Cement and Concrete Research 68 (2015) 24–34

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 fibers: 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 a b s t r a c t

Article history: The addition of fibers in concrete determines a cracking phenomenon characterized by narrower and more close-
Received 28 December 2013 ly spaced cracks, with respect to similar members without fibers. Fiber Reinforced Concrete (FRC) may signifi-
Accepted 24 October 2014 cantly improve the tension stiffening into the undamaged portions of concrete among cracks, and, in addition,
Available online xxxx
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 fibers in controlling cracks by discussing more than ninety
Keywords:
Tensile properties (C)
tension tests on Reinforced Concrete (RC) prisms, carried out at the University of Brescia, having different sizes,
Fracture toughness (C) reinforcement ratios, amount of fibers and concrete strengths. In particular the influence of FRC in reducing the
Durability (C) crack spacing and the crack width is evaluated as a function of the FRC toughness.
Fiber reinforcement (E) Finally, the most recent available models for predicting the crack spacing of FRC composites are evaluated and
Crack control 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). More-
over, 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 mate-
rials. The recent inclusion of FRC in the fib Model Code 2010 [1], referred
to as MC2010 in the following, in national codes as well as the organi-
zation of conferences devoted to FRC [2–4] confirms this positive
development.
FRC has been particularly used in structural elements when crack
propagation control is of primary importance, i.e. in precast tunnel seg-
ments [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 fibers [7]. In the case of
rather tough FRC, a total substitution of the secondary or web reinforce-
ment could be also achieved [8].
If the addition of fibers in a classical beam, having longitudinal rein-
forcement, does not necessarily provide benefits in terms of flexural
bearing capacity and, especially, ductility at ultimate limits states
(ULS) [9], there is a general consensus that FRC significantly 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).
the behavior at SLS, with respect to crack and deflection control. In ser-
vice 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 sub-
jected to tension; this stiffening effect is referred to as “tension stiffen-
ing”. Several authors already studied this mechanism in traditional RC
elements [10–12], generally made of Normal Strength Concrete (NSC).
In fibrous RC elements, the transfer of non negligible residual stresses
at crack provides an additional significant mechanism that influences
the member response. The combination of these two mechanisms
(tension stiffening and the post-cracking residual stresses provided by
fibers at any crack, referred to as “residual strength” or “tension soften-
ing” 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 ten-
sile behavior of FRC members since late 90s. Mitchell and Abrishami
[13] presented one of the first 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 influence of the FRC toughness, which is
a performance based parameter useful for designers and depends on
the fiber content, material, combination, volume fraction and aspect

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2014.10.011
0008-8846/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 G. Tiberti et al. / Cement and Concrete Research 68 (2015) 24–34
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 develop-
ment in FRC structures. Tests were carried out by varying numerous pa-
rameters, i.e. the element size, the reinforcement ratio, the bar diameter,
the concrete cover, the fiber volume fraction, the fiber geometry and the
FRC toughness.
Preliminary results on a first experimental phase (52 tests) are al-
ready 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 previ-
ous experimental program [19], special attention was devoted to speci-
men 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, com-
pared to the first phase.
The global research work herein presented is a part of a joint re-
search project with the University of Toronto, who tested similar mem-
bers made of HSC [20], allowing for the investigation of the influence 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 men-
tioned stages, with emphasis on the influence of fibers in terms of crack
formation and development: the crack initiation, the crack formation
stage, the crack spacing and its progression will be evaluated. The re-
sults will be also compared against the formulations proposed by CEB
Model Code 1978 [22], fib 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 cod-
ified 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 stiff-
ening behavior in FRC elements.
2. Experimental investigation
Unlike previous researches [13–16], valuable but rather limited in
the parameters being investigated, the experimental program was de-
signed 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 fi-
brous and non-fibrous members will be identified as RC and SFRC ten-
sile 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, ρeff: from 0.98 to 3.26%;
- Rebar diameter ϕ: 10, 20 and 30 mm;
- ϕ/ρeff ratio: from 306 to 2043 mm;
- Specimen length: from 950 to 1500 mm;
- Volume fraction of fibers Vf: 0, 0.5 and 1.0%.
Note that the effective reinforcement ratio (ρeff) is the rebar area
over the area of concrete in tension surrounding the reinforcement: in
the present samples, ρ = ρeff.
2.1. Uni-axial tension RC and SFRC test specimen configurations
A total number of 97 RC prismatic members were cast. The research
was developed in two phases. In the first stage, 52 specimens having the
25
geometry shown in Fig. 1a were cast and tested. Each specimen was
950 mm long and five 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 (ρ) 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 bet-
ter 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 re-
inforcing 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 im-
prove the range of the significant parameter ϕ/ρeff under investiga-
tion. 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 2–3 times the bar diameter to prevent splitting phenom-
ena during the tests [13,25].
All samples were cast with the same concrete matrix designed to ob-
tain 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 (0–4 mm)
610 kg/m3; coarse aggregate (4–10 mm) 1132 kg/m3; superplasticizer
3.3 l/m3. With fibers, the amount of aggregate lowers up to a small 4%.
Different dosages and two types of steel fibers, the macro fiber 30/
0.62 and the micro fiber 13/0.20, were utilized. Table 2 summarizes
the main characteristics of the two fibers employed. Note that the
fiber designation denotes the fiber length as the first number and the
fiber diameter as the second (both in millimeters).
The micro fibers were only used in addition to macro fibers, deter-
mining a hybrid system that can help both with regard to early cracking
(controlled by micro fibers) and for diffused macro-cracking (mainly
controlled by macro fibers). Based on the different combinations of
type of fiber and dosage, member dimension and steel reinforcement
ratio, 7 test series were investigated corresponding to two RC and five
SFRC series, as summarized in Table 3. For each series, Table 3 reports
the material identification (batch ID), the volume fraction of steel fibers
and fiber designations.
Each combination of fiber reinforcement, member dimension and
steel reinforcement ratio defines a specific 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 ex-
perimental crack spacing srm. The mean crack spacing of a single speci-
men was evaluated by measuring the distance between visible cracks
on the surface. Furthermore, the mean crack spacing of each set of sam-
ples (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 materi-
al 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 ϕcyl 80·210 mm
cylinders (first phase) and ϕcyl 150·300 mm cylinders (second phase).
Young modulus (secant static modulus in compression according to
26 G. Tiberti et al. / Cement and Concrete Research 68 (2015) 24–34

b
(a) 1st phase (b) 2nd phase

300
Variation of the longitudinal Variation of the longitudinal
b steel ratio =3.26% to 1.25% steel ratio =2.23% to 0.98%
50 80 80

80

80

L=1500 (L=1000 for 10 bar)

Bar diameter

50

Variation of the
rebar diameter
10 180
100 150 120
100

150

120

180
Bar diameter
20
150 200 180 200
1150
150

200

200
180
Bar diameter
30

Variation of the Variation of the

specimen side, b specimen side, b

Reinforcement

300
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 refer-
ence stress equal to 1/10 fcm. Table 3 reports the main values of cylindri-
cal 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 = 0.83·fcm,cube.
In addition, among many standards available for the material char-
acterization [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 (150·150·550 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 differ-
ent CMOD values, i.e. 0.5, 1.5, 2.5 and 3.5 mm [29]), and the flexural ten-
sile 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 repre-
sentation of the mechanical behavior of FRC. The toughness is a reliable
Table 1
Properties of steel reinforcing bars.
parameter representing the post-cracking behavior of any FRC compos-
ite that, on the contrary, would not be accurately described by using the
fiber geometry and content themselves.
The following discussion will be based more on the influence on
cracking of the residual strengths fR,j rather than on the classical param-
eters being investigated, i.e. the fiber length, aspect ratio and content Vf.
2.3. Set-up and instrumentation
In the first phase (samples having a length of 950 mm) tests were
performed by means of a hydraulic universal servo-controlled (closed-
loop) 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 in-
creased up to 1 mm/min, the latter beyond an average member strain
of approximately 2%.
Referring to the first phase of research, all specimens without fibers
(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 bur-
lap 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 confirmed that shrinkage does not significantly

Rebar As (mm2) ϕ (mm) Es (GPa) fy (MPa) εsh (×10−3) fult (MPa) Table 2
ϕ10 78 10 204 522 29.7 624 Characteristics of fibers employed.
ϕ20 314 20 192 515 20.2 605
Fiber ID Type of steel Shape fuf [MPa] Lf [mm] ϕf [mm] Lf/ϕf [–]
ϕ30-1a 707 30 192 554 15.8 672
ϕ30-2a 707 30 189 484 17.9 604 30/0.62 Carbon Hooked-end 1270 30 0.62 48.39
a 13/0.20 High carbon Straight 2000 13 0.20 65.00
The ϕ30 bars came from two different production heats.
 G. Tiberti et al. / Cement and Concrete Research 68 (2015) 24–34 27

Table 3
Mechanical properties of concrete and fiber contents.

Batch ID Days after casting fcm [MPa] fctm [MPa] Ec [GPa] Fibers 30/0.62 [%]vol. Fibers 13/0.20 [%]vol Vf,tot [%]vol

1st phase 0 Plain 34 40.5 3.71 29.5 – – –

(5.01%) (4.44%) (11.04%)
0.5M 42 39.7 3.37 23.7 0.5 – 0.5
(8.38%) (14.65%) (19.52%)
1M 58 36.4 3.50 30.7 1 – 1
(9.36%) (2.86%) (8.31%)
1M + m 116 43.3 2.81 27.5 0.5 0.5 1
(11.78%) (12.75%) (17.16%)
2nd phase 0 Plain 43 47.2 3.50 33.9 – – –
(4.91%) (9.68%) (3.54%)
0.5M 36 40.8 3.35 32.6 0.5 – 0.5
(8.48%) (7.31%) (4.24%)
1M 120 27.4 2.85 27.8 1 – 1
(10.66%) (13.54%) (9.05%)

Relative standard deviation was reported in round brackets.

influence the final crack pattern and the crack spacing (the main scope
of this paper), whereas it does influence the first cracking load.
In the second phase (longer specimens), tests were carried out by
means of a steel reacting frame conveniently modified 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 floor 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 ca-
pacity of 1500 kN. Note that these plates and the corresponding welding
did not change the behavior of the bare bar as preliminary verified
through uni-axial tests on the welding joint.
Tests were carried out under stroke control and by assuming the
same load-procedure of the first phase. In the fog room, shrinkage
strains were measured by means of free shrinkage prisms: since the
measured strains were negligible (around 20–25 micro-strains), no-
shrinkage 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 b [mm] Length, L [mm] Reinf. ratio (%) Clear cover, c [mm] Specimen ID Spec. # srm [mm]

1st phase ϕ10 0 Plain 50 950 3.26 20 N 50/10 — 0 3 120

0.5M N 50/10 — 0.5M 3 59
1M N 50/10 — 1M 3 61
1M + m N 50/10 — 1 M + m 3 50
ϕ10 0 Plain 80 950 1.25 35 N 80/10 — 0 2 150
0.5M N 80/10 — 0.5M 3 109
1M N 80/10 — 1M 3 94
1M + m N 80/10 — 1M + m 3 96
ϕ20 0 Plain 100 950 3.24 40 N 100/20 — 0 3 147
0.5M N 100/20 — 0.5M 3 112
1M N 100/20 — 1M 3 113
1M + m N 100/20 — 1M + m 3 87
ϕ20 0 Plain 150 950 1.42 65 N 150/20 — 0 3 213
0.5M N 150/20 — 0.5M 3 105
1M N 150/20 — 1M 3 160
1M + m N 150/20 — 1M + m 3 135
ϕ30 0 Plain 150 950 3.24 60 N 150/30 — 0 3 212
ϕ30 0 Plain 200 950 1.80 85 N 200/30 — 0 2 278
2nd phase ϕ10 0 Plain 80 1000 1.25 35 N 80/10 — 0 3 144
0.5M N 80/10 — 0.5M 3 105
1M N 80/10 — 1M 3 102
ϕ20 0 Plain 120 1500 2.23 50 N 120/20 — 0 3 170
0.5M N 120/20 — 0.5M 3 151
1M N 120/20 — 1M 3 127
ϕ20 0 Plain 180 1500 0.98 80 N 180/20 — 0 3 358
0.5M N 180/20 — 0.5M 3 234
1M N 180/20 — 1M 3 223
ϕ30 0 Plain 180 1500 2.23 75 N 180/30 — 0 3 232
0.5M N 180/30 — 0.5M 3 198
1M N 180/30 — 1M 3 145
ϕ30 0 Plain 200 1500 1.80 85 N 200/30 — 0 3 310
0.5M N 200/30 — 0.5M 3 220
1M N 200/30 — 1M 3 197
28 G. Tiberti et al. / Cement and Concrete Research 68 (2015) 24–34

9.0 One should notice that there is no clear evidence about a possible re-
3PBT - EN - 14651 lationship between strain at crack stabilized stage and SFRC toughness,
8.0
SFRC 0.5M differently from one would expect: the higher number of cracks report-
7.0 ed in SFRC elements, in fact, form in the same range of average strains as
Nominal stress σ N [MPa]

SFRC 1M in RC elements.
6.0

5.0 3.2. Benefits of fibrous reinforcement in combination with rebars

4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
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, εsm) plots of SFRC and RC specimens, for re-
bars having a diameter of 20 mm and 30 mm (2nd phase), respectively.
The average member strain εsm 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 5·10−3, 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 first
yielding.
The diagrams indicate that fibrous and non-fibrous samples present
approximately the same load at first cracking since fibers 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 first cracking, the force
generally drops down as soon as a new crack forms. This phenomenon
is less clear in FRC specimens since fibers ensure a residual strength
through cracks (“tension softening” effect in this case), which smoothly
reduces the saw-tooth steeply phenomenon detected in the experimen-
tal curves. The phase where no new cracks occur, and those existing
widen, is denoted as the “stabilized crack stage”: it takes place for
εsm = 0.85·10−3 and 1.45·10−3 in series N 120/20 and N 200/30, re-
spectively (Fig. 5). Considering the entire sets of tests, the stabilized
crack stage forms in the range of εsm = 0.5–1.5·10−3.
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 fibers; 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 espe-
cially 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 ΔN, illustrates the role of fibers. Hence, the ten-
3.0 3.5 4.0
sion 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 Δεsm in Fig. 5b) occurs. This phenomenon is rather
crucial in design, with significant influence on the crack width
calculation.
3.3. Evolution of the mean crack spacing
A significant 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 sin-
gle 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 rep-
resents the second main advantage due to the addition of fibers, can
be clearly noticed. The residual post-cracking strength provided by
steel fibers (at any crack) contributes to the reduction of the transmis-
sion length (lt) necessary to transfer tensile stresses in concrete through
bond. This effect can be considerable even if it is assumed, as a first ap-
proximation, that the bond stresses between rebar and surrounding
concrete are not affected by fibers, assumption currently also supported
by MC 2010 [1]. Nevertheless, Plizzari [31] has demonstrated that, in the
case of splitting, fibers improve the bond (τbm) whereas, if the pull-out
occurs, fiber contribution on bond tends to be negligible [25,32].
Comparing responses at a specific value of average strain, as the
FRC toughness increases, the mean crack spacing decreases; this ten-
dency is consistent for a given average strain and it also applies, as ex-
pected, 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

Batch ID fLm [MPa] fR1m [MPa] fR2m [MPa] fR3m [MPa] fR4m [MPa]

1st phase 0.5M 5.46 5.00 4.55 4.05 3.46

(2.06%) (1.94%) (3.97%) (5.98%) (9.45%)
1M 4.81 5.09 4.12 3.42 3.01
(6.03%) (3.12%) (6.38%) (4.80%) (11.74%)
1M + m 5.97 6.30 5.35 4.35 3.54
(9.46%) (19.02%) (22.35%) (18.35%) (12.00%)
2nd phase 0.5M 4.60 4.12 4.07 3.35 2.69
(6.61%) (18.86%) (17.24%) (13.19%) (16.28%)
1M 4.64 5.43 4.89 4.36 3.86
(8.54%) (13.86%) (16.73%) (15.59%) (15.57%)

Relative standard deviation was reported in round brackets.

 G. Tiberti et al. / Cement and Concrete Research 68 (2015) 24–34 29

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 (ρ) 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
SFRC, involving two important contributions: a reduction of both the av-
erage member strain (εsm) 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 fibrous and non-fibrous tensile ties (εsm) is provided
as a function of the bare bar strain εs. Consider first a range of strains
up to 2.4·10−3, corresponding to the stabilized crack stage up to the
onset of yielding. By referring to a given applied force, represented by

(a) (b)

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

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

central bar
b

4 LVDTs, LVDT
one for each side
of the specimen

Base of
measurement

Fig. 4. Typical configuration 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) 24–34

(a) (b)
200 500
Specimens 120x120 - 20 - = 2.23% Specimens 200x200 - 30 - = 1.80%
180 450

160 400

140 350

Axial force [kN]

N
Axial force [kN]

120 300
sm
100 250

80 200
Bare bar 20 Bare bar 30
60 150
N 120/20 - 0 N 200/30 - 0
40 100
N 120/20 - 0.5M N 200/30 - 0.5M
20 50

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Average member strain, sm [‰] Average member strain, sm [‰]

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

a certain bare bar strain (εs), in RC elements the average member strain
εsm is lower (tension-stiffening strain). Moreover, in presence of fibers 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 influence of the ten-
sile 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 influencing the mean crack spacing: ϕ/ρeff and FRC
toughness
In Fig. 8a the mean crack spacing (srm) is plotted versus the key
parameter ϕ/ρeff, which is generally included in many building codes
for the prediction of srm. In particular, the experimental results are plot-
ted for reference RC members, SFRC members with a volume fraction
Vf = 0.5% and 1.0% (the latter includes macro fibers, macro + micro fi-
bers according to the batches 1M and 1M + m, presented in Table 3).
The diagrams reported in Fig. 8a confirm the tendency previously ob-
served in Fig. 6: for the same value of ϕ/ρeff, the use of fibers results in
a considerable reduction of the mean crack spacing due to the enhanced
material toughness. In comparison with RC samples, the global mean re-
ductions 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 define the crack spacing to be linearly proportional to the
parameter ϕ/ρeff, a linear regression was utilized in order to evaluate
the dispersion of results. As depicted in Fig. 8a, the coefficient of corre-
lation 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%, respec-
tively. Basically, a possible linear relationship between srm and ϕ/ρeff
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 fibers.
Among the fracture parameters fR,j suggested by EN 14651 [29], fR1m
seems to better capture the experimental tendency, as the ratio be-
tween fR1m (Vf = 0.5%) and fR1m (Vf = 1.0%) is 22% (Table 5). In fact,
fR1m defines 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 min-
imum crack spacing of each set of samples (srmin) was calculated as
the mean value of the measured minimum values of each single speci-
men. The latter can be a significant parameter since it can be considered
approximately equal to the transmission length (lt), as well underlined
by Borosnyói and Balázs [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 coefficient of correlations R2 and equa-
tions 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

(a) (b)
800 800
Specimens 120x120 - 20 - = 2.23% Specimens 200x200 - 30 - = 1.80%
700 700
RC RC
600 SFRC 0.5M 600 SFRC 0.5M
Crack spacing [mm]

Crack spacing [mm]

SFRC 1M SFRC 1M
500 500

400 400

300 300
Final crack spacing
200 200
Final crack spacing
100 100

0 0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Average member strain, sm [‰] Average member strain, sm [‰]

Fig. 6. Evolution of the mean crack spacing of fibrous and non-fibrous series: N 120/20 (a) and N 200/30 tie elements (b).
 G. Tiberti et al. / Cement and Concrete Research 68 (2015) 24–34 31

(a) 3
(b) 3

2.5 2.5

sm
sm

Average member strain,

Average member strain,

2 2

[‰]
[‰]

1.5 1.5

1 1

0.5 0.5

0 0
0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4
Bare bar strain, s [‰] Bare bar strain, s [‰]

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

constant ratio between srm/srmin, varying from 1.18 (RC series) to adoption of micro fibers (in addition to macro-fibers) is slightly more ef-
1.4 ÷ 1.45 (SFRC series). The latter couple of values are quite close to fective as they are especially efficient at early-cracking stages.
the expected ratio in presence of a mean crack spacing equal to 1.5 lt, Finally, for the same type of fibers (macro), Vf = 1% is not significant-
which is the case of a member having infinite length [25]. The estimated ly more efficient than Vf = 0.5% in terms of crack spacing, especially for
ratio for plain series is not far from 1.3·srmin (=lt), which corresponds high reinforcement ratios. This is also due to fairly similar fracture prop-
to the value suggested by Bigaj van Vliet [25] in order to take into ac- erties (Table 5), which are probably due to higher porosity in the SFRC
count the limited member length. elements with 1% of fibers even if no direct measurements were done.
Further experimental evidences can be globally found looking at Fig. 9 reports the mean crack spacing vs. fR1m plot for the SFRC spec-
all diagrams abovementioned and at the mean crack spacing values imens, for 4 different ranges of ϕ/ρ parameters. Results concerning all
reported in Table 4. Firstly, for a given bar diameter, an increase in SFRC specimens are herein plotted. The graph strongly confirms that
reinforcement ratio ρeff decreases the mean crack spacing of both an increase in the residual strength fR1m leads to a significant decrease
SFRC and RC samples. However, the rate of decrease is rather lower of crack spacing. Four linear regression lines are also reported, with sim-
in SFRC than in RC, especially in the case of ϕ = 20 mm (Table 4): in ilar slopes for ϕ/ρ b 1500.
fact, for the minimum ρeff = 0.98%, the ratio srm,RC/srm,SFRC 0.5M = 1.53 This graph further proves that the cracking behavior in SFRC com-
whereas, for the highest ρeff = 3.24%, the ratio srm,RC/srm,SFRC 0.5M = posites can be properly described and modeled by using fR1m, which is
1.31. Therefore, SFRC results more effective in controlling the cracking a suitable parameter related to SLS. Nevertheless, this possible trend
phenomenon for lower reinforcement ratios, as already notices in should be better confirmed with future research based on experimental
Fig. 6a and b. campaigns specifically designed for evaluating a larger range of the re-
Moreover, for a given reinforcement ratio, an increase in the rebar sidual strength fR1m values (higher values of fR1m should be especially
diameter increases the mean crack spacings of both SFRC and non- investigated).
fibrous concrete (with similar trend).
In addition, the combination of micro and macro fibers enhances 3.6. Discussion of crack spacing formulations
micro-cracking control, as also depicted by notched beam tests, which
show fairly higher values of residual post-cracking stresses, especially A number of crack spacing formulations for RC members can be
for fR1m (Table 5). Furthermore, with higher reinforcement ratios, the found in literature or in building codes. In this section, the following

(a) (b)
400 500
Mean crack spacing vs. / eff Mean crack spacing vs. minimum crack
450
350 2
RC
spacing
RC R = 0.92
200x200 30
400
Mean crack spacing [mm]
Mean crack spacing [mm]

300 SFRC Vf=0.5% SFRC Vf=0.5%

350
SFRC Vf=1% SFRC Vf=1%
250 180x180 30 180x180 20 srm= 1.40srmin srm = 1.18srmin
2
R = 0.75 300 2 2
150x150 30 2
srm = 1.45srmin R = 0.91 R = 0.92
R = 0.93
200 250 2
R = 0.86
100x100 20 200
150 50x50 10
150x150 20 150
120x120 20
100
80x80 10 100
50
50

0 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
/ eff [mm] Minimum crack spacing [mm]

Fig. 8. Crack spacing vs. ϕ/ρeff non-fibrous series/fibrous series: mean crack spacing (a), minimum crack spacing (b).
32 G. Tiberti et al. / Cement and Concrete Research 68 (2015) 24–34

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

Mean crack spacing vs. fR1m - SFRC series
Vf<1%  
1 ϕ f ctm
250 srm ¼ 1:17  ls; max ¼ 1:17  k  c þ   : ð4Þ
4 ρeff τbm
Mean crack spacing [mm]

200 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
150 with experimental data (mean percentage error — MPE, around 24%
for both formulations).
Regarding SFRC elements, one of the earliest introduced models and
100
/ <500 most frequently used was proposed by RILEM committee TC 162-TDF
500< / <1000 [23]. This approach modifies the Eurocode 2 [33] expression for non-
50 fibrous concrete with a factor related to the fiber aspect ratio:
1000< / <1500
!  
/ >1500 ϕ 50
0 srm ¼ 50 þ 0:25  K1  K2  ð5Þ
ρs;eff L f =ϕ f
3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5
fR1m [MPa]
where Lf/ϕf is the fiber aspect ratio and the term in round brackets 50/
(Lf/ϕf) should be not greater than 1.0. This expression was applied by as-
Fig. 9. Mean crack spacing vs. fR1m.
suming K1 equal to 0.8 (for deformed reinforcing bars) and K2 equal to 1
(elements under pure tension). The comparison between Eq. (5) and
formulations will be considered and compared against the experimental the experimental results is presented in Fig. 11a. Unlike the rather
results herein reported: good fitting of Fig. 10, the prediction of this relationship is rather poor
(MPE about 100%), which was reasonably expected since this approach
- MC 1978 ½22; takes into account only the fiber aspect ratio and does not explicitly con-
sider the mechanical properties of the SFRC composite.
- MC 2010 ½1: More recently, MC 2010 [1] proposed a different relationship, in
which the influence of fibers is taken into account by means of a reduc-
MC 1978 introduced the following models for the evaluation of the tion of the introduction length (ls,max, generally assumed for RC ele-
expected crack width wk and mean crack spacing srm [mm]: ments as for Eq. (4)), according to the factor fFtsm, which includes the
FRC toughness at SLS (fFtsm = 0.45 fR1m). Accordingly, the following ex-
wk ¼ 1:7  wm ¼ 1:7  εsm  srm ð1Þ pression can be derived:

 
s ϕ 1 ϕ ð f ctm −f Ftsm Þ
srm ¼ 2  c þ þ k1  k2  ð2Þ srm ¼ 1:17  ls; max ¼ 1:17  k  c þ  
ρeff : 4 ρeff τbm
10

1 ϕ ð f ctm −0:45  f R1m Þ
¼ 1:17  k  c þ   : ð6Þ
The coefficients k1 and k2 depend on the rebar bond properties and 4 ρeff τbm
the distribution of tensile stress within the section, respectively. In
this case, it was assumed k1 = 0.4 (deformed bars) and k2 = 0.25 Eq. (6) has been applied based on the residual strengths (mean
(pure tension). values) reported in Table 5. The factor k was assumed equal to 1,
The starting point of the MC 2010 [1] approach is the introduction of while the bond stress (τbm) over the concrete tensile strength (fctm)
the design crack width (wd), which corresponds to the maximum crack ratio was assumed equal to 1.8 even for SFRC specimens [1]. The predic-
width (wmax) defined as follows: tions 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
wd ¼ wmax ¼ 2  εsm  ls; max : ð3Þ (all belonging to 1M + m series; see Table 3) the term in the round

(a) (b)
500 500
Prediction of the mean c.spacing- RC series Prediction of the mean c.spacing- RC series
450 450
Mean crack spacing (measured)[mm]

Mean crack spacing (measured)[mm]

MC2010,
400 MC1978 400 Final draft

350 350

300 300

250 250

200 200

150 150

100 100

50 MPE=24.7% 50 MPE=24.0%

0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 0 100 200 300 400 500
Mean crack spacing (predicted)[mm] Mean crack spacing (predicted)[mm]

Fig. 10. Crack spacing prediction for non-fibrous series: MC1978 (a), MC2010 (b).
 G. Tiberti et al. / Cement and Concrete Research 68 (2015) 24–34 33

(a) (b)
300 300

Mean crack spacing (measured)[mm]

Mean crack spacing (measured)[mm]

250 250

200 200

150 150

100 100

50 50

0 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Mean crack spacing (predicted)[mm] Mean crack spacing (predicted)[mm]

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

brackets (Eq. (6)) does not have any physical meaning as it results neg- especially for high reinforcement ratios. This is mainly due to fairly
ative (i.e. fFtsm = 0.45 fR1m N fctm). In those cases, a positive value of srm is similar fracture properties;
still obtained as it is coincidentally balanced by the effect of the concrete 8- SFRC stiffens the post-cracking response of RC members and can be
cover k·c. Based on the experimental results presented herein, Eq. (6) effective in diminishing the deflections of the structures (this is a
reasonably includes the parameter fR1m, which is representative of the key-point for SLS design).
member behavior at SLS. However, enhanced crack spacing formula- 9- The crack spacing reduction can be analytically well modeled by
tions can be obtained by using the broad experimental results herein using the fracture parameter fR1m, as currently included in MC
reported. 2010; fR1m, in fact, is the performance parameter for SFRC design
at SLS. The MC 2010 model for predicting srm in SFRC elements
4. Conclusions generally predicts with sufficient accuracy the experimentally ob-
served data on RC and SFRC series, even though refinement is prob-
In the present paper, a broad experimental study was presented ably necessary for FRC composites having fFtsm = 0.45 fR1m N fctm.
aiming at evaluating the cracking behavior of RC and SFRC ties, with 10- A useful database, linking the tension stiffening test results (crack
special focus on the enhancement of crack control due to the addition spacing, mean crack width, tension stiffening strain, etc.) to the
of fibers. A series of 97 tension tests have been carried out, correspond- codified residual strengths (fR,j) of the corresponding SFRC mate-
ing to 31 RC samples and 66 SFRC specimens. rials in accordance to MC2010 is now available.
Based on the results and on the discussion presented, the following
main conclusions emerge: List of symbols
As cross-sectional area of conventional steel reinforcing bar in
1- SFRC positively influences the behavior of tension-ties at SLS, by de- tension;
termining closely spaced cracks and, therefore, reducing crack b tensile tie side;
width, due to two main aspects: tension-stiffening increases and c clear concrete cover;
mean crack spacing (srm) reduces with respect to RC members. A CMOD Crack Mouth Opening Displacement;
crack spacing reduction of around 30% was seen in SFRC elements Ec concrete elastic modulus;
with Vf = 0.5% and of 37% with Vf = 1%. Es steel elastic modulus;
2- The stabilized crack stage does not seem to be influenced by the en- fcm mean value of cylindrical compressive concrete strength;
hanced toughness provided by SFRC materials: a higher number of fcm,cube mean value of cubic compressive concrete strength;
cracks form, without a clear indication that the crack stabilized fctm mean value of tensile concrete strength;
stage develops later or earlier than in non-fibrous elements. fftsm serviceability residual strength (post-cracking strength for
3- Considering the different specimen length between SFRC and RC serviceability crack opening);
ties, the ratio between the mean crack spacing (srm) and minimum fL limit of proportionality;
crack spacing (srmin) is likely not influenced by fibers. fLm mean value of limit of proportionality;
4- An increase in reinforcement ratio ρ decreases the mean crack fR,j residual flexural tensile strength of fiber reinforced concrete
spacing of both SFRC and RC elements, but the rate of decrease is corresponding to CMOD = CMODj;
rather lower in SFRC than in RC. SFRC results more effective in con- fR,jm mean value of residual flexural tensile strength of fiber rein-
trolling the cracking phenomenon for lower reinforcement ratios. forced concrete corresponding to CMOD = CMODj;
5- For a given reinforcement ratio, an increase in the conventional re- fuf mean value of ultimate tensile strength of fibers;
inforcing bar diameter increases the mean crack spacing of both fult mean value of ultimate strength of reinforcing steel in tension;
SFRC and non-fibrous concrete (with similar trend). fy mean value of yield strength of reinforcing steel in tension;
6- Mixing micro and macro fibers enhances micro-cracking control, as k empirical parameter to take into account the influence of the
also depicted by notched beam tests, which show fairly higher concrete cover according to MC 2010;
values of residual post-cracking stresses; k1 factor accounting for effect of bond characteristics of conven-
7- For the same type of fibers (macro), Vf = 1% does not result signif- tional reinforcing bars on cracking behavior according to MC
icantly more efficient than Vf = 0.5% in terms of crack spacing, 1978;
34 G. Tiberti et al. / Cement and Concrete Research 68 (2015) 24–34

K1 factor accounting for effect of bond characteristics of conven- [9] A. Meda, F. Minelli, G.A. Plizzari, Flexural behaviour of RC beams in fibre reinforced
concrete, Compos. Part B (ISSN: 1359-8368) 43 (8) (2012) 2930–2937, http://dx.
tional reinforcing bars on cracking behavior according to doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2012.06.003.
RILEM TC 162-TDF; [10] A.W. Beeby, The Prediction of Cracking in Reinforced Concrete Members, (PhD
k2 factor accounting for strain gradient effects on cracking be- Thesis) University of London, 1971.
[11] A.W. Beeby, R.H. Scott, Cracking and deformation of axially reinforced members
havior according to MC 1978; subjected to pure tension, Mag. Concr. Res. 57 (10) (Dec. 2005) 611–621.
K2 factor accounting for strain gradient effects on cracking be- [12] A. Borosnyói, G.L. Balázs, Models for flexural cracking in concrete: the state of the
havior according to RILEM TC 162-TDF; art, Struct. Concr. 6 (2) (2005) 53–62 (ISSN: 1464-4177, E-ISSN: 1751-7648).
[13] D. Mitchell, H.H. Abrishami, Influence of steel fibres on tension stiffening, ACI Struct.
L tensile tie specimen length;
J. 94 (6) (November–December 1997) 769–773.
Lf fiber length; [14] K. Fields, P.H. Bischoff, Tension stiffening and cracking of high strength reinforced
Lf/ϕf fiber aspect ratio; concrete tension members, ACI Struct. J. 101 (4) (July–August 2004) 447–456.
[15] P.H. Bischoff, Tension stiffening and cracking of steel fibre reinforced concrete, J.
ls,max transmission length (introduction length) according to
Mater. Civil Eng. ASCE 15 (2) (March–April 2003) 174–182.
MC2010 notation; [16] K. Noghabai, Effect of Tension Softening on the Performance of Concrete Structures.
lt transmission length; Experimental, Analytical and Computational Studies(Doctoral Thesis) Div. of Struc-
s rebar spacing; tural Engineering, Lulea University of Technology, 1998. (186 pp.).
[17] B. Chiaia, A.P. Fantilli, P. Vallini, Evaluation of crack width in FRC structures and ap-
srm mean value of crack spacing; plication to tunnel linings, Mater. Struct. (ISSN: 1359-5997) 42 (2009) 339–351,
srmin minimum crack spacing; http://dx.doi.org/10.1617/s11527-008-9385-7.
Vf volume fraction of fibers; [18] T. Leutbecher, E. Fehling, Tensile behavior of ultra-high performance concrete rein-
forced with reinforcing bars and fibers: minimizing fiber content, ACI Struct. J. 109
wd design crack width according to MC2010 notation; (2) (2012) 253–264.
wk expected crack width according to MC1978 notation; [19] F. Minelli, G. Tiberti, G.A. Plizzari, Crack Control in RC Elements with Fibre Reinforce-
wm mean value of crack width; ment, in: Corina-Maria Aldea, Mahmut Ekenel (Eds.), ACI Special Publication ACI SP-
280: Advances in FRC Durability and Field Applications CD-ROM, vol. 280, December
wmax maximum crack width; 2011, p. 18.
ΔN difference in terms of load response between tensile ties for a [20] J.R. Deluce, F.J. Vecchio, Cracking behavior of Steel Fiber-Reinforced Concrete mem-
given average member strain; bers containing conventional reinforcement, ACI Struct. J. 110 (3) (May–June, 2013)
481–490.
Δεsm difference in terms of deformation response between tensile
[21] G. Tiberti, F. Minelli, G.A. Plizzari, F.J. Vecchio, Influence of concrete strength on crack
ties for a given load; development in SFRC members, Cem. Concr. Compos. (ISSN: 0958-9465) 45 (January
εs bare bar strain; 2014) 176–185.
[22] Comité Euro-Internationale du Béton, CEB-FIP Model Code 1978 — Design Code,
εsh strain at onset of strain-hardening behavior of steel;
Comité Euro-International du Béton, CEB Bulletin d' Information No. 124/125.
εsm average tensile member strain (average strain of the rebar Thomas Telford, London, 1978.
embedded in a prismatic tie); [23] RILEM TC 162-TDF, “Final recommendation of RILEM TC 162-TDF: Test and
ϕ conventional reinforcing bar (rebar) diameter; design methods for steel fibre reinforced concrete”, Mater. Struct., Vol. 36, No 262,
2003, pp. 560–567.
ϕcyl diameter of cylindrical concrete sample; [24] UNI EN10080, Steel for the Reinforcement of Concrete — Weldable Reinforcing Steel,
ϕf fiber diameter; 2005. (25 pp.).
ρ longitudinal reinforcing ratio; [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.
ρeff effective longitudinal reinforcing ratio; [26] Eurocode 2 EN 1992-1-1, Design of Concrete Structures, General Rules and Rules for
τbm mean value of bond stress between concrete and rebar. Buildings, 2005.
[27] UNI 6556, Testing Concrete. Determination of Secant Modulus of Elasticity in Com-
pression, 1976. (3 pp.).
[28] F. Minelli, G.A. Plizzari, A new round panel test for the characterization of fiber rein-
Acknowledgments forced concrete: a broad experimental study, ASTM J. Test. Eval. (ISSN: 1945-7553)
39 (5) (September 2011) 889–897.
[29] EN 14651, Test Method for Metallic Fibre Concrete — Measuring the Flexural Tensile
A special acknowledgment goes to M.Sc. Eng. Giovanni Bocchi, Strength (Limit of Proportionally (LOP), Residual), European Committee for Stan-
Matteo Campanelli, Massimo Ferrari, Marco Franceschini, Emanuele dardization 2005. (18 pp.).
Maffetti, Ivan Pedrali, Matteo Romelli, Daniel Sandoval Peña and Luca [30] P.H. Bischoff, Effect of shrinkage on tension stiffening and cracking in reinforced
concrete, Can. J. Civ. Eng. 28 (3) (2001) 363–374.
Schioppetti, and to the technicians Eng. Luca Cominoli and Mr. Andrea [31] G.A. Plizzari, Bond and splitting crack development in normal and high strength
Delbarba for their valuable support in performing the tests and in the fiber reinforced concrete, in: N.P. Jones, R.G. Ghanemed (Eds.), Proceedings
data processing. The Authors are also grateful to the company Alfa Acciai of 13th ASCE Engineering Mechanics Division Conference, The Johns Hopkins
University, June 13–16 1999 (Available on CD).
SpA (Brescia, Italy) for supplying all rebars for the experimental program. [32] M.H. Harajli, M.E. Mabsout, Evaluation of bond strength of steel reinforcing bars in
plain and fiber-reinforced concrete, ACI Struct. J. 99 (4) (July–August 2002).
[33] Comité Européen de Normalisation, Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures, Gen-
References eral Rules and Rules for Buildings, European Prestandard ENV 1992-1-1Dec 1991.

[1] Model Code, Final Complete Draft(fib bulletins 65 and 66, March 2012-ISBN 978-2-
88394-105-2 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 Sympo-
sium (BEFIB 2012) Guimarães (Portugal), September 19–21, 2012, RILEM Publica-
tions 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 Con-
ference on Fracture Mechanics of Concrete and Concrete Structures (FraMCos 2007),
vol. 3, Taylor & Francis/Balkema, Catania, Italy, ISBN: 978-0-415-44066-0, June 17–22,
2007, pp. 1577–1584.
[6] F. Minelli, G.A. Plizzari, On the effectiveness of steel fibers as shear reinforcement,
ACI Struct. J. (ISSN: 0889-3241) 110 (3) (May–June 2013) 379–390.
[7] G. Tiberti, F. Minelli, G. Plizzari, Reinforcement optimization of fiber reinforced con-
crete linings for conventional tunnels, Compos. Part B (ISSN: 1359-8368) 58 (March
2014) 199–207.
[8] M. di Prisco, G.A. Plizzari, L. Vandewalle, Fibre reinforced concrete: new design per-
spectives, Mater. Struct. 42 (9) (2009) 1261–1281.
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 seg-
ments in fiber reinforced concrete, concrete pavements, fiber 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 per-
formance concrete, fiber reinforced concrete and nonlinear analyses of reinforced concrete
structures. He is member of fib Task Group 4.2 “Ultimate limit states models” and fib 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 high-
performance concrete, fiber 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 fib Task Group 8.3
“Fiber Reinforced Concrete”.