4. Conclusions
In the present paper, a broad experimental study was presented
aiming at evaluating the cracking behavior of RC and SFRC ties, with
special focus on the enhancement of crack control due to the addition
of bers. A series of 97 tension tests have been carried out, corresponding to 31 RC samples and 66 SFRC specimens.
Based on the results and on the discussion presented, the following
main conclusions emerge:
1- SFRC positively inuences the behavior of tension-ties at SLS, by determining closely spaced cracks and, therefore, reducing crack
width, due to two main aspects: tension-stiffening increases and
mean crack spacing (srm) reduces with respect to RC members. A
crack spacing reduction of around 30% was seen in SFRC elements
with Vf = 0.5% and of 37% with Vf = 1%.
2- The stabilized crack stage does not seem to be inuenced by the enhanced toughness provided by SFRC materials: a higher number of
cracks form, without a clear indication that the crack stabilized
stage develops later or earlier than in non-brous elements.
3- Considering the different specimen length between SFRC and RC
ties, the ratio between the mean crack spacing (srm) and minimum
crack spacing (srmin) is likely not inuenced by bers.
4- An increase in reinforcement ratio decreases the mean crack
spacing of both SFRC and RC elements, but the rate of decrease is
rather lower in SFRC than in RC. SFRC results more effective in controlling the cracking phenomenon for lower reinforcement ratios.
5- For a given reinforcement ratio, an increase in the conventional reinforcing bar diameter increases the mean crack spacing of both
SFRC and non-brous concrete (with similar trend).
6- Mixing micro and macro bers enhances micro-cracking control, as
also depicted by notched beam tests, which show fairly higher
values of residual post-cracking stresses;
7- For the same type of bers (macro), Vf = 1% does not result significantly more efcient than Vf = 0.5% in terms of crack spacing,

especially for high reinforcement ratios. This is mainly due to fairly


similar fracture properties;
8- SFRC stiffens the post-cracking response of RC members and can be
effective in diminishing the deections of the structures (this is a
key-point for SLS design).
9- The crack spacing reduction can be analytically well modeled by
using the fracture parameter fR1m, as currently included in MC
2010; fR1m, in fact, is the performance parameter for SFRC design
at SLS. The MC 2010 model for predicting srm in SFRC elements
generally predicts with sufcient accuracy the experimentally observed data on RC and SFRC series, even though renement is probably necessary for FRC composites having fFtsm = 0.45 fR1m N fctm.
10- A useful database, linking the tension stiffening test results (crack
spacing, mean crack width, tension stiffening strain, etc.) to the
codied residual strengths (fR,j) of the corresponding SFRC materials in accordance to MC2010 is now available.
List of symbols
cross-sectional area of conventional steel reinforcing bar in
As
tension;
b
tensile tie side;
c
clear concrete cover;
CMOD
Crack Mouth Opening Displacement;
concrete elastic modulus;
Ec
steel elastic modulus;
Es
mean value of cylindrical compressive concrete strength;
fcm
fcm,cube mean value of cubic compressive concrete strength;
mean value of tensile concrete strength;
fctm
serviceability residual strength (post-cracking strength for
fftsm
serviceability crack opening);
limit of proportionality;
fL
mean value of limit of proportionality;
fLm
residual exural tensile strength of ber reinforced concrete
fR,j
corresponding to CMOD = CMODj;
mean value of residual exural tensile strength of ber reinfR,jm
forced concrete corresponding to CMOD = CMODj;
mean value of ultimate tensile strength of bers;
fuf
fult
mean value of ultimate strength of reinforcing steel in tension;
mean value of yield strength of reinforcing steel in tension;
fy
k
empirical parameter to take into account the inuence of the
concrete cover according to MC 2010;
factor accounting for effect of bond characteristics of convenk1
tional reinforcing bars on cracking behavior according to MC
1978;

34

K1

k2
K2
L
Lf
Lf/f
ls,max
lt
s
srm
srmin
Vf
wd
wk
wm
wmax
N
sm
s
sh
sm

cyl
f

eff
bm

G. Tiberti et al. / Cement and Concrete Research 68 (2015) 2434

factor accounting for effect of bond characteristics of conventional reinforcing bars on cracking behavior according to
RILEM TC 162-TDF;
factor accounting for strain gradient effects on cracking behavior according to MC 1978;
factor accounting for strain gradient effects on cracking behavior according to RILEM TC 162-TDF;
tensile tie specimen length;
ber length;
ber aspect ratio;
transmission length (introduction length) according to
MC2010 notation;
transmission length;
rebar spacing;
mean value of crack spacing;
minimum crack spacing;
volume fraction of bers;
design crack width according to MC2010 notation;
expected crack width according to MC1978 notation;
mean value of crack width;
maximum crack width;
difference in terms of load response between tensile ties for a
given average member strain;
difference in terms of deformation response between tensile
ties for a given load;
bare bar strain;
strain at onset of strain-hardening behavior of steel;
average tensile member strain (average strain of the rebar
embedded in a prismatic tie);
conventional reinforcing bar (rebar) diameter;
diameter of cylindrical concrete sample;
ber diameter;
longitudinal reinforcing ratio;
effective longitudinal reinforcing ratio;
mean value of bond stress between concrete and rebar.

Acknowledgments
A special acknowledgment goes to M.Sc. Eng. Giovanni Bocchi,
Matteo Campanelli, Massimo Ferrari, Marco Franceschini, Emanuele
Maffetti, Ivan Pedrali, Matteo Romelli, Daniel Sandoval Pea and Luca
Schioppetti, and to the technicians Eng. Luca Cominoli and Mr. Andrea
Delbarba for their valuable support in performing the tests and in the
data processing. The Authors are also grateful to the company Alfa Acciai
SpA (Brescia, Italy) for supplying all rebars for the experimental program.
References
[1] Model Code, Final Complete Draft(b bulletins 65 and 66, March 2012-ISBN 978-288394-105-2 and April 2012-ISBN 978-2-88394-106-9 (2012)) 2010.
[2] M. Di Prisco, R. Felicetti, G.A. Plizzari (Eds.), Fibre-Reinforced Concrete, BEFIB 2004,
RILEM Publications S.A.R.L., PRO39, Bagneux, France, 2004.
[3] R. Gettu (Ed.), Fibre Reinforced Concrete: Design and Applications, BEFIB 2008,
RILEM Publications S.A.R.L., PRO60, Bagneux, France, 2008.
[4] Fibre Reinforced Concrete: Challenges and Opportunities, in: J.A.O. Barros, et al.,
(Eds.), CD & Proceeding Book of Abstracts of the Eighth RILEM International Symposium (BEFIB 2012) Guimares (Portugal), September 1921, 2012, RILEM Publications SARL, ISBN: 978-2-35158-132-2, 2012 (e-ISBN: 978-2-35158-133-9).
[5] G.A. Plizzari, G. Tiberti, Structural behaviour of SFRC tunnel segments, in: A. Carpinteri,
P. Gambarova, G. Ferro, G.A. Plizzari (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Fracture Mechanics of Concrete and Concrete Structures (FraMCos 2007),
vol. 3, Taylor & Francis/Balkema, Catania, Italy, ISBN: 978-0-415-44066-0, June 1722,
2007, pp. 15771584.
[6] F. Minelli, G.A. Plizzari, On the effectiveness of steel bers as shear reinforcement,
ACI Struct. J. (ISSN: 0889-3241) 110 (3) (MayJune 2013) 379390.
[7] G. Tiberti, F. Minelli, G. Plizzari, Reinforcement optimization of ber reinforced concrete linings for conventional tunnels, Compos. Part B (ISSN: 1359-8368) 58 (March
2014) 199207.
[8] M. di Prisco, G.A. Plizzari, L. Vandewalle, Fibre reinforced concrete: new design perspectives, Mater. Struct. 42 (9) (2009) 12611281.

[9] A. Meda, F. Minelli, G.A. Plizzari, Flexural behaviour of RC beams in bre reinforced
concrete, Compos. Part B (ISSN: 1359-8368) 43 (8) (2012) 29302937, http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2012.06.003.
[10] A.W. Beeby, The Prediction of Cracking in Reinforced Concrete Members, (PhD
Thesis) University of London, 1971.
[11] A.W. Beeby, R.H. Scott, Cracking and deformation of axially reinforced members
subjected to pure tension, Mag. Concr. Res. 57 (10) (Dec. 2005) 611621.
[12] A. Borosnyi, G.L. Balzs, Models for exural cracking in concrete: the state of the
art, Struct. Concr. 6 (2) (2005) 5362 (ISSN: 1464-4177, E-ISSN: 1751-7648).
[13] D. Mitchell, H.H. Abrishami, Inuence of steel bres on tension stiffening, ACI Struct.
J. 94 (6) (NovemberDecember 1997) 769773.
[14] K. Fields, P.H. Bischoff, Tension stiffening and cracking of high strength reinforced
concrete tension members, ACI Struct. J. 101 (4) (JulyAugust 2004) 447456.
[15] P.H. Bischoff, Tension stiffening and cracking of steel bre reinforced concrete, J.
Mater. Civil Eng. ASCE 15 (2) (MarchApril 2003) 174182.
[16] K. Noghabai, Effect of Tension Softening on the Performance of Concrete Structures.
Experimental, Analytical and Computational Studies(Doctoral Thesis) Div. of Structural Engineering, Lulea University of Technology, 1998. (186 pp.).
[17] B. Chiaia, A.P. Fantilli, P. Vallini, Evaluation of crack width in FRC structures and application to tunnel linings, Mater. Struct. (ISSN: 1359-5997) 42 (2009) 339351,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1617/s11527-008-9385-7.
[18] T. Leutbecher, E. Fehling, Tensile behavior of ultra-high performance concrete reinforced with reinforcing bars and bers: minimizing ber content, ACI Struct. J. 109
(2) (2012) 253264.
[19] F. Minelli, G. Tiberti, G.A. Plizzari, Crack Control in RC Elements with Fibre Reinforcement, in: Corina-Maria Aldea, Mahmut Ekenel (Eds.), ACI Special Publication ACI SP280: Advances in FRC Durability and Field Applications CD-ROM, vol. 280, December
2011, p. 18.
[20] J.R. Deluce, F.J. Vecchio, Cracking behavior of Steel Fiber-Reinforced Concrete members containing conventional reinforcement, ACI Struct. J. 110 (3) (MayJune, 2013)
481490.
[21] G. Tiberti, F. Minelli, G.A. Plizzari, F.J. Vecchio, Inuence of concrete strength on crack
development in SFRC members, Cem. Concr. Compos. (ISSN: 0958-9465) 45 (January
2014) 176185.
[22] Comit Euro-Internationale du Bton, CEB-FIP Model Code 1978 Design Code,
Comit Euro-International du Bton, CEB Bulletin d' Information No. 124/125.
Thomas Telford, London, 1978.
[23] RILEM TC 162-TDF, Final recommendation of RILEM TC 162-TDF: Test and
design methods for steel bre reinforced concrete, Mater. Struct., Vol. 36, No 262,
2003, pp. 560567.
[24] UNI EN10080, Steel for the Reinforcement of Concrete Weldable Reinforcing Steel,
2005. (25 pp.).
[25] A. Bigaj van Vliet, Bond of Deformed Reinforcing Steel Bars Embedded in Steel Fiber
Reinforced Concrete State of the Art, Technical report, TU-Delft, October 2001, p. 65.
[26] Eurocode 2 EN 1992-1-1, Design of Concrete Structures, General Rules and Rules for
Buildings, 2005.
[27] UNI 6556, Testing Concrete. Determination of Secant Modulus of Elasticity in Compression, 1976. (3 pp.).
[28] F. Minelli, G.A. Plizzari, A new round panel test for the characterization of ber reinforced concrete: a broad experimental study, ASTM J. Test. Eval. (ISSN: 1945-7553)
39 (5) (September 2011) 889897.
[29] EN 14651, Test Method for Metallic Fibre Concrete Measuring the Flexural Tensile
Strength (Limit of Proportionally (LOP), Residual), European Committee for Standardization 2005. (18 pp.).
[30] P.H. Bischoff, Effect of shrinkage on tension stiffening and cracking in reinforced
concrete, Can. J. Civ. Eng. 28 (3) (2001) 363374.
[31] G.A. Plizzari, Bond and splitting crack development in normal and high strength
ber reinforced concrete, in: N.P. Jones, R.G. Ghanemed (Eds.), Proceedings
of 13th ASCE Engineering Mechanics Division Conference, The Johns Hopkins
University, June 1316 1999 (Available on CD).
[32] M.H. Harajli, M.E. Mabsout, Evaluation of bond strength of steel reinforcing bars in
plain and ber-reinforced concrete, ACI Struct. J. 99 (4) (JulyAugust 2002).
[33] Comit Europen de Normalisation, Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures, General Rules and Rules for Buildings, European Prestandard ENV 1992-1-1Dec 1991.
Giuseppe Tiberti is an Assistant Professor of Structural Engineering, University of Brescia,
Italy. He received his Ph.D. in Materials for Engineering in 2009 and his MSc in 2004, both
from the University of Brescia. His interests include tunnel linings made by precast segments in ber reinforced concrete, concrete pavements, ber reinforced concrete and
nonlinear analyses of reinforced concrete structures.
Fausto Minelli is an Assistant Professor of Structural Engineering, University of Brescia,
Italy. His interests include shear behavior of lightly transverse reinforced beams, high performance concrete, ber reinforced concrete and nonlinear analyses of reinforced concrete
structures. He is member of b Task Group 4.2 Ultimate limit states models and b Task
Group 8.3 Fiber Reinforced Concrete.
Giovanni A. Plizzari is a Professor of Structural Engineering, University of Brescia, Italy. His
research interests include material properties and structural applications of highperformance concrete, ber reinforced concrete, concrete pavements, fatigue and fracture
of concrete, and steel-to-concrete interaction in reinforced concrete structures. He is a
member of ACI Committees 544 (Fiber-Reinforced Concrete) and of b Task Group 8.3
Fiber Reinforced Concrete.

S-ar putea să vă placă și