ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL
Title no. 94-S54
Analysis and Design of Steel Fiber-Reinforced
Concrete Beams
by Pascal Casanova and Pierre Rossi
This paper proposes a design method of steel fiber reinforced
concrete structural elements which behave like beams. This
method is based on the analysis of a cracked section. Three
loading cases are considered: bending with or without axial load,
shear, and concentrated force. After a brief presentation of the
modeling, the experimental characterization of the material is
studied. A uniaxial tensile test is used to get an intrinsic post-
cracking relationship. A statistical analysis of the tests leads to the
definition of a characteristic stress versus crack opening relation-
ship, taking into account the scattering of test results, to be used in
a design procedure. The design method is developed as closely as
possible to the reinforced concrete design code, in order to allow
an easy acceptance of these proposals. The procedure is based on
the definition of material limit states: limit crack opening in
tension, limit stress level, and limit strain in compression.
Keywords: steel fibre reinforced concretes; design methods; section analy-
sis; uniaxial tensile test; bending; shear; concentrated load; non-fragility;
serviceability limit state; ultimate limit state.
When trying to develop calculation rules for a new material,
a misunderstanding generally arises between design and anal-
ysis. Before going further in this paper, it is important to
define terms. The analysis of the structural behavior may be
considered at two levels: the global level corresponds to the
complete “load vs. displacement” response of the structure,
including aspects like hyperstaticity; the section level is the
behavior of a cracked section under bending, shear at support.
Excepting some particular cases, the global level is generally
modeled using finite elements and non-linear approaches: the
analysis leads to a good prediction of the displacements and
the loadings of the whole structure. The objective of a section
analysis is different: considering a small part of a structure, the
analysis gives its loading capacity for given geometrical data
(curvature, rotation, strain or crack opening). Thus it is impor-
tant to get a modeling accurate enough to get a good evalua-
tion of local strain and stress states.
The aim of design is to ensure that a given structural
element will sustain a given load.
Thus, first, it is assumed that the structure has an elastic
behavior to determine the load to be sustained. And second,
we use the section level analysis in which the definition of
material limit state and safety coefficients must be defined in
relation to the accuracy of the material characterization.
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 1997
TECHNICAL PAPER
Finally, to verify that displacements and inner loads within
the designed elements are acceptable, the global level anal-
ysis is used.
In this paper, considering steel fiber reinforced concrete
(SFRC), we focus on:
• section analysis of a cracked element,
• an accurate material characterization,
• definition of design methods.
SFRC concerned by this study are made of steel macrofi-
bers—length of several centimeters—in proportions less
than 2 percent in volume.
The three main loading cases, concerning structural
elements behaving like beams, are considered here: bending
with or without axial load, shear, and concentrated force.
Considering bending, it is necessary to get a modeling
which gives the complete behavior of a section in order to
define material limit state and ductility requirements. The
last two loading cases are generally treated considering the
ultimate limit state, i.e maximum loading capacity.
The first step of section analysis consists of studying the
cracking mechanisms activated under these loadings cases.
Due to the material behavior of SFRC considered in this
paper, the common point of the loading cases is the onset,
sooner or later, of crack localization which leads to a block
mechanism. As a matter of fact, steel macrofibers, in propor-
tions considered here, do not affect significantly the material
behavior but act after the macrocracking of the matrix.1,2 At
the structural level, the considered loading case induces
tensile principal stresses which lead to the onset of macro-
cracks when the tensile strength of the matrix is reached.
Then the macrofibers “knit” the macrocracks, but a crack
opening of the order of some tens of micrometers is neces-
sary to “activate” the fibers.3 This leads to localization and,
increasing load or displacement, to a block mechanism
around the weakest area.
ACI Structural Journal, V. 94, No. 5, September-October 1997.
Received September 18, 1995, and reviewed under Institute publication policies.
Copyright © 1997, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including the
making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors.
Pertinent discussion will be published in the July-August 1998 ACI Structural
Journal if received by March 1, 1998.
595
Pascal Casanova is a graduate of the Ecole Polytechnique of Paris and from Ecole
National des Ponts et Chaussées, Master of Science. He is a former PhD student at the
Laboratoire Central des Ponts et Chaussées, Paris, France. He now works as a civil
engineer.

Pierre Rossi is a research director and head of Mechanical Behavior and Modeling of
Concrete department at the Laboratoire Central des Ponts et Chaussées (LCPC) in
Paris. He is member of ACI committee 544, Fiber Reinforced Concrete, a member of
technical RILEM committee TDF, president of Technical and Scientific Committee of
the French National Project, Steel Fiber Reinforced Concretes. His research interests
include modeling of cracking of concrete structures, fiber reinforced and high strength
concretes and delayed concrete behavior.

Therefore, the main material parameter appears to be the

postcracking behavior under tension. The proposed material Fig. 1—Modeling of the perturbed area around the microcrack.
characterization is based on uniaxial tension tests performed
on samples cored in situ, in the direction of the tensile prin-
cipal stress created by the considered loading case. The spec-
imens are cored to ensure consistency with the distribution
of the fibers and the quality of the matrix, both greatly
dependent on casting conditions. This test leads to stress vs.
crack opening relationships which are analyzed statistically
to define a characteristic design diagram, taking scattering
into account. This part is essential for the validity of the
whole design procedure because it takes into account an isot-
ropy and scattering which have a great influence on the
safety of the structure. The proposed safety coefficient
Fig. 2—Stress and strain distribution in cracked section.
should not be used with another material characterization.

RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
After 30 years of research and developments, SFRC is
unfortunately not truly used in structural elements. This fact
is mainly due to the lack of analysis and design methods of
SFRC structures. Because of the anisotropy due to casting
and the scattering due to the relatively low number of fibers,
such methods should be linked with an accurate material
characterization.
The present work is an attempt to develop a complete
approach from the material to the structure. These results
concern beams but may be extended to all structures which
behave like beams: for instance, tunnel segments or bored
piles. This work is carried out in a context of a great demand
from engineers for both design methods and characterization
and control of the material. The French committee “Metallic
Fiber Reinforced Concrete” of the AFREM—the French
division of the RILEM—has been created to respond to these
problems and has founded its recommendations on the
present proposals.
SECTION ANALYSIS
Bending behavior of a cracked section
The most common loading case considered for a beam is
bending. Several authors proposed approaches based on the
equilibrium of forces at a cracked section.4,5,6,7,8 The crack is
smeared in order to use Navier’s hypothesis: the linearity of
strain in the section, even after cracking. The matter is the
definition of the length of the smeared area. Authors who use
experimental data to determine the tensile behavior of SFRC
after cracking have to divide the crack opening by this length
to get an equivalent strain of the material. But which length
should be chosen? Does it depend on the fiber type, on the
loading conditions, etc.?
A model that uses neither the definition of a damage zone
nor Navier's hypothesis in the cracked part of the section has
been proposed in a previous publication.9 It is based on a
kinematic analysis.
When the tensile strength of the matrix is reached, it is
assumed that a single crack appears.
With the SFRC currently used, the remaining stress after
cracking in direct tension is roughly less than a half the tensile
strength of the matrix. In consequence a macro-crack appears
under bending and propagates high in the section to increase the
lever arm of the reinforcement. This long crack will modify the
stress field in its area and a secondary crack will not appear
close to the first one. Therefore, at the opposite of normal rein-
forced concrete, bending cracks of an SFRC beam may not be
considered as close and regularly spaced. The best way of
modeling such a behavior is the use of a plastic hinge. A plastic
hinge translates well a localized macrocrack and a calculation
method of its moment—rotation relationship is proposed.
A cracked section is considered. The crack, with an
opening w, is modeled by an isosceles triangle, the height of
which is noted αh, α ∈]0;1[. The area near the crack is
perturbed with respect to the elastic behavior corresponding
to curvature χe. The length of this area is noted Δf. In this
zone the beam is modeled as if it was made of two layers: at
the top an uncracked beam following Navier’s hypothesis, at
the bottom two rigid blocks linked by a hinge (Fig. 1). The
tensile force is mostly carried by the fibers crossing the crack.
The part of the section above the crack stands with the
compressive force and a small part of the tensile force (Fig. 2).
The equilibrium equations are written as follows:
Nc + Nf = 0 (1)

596 ACI Structural Journal/September-October 1997

 Mc + Mf = Mext (2)

where Nf and Mf are calculated by integrating the force

carried out by the fibers through the crack. This force is
measured for each crack opening using a uniaxial tensile test.
The part above the macro-crack is considered to behave
following the beam theory: plane sections remain plane so
that there is a linear distribution of axial strain in the section.
The curvature of this part of the section is noted χc. Nc and Mc
are calculated by integrating the stress-strain constitutive
law of concrete.
An elastic finite element analysis of a notched beam shows
that the length Δf is roughly twice the crack height. This
result is assumed to be valid in the case of MFRC beams: Fig. 3—Crack geometry relative to the shear behavior of a
rectangular SFRC with classic longitudinal reinforcement.
Δf =2αh (3)
same for RC and SFRC for given geometry, concrete strength,
According to the compatibility of rotation between the two and longitudinal reinforcement. It means that the new point in
layers at the boundaries of the disturbed area, angle 2θ is designing a SFRC beam submitted to shear is determining the
equal to the angular opening of the crack (Fig. 1). transverse part, Vt = Vf (the i subscript f is for fiber).
Starting from this kinematic analysis and material charac- Figure 3 illustrates the block mechanism in a rectangular
terization, Eq. (1) and (2) lead to a complete M vs. θ or M vs. SFRC beam with classical longitudinal reinforcement. The
w diagram. main crack is supposed to be inclined at 45 deg and its width
varies linearly from a maximum wm at the bottom of the
Shear behavior beam to zero at the bottom of the compression zone.
Avoiding a non-ductile shear failure in structures is one of
Vf is then calculated by integrating the post-cracking
the main concerns of civil engineers. Thousands of tests have
remaining stress of SFRC along the crack and projecting
been performed on reinforced concrete (RC) girders to study
vertically to equilibrate a part of the shear load V. This leads
failure mechanisms and to establish predictive relations.
to Eq. (5)
More recently, the capacity of steel fibers to control concrete
cracking has raised great hopes for improving ductility of 0.9d 2
σ f ⎛ ------------------ ⋅ w m⎞ ⋅ b ------- ⋅ ds
members submitted to shear. Some studies have been carried s 2
out on the shear behavior of steel fiber reinforced concrete
Vf =
∫ ⎝ 0.9d 2 ⎠ 2
(SFRC) beams.6,10,11,12 They have proved the efficiency of 0

SFRC as web reinforcement. wm

Many parameters are involved in the shear behavior but it 1
seems that two classes may be distinguished: material and = 0.9bd ⋅ -------
wm ∫ σ f ( w ) ⋅ dw
structural parameters. The latter contains geometrical 0

aspects—such as shear span to depth ratio (a/d), girder geom-

etry and main reinforcement—the influence of which has been wm
noticed to be the same as on reinforced concrete.6,11,12 At the 1
material level, effects of fiber type, fiber content, compressive
V f = 0.9bd ⋅ σ p ( w m ), where σ p ( w m ) = --------
wm ∫ σ f ( w ) ⋅ dw (5)

strength, and so on, have been studied. The main conclusion 0

that may be drawn from available literature is the importance
of the postcracking stress carried out by the fibers: it integrates where σf(w) is the postcracking remaining stress of SFRC
the influence of all material parameters. corresponding to a crack width w, and s is the curvilinear
abscissa.
We consider here the case of a SFRC beam, with classical
Equation (5) shows that a uniaxial tensile test is necessary
longitudinal reinforcement, at the ultimate state. It means
to quantify the part due to fibers and that a definition of wm
that a main inclined crack has propagated and leads to a
is necessary to define the ultimate state of the beam
block mechanism. Considering either a RC beam or a SFRC
submitted to shear.
beam, the shear load capacity, Vu, of a beam may be divided
This approach may be extended to the use of both classical
into two terms:
vertical transverse reinforcement and SFRC. In this case, the
part due to vertical stirrups, Vt, is easily calculated by consid-
Vu = Vs + Vt (4)
ering the equilibrium of the blocks as in Fig. 3. This leads to
Eq. (6) and (7)
where Vs is the structural part (due to the compression zone,
longitudinal reinforcement, aggregate interlocking, etc.) and
Vt is the part directly carried by the transverse reinforcement.
Vu = Vs + Vf +Vt (6)
As mentioned above, comparison of experimental data on
RC and SFRC beams6 shows that the structural part Vs is the Vt = 0.9bd · ρt · fy (7)

ACI Structural Journal/September-October 1997 597


Fig. 4—Failure mechanisms relative to a concrete block
under concentrated loads.
where ρt is the transverse reinforcement ratio (transverse
reinforcement area/beam width (transverse reinforcement
area/beam width × stirrup spacing) and fy the steel yielding
stress.
Eq. (5), (6), and (7) lead to an equivalence relationship
between stirrups and SFRC:
ρp(wm) = ρt · fy (8)
Assuming that ρt is large enough to ensure a ductile
behavior of the girder, an equivalent SFRC post-cracking
tensile stress ρp(wm) = ρt · fy , would provide the same
loading capacity of the member.
Concentrated load
No published data are available concerning the behavior of
SFRC blocks submitted to concentrated loads. Nevertheless,
the failure mechanisms are well known (Fig. 4): concen-
trated compression leads to transverse tension near the
surface (spalling) and in the block (bursting).
Considering SFRC, these tensions may lead to the onset of
mode I macrocracks if the tensile strength of the matrix is
reached. Then the fibers bridge the cracks. In classical RC
blocks, stirrups are calculated to equilibrate these transverse
tension forces. The proposed approach consists in using the
existing design rules for the calculation of the transverse
tension T and in equilibrating these forces by the post-
cracking stress carried by SFRC:
σp · Sf ≥ T (9)
where σp is the equivalent post-cracking stress of SFRC, Sf
the area of the cracked section and T the transverse tension.
Spalling forces—According to the French design code, the
transverse tension to be equilibrated near the surface is:
Ts = 0.04P (10)
If we consider that the macrocrack due to the spalling forces
is inclined at 45 deg, it leads to the following value of Sf :
e–a
S fs = e′ ⋅ ----------- ⋅ 2 (11)
2 specimen, and on the other hand, the postcracking behavior,
598
This crack starts at the edge of the loading plate and ends
at the edge of the block, so we may consider that its opening,
ws, is constant along its lips:
σps = σ(ws) (12)
In relations (10), (11), (12), the subscript s is for spalling.
Bursting forces—According to the French design code
and CEB-FIP model code, the transverse tension to be equil-
ibrated in the block may be evaluated by:
T b = 0.25 ⋅ ⎛ 1 – ---⎞ ⋅ P
a
⎝
(13)
e⎠
Sfb may be roughly evaluated by:
e ⋅ e′
S fb = ----------- (14)
2
This crack stays within the block, and we consider that its
opening varies linearly from 0 to wb at the center of the
tension zone:
wb
1
σ pb = ------ ⋅
wb ∫ σ ( w ) ⋅ dw (15)
0
In relations (13), (14), (15), the subscript b is for bursting.
The use of elastic finite elements may give a truer value of
Tb and Sfb.
Limit state in compression has not been treated here, but it
is not different from classical RC.
MATERIAL CHARACTERIZATION
Young’s modulus and compressive strength
Metallic fibers, used in small ratios, do not affect signifi-
cantly Young’s modulus and the compressive strength of the
concrete matrix.1 However, with localization near the peak,1,2
a structural mechanism appears which explains the ductility
observed in the presence of fibers, depending on the type, the
geometry and quantity of fibers. This behavior depends
mostly on the type of specimen and on the boundary condi-
tions. Furthermore, the onset of macro-cracks questions the
validity of strain measurements that highly depend on the gage
length. In most cases, it may be sufficient, as for concrete
alone, to carry out a test allowing the measurement of the peak
compressive strength and modulus of elasticity. The stress-
strain relationship is then defined as in most design codes.
Behavior under uniaxial tension
In tension, SFRC is considered elastic till the peak load
that corresponds to the onset of a macro-crack. Then the
fibers act, at least the relatively long metallic fibers consid-
ered in this paper. The uniaxial tension test allows measuring
the properties of fiber reinforced concrete: on the one hand,
the elastic modulus and the direct tensile strength of a sound
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 1997

Fig. 5—Extensometer used in uniaxial tension test.
i.e. the ability of the fibers to carry a force through a crack
prelocalized by a notch.
The test is carried out on cylindrical specimens subjected
to tension through glued caps of the same diameter as the
sample9,14 (Fig. 5). Specimens are taken in-situ to represent
casting conditions, and thus fiber distribution and matrix
quality. The testing set up has been described in a previous
publication.9 The test on a notched sample leads to a load vs.
crack width diagram. The crack opening is measured by
means of a J2P extensometer15 made up of three displace-
ment transducers (LVDTs) arranged at 120 deg and
supported by aluminum rings, in contact with the specimen
through elastic heads (Fig. 5).
Plotting of the characteristic load: crack opening
diagram—It is difficult to characterize the scattering of a set
of diagrams. Hence a study of the variation of a part of the
dissipated energy W, a scalar variable, is more convenient. W
is computed as the area under the load-crack width diagram
(Fig. 6) and measured between two opening bounds (wi and
wm). wi is the value where the diagrams of the three trans-
ducers are parallel: this is that the crack has crossed the
section and there is no more rotation of the failure plane. wm
may be taken equal to the ultimate opening defined for the
particular application (see after).
Assuming that the energy calculated follows a Gaussian
law, it is possible to estimate its standard deviation at 5. The
characteristic value of energy W* is defined by
W* = waverage – k · s (16)
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 1997
Fig. 6—Determination of energy W.
Fig. 7—Determination of characteristic load-crack opening
diagram.
For a given number of tests, the Student table gives the
value of k that ensures that 95 percent of the test results have
a higher value than W*. Then the characteristic diagram is
obtained by applying to the average diagram an affinity with
an W*/Waverage ratio parallel to the ordinate axis (Fig. 7).
DESIGN PROCEDURE
Combined bending and axial load
In the French rules, a characteristic value is calculated for
each material parameter. This characteristic value is defined
so that 95 percent of the experimental data are above it: ft =
characteristic tensile strength; fc = characteristic compres-
sive strength; and E = characteristic Young’s modulus.
Three verification steps are defined: 1) structural nonfra-
gility; 2) service state; and 3) ultimate.
We consider here the general case of combined bending
and axial load. The loading cases are given by a bending
moment M and an axial load N in the section considered.
Structural nonfragility—The structural nonfragility is
defined as the capacity of the cracked section to carry the
cracking load Mc.
The section is supposed to behave elastically till the tensile
stress reaches the value ft. For a given value of N, the
maximum value Mmax of the resistant moment calculated in
the cracked section using the characteristic stress-crack
opening in tension must be greater than Mc.
Service state—The calculations are made considering a
cracked section.
599
Fig. 8—Stress-crack opening diagram used in service-state
calculation.
Fig. 9—Determination of Ms for SFRC types A and B.
Fig. 10—Verification that Ms versus N document is higher
than upper loading cases.
SFRC is supposed to behave elastically in compression till
a limit value equal to 0.6fc. If long-term loading cases are
considered a deferred Young’s modulus should be used, Ed
= E/3.
The part taken in tension by the matrix is not totally taken
into account: in the cracked section, the tensile strength is
limited to the value of the post-cracking remaining stress
(Fig. 8).
ws is the maximum acceptable crack opening of the
section. It is linked to the aggressiveness of the medium:
• not very aggressive: ws = 0.3 mm
• aggressive: ws = 0.2 mm
• very aggressive: ws = 0.1 mm
600
Fig. 11—Stress-strain curve in compression, as used in
calculations
Fig. 12—Characteristic stress-crack opening diagram used
in ultimate limit state calculation.
wi is defined above (in the section that discusses behavior
under uniaxial tension).
The service resistant bending moment Ms is then defined,
for a given axial load N, as the maximum value of the resis-
tant moment calculated with the proposed modeling and
satisfying the material limits (Fig. 9):
Ms(N) = Mmax (w, N), w ∈ [wi, ws]
and compressive strength ≤ 0.6fc (17)
We may then draw the diagram Ms versus N and verify
that the loading cases (M,N) are below this diagram (see
Fig. 10 as illustration).
Ultimate limit state—The calculations are made consid-
ering a cracked section.
The behavior in compression is modeled classically by
using a rectangular parabola (Fig. 11). The maximum
compressive stress is reached for a strain of 2 percent and its
value is 0.85fc / γb, γb = 1.5 being a partial safety coefficient.
The maximum strain allowable in compression, εu, is 3.5
percent (value presently available for fc up to 60 MPa). If the
section is totally under compression, the value of εu is such
that the mean compressive strain in the section is 2 percent.
In tension, the stress-crack opening diagram is the same as
for the serviceability limit state but it is divided by a partial
safety coefficient γf (Fig. 12). The computations are made till
an ultimate crack opening wu. In order to take into account
the scale effect on the ultimate crack opening, wu is a func-
tion of h, the height of the beam. Considering an average
crack spacing of h and limiting the equivalent tensile strain
around the crack to 1 percent—by analogy with French RC
design rules—wu is defined by:
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 1997
 wu = 1% · h
The definition of the ultimate resistant bending moment,
for a given axial load N, is based on the objective to avoid a
non-ductile failure. If the ultimate limit strain εu is reached
before the ultimate limit crack opening wu, the ultimate resis-
tant bending moment Mu(N) is equal to the moment calcu-
lated for the limit compressive strain.
If wu is reached before εu, then Mu is the mean value of the
resistant bending moment on the interval [wi; wu] (Fig. 13):
wu
1
wu – wi ∫
M u = ----------------- M ( w ) dw
wi
Shear
The experiments carried out on different geometry of
SFRC beams, reinforced with classical longitudinal bars,
have shown the onset of inclined macro-cracks separating
concrete struts in compression. The spacing of these macro-
cracks is roughly equal to the inner lever arm of the beam.16
The ultimate limit state of the struts in compression is
treated as for classical RC.
The French RC design code imposed a minimum trans-
verse reinforcement to carry out an equivalent tensile stress
of 0.4 MPa. According to the equivalence relation [Eq. (8)],
this condition is fulfilled when the equivalent post-cracking
stress satisfies:
σp(wm) ≥ 0.4 MPa
The ultimate limit state in tension is defined by the value of
wm. It is experimentally shown that the ultimate crack opening
is proportional to h, the height of the beam.16 As the average
crack spacing is proportional to h and the crack opening is
controlled by the longitudinal reinforcement (Fig. 3), we
propose to define the maximum crack opening as follows:
wm = ε s · h
Where εs is the strain of the longitudinal reinforcement.
According to the French RC design rules, this strain is
limited to 1 percent. So the ultimate crack opening allowable
in shear, wmu, is:
wmu = 1% · h
A partial safety coefficient, γf, is applied to the equivalent
post-cracking stress used for design:
w mu
1 1 1
σ f = --- ⋅ σ p ( w mu ) = --- ⋅ ---------
γf γ f w mu ∫ σf ⋅ dw
0
The French RC design code proposes a structural part Vs =
0.3ft. We propose a partial safety coefficient γf = 1.2, which
is reasonable if we consider precast elements because σf
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 1997
(18)
(19)
Fig. 13—Determination of ultimate bending moment.
takes already into account the scattering of material test
results. This approach leads to a global safety coefficient
greater than 2 on the tests performed in our laboratory.16
Concentrated load
The lack of published experimental data on the subject
makes it difficult to define an ultimate crack opening. But
this crack opening should be small in order to allow the use
of the structure. So we propose to limit ws (spalling) and wb
(bursting) to 0.3 mm. These values should be of course
experimentally validated.
CONCLUSION
This paper presents a design method of SFRC structural
elements. Three loading cases are considered:
(20) • bending with or without axial loading
• shear
• concentrated loading
This design method is based on the mechanical analysis of
a cracked section, and the definition of a characteristic
stress-crack opening diagram obtained by performing an
uniaxial tensile test.
Three material limit states are used in the method:
• the limit crack opening in tension
(21) • the post-cracking stress level in tension
• the limit strain in compression
Concerning the bending and the shear loadings, the
proposed design method is consistent with the experimental
data obtained in France and in others countries, but
concerning the concentrated loadings, more experimental
data are required to evaluate its relevance.
(22) Finally, it is important to ascertain that the proposed
design method has been developed for static loadings, and so
it should be necessary to introduce some safety coefficient to
take into account fatigue loadings.
CONVERSION FACTORS
1 mm = 0.03937 in.h
(23) 1 MPa = 0.145ksi
1 KN = 0.225 kip-force
REFERENCES
1. Rossi, P.; Acker, P.; and Malier, Y., “Effect of Steel at Two Different
Stages: the Material and the Structure,” Materials and Structures, V. 20,
1987, pp. 436-439.
601
 2. Rossi, P., “Mechanical Behaviour of Metal-Fibre Reinforced
Concretes,” Cement & Concrete Composites, V. 16, 1992, pp. 3-16.
3. Soroushian, P., and Bayasi, Z., “Prediction of the Tensile Strength of
Fiber Reinforced Concrete: A Critique of the Composite Material
Concept,” Fiber Reinforced Concrete: Properties and Applications, SP-105,
S. P. Shah and G. B. Batson, eds., American Concrete Institute, Detroit,
1987, pp. 71-84.
4. Naaman, A. E.; Reinhardt, H. W.; Fritz, C.; and Alwan, J., “Non-
linear Analysis of RC Beams Using a SIFCON Matrix,” Materials and
Structures, V. 26, 1993, pp. 522-531.
5. Craig, R., “Flexural Behaviour and Design of Reinforced Fiber
Concrete Members,” Fiber Reinforced Concrete: Properties and Applica-
tions, SP-105, S. P. Shah and G. B. Batson, eds., American Concrete Insti-
tute, Detroit, 1987, pp. 517-563.
6. Lim, T. Y.; Paramasivan, P.; and Lee, S. L., “Shear and Moment
Capacity of Reinforced Steel Fibre Concrete Beams,” Magazine of
Concrete Research, V. 39, No. 140, 1987, pp. 148-160.
7. Dwarakanath, H. V., and Nagaraj, T. S., “Comparative Study of
Predictions of Flexural Strength of Steel Fiber Concrete,” ACI Structural
Journal, V. 88, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 1991, pp. 714-720.
8. Wright, P. J. F., “The Effects of the Method of Test on the Flexural
Strength of Concrete,” Magazine of Concrete Research, V. 4, No. 11, 1975,
pp. 67-76.
602
9. Casanova, P., and Rossi, P., “Analysis of Metallic Fibre Reinforced
Concrete Beams Submitted to Bending,” Materials and Structures,
accepted for publication.
10. Batson, G.; Jenkins, E.; and Spatney, K., “Steel Fibers as Shear
Reinforcement in Beams,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings, V. 69, No. 10,
Oct. 1972, pp. 640-644.
11. Narayanan, M., and Darwish, I. Y. S., “Use of Steel Fibers as
Shear Reinforcement,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 84, No. 3, May-June
1987, pp. 216-226.
12. Swamy, R. N.; Jones, K.; and Chiam, A. T. P., “Influence of Steel
Fibres on the Shear Resistance of Lightweight Concrete I-beams, ACI
Structural Journal, V. 90, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 1993, pp. 103-114.
13. Mansur, M. A.; Ong, K. C. G.; and Paramasivam, P., “Shear Strength
of Fibrous Concrete Beams without Stirrups, Journal of Scientific Engi-
neering, V. 112, No. 9, 1986, pp. 2066-2079.
14. Rossi, P.; Van Mier, J. G. M.; Toutlemonde, F.; Le Maou, F.; and
Boulay, C., “Effect of Loading Rate on the Strength of Concrete Subjected
to Uniaxial Tension, Materials and Structures, V. 27, 1994, pp. 260-264.
15. Boulay, C., and Colson, A., “A Concrete Extensometer Eliminating
the Influence of Transverse Strains on the Measurement of Longitudinal
Strains, Materials and Structures, V. 14, 1981, pp. 35-38.
16. Casanova, P., “Bétons de fibres métalliques: du maténau à la structure,”
PhD dissertation of Ecole Nationale des Ponts et Chaussées, Paris, France,
1995 (in French)
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 1997