Materials and Structures, 1992, 25, 191-200

Comparative flexural performance evaluation of steel

fibre-reinforced concretes according to ASTM C1018 shows
importance of fibre parameters
C. D. JOHNSTON
Department of Civil Engineering, The University of Calgary, 2500 University Drive N.W., Calgary, Alberta, Canada TN2 1N4

A. SKARENDAHL
Cement och Betony Instituter, S-IO0 44 Stockholm, Sweden

The flexural performance of steel fibre-reinforced beams with varying amounts and types of
fibre is evaluated in terms of toughness parameters and residual strength factors determined in
accordance with A S T M Standard CI018-89. Five types of steel fibre in amounts from 30 to
105 k9 m -3, and two matrix strength levels, were examined in a program of 117 tests using
beams 150 mm wide and 100 mm deep loaded at the third points over a 750 mm span.
Significant differences in performance associated with changes in matrix and fibre parameters
are clearly identified in this test. First-crack strength depends mainly on characteristics that
govern matrix strength and is minimally dependent on fibre parameters such as type, size and
amount. Toughness indices and residual strength factors, particularly those corresponding to
higher deflections, depend primarily on fibre type, amount and,.]'or geometrically similar fibres,
aspect ratio. All are minimally dependent on matrix strenyth.

1. I N T R O D U C T I O N period at the Swedish Cement and Concrete Institute.

The initial objective was to establish the extent to which
the ASTM C1018 standard test method [1] is capable
of distinguishing performance differences in steel fibre-
reinforced concretes attributable to changes in fibre
parameters such as type (in terms of steel characteristics,
surface texture, cross-sectional shape, longitudinal profile
etc.), amount, and size. The rationale for this method has
been stated in detail by Johnston [2,3], and results using
it with the 350 mm • 100 mm • 100mm ASTM C1018
preferred standard beam size have been published [4,5].
The results presented here involve the much larger
800 mm x 150 mm x 100 mm Swedish standard beam
with a span to depth ratio of 7.5, in which the secondary
effects of shear are less than for the ASTM beam size
with a span to depth ratio of 3.0. Performance is assessed
in terms of first-crack strength, toughness indices 15, 11o
and I2o, and residual strength factors R5,1o and Rlo,2o
(Fig. 1).
Another objective that will be discussed in a subsequent
paper was to establish how the width of cracks on the
flexural tensile face of the beams changes as beam
deflection increases, with reference specifically to the
end-point deflections that correspond to the Is, 11o and
I2o toughness indices, and to what extent crack develop-
ment depends on fibre parameters such as type, amount
and size.
A comparative performance evaluation of steel fibre-
reinforced concretes using five different commercially
available steel fibres was conducted over a 14-week
0025-5432/92 @) RILEM
These concretes represented two main facets of steel fibre
use in concrete in Sweden, and to some extent Europe
in general: either relatively high-strength high-fibre-
content mixtures typical of pavements, bridge deck
overlays, shotcrete linings etc., or lower-strength low-
fibre-content mixtures similar to those used in industrial
floors.
2. E X P E R I M E N T A L P R O G R A M M E
A total of 117 beams of Swedish Standard [6] size
800 m m • 150 mm • I00 mm were prepared, mostly in
sets of six, for flexural testing under third-point loading
over a 750 mm span in accordance with ASTM C1018
[1]. Cubes of size 150 ram, mostly in sets of three, were
included for monitoring compressive strength and density
in accordance with Swedish practice [7]. Beams and
cubes were prepared from a single batch of each mixture
in steel moulds, and were consolidated using a vibrating
table. All specimens were cured at 100% relative humidity
prior to testing at age 28 days. The programme evaluated
19 different mixtures in which the main variables were
type and size of steel fibre, fibre content, and matrix
strength.
2.1 Fibre parameters
Four intrinsically different types of steel fibre (Table 1)
with three different fibre contents for each were used with
 192 Johnston and Skarendahl

TOUGHNESS INDICES RESIDUAL a higher-strength (H) m a t r i x to establish the effects of

STRENGTH FACTORS fibre type and a m o u n t on performance. The 4 0 - 7 0 kg m - 3
AREA OACD
I5 = AREA DAB R5,10= 20 ( I l O - I 5 ) range of fibre contents t h a t p r o d u c e d w o r k a b l e mixtures
AREA OAEF for the a m o r p h o u s metal ( A M ) fibres was less t h a n for
IlO: AREA DAB R I0, 20 = I0 ( I 2 0 - I l o ) the three r e m a i n i n g fibre types used at 5 5 - 1 0 5 kg m -3
AREA OAGH (Table 2) because of their very high surface a r e a and
I20= AREA DAB n u m b e r per unit weight.
/ FIRST CRACK The same four fibre types were used with a lower-
strength (L) m a t r i x at a single fibre c o n t e n t of 30 kg m - 3
(Table 3) to d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r differences in p e r f o r m a n c e

f
,<
a t t r i b u t a b l e to fibre type in this m a t r i x were c o m p a r a b l e
to those o b s e r v e d for the H matrix.
F i b r e size was i n c o r p o r a t e d as a variable by using
O two different sizes of the h o o k e d wire ( H E ) fibre type
..J t in b o t h the H a n d L matrices (Tables 2 a n d 3). These
B D FI&
I t fibres were similar with respect to raw m a t e r i a l a n d
shape, a n d differed only in length, diameter, aspect
8 38 5 58 V~o.58 ratio a n d n u m b e r per unit weight (Table 1).
DEFLECTION

2.2 M a t r i x parameters

Fig. 1 Schematic load-deflection curve defining toughness The higher-strength (H) m a t r i x for 14 of the t9 mixtures
indices and residual strepgth factors. c o n t a i n e d 16 m m crushed c o a r s e aggregate a n d s a n d with

Table 1 Steel fibre characteristics

Raw Longitudinal Length Cross-section Size Aspect Number Surface Fibre

material profile (ram) shape (mm) ratio per kg (m z kg-1) code

Drawn wire Hooked end 30 Circular 0.5 diam. 60 22000 1.0 HE 30

Amorphous metal Uniform 30 Rectangular 1.6 x 0.03 125 100000 10.0 AM 30
Sheet metal Enlarged end 25 Rectangular 0.6 x 0.4 45 18000 0.9 EE 25
Metal shavings Uniform 32 Crescent 2.3 x 0.25 37 7000 1.1 MS 32
Drawn wire Hooked end 60 Circular 0.8 diam. 75 4000 0.6 HE 60

Table 2 Mixture proportions a and characteristics using the higher-strength (H) matrix

Mixture Fibre SP dose Fine/total Slump Density (kg m - 3) Compressive

code content (1 m-3) aggregate (%) (mm) strength (MPa) c
(kg m - 3) Measured Matrix b

PLAIN 0 2.7 48.9 - 2393 2393 52.1

HE 30 55 4.8 47.5 120 2400 2362 53.4
80 7.8 48.9 95 2441 2386 56.62
105 4.0 51.6 120 2357 2284 41.4
HE 60 80 8.9 48.9 60 2470 2416 58.31
AM 30 40 4.7 47.5 95 2407 2380 46.7
55 7.2 48.9 25 - - -
70 6.7 53.3 0 2420 2372 48.91
EE 25 55 4.9 47.5 110 2453 2416 59.7
80 5.3 48.9 50 2487 2433 64.4
105 6.1 51.6 35 2483 2412 59.2
MS 32 55 3.5 47.5 90 2447 2410 52.2
80 4.7 48.9 60 2483 2429 59.5
105 4.6 51.6 45 2477 2406 57.6

a Cement content 440 kg m - 3. Water/cement ratio 0.38. b Calculated values for matrix excluding fibres, c Three specimens except

where superscripted 1 or 2.
 M a t e r i a l s a n d Structures 193

Table 3 Mixture proportions" and characteristics using the 65 eEE

lower-strength (L) matrix 9 H-MATRIX
x L-MATRIX
60 EEeeEE eMS7 / ~
Mixture Fibre Water/' Slump Density (kg m 3) Com-
"5 eM~ HE60
code content cement (mm) pressive
I
(kg m -3) Measured Matrixb strength ~= 55
(MPa) c eH E 3 0 ~
~ ~ e A eP e MS
HE 30 30 0.55 75 2320 2299 30.6 5O
M
HE 60 30 0.55 45 2418 2398 41.2
AM 30 30 0.57 5 2420 2400 45.01 o~
to
eAM
/
45 x AM EE
EE 25 30 0.57 45 2429 2409 44.1 ".s
MS 32 30 0.57 65 2421 2401 40.9 8 /
9 HE30 HE6OXxMS
~ 40 J
Cement content 300 kg m -3. Fine/total aggregate 50%. b Calculated
values for matrix excluding fibres, c Three specimens except where
superscripted 1. 35

30
(xIHE30 I I
2300 2350 2400 2450
440 kg m -3 of normal Portland cement and a super- CUBE MATRIX DENSITY-kg/m 3
plasticizer at a water/cement ratio of 0.38 (Table 2). It
was intended to be typical of concretes used in bridge Fig. 2 Effect of matrix density after consolidation on cube
works in Sweden. The superplasticizer was incorporated compressive strength.
in varying amounts depending on fibre content and type,
to achieve workability sufficient for consolidation by
vibration. To establish the actual degree of consolidation of the
The lower-strength (L) matrix used in the remaining concrete matrix, the density of the matrix exclusive of
five mixtures was more representative of slab-on-grade the steel fibres is calculated from the measured density
where 32 mm aggregate with about 200 kg m -3 of cement of the fibrous concrete using the known weight and
is typical. However, because of reluctance to use 32 m m volume proportions of fibres and concrete. This calculated
aggregate with fibres in specimens only 100 m m deep, matrix density (Tables 2 and 3) more accurately reflects
16 m m aggregate was used instead with 300 kg m -3 of the degree of consolidation of the matrix, and is best for
cement at a water/cement ratio of 0.55-0.57 (Table 3). illustrating its effect on strength.

3. M I X T U R E P L A C E A B I L I T Y , M A T R I X 3.1 Effect of matrix density on compressive strength

DENSITY AND COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
The degree of difficulty in consolidating mixtures varied
with the amount and type of fibre. While mixtures with
the EE fibre were marginally the easiest to consolidate,
only the AM type may be characterized as very different
from the other three types, in that their high surface area
and large number of fibres per unit weight tended to
produce harsh mixtures that appeared deficient in mortar,
and were difficult to consolidate with 70 kg m - 3 of fibres.
Despite sometimes a low slump (Tables 2 and 3), most
other mixtures were quite placeable using vibration,
consistent with the view that slump is a poor indicator
of the workability of steel fibrous concrete placed by
vibration.
For mixtures with a constant water/cement ratio
containing a superplasticizer, which may cause the slump
to decrease sharply with time during casting, the
hardened concrete density is much more important than
slump since it reflects the degree of consolidation actually
achieved. Densities determined from cubes cast after the
beams reflect the degree of consolidation at the end of
casting after any time-dependent loss of slump had
occurred (Tables 2 and 3).
The effect of matrix density on compressive strength is
quite substantial (Fig. 2), with both correlation coefficients
statistically significant at the 1% level. It largely explains
the low strength of the mixtures with 105 kg m -3 of H E
30 fibres in the H matrix (Table 2) and 30 kg m - 3 of the
same fibres in the L matrix (Table 3). Even though these
two mixtures have comparatively high slumps, it seems
that poor consolidation, rather than anything associated
with the fibre type, contributed to their unexpectedly low
strengths, since mixtures with 55 and 80 kg m - 3 of the
H E 30 fibre have strengths comparable to those of
mixtures with the other fibre types (Fig. 2).
The observation that mixtures with the EE fibre were
the easiest to consolidate and those with the AM fibre
the most difficult is consistent with their comparatively
high compressive strengths and densities, which are
similar to or exceed those for the P mixture without fibres
(Fig. 2). The pattern of the data in Fig. 2 supports the
widely accepted view that fibres have little intrinsic effect
on compressive strength. Instead, their effect is indirect
and dependent mainly on whether the type and amount
of fibre decrease the degree of consolidation achieved in
the matrix.
 194 Johnston and Skarendahl

4. F L E X U R A L T E S T I N G BASED ON shown that neglecting factors that contribute to deflection

A S T M C1018 [1]
4.1 Measurement of deflection
A system of t r a n s d u c e r s r e c o r d e d deflections at each
s u p p o r t a n d at the m i d - s p a n to p r o d u c e l o a d - d e f l e c t i o n
relationships in which the net deflection value is the
n o m i n a l m i d - s p a n value minus the average of the values
at the supports. T h e validity of the net deflections,
including the effect of shear, is easily checked using the
f o r m u l a [2]
( ~ ) 23L3 (l + 216D2(I + P))
E= 12~ 115L 2
An a p p r o p r i a t e P/6 is d e t e r m i n e d from the average of
the ratio of first-crack strength to deflection, a/6 (Tables
4 a n d 5), by the n o r m a l f o r m u l a for flexural stress,
a = PLD/12I. E - m o d u l i o b t a i n e d are 36.1 a n d 34.6 G P a
for the H a n d L matrices, respectively. These are
r e a s o n a b l e values for the concretes tested. Experience has
of the s u p p o r t s leads to unrealistically low calculated
E-values [2].
4.2 Rate control
T h e n a t u r e of the e q u i p m e n t p e r m i t t e d c o n t r o l of the
rate of increase of deflection only by setting the stroke
c o n t r o l of the testing machine. T h e s t r o k e increased at
lmmmin-1 in all tests. Because of b e d d i n g of the
specimen on its s u p p o r t s a n d d e f o r m a t i o n s in the s u p p o r t
system, the rate of increase of net deflection of the test
b e a m was n o t directly d e t e r m i n a b l e a n d was p r o b a b l y
non-linear, b u t the result was that the time to first crack
was a b o u t 1.5 min and the time to the 12o e n d - p o i n t
specified in A S T M C1018 (10.5 times the first-crack
deflection) was 3 - 4 min. This rate is several times faster
t h a n the rate prescribed in A S T M C1018, which is
c o n s i d e r e d unnecessarily slow by m a n y c o m m e r c i a l users
of the s t a n d a r d in N o r t h A m e r i c a .

Table 4 Flexural first-crack and toughness parameters using the higher-strength (H) matrix a

Mixture Fibre Matrix First-crack parameters Toughness indices Residual strength

code content density ................ factors c
(kg m - 3) (kg m -3) Strength Deflection Is 110 120b
(MPa) (ram) Rs.lo Rlo, 2o

HE 30 55 2362 5.98 (6.98) d 0.251 3.86 7.19 11.39 ~ 66.6 42.0

80 2386 6.84 (7.49) 0.250 4.14 7.92 15.87 75.6 79.5
105 2284 5.38 (7.53) 0.233 4.52 8.95 18.381 88.6 94.3
HE 60 80 2416 7.32 (7.53) 0.226 4.47 9.07 18.66 92.0 95.9
AM 30 40 2380 6.39 (7.13) 0.222 4.22 7.74 12.64 70.4 49.0
55 - 6.64 (-) 0.265 4.64 8.65 14.57 80.2 59.2
70 2372 7.48 (8.33) 0.251 4.85 8.78 15.06 78.6 62.8
EE 25 55 2416 7.26 (7.43) 0.257 3.71 6.15 10.54 48.8 43.9
80 2433 7.43 (7.39) 0.248 4.20 6.98 10.22 55.6 32.4
105 2412 7.70 (7.97) 0.232 4.10 7.15 10.49 61.0 33.4
MS 32 55 2410 6.67 (6.96) 0.235 3.56 4.97 5.80 28.2 8.3
80 2429 7.45 (7.46) 0.215 3.64 5.32 6.92 33.6 16.0
105 2406 7.62 (7.97) 0.240 3.88 5.73 7.74 37.0 20.1

" Cement content 440 kg m-3. Water/cement ratio 0.38. b TWO specimens, except where superscripted 1. c R s,~~ = 20(i~o_ i5),
Rlo.zo = 10(i2o _ i1o)" d Values adjusted to 2430 kg m -3 matrix density based on the Fig. 3 regression line.

Table 5 Flexural first-crack and toughness parameters using the lower-strength (L) matrix a

Mixture Fibre Matrix First-crack parameters Toughness indices Residual strength

code content density factors b
(kg m - 3) (kg m - 3) Strength Deflection 15 11o lz o
(MPa) (mm) R5.1o Rio,2o

HE 30 30 2299 4.03 (5.73) r 0.192 3.64 5.49 9.24 37.0 37.5

HE 60 30 2398 5.02 (5.43) 0.185 4.20 7.34 12.92 62.8 55.8
AM 30 30 2400 5.60 (5.99) 0.183 4.50 7.73 12.44 64.6 47.1
EE 25 30 2409 5.62 (5.89) 0.191 3.74 5.35 8.25 32.2 29.0
MS 32 30 2401 5.12 (5.50) 0.167 3.49 5.19 8.10 34.0 29.1

a Cement content 300 kg m -3. Water/cement ratio 0.55-0.57. b R5.1o = 20(11o - 15), Rlo._,o = 10(I2o -- 11o). " Values adjusted to
2430 kg m - 3 matrix density based on the Fig. 3 regression line.
Materials and Structures 195

4.3 Fibre alignment considerations Table 6 Precision of strength and toughness parameters in
terms of coefficient of variation
To minimize preferential fibre alignment by the mould
surfaces, ASTM C1018 requires that the minimum Parameter Specimens Number Averagewithin-set C of V
cross-sectional specimen dimension be at least three times per set of sets (%)
the fibre length. Only the HE 60 fibres of length 60 m m
do not meet this requirement with respect to the 100 m m Present Previous C1018
beam depth. Some increases in first-crack strength and work work limits
toughness indices have been reported by Johnston [8]
when the requirement is not met. [4] [5]

First-crack 6 19 6.2 4.4 4.8 5

4.4 Basis of recording of toughness parameters
strength
In addition to simply determining the standard toughness First-crack 6 19 10.3
indices 15, 110 and/2o, and the residual strength factors deflection
R5,1o and Rlo.2 o derived from them, a secondary Toughness 6 19 6.7 5.7 5.6 12
objective was to relate serviceability in terms of crack index 15
Toughness 4 19 10.5 8.6 8.9 14
widths to these indices. However, since it is impossible
index 11o
to return a beam to the testing machine and obtain a Toughness 2 17 13.6 16
continuation of the initial portion of the load-deflection index 12o
curve after removal of it for crack measurements, different Cube 3 14 4.1 N/A
end-point deflections were used for each pair of beams. compressive
For each set of six beams, two were tested to just beyond strength
the estimated 15 end-point deflection, the next two to just
beyond the Ilo end-point deflection, and the remaining
two to just beyond the 12o end-point deflection.
expected to depend more on matrix parameters than on
Accordingly, the mean values of toughness indices
fibre parameters.
(Tables 4 and 5) are based on six tests for 15, four tests
for 11o and two tests for 12o.
The tabulated values of Rs. 10 and R i o. 20 are calculated 5.1 Effect of matrix density
from the mean values of the relevant toughness indices
(Fig. 1), and represent the average level of post-crack The influence of degree of consolidation on first-crack
strength retained between the relevant end-point deflec- flexural strength is significant (Fig. 3). Assuming that
tions expressed as a percentage of the first-crack strength.
For example, a load-deflection curve that is perfectly
plastic after first-crack without loss of load (typical of 9 H-MATRIX
mild steel after yield) will have R values of 100. Further x L-MATRIX 9 o EE /
details for the rationale behind the selection of 15, 11o, 9 AM M
9 H E60

~
12o, Rs.~o and R~o,2o as the bench-mark toughness 9
criteria can be found in ASTM C10t8 1-11 and other
~. 7
references [2,4,5].
I ~ HE30
9
4.5 Precision of test results
_ _ _e AM
Coefficients of variation of each set of test results,
averaged for the number of sets available, have been ~6 -- ~ 9
compiled for first-crack strength and deflection, toughness g
indices, and, for comparison, cube compressive strength Ju_
(Table 6). Generally, they are well within the ASTM
CI018 recommended upper limits, except for first-crack EE
strength, and only slightly greater than in two previous ?
studies [4,5] done using sets of four 350 mm x 100 m m • ;5
e:
1 0 0 m m beams with a span/depth ratio of 3.0 and ,7

the slower ASTM prescribed rate of increase of

deflection.
HE30x l ~ I
5. VARIABLES I N F L U E N C I N G F I R S T - C R A C K 2300 2350 2400
FLEXURAL STRENGTH CUBE MATRIX DENSITY--kg/m 3

Since the reinforcing role of the fibres cannot be fully Fig. 3 Effect of matrix density after consolidation on
activated until the matrix cracks, first-crack strength is first-crack flexural strength.
 196 Johnston and Skarendahl

matrix density for the cube specimens reflects the degree
of consolidation in the beams, the comparatively low
first-crack strengths of the mixtures with 105 kg m -3 of
HE 30 fibres (Table 4) and 30 kg m - 3 of HE 30 fibres
(Table 5) can again be attributed largely to low density
caused by poor consolidation, rather than anything
associated with this fibre type. The correlation coefficients
for the relationships in Fig. 3 are significant at the lYo
level for the H matrix and at the 5~o level for the L matrix.
Clearly, first-crack flexural strength, like compressive
strength, depends on the matrix density and the
associated degree of consolidation, and the EE fibre
concretes, observed to be the easiest to consolidate, attain
comparatively high density and strength (Fig. 3).
5.2 Effect of fibre type and amount
For all fibre types in the H matrix, there is a slight but
consistent increase in strength with increase in fibre
content that would normally be illustrated as in Fig. 4a.
This includes the effect of variations in density, and the
correlation coefficient of 0.238 for the linear regression
is far below the minimum of 0.553 corresponding to the
5~ significance level. However, eliminating the effect of
density variations by calculating adjusted strengths at a
reference matrix density of 2 4 3 0 k g m -3, using an
adjustment of 0.0147 MPa per kg m - 3 change in density
obtained from the Fig. 3 regression line, gives the
relationship shown in Fig. 4b with a correlation
FIBRE TYPE
OHE30
eriE60
+AM + |
AEE
x MS 9 6.1 Effect of matrix strength
coefficient that is significant at the 5% level. Clearly, the
effect of density variations must be eliminated to establish
the real importance of fibre parameters.
When effects due to density variation are eliminated,
performance differences attributable to fibre type between
the HE, EE and MS types are small both for the H matrix
(Fig. 4) and the L matrix (Table 5). Limited data,
insufficient to be conclusive, show a tendency for
marginally higher strengths with the AM type.
While increasing the fibre content consistently increases
first-crack strength, the increase is modest over the
40-80 kg m - 3 range evaluated (Fig. 4b). This is the range
normally considered practical and cost-effective for fibres,
and first-crack strength can be increased by much more
than the approximately 1 MPa in Fig. 4b using super-
plasticizers, silica fume etc. For the practical range of
fibre contents, the data support the conclusion of
previous work I'4] that first-crack strength is primarily
matrix-dependent and minimally fibre-dependent.
6. VARIABLES I N F L U E N C I N G T O U G H N E S S
INDICES
To understand the individual effects of fibre and matrix
variables, the reader should recognize that toughness
indices reflect the shape of the whole of the post-crack
portion of the load-deflection curve, i.e. between first
crack and the end-point deflection associated with each
index. Selected load-deflection curves illustrating shape
differences in the curves for a wide range of toughness
indices are shown in Fig. 5 for nearly identical amounts
9
of five types of fibre.
x

~:~7 Since there are no obvious and consistent differences in

~L E
0 Tables 4 and 5 between toughness indices for the H matrix
(predominantly 47 to 64 MPa in Table 4) and those for
the L matrix (predominantly 41-45 MPa), other than
what are expected simply because of the lower fibre
-- 0
content used with the L matrix, the data for both matrices
are combined graphically in terms of fibre content from
u.
30-105 kg m -3 (Fig. 6).
With perhaps only three exceptions, the data for
30 kg m - 3 of fibre in the L matrix are generally consistent
with data for the H matrix at fibre contents of 40 kg m-3
or more. Even for these three exceptions at 30 kg m-3
g. of fibres, 15 for the AM fibre and 11o and 12o for the MS
fibre, the degree of departure from the general trend is
/ within two standard deviations based on the values in
/
CI t ~ Table 6.
/ Considering the mixtures with 30 and t05 kg m -3 of
/
J
+J HE 30 fibres that had unexpectedly low strengths,
rationalized previously in terms of poor consolidation
I I I I I I I
30 40 :50 60 70 80 90 I00 IlO (Figs 2 and 3), it is clear that they fit very well into a
FIBRE CONTENT-- k g / m 5
well-defined trend of increase in toughness indices with
Fig. 4 Effect of fibre content on first-crack flexural strength: increase in fibre content for this particular fibre type,
(a) influence of density variations included, (b) influence of even though their strengths are more than 25~o below the
density variations excluded. average for their companion mixtures in each matrix group.
 Materials and Structures 197

.4

E60
) kg/m 3

I IC
120 16.6
=

0
.J ----_3 HE 30
.J 80 kg/m 3
r,-
X 13.1
hi

AM
~'0 kg/m 3

m
0 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1 . 5 0 1.75 2.00
NET DEFLECTION S C A L E - m m

Fig. 5 Typical load-deflection curves showing distinct differences in the post-crack portions of the curves and corresponding
differences in toughness indices attributable to fibre type.

FIBRE TYPE / ~ I,o

18 -- o HE30 / / The conclusion that emerges is that matrix strength
9 HE60 ~ has little effect on toughness indices, whether the change
+ AM ~ -
16 " EE / ,// in strength is deliberate, as a result of changing
x MS / +
water/cement ratio, or accidental, as a consequence of
poor consolidation of the test specimens.

0
~ 12
6.2 Effect of fibre content
X
kd
0Z I0 The tendency for toughness indices to increase with
increasing fibre content is generally consistent in most of
8 m l t ~ It the trend lines in Fig. 6. However, the magnitude of
increases attributable to fibre content ranges from
substantial for the AM and H E fibres to quite small for
the MS fibres.
9- ~ In understanding the importance of fibre content, it
4. should be recognized that there is a maximum fibre
9 8 content for each fibre type above which the mixture
cannot be properly consolidated into a dense imperme-
X
bJ
o 7 able concrete. Within the range of fibre contents
_z evaluated, this was very obvious only for the AM fibre
6
which would have been impossible to use effectively in
these particular concrete matrices at much more than
5 ~ x ~ x ~ 70 kg m -3. On the other hand, the EE and MS fibres
could have been deployed without difficulty in mixtures
at much more than 105 k g m -3, probably with some
further increase in toughness indices consistent with the
trends in Fig. 6.
4.0 ~ " " ' ~ ~ / ---------.//"

3.5 -, I ~--'--Y~ I I I I 6.3 Effect of fibre type

30 40 50 60 70 80 90 I00 IiO
FIBRE CONTENT-kg/m 3 Fibre type is clearly a dominant factor influencing
Fig. 6 Effect of fibre content and fibre type on toughness toughness indices, with wide differences in performance
indices I5, I~0 and I20. apparent between the four intrinsically different 25-32 mm
 198 J o h n s t o n and S k a r e n d a h l

fibres (Fig. 5). For fibre contents within the ranges

evaluated, the AM fibre offers consistently the highest 22 t / I00
toughness indices, followed in order of decreasing
magnitude by the HE 30, EE and MS types. The 20
considerably longer HE 60 fibre offers toughness indices
similar to the AM 30, but the values may be slightly
inflated and not directly comparable due to the effect of
preferential fibre alignment previously discussed. Data
for 100 mm square beams with 63 mm fibres [8] suggest
that the increases attributable to preferential fibre
alignment are less than 8 and 18% for 15 and I~o,
x
oii
IJJ
Q
o
respectively. z_
Many of the differences between fibre types are more
FIBRE SIZE
noticeable for the 11o and I2o indices than for the 15 index 12- J
/ o 3 0 x 0 . 5 mm
(Fig. 5). For example, I2o decreases by 60% from 20.4 to /
i
9 60xO.Bmm
8.1 from the HE 60 type to the MS type while the I0--~ 9 50xO.Smm
comparable decrease in 15, 4.9 to 3.8, is only 22%. 0~

Comparing the more similar indices for the EE and MS

types shows the same trend, a 24% drop in 120 (10.7 to I0 1 / I00
8.1) and only 3% (3.9 to 3.8) in 15.
Clearly, the I~o and Izo indices are better able than the
15 index to distinguish differences in performance 9
attributable to fibre type. This supports the ASTM C 1018 o 0
requirement that performance differences be established I,-4

by testing to at least I1o. It also supports the argument xLu 8

that toughness index requirements in specifications t::)

should include I, o, or an index corresponding to an -- 7

even higher deflection depending on the service conditions
with respect to permissible deflection and cracking, and 6
not be based on 15 alone.

5.0 - ylO0
6.4 Effect of fibre size
Comparison of the data for HE 60 and HE 30 fibres (Fig.
6) that are similar in material and shape, and differ only
4.5 o -
FIBRE ASPECT RATIO

in length, diameter, aspect ratio and number per unit

weight, shows that the HE 60 fibres offer consistently
~ 4.0 e-

higher toughness indices attributable mainly to their

higher aspect ratio (Fig. 7). While preferential fibre
alignment may account for some of this difference, the
importance of aspect ratio is supported by previous data
[2,3] obtained for HE 50 fibres with a i00 aspect ratio
using the smaller 350 mm x 100 mm x I00 mm beam
tested at a span/depth ratio of 3.0 (Fig. 7). Clearly, aspect
ratio, rather than length or number of fibres per unit
weight (Table 1), is a dominant factor influencing
toughness indices when the fibres are materially and
geometrically similar.
7. VARIABLES I N F L U E N C I N G RESIDUAL
STRENGTH FACTORS
Residual strength factors are a measure of the average
strength over a specific deflection interval, expressed as
a percentage of the first-crack load or stress. They are de-
rived as R5,1o = 20(11o - 15) and Rlo,2 o = 10(I2o - 11o)
based on an easily understandable scale of 0 (no residual
strength, typical of elastic brittle material behaviour) to
100 (100% strength retained after first crack, typical of
30 40 50 60 70 80 90 I00 I10
FIBRE CONTENT-kg/m3
Fig. 7 Effect of fibre size on toughness indices for materially
and geometrically similar fibres.
mild steel after yield). They help to distinguish post-crack
performance differences more clearly than toughness
indices because they reflect the shape of the load-deflection
curve over a specific post-crack deflection interval, rather
than over the whole of the post-crack portion of the curve
(Fig. 8). For example, while Izo reflects the shape between
the first-crack deflection and 10.5 times this deflection,
Rio. 2o reflects the average strength retained between 5.5
and 10.5 times the first-crack deflection.
The difference between R5,1o and R1o,2o further
characterizes the shape of the load-deflection curve.
When Rs,~o and R~o.z o are approximately equal the
relevant portion of the curve is almost horizontal,
indicating approximately constant residual strength, i.e.
 Materials and Structures 199

RSj 0 : 98
1 5 ~ ? . . __
IHE 60
0 = 105 80 k g / m 3

- RS, IO = 9 9

z I0
RS, IO = 83
I
E3
, RSIO = 5 9 RIO,20 = 7 9 ~ " ~ u c ..,,..,
0
..J
,
RIO,20 = 57 AM
.J 9 7 0 k g / m 5 (H)
re"
21 i
X I RS,IO = 3!
u.i 5 ' ~ HE 3 0
: R10,2O : 57 HE 6 0 AM
.J 30 kg/m 3 55 k g / m 3
LL 30 kg/rn 3 ( L )

R 10,20 = 21
I HE30 R 10,20 = 28
RS,IO = 37 RIO, 20 = 37 3 0 kg/m 3 -"]MS "~-"1 MS
30 kg/m 3 (L) 105 kg/m3(H)

0 I I I t I I I I I I
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
NET DEFLECTION S C A L E - mm

Fig. 8 Post-crack portions of typical load-deflection curves showing differences in residual strength factors attributable to fibre
content, size and type.

plastic material behaviour. When R 1o.2o is substantially I00

F~BRETYPE ~ /..o
less than R5.1o, the curve is significantly sloped indicating oHE30 ~
9 HE60 /
a progressive drop in residual strength with increasing o
8O - +AM /
oJ 9 EE / /
deflection (Fig. 8). o"
e:: 60

7.1 Effect of matrix strength

4O
.
Residual strength factors for the L matrix with 30 kg m - 3
g_
of fibres are consistent in terms of fibre content with o z0
those for the H matrix containing 40-105 kg m - 3 of u.

fibres, indicating no substantive effect attributable to o

matrix strength (Fig. 9). I.IJ I00

7.2 Effect of fibre content 9.J 80

g
The magnitude of increases in Rs,~o and R10,2 o ~, s0
(z:
attributable to increasing fibre content ranges from
substantial (40 to 50) for the H E 30 and HE 60 fibres to
40
quite small (12 to 15) for the AM and EE fibres and
t8 j X
negligible for the MS fibres (Fig. 9).
2O

7.3 Effect of fibre type and size t I I I I I I I

30 40 50 60 70 80 90 i00 110
For the commonly used 60-80 kg m-3 range of fibre FIBRE CONTENT--kg/m 3
contents, the higher aspect ratio and larger H E 60 is Fig. 9 Effect of fibre content, fibre type and fibre size on
generally superior to HE 30 in terms of both R5,1o and residual strength factors R5,1o and Rlo,2 o.
Rio.2 o. The HE 30, HE 60 and AM fibre types reach
Rs,lo values of more than 70 compared with less than
25 for the MS type (Fig. 9). Over the higher deflection strength from R s,1 o to R to, 20 (Fig. 9) and corresponding
interval on which Rxo,2o is based, the value of 70 or more steeply sloping portions in their load-deflection curves
is sustained for the HE 30 and H E 60 types, but drops (Fig. 8).
to below 60 for the AM type, consistent with the Clearly, residual strength factors can illustrate the
differences in load-deflection behaviour (Fig. 8). The EE contrast between fibres with substantial strength reten-
and MS types also exhibit significant drops in residual tion and those with less strength retention (Fig. 8,
 200
left-hand side). The distinction between fibres that impart
initially high strength retention and sustain it at larger
deflections (Fig. 8 left), compared with those that impart
initially high strength retention but lose a significant
amount of it at larger deflections (Fig. 8 right), is also
clearly identifiable.
8. C O N C L U S I O N S
Evaluating the performance of steel fibre-reinforced
concrete in terms offlexural testing to establish first-crack
strength, toughness indices and residual strength factors
in accordance with ASTM C1018 allows most important
differences in performance attributable to changes in
matrix and fibre parameters to be clearly identified. In
any comparative evaluation of performance differences
attributable to fibre parameters, matrix density should
be determined to avoid misinterpreting results that are
attributable to variation in the degree of consolidation
in the test specimens. For the range of parameters
evaluated in this programme:
1. The first-crack strength depends primarily on
matrix characteristics that influence matrix strength,
notably the degree of consolidation and water/cement
ratio. It is minimally dependent on fibre parameters such
as type, size and amount.
2. Toughness indices 15, 11o and Izo depend primarily
on fibre type, amount, and, for materially and geomet-
rically similar fibres, aspect ratio, as do the derived
residual strength factors R5.1o and Rio.: o. All are
minimally dependent on matrix strength for the 30-55
M P a range examined here.
3. The 15 index alone does not adequately identify
differences in performance attributable to fibre type, size
and amount. Testing to determine Ilo is essential, and
testing to the deflection needed to determine 12o (10.5
times first-crack), or a higher deflection depending on
service conditions, is highly desirable to fully distinguish
all important performance differences attributable to
fibre type, size and amount.
RESUME
Une 6valuation comparative des performances en flexion
de b6tons renforc6s de fibres d'acier scion la norme ASTM
C1018 d~montre i'importance des param~tres des fibres
On ~value la performance en flexion de poutres renforc~es
de fibres d'acier de diffkrents types et dans des quantitbs
diff~rentes, suivant des paramOtres de rbsilience et des
facteurs de rbsistance rksiduelle d@nis selon la norme
AS T M C1018-89. On a examinb cinq types de fibres d 'acier
dans des proportions allant de 30 5 150 kg m -3, et deux
ordres de rksistance de matrice, dans un programme de 117
essais sur des poutres larges de 150 mm et kpaisses de
Johnston and Skarendahl
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Financial assistance provided by the Swedish Council for
Building Research, the Swedish National Board for
Technical Development, the Foundation for Swedish
Concrete Research and the Natural Sciences and
Engineering Research Council of Canada is gratefully
acknowledged.
REFERENCES
1. ASTM, 'Standard test method for flexural toughness and
first-crack strength of fiber-reinforced concrete', Desig-
nation C1018-89, ASTM Book of Standards, Vol. 04.02
(1989).
2. Johnston, C. D., 'Toughness of steel fiber reinforced
concrete', in 'Steel Fibre Concrete', US-Sweden joint
seminar, Swedish Cement and Concrete Institute,
Stockholm, edited by S. P. Shah and /k. Skarendahl
(Elsevier Applied Science, London, t986) pp. 333-360.
3. Idem, 'Definition and measurement of flexural toughness
parameters for fiber reinforced concrete', Cement Concr.
Aggreg. 4(2) (1982) 61-67.
4. Johnston, C. D. and Gray, R. J., 'Flexural toughness and
first-crack strength of fibre-reinforced concrete using
ASTM Standard C1018', in Proceedings of 3rd Inter-
national RILEM Symposium on Developments in Fibre
Reinforced Cement and Concrete, Sheffield, July 1986,
Paper 5.1.
5. Johnston, C. D. and Carter, P. D., "Fiber-reinforced concrete
and shotcrete for repair and restoration of highway
bridges in Alberta', in Proceedings of International
Symposium on Recent Developments in Concrete Fiber
Composites, US Transportation Research Board, TRB
Record No. 1226 (1989) pp. 7-16.
6. Swedish Standard SS 13 72 12, 'Concrete Testing- Hardened
Concrete - Flexural Strength'.
7. Swedish Standard SS 13 72 10, 'Concrete Testing- Hardened
Concrete - Cube Strength'.
8. Johnston, C. D., 'Effects on flexural performance of sawing
plain concrete and sawing and other methods of altering
the degree of fibre alignment in fiber-reinforced concrete',
Cement Concr. Aggre 9. 11(I) (1989) 23-29.
I00 mm chargbes en trois points sur une portbe de 750 ram.
On a nettement identifib des diffbrences significatives de
performance en liaison avec des variations de paramOtres
de la matrice et des fbres. La rOsistanee 5 la fissuration
initiale dOpend essentiellement des earactOristiques qui
gouvernent la rdsistance de la matrice, et minimalement des
paramOtres de fibre, tels le type, la dimension et la
proportion. Les indices de rdsitience et Ies facteurs de
rOsistance rksiduelle, en particulier ceux qui correspondent
aux flexions les plus fortes, dbpendent principalement du
type et de la proportion de fibre et, pour des fibres de
9dombtrie similaire, des quantitds relatives. Tous ddpendent
minimalement de la rbsistance de la matrice.