Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
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
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
(b)
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
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.
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
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.
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
34
0.5M
42
1M
58
1M + m
2nd phase
0 Plain
116
0 Plain
43
0.5M
36
1M
120
fcm [MPa]
fctm [MPa]
Ec [GPa]
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
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]
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
9.0
3PBT - EN - 14651
8.0
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
4.0
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.
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
29
Fig. 3. Schematic of a specimen 1500 mm long, of the reacting frame and of the test set-up (measures given in mm).
(b)
4 LVDTs,
one for each side
of the specimen
Base of
measurement
(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
(a)
(b)
200
Specimens 120x120 -
20 -
500
= 2.23%
180
450
160
400
30 -
= 1.80%
350
140
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
sm
[]
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)
(b)
800
800
Specimens 120x120 -
20 - = 2.23%
Specimens 200x200 -
30 - = 1.80%
700
700
RC
RC
SFRC 0.5M
SFRC 0.5M
600
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
(a)
(b)
2.5
sm
sm
2.5
1.5
1.5
0.5
0.5
0
0.0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
2.0
0.0
2.4
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
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).
(a)
(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
450
2
50x50 10
120x120 20
100
150x150 20
400
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
Fig. 8. Crack spacing vs. /eff non-brous series/brous series: mean crack spacing (a), minimum crack spacing (b).
300
350
32
300
250
#
$
1 f ctm
:
$
srm 1:17 $ ls; max 1:17 $ k $ c $
4 eff bm
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.
!
s"
k1 $ k2 $
srm 2 $ c
10
eff :
(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
400
450
MC1978
350
300
250
200
150
100
MPE=24.7%
50
450
MC2010,
Final draft
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
MPE=24.0%
50
0
0
0
100
200
300
400
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
! '
(
50
$
50 0:25 $ K1 $ K2
s;eff
L f = f
srm
0
3.0
100
200
300
400
Fig. 10. Crack spacing prediction for non-brous series: MC1978 (a), MC2010 (b).
500
33
(a)
(b)
300
300
250
200
150
100
50
250
200
150
100
50
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
50
100
150
200
250
300
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,
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
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.