Cement and Concrete Composites 64 (2015) 84e92

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Cement and Concrete Composites

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cemconcomp

Flexural response of steel-fiber-reinforced concrete beams: Effects of

strength, fiber content, and strain-rate
Doo-Yeol Yoo a, Young-Soo Yoon b, *, Nemkumar Banthia a
a
Department of Civil Engineering, The University of British Columbia, 6250 Applied Science Lane, Vancouver BC V6T 1Z4, Canada
b
School of Civil, Environmental and Architectural Engineering, Korea University, 145 Anam-ro, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul 136-713, Republic of Korea

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This study aims to investigate the flexural behavior of steel-fiber-reinforced concrete (SFRC) beams under
Received 25 February 2015 quasi-static and impact loads. For this, a number of SFRC beams with three different compressive
Received in revised form 0
strengths (fc of approximately 49, 90, and 180 MPa) and four different fiber volume contents (vf of 0, 0.5,
29 August 2015
1.0, and 2.0%) were fabricated and tested. The quasi-static tests were carried out according to ASTM
Accepted 1 October 2015
Available online 9 October 2015
standards, while the impact tests were performed using a drop-weight impact test machine for two
different incident potential energies of 40 and 100 J. For the case of quasi-static load, enhancements in
the flexural strength and deflection capacity were obtained by increasing the fiber content and strength,
Keywords:
Steel-fiber-reinforced concrete
and higher toughness was observed with an increase in the fiber content. For the case of impact load, an
Fiber content increase in the load carrying capacity was obtained by increasing the potential energy and strength, and
Impact an improvement in the post-peak behavior was observed by increasing the fiber content. The increases in
Flexure fiber content and strength also led to enhancements in residual flexural performance after impact
Strain-rate damage. Finally, the flexural strength became less sensitive to the strain-rate (or stress-rate) as the
Post-peak ductility strength of concrete increased.
© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction sensitive to the strain-rate than compressive strength, and Bind-

The recent disasters occurring around the world have led to the
interest in the enhancement of the resistance of concrete structures
to seismic, impact, and blast loadings. Unfortunately, since concrete
is a brittle material, the energy absorption capacity under such high
strain-rate loadings is very poor, which causes several concerns.
Therefore, many researchers [1e7] have performed studies to
enhance its energy absorption capacity under impact and blast by
using various reinforcements, such as fibers (i.e., steel fibers,
polymeric fibers, and carbon fibers), fiber-reinforced polymers,
steel reinforcing bars, etc. However, because the studies on the
impact response of concrete are in infancy in comparison with
those for quasi-static load, much work still remains to be done.
Concrete is known as a material that is sensitive to the strain-
rate [1]. The strain-rate sensitivity of concrete is apparently influ-
enced by numerous factors including strength, moisture content,
temperature, and loading configurations (i.e., compression, tension,
and flexure) [1,6,8]. Ross [8] reported that tensile strength is more
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ82 2 3290 3320, fax: þ82 2 928 7656.
E-mail address: ysyoon@korea.ac.kr (Y.-S. Yoon).
iganavile et al. [1] indicated that high-strength concrete is less
sensitive to the strain-rate than low-strength concrete. Sercombe
et al. [9] also mentioned that fully saturated concrete has an
increased strain-rate sensitivity, compared to that of dry concrete,
and Banthia et al. [10] experimentally verified that there is no effect
of sub-zero temperature on the stress-rate sensitivity of concrete.
Likewise, several meaningful studies on the mechanical prop-
erties of concrete under impact loading have been reported.
However, only limited research has been carried out to investigate
the complex effects of strength and fiber content on the flexural
performance of concrete under impact loading. Various strengths of
concrete have been applied recently in the field according to the
structural element types. In addition, steel fibers are one of the
most widely used reinforcements to improve its tensile perfor-
mance, and the quantity of steel fibers used is various. Therefore,
the strain-rate effect on the flexural behavior of steel-fiber-
reinforced concrete (SFRC) beams with various strengths and fi-
ber contents is required to be estimated.
Accordingly, in this study, the flexural response of SFRC beams
under both quasi-static and impact loadings is investigated. To do
this, a series of SFRC specimens having various strengths (normal-,

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2015.10.001
0958-9465/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 D.-Y. Yoo et al. / Cement and Concrete Composites 64 (2015) 84e92
high-, and ultra-high-strengths) and steel fiber contents were
fabricated and tested. The quasi-static tests were carried out ac-
cording to the ASTM standards, while the impact tests were per-
formed using a drop-weight impact test machine. The specific
objectives are to investigate the effects of strength and steel fiber
content on (1) the compressive strength, elastic modulus, and
strain capacity under quasi-static loading, (2) flexural strength and
toughness under quasi-static loading, (3) flexural behavior under
impact loading and strain-rate (or stress-rate) effect on dynamic
increase factor (DIF), and (4) residual capacity after impact
damage.
2. Experimental program
2.1. Materials and specimen preparation
The mixture proportions for normal-strength concrete (NC),
high-strength concrete (HSC) and ultra-high-strength concrete
(UHSC) investigated in this study are summarized in Table 1. In the
case of NC and HSC, type 1 Portland cement, washed sea sand (fine
aggregate), and crushed gravel (coarse aggregate) with a maximum
size of 19 mm were used. To increase the compressive strength of
HSC, 15% (by cement mass) of silica fume with a specific surface
area of 200,000 cm2/g was also included. On the other hand, for the
case of UHSC, silica sand was adopted instead of washed sea sand
and coarse aggregate was excluded from the mixture. 25% (by
cement mass) of silica fume and 30% (by cement mass) of silica flour
were also added to improve the homogeneity. The mixture pro-
portions and components used for UHSC are identical to those used
by a previous study [11].
To investigate the effects of steel fiber content on the quasi-
static and impact flexural behaviors, four different volume frac-
tions (vf ¼ 0, 0.5, 1, and 2%) for NC and HSC and two different vol-
ume fractions (vf ¼ 0 and 2%) for UHSC were adopted by using
hooked-end bundled and low carbon steel fibers with a diameter of
0.5 mm and a length of 30 mm, as shown in Fig. 1. The geometrical
and mechanical properties of the hooked steel fibers are summa-
rized in Table 2.
2.2. Test setup and procedure
2.2.1. Quasi-static tests
Compression tests were performed as per ASTM C 39 [12] using
at least three cylinders (4100  200 mm) each of variables con-
cerned. A uniaxial compressive load was monotonically applied
using a universal testing machine (UTM) with a maximum load
capacity of 3000 kN. For measuring the average compressive strain
and elastic modulus, a compressometer with three linear variable
differential transducers (LVDTs) was installed [11].
Three prismatic specimens (100  100  400 mm) each of
variables concerned were fabricated and tested in four-point
flexure according to ASTM C 1609 [13] over a span of 300 mm. In
order to measure the net deflection of beams excluding the support
Table 1
Mix proportions.
W/B (%) s/a (%) Unit weight (kg/m3)
Water Cement
NC 50 40 180 360
HSC 23 40 180 680
UHSC 20 e 160 789
[Note] NC ¼ normal-strength concrete, HSC ¼ high-strength concrete, UHSC ¼ ultra-high-strength concrete, s/a ¼ weight ratio of fine aggregate to total aggregate,
SP ¼ superplasticizer.
85
Fig. 1. Picture of hooked steel fibers.
settlement, a steel frame with two LVDTs attached were installed at
the middle of the beam height to obtain the average mid-span
deflection, as shown in Fig. 2. A load was monotonically applied
using a closed-loop, servo-controlled, UTM with a maximum load
capacity of 250 kN. All SFRCs used in this study showed higher load
carrying capacity and toughness even at large deflections. In
addition, to investigate the effect of strength on the toughness of
SFRC with an increase in the deflection, flexural tests were per-
formed until a net deflection of L/75 (¼ 4 mm which is two times
higher than the stipulated end point of ASTM C 1609).
2.2.2. Impact tests
For the impact tests, an instrumented drop-weight impact test
machine was used, as shown in Fig. 3. An impact load was applied
to the mid-length of the beams by dropping a 34.735 kg mass. Two
different drop-heights of 120 and 300 mm were used to investigate
the effects of strain-rate (or stress-rate) on flexural behaviors. These
drop-heights lead to incident potential energies of 40 and 100 J and
incident impact velocities of 1.47 and 2.41 m/s, respectively. In most
cases three specimens were tested but in some very rare cases one
specimen produced invalid response due to the detachment of the
accelerometer before the impact load dropped to the zero value,
which causes inadequate measurement of the mid-span deflection.
Thus, this invalid response was not considered in the analysis.
Simple support condition was adopted for all test beams identical
to those of the quasi-static test.
A drop weight hammer having a spherical striking face with a
radius of 25 mm was used, as in Fig. 3, and the impact load was
measured from a load cell affixed to the drop weight tup. Because
the impact load measured at the drop weight tup includes inertial
load, two load cells were installed at both supports for measuring
pure bending load excluding inertial load. To measure mid-span
deflection, both a potentiometer and accelerometer with a
Silica fume Fine agg. Coarse agg. Silica flour Silica sand SP (%)
e 738 1108 e e 0.5
102 582 872 e e 1.5
197 e e 237 867 2.0
86 D.-Y. Yoo et al. / Cement and Concrete Composites 64 (2015) 84e92

Table 2
Properties of hooked steel fiber.

Diameter (mm) Length (mm) Aspect ratio (Lf/df) Density (g/cm3) Tensile strength (MPa) Elastic modulus (GPa)

0.5 30.0 60.0 7.85 1195.5 200.0

[Note] Lf ¼ length of fiber, df ¼ diameter of fiber.

Fig. 2. Four-point flexure test (ASTM C 1609); (a) test picture, (b) specimen geometry and test setup (unit: mm).

capacity of ±1000 g were affixed underneath the center of beams

using epoxy, as shown in Fig. 4(a). Data acquisition was at a rate of
100 kHz.
For the case of the accelerometer, the deflection history can be
obtained by integrating the velocity, which is determined by inte-
grating the acceleration with respect to time, as follows
Z
_
uðtÞ ¼ € ðtÞdt
u (1)

Z
uðtÞ ¼ _
uðtÞdt (2)

where u € ðtÞ, uðtÞ

_ and uðtÞ are the acceleration, velocity, and deflec-
tion at the mid-span, respectively.
The comparison of load-deflection histories obtained from the
potentiometer and accelerometer are shown in Fig. 4(b). It is
interesting to note that the deflection-time and load-deflection
curves exhibited different behaviors according to the measure-
ment device. The deflection measured from the potentiometer
starts to increase after the reaction load drops to zero, while the
deflection measured from the accelerometer starts to increase with
an increase in reaction load. This is caused by the fact that since the
reaction load reacts to the impact within 1 ms (an extremely short
time), the potentiometer cannot exactly capture the deflection
response. For this reason, an unrealistic load-deflection curve was
obtained from the potentiometer. Thus, the deflection was
measured using the accelerometer in this study, which is identical
to previous studies [2,14].

3. Experimental results and discussion

3.1. Quasi-static tests

3.1.1. Compressive behavior

Compression test results are given in Table 3. In addition, to
Fig. 3. Drop-weight impact machine. investigate the effects of fiber content on the compressive
 D.-Y. Yoo et al. / Cement and Concrete Composites 64 (2015) 84e92 87

Fig. 4. Comparison of impact behaviors according to deflection measurement device; (a) test setup, (b) load-time, deflection-time and load-deflection curves (Pot.-defl. ¼ deflection
measured by potentiometer and ACC-defl. ¼ deflection measured by accelerometer).

Table 3
Summary of quasi-static compression test results.
0
Comp. strength, fc (MPa) Elastic modulus, Ec (GPa) Strain at peak load, εcu (mm/mm)

NC 49.21 (0.45) 29.90 (0.25) 0.00255 (0.00009)

NC-0.5% 39.14 (1.79) 28.67 (2.72) 0.00266 (0.00016)
NC-1.0% 40.77 (1.48) 28.64 (2.31) 0.00299 (0.00033)
NC-2.0% 40.61 (7.05) 29.23 (4.34) 0.00302 (0.00028)
HSC 90.14 (2.98) 39.56 (1.67) 0.00269 (0.00012)
HSC-0.5% 90.76 (2.52) 38.45 (3.29) 0.00275 (0.00025)
HSC-1.0% 95.01 (3.66) 37.19 (1.18) 0.00284 (0.00028)
HSC-2.0% 96.54 (5.82) 38.95 (3.67) 0.00314 (0.00020)
UHSC 179.88 (10.15) 46.00 (0.56) 0.00415 (0.00031)
UHSC-2.0% 190.94 (11.01) 47.23 (0.71) 0.00436 (0.00022)

[Note] ( ): items in parentheses ¼ standard deviation.

Fig. 5. Normalized compressive stressestrain curves.

stressestrain curve, normalized stressestrain curves are illustrated
in Fig. 5. The average compressive strengths of NC, HSC, and UHSC
were found to be 39.1e49.2 MPa, 90.1e96.5 MPa, and
179.9e190.9 MPa, respectively. The compressive strength slightly
decreased with an addition of steel fibers for the case of NC,
whereas it slightly increased by including steel fibers for the cases
of HSC and UHSC. The conflict results are attributed to combined
positive and negative effects by adding fibers, i.e., better crack in-
hibition, higher air content, fiber ball, etc. However, the magnitude
of increase and decrease of compressive strength by steel fibers was
insignificant. The elastic modulus was also marginally affected by
the fiber content within the ranges from 1.5% to 6.0%. These ob-
servations are in accordance with the findings of Balaguru and Shah
[15] and Hsu and Hsu [16].
On the other hand, the strain corresponding to the peak stress was
noticeably affected by the fibers; the addition of steel fibers increases
the strain corresponding to the peak stress. This is due to the increase
in strain capacity of the concrete matrix in the prefailure zone [17]. In
the case of NC and HSC, both of the ascending and descending parts of
the stressestrain curve are influenced by the addition of steel fibers,
88 D.-Y. Yoo et al. / Cement and Concrete Composites 64 (2015) 84e92
but the descending part (post-peak) was more significantly affected
by the fibers. An increase in fiber volume fraction results in the
decrease in the slope of the descending part of the stressestrain
curve. This observation coincides with the findings of Hsu and Hsu
[16] and Nataraja et al. [17]. However, for the case of UHSC, the stress
suddenly drops to zero after the peak even though steel fibers were
included. Thus, the addition of the fibers has marginal effect on the
toughness (area under a stressestrain curve) of UHSC under
compression. The very linear compressive stressestrain response
with a brittle failure (a sudden load drop after the peak) was also
reported by Yoo et al. [18] for ultra-high-performance fiber-rein-
forced concrete containing 2 vol.% of micro steel fibers.
3.1.2. Flexural behavior
The typical flexural response of all test specimens is shown by
the load-deflection curves in Fig. 6. The detailed information of the
results from the quasi-static flexure tests are also summarized in
Table 4, which provides averaged values of strength, deflection at
the peak, and toughness.
Fig. 6. Typical flexural response of SFRC beams under quasi-static load; (a) NC, (b) HSC,
(c) UHSC.
The flexural strength and corresponding deflection increased
with fiber content and compressive strength. For example, the
flexural strengths of HSC and UHSC were almost 1.5 and 3 times
higher than that of NC, and the addition of 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0% steel
fibers to HSC gives 8, 13, and 29% higher flexural strengths than that
of HSC without fiber. In particular, the deflection at the peak was
substantially increased from vf of 0.5% to 1.0% for NC and from vf of
1.0% to 2.0% for HSC. For the case of UHSC, the specimen with vf of
2.0% provided almost 3 times higher deflection at the peak than
that without fiber. This great increase of the deflection at the peak
is caused by the superb fiber bridging at the crack surfaces, and this
leads to a higher load carrying capacity after first cracking, as
shown in Fig. 6. Thus, the specimens NC-1.0%, NC-2.0%, HSC-2.0%,
and UHSC-2.0% were classified as deflection-hardening materials,
as listed in Table 4.
The comparison of flexural responses (both ascending and
overall portions of the load-deflection curves) of the beams ac-
cording to the compressive strength is illustrated in Fig. 7. Higher
load carrying capacity and lower post-peak ductility in the soft-
ening region was obtained for the specimen with a higher
compressive strength. In addition, the nonlinearity in the pre-peak
part of the load-deflection curve was reduced with the increase in
the compressive strength, and UHSC with a very high compressive
strength of about 180 MPa showed almost linear behavior. This
result is in accordance with the findings of Banthia and Trottier
[19].
The toughness at two deflection points (L/150 and L/75) is
shown in Fig. 8. Since the SFRCs used in this study show signifi-
cantly high load carrying capacity and toughness even at large
deflections, two deflection points of L/150, recommended by ASTM
C 1609 [13], and L/75 were considered. At all points, regardless of
the compressive strength, higher fiber content exhibited a higher
toughness, owing to the improvement of fiber bridging capacity at
crack surfaces. Interestingly, NC provided a higher toughness than
that of HSC, regardless of fiber content and deflection point. This
result coincides with the finding from Banthia and Trottier [20,21].
They reported that in the case of normal strength (40 MPa), mid-
strength (52 MPa), and high-strength (85 MPa) fiber-reinforced
concretes (FRCs), a high matrix strength leads to a fracture of in-
clined (45 and 60 ) hooked-end steel fibers and a reduction in
flexural toughness. The difference between the toughness of NC
and HSC increased as the deflection point increased. This is caused
by the fact that since some of inclined steel fibers in HSC were
fractured before complete pullout due to their improved anchorage,
a lower post-peak ductility (a steeper decrease in the load after the
peak) was obtained for the case of HSC than that of NC. As can be
seen in Fig. 9, all fibers embedded in NC were completely pulled
out, whereas both fiber pullout and fracture were observed for the
case of HSC. On the other hand, UHSC with vf of 2.0% showed the
highest toughness compared to those of NC and HSC. This is
because, although the post-peak ductility was reduced with an
increase in the strength, a much higher load carrying capacity,
almost 2.2 and 1.8 times higher than that of NC and HSC, was ob-
tained for UHSC. However, the difference in toughnesses of NC and
UHSC was reduced with an increase in the deflection as a same
reason with the HSC case.
3.2. Impact test under flexure
3.2.1. Load-deflection response
Results from the impact tests are given in Table 5. The load-
deflection responses (support load versus deflection calculated by
acceleration) of all test beams to impact loading are shown in Fig. 10
for two different potential energies of 40 and 100 J. The peak loads
for all test series (NC, HSC, and UHSC) increased as the potential
 D.-Y. Yoo et al. / Cement and Concrete Composites 64 (2015) 84e92 89

Table 4
Summary of quasi-static flexure test results.

Max. load (kN) Flexural strength (MPa) Deflection at max. load (mm) Toughness at L/150 (kN$mm) Toughness at L/75 (kN$mm) Classification

NC 15.97 (1.49) 4.79 (0.45) 0.050 (0.006) e e deflection-softening

NC-0.5% 13.02 (0.66) 3.91 (0.20) 0.057 (0.014) 17.32 (4.34) 28.00 (7.88) deflection-softening
NC-1.0% 18.06 (2.90) 5.43 (0.85) 0.472 (0.199) 30.42 (4.66) 50.44 (6.89) deflection-hardening
NC-2.0% 26.02 (1.26) 7.81 (0.38) 0.655 (0.208) 43.23 (3.23) 68.12 (7.75) deflection-hardening
HSC 24.70 (1.24) 7.41 (0.37) 0.054 (0.002) e e deflection-softening
HSC-0.5% 26.67(0.64) 8.00 (0.19) 0.049 (0.001) 17.65 (1.72) 20.09 (2.69) deflection-softening
HSC-1.0% 27.96 (0.68) 8.39 (0.20) 0.061 (0.005) 27.92 (3.99) 32.87 (5.39) deflection-softening
HSC-2.0% 31.96 (0.82) 9.59 (0.25) 0.347 (0.055) 36.65 (1.25) 45.44 (2.36) deflection-hardening
UHSC 50.13 (2.75) 15.04 (0.82) 0.077 (0.004) e e deflection-softening
UHSC-2.0% 56.37 (0.50) 16.91 (0.15) 0.213 (0.083) 71.71 (4.47) 83.05 (2.18) deflection-hardening

[Note] ( ): items in parentheses ¼ standard deviation.

energy increased (or as the height of the drop weight increased),

identical to the results of Bindiganavile et al. [1], whereas the peak
load was marginally influenced by the fiber content. This is caused
by the fact that since the first peak load under impact is closely
related to the first cracking in the matrix, the first peak load is
mainly influenced by the matrix cracking rather than the fiber
bridging effect. This is consistent with the findings from Caverzan
et al. [22] that high strain-rates mostly influence the peak strength
related to the matrix properties and fiber debonding phase rather
than the fiber pull-out (post-cracking) strength. Once a crack is
formed, most of the applied load is resisted by the fibers at the
crack surfaces. Therefore, the post-peak response is strongly
influenced by the fiber content; the second peak load significantly
increases as the fiber content increases. In the case of the speci-
mens with vf of 2.0%, a part of the stored energy released results in a
Fig. 7. Comparison of flexural behaviors under quasi-static load according to
rebound with the decrease of the load and deflection, owing to
compressive strength.
their sufficient ductility to absorb the impact energy. A similar
observation was also reported by Dey et al. [2].
Based on the test results, the schematic description for impact
behavior of SFRC under flexure is suggested in Fig. 11. Before
cracking occurs, the SFRC beams exhibit a linear load-deflection
response. However, once cracks are generated, the flexural
behavior is composed of matrix softening and fiber bridging. The
peak load (A) indicates the first cracking load in the SFRC beams.
Immediately after formation of the first cracking, the impact load
steeply decreased. This is attributed to a load associated with po-
tential energy imparted in fracturing the beam [23]. If no fiber is
included in the matrix, the impact load will decrease to zero (B),
whereas if fibers are included in the matrix, the impact load will
increase again with the fiber bridging effect, and after reaching
second peak load, the load gradually decreased with fiber pullout.
The second peak load (C) was obviously influenced by the fiber
Fig. 8. Toughness at L/150 and L/75 under quasi-static load.
bridging capacity. For instance, as shown in Fig. 10(a) and (b),
higher load at point (C) was obtained by increasing the fiber
content.

Fig. 9. Fracture surfaces of normal- and high-strength SFRC beams; (a) NC-2.0%, (b) HSC-1.0%.
90 D.-Y. Yoo et al. / Cement and Concrete Composites 64 (2015) 84e92

Table 5
Summary of drop-weight impact test results.

Specimen Potential energy (J) Velocity (m/s) Strain-rate (1/s) Stress-rate (MPa/s) Max. load (kN) Note

NC 40 1.47 4.28 (0.29) 35279 (6382) 33.18 (0.17) F

NC-0.5% 5.16 (0.82) 23006 (1479) 34.99 (8.09) F
NC-1.0% 4.44 (1.09) 23051 (1070) 33.53 (5.11) PF
NC-2.0% 3.42 (0.83 24945 (1609) 37.55 (7.24) PF
HSC 3.37 (0.69) 45700 (1018) 43.17 (4.71) F
HSC-0.5% 3.46 (0.79) 43737 (279) 44.31 (2.80) F
HSC-1.0% 4.76 (0.40) 44500 (7403) 44.68 (0.74) PF
HSC-2.0% 4.32 (0.85) 47239 (6775) 47.56 (0.09) PF
UHSC 3.66 (1.05) 62510 (2472) 55.41 (2.19) F
UHSC-2.0% 3.29 (0.76) 62198 (5731) 57.64 (3.79) PF
NC 100 2.41 9.62 (2.84) 55918 (4217) 43.63 (5.23) F
NC-0.5% 9.19 (2.70) 48529 (5793) 45.19 (1.16) F
NC-1.0% 11.45 (1.45) 45040 (7222) 43.12 (3.79) F
NC-2.0% 10.18 (3.41) 42020 (8033) 44.41 (3.15) PF
HSC 13.16 (0.40) 78813 (8772) 56.28 (4.57) F
HSC-0.5% 10.45 (0.43) 105577 (167) 66.36 (6.05) F
HSC-1.0% 8.66 (1.33) 77250 (9196) 61.07 (0.21) F
HSC-2.0% 9.42 (2.33) 95207 (3936) 74.69 (6.66) PF
UHSC 10.29 (3.22) 105438 (15856) 75.29 (9.47) F
UHSC-2.0% 9.02 (2.03) 123249 (16409) 84.41 (8.03) PF

[Note] F ¼ failure, PF ¼ partial failure, ( ): items in parentheses ¼ standard deviation.

*
Failure indicates that a specimen is completely broken into two pieces.
**
Partial failure indicates that flexural cracks form in a specimen, but it is not completely broken.

3.2.2. Strain- and stress-rate effects on DIF 3.3. Residual test

DIF of concrete can be calculated using both strain-rate and
stress-rate [1,2]. In the case of the three-point bending test, the
strain-rate is calculated by differentiating the strain at the peak
with respect to time, as expressed by Refs. [2,14].
dε 6hv
ε_ ¼ ¼ 2
dt L
where t is the time, h is the height of the specimen, v is the velocity
of the specimen at the peak load, and L is the span length.
Meanwhile, the stress-rate is calculated from the slope of the
stress-time curve which is derived from load-time curve by
converting load to stress. The calculated strain- and stress-rates
are summarized in Table 5. Both strain- and stress-rates were
apparently influenced by the potential energy and impact ve-
locity; higher rates were obtained when higher potential energies
and impact velocities were applied. Strain-rate was marginally
affected by the compressive strength and fiber content, and
average strain-rates were found to be approximately
0.4  101 s1 and 1.0  101 s1 for the cases of potential energies
of 40 and 100 J, respectively. On the other hand, stress-rate was
insignificantly affected by the fiber content but strongly influ-
enced by the compressive strength; higher compressive strengths
lead to higher stress-rates.
The strain- and stress-rate effects on DIF are shown in Fig. 12.
Since the peak impact load obtained in this study is related to the
matrix cracking, it is inappropriate to compare quasi-static post-
cracking strength to impact strength for the case of deflection-
hardening SFRCs. Therefore, DIF of NC, HSC, and UHSC without fi-
ber was only analyzed according to these rates. Higher strength
concrete exhibited lower DIF at given strain- and stress-rates. For
instance, DIFs were ranged from 3.1 to 4.5 for NC, 2.4 to 3.6 for HSC,
and 1.6 to 2.8 for UHSC. This clearly indicates that concrete with a
higher strength shows less sensitivity to the strain- and stress-
rates. This observation is in accordance with the findings of Ben-
tur et al. [24], Bindiganavile et al. [1] and Ross [8], but contrary to
the findings of Bishoff and Perry [25] who mentioned that higher
strength concrete presented higher stress-rate sensitivity in
compression.
Fig. 13 shows the residual load-deflection curves for the beams
without failure by impact. The impact tests were performed in
three point flexure, whereas the quasi-static residual tests were
carried out in four point flexure in accordance with ASTM C 1609
[13]. In the case of the potential energy of 40 J, the residual load
(3) carrying capacity generally increased with the fiber content and
compressive strength, as shown in Fig. 13(a). For the case of the
potential energy of 100 J, a higher residual load carrying capacity
was also obtained for the specimen with a higher strength, as
shown in Fig. 13(b). Therefore, it can be noted that the increase of
fiber content and strength leads to the enhancement of the residual
flexural performance of concrete after impact load. Lastly, a higher
residual load carrying capacity was obtained when a lower po-
tential energy was applied regardless of the fiber content and
strength, owing to the lower impact damage. Approximately
60e87% of the residual load carrying capacities for NC, HSC, and
UHSC with vf of 2.0% decreased as the potential energy increased
from 40 J to 100 J.
4. Conclusions
The quasi-static and impact behaviors of NC, HSC, and UHSC
were experimentally investigated according to the steel fiber con-
tent. Based on the previous discussions, the following conclusions
can be drawn:
1) The compressive strength and elastic modulus were slightly
influenced by the fiber content, whereas the strain capacity
(strain at the peak) noticeably increased with the fiber content.
In the case of NC and HSC, the decrease of the slope in the
descending part of the compressive stressestrain curve was
obtained with an increase in fiber content, but for the case of
UHSC, the addition of steel fibers had no significant effect on the
toughness under compression.
2) For the case of the quasi-static tests, flexural strength and cor-
responding deflection increased with an increase in fiber con-
tent and compressive strength. The nonlinearity in the pre-peak
 D.-Y. Yoo et al. / Cement and Concrete Composites 64 (2015) 84e92 91

Fig. 11. Schematic description of impact behavior of SFRC under flexure.

deflection points (L/150 and L/75) was obtained with higher fi-

ber content regardless of the strength. Due to the fracture of
some inclined steel fibers for the cases of HSC and UHSC, more
brittle behavior in the softening region (lower post-peak
ductility) was obtained, compared to the case of NC.
3) For the case of the impact tests, the peak loads of all test series
increased as the potential energy and strength of the concrete
increased, whereas these were marginally influenced by fiber
content. The post-peak behavior was significantly affected by
fiber content; the second peak load increased with fiber content.
The increases of fiber content and strength led to the
enhancement in residual flexural performance. Lastly, as the
strength of concrete increased, less sensitivity to the strain- and
stress-rates were obtained under flexure.

Fig. 10. Flexural response of SFRC beams under impact load; (a) NC, (b) HSC, (c) UHSC.

region and the post-peak ductility in the softening region

decreased with the compressive strength. UHSC with a very
high compressive strength of approximately 180 MPa showed Fig. 12. Strain- and stress-rate effects on DIF of NC, HSC, and UHSC beams without
almost linear pre-peak behavior. Higher toughness at two fiber; (a) strain-rate effect, (b) stress-rate effect.
92 D.-Y. Yoo et al. / Cement and Concrete Composites 64 (2015) 84e92
Fig. 13. Residual flexural responses; (a) potential energy of 40 J, (b) potential energy of
100 J.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by a grant from a Construction
Technology Research Project 13SCIPS02 (Development of impact/
blast resistant HPFRCC and evaluation technique thereof) funded by
the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport.
References
[1] V. Bindiganavile, N. Banthia, B. Aarup, Impact response of ultra-high-strength
fiber-reinforced cement composite, ACI Mater. J. 99 (6) (2002) 543e548.
[2] V. Dey, A. Bonakdar, B. Mobasher, Low-velocity flexural impact response of
fiber-reinforced aerated concrete, Cem. Concr. Compos 49 (2014) 100e110.
[3] N. Banthia, P. Gupta, C. Yan, Impact resistance of fiber reinforced wet-mix
shotcrete part 1: beam tests, Mater. Struct. 32 (8) (1999) 563e570.
[4] D.Y. Yoo, Y.S. Yoon, Influence of steel fibers and fiber reinforced polymers on
the impact resistance of one-way concrete slabs, J. Compos Mater. 48 (6)
(2014) 695e706.
[5] D.Y. Yoo, N. Banthia, S.W. Kim, Y.S. Yoon, Response of ultra-high-performance
fiber-reinforced concrete beams with continuous steel reinforcement sub-
jected to low-velocity impact loading, Compos Struct. 126 (2015) 233e245.
[6] V. Bindiganavile, N. Banthia, Polymer and steel fiber-reinforced cementitious
composites under impact loadingepart 2: flexural toughness, ACI Mater. J. 98
(1) (2001) 17e24.
[7] C. Wu, D.J. Oehlers, M. Rebentrost, J. Leach, A.S. Whittaker, Blast testing of
ultra-high performance fibre and FRP-retrofitted concrete slabs, Eng. Struct.
31 (9) (2009) 2060e2069.
[8] C.A. Ross, Review of strain-rate effects in materials. Structures under extreme
loading conditions, ASME Press. Vessel. Pip. Conf. (1997) 255e262.
[9] J. Sercombe, F.J. Ulm, F. Toutlemonde, Viscous hardening plasticity for con-
crete in high rate dynamics, J. Eng. Mech. 124 (9) (1998) 1050e1057.
[10] N. Banthia, C. Yan, K. Sakai, Impact resistance of fiber reinforced concrete at
subnormal temperatures, Cem. Concr. Compos 20 (5) (1998) 393e404.
[11] D.Y. Yoo, K.Y. Kwon, J.J. Park, Y.S. Yoon, Local bond-slip response of GFRP rebar
in ultra-high-performance fiber-reinforced concrete, Compos Struct. 120
(2015) 53e64.
[12] ASTM C 39/39M, Standard test method for compressive strength of cylindrical
concrete specimens, ASTM Int. (2014) 1e7.
[13] ASTM C 1609/C 1609M, Standard test method for flexural performance of
fiber-reinforced concrete (using beam with third-point loading), ASTM Int.
(2012) 1e9.
[14] P.L. Land, Strain-rates for three and four point flexure tests, J. Mater. Sci. 14
(1979) 2760e2761.
[15] N. Balaguru, S.P. Shah, Fiber Reinforced Cement Composites, McGraw-Hill,
New York, 1992, pp. 179e214.
[16] L.S. Hsu, C.T.T. Hsu, Stress-strain behavior of steel-fiber high-strength concrete
under compression, ACI Struct. J. 91 (4) (1994) 448e457.
[17] M.C. Nataraja, N. Dhang, A.P. Gupta, Stress-strain curves for steel-fiber rein-
forced concrete under compression, Cem. Concr. Compos 21 (5e6) (1999)
383e390.
[18] D.Y. Yoo, J. Kim, G. Zi, Y.S. Yoon, Effect of shrinkage-reducing admixture on
biaxial flexural behavior of ultra-high-performance fiber-reinforced concrete,
Constr. Build. Mater. 89 (2015) 67e75.
[19] N. Banthia, J.F. Trottier, Test methods for flexural toughness characterization
of fiber reinforced concrete: some concerns and a proposition, ACI Mater. J. 92
(1) (1995) 48e57.
[20] N. Banthia, J.F. Trottier, Concrete reinforced with deformed steel fibers, part 1:
bond-slip mechanisms, ACI Mater. J. 91 (5) (1994) 435e446.
[21] N. Banthia, J.F. Trottier, Concrete reinforced with deformed steel fibers, part 2:
toughness characterization, ACI Mater. J. 92 (2) (1995) 146e154.
[22] A. Caverzan, E. Cadoni, M. Di Prisco, Tensile behaviour of high performance
fibre-reinforced cementitious composites at high strain rates, Int. J. Impact
Eng. 45 (2012) 28e38.
[23] V.S. Gopalaratnam, S.P. Shah, R. John, A modified instrumented charpy test for
cement-based composites, Exp. Mech. 24 (2) (1984) 102e111.
[24] A. Bentur, S. Mindess, N. Banthia, Behavior of Reinforced Concrete under
Impact: the Effect of Concrete Strength, Society for Experimental Mechanics,
Inc., Bethel, Conn., 1987, pp. 449e458.
[25] P.H. Bischoff, S.H. Perry, Impact behavior of plain concrete loaded in uniaxial
compression, J. Eng. Mech. 121 (6) (1995) 685e693.