ck 0k x
cx x<k k
cu
0 k
cu
<k
8
>
<
>
:
r
t
b
Ee
cr
b 0b1
1g b1 1<ba
l a<bb
tu
0 b
tu
b
8
>
>
>
<
>
>
>
:
3
G
f
1
2
Ee
2
cr
a l1 a 2b
tu
4
By assuming linear strain distribution across the depth and
ignoring shear deformations, stress distribution across the cross
section at three stages of imposed tensile strain: 0 6 b 6 1,
1 < b 6 a and a < b 6 b
tu
are obtained in closed form [53]. Internal
moment is obtained using the force components and their distance
from the neutral axis and the curvature is determined as the ratio
of compressive strain at top ber (e
ctop
= ke
cr
) to the depth of
neutral axis kd. The moment M
i
and curvature /
i
at each stage i
Fig. 2. (a) Effect of curing time on load deection response for polymeric ber type
A and B with ber content of 3 kg/m
3
(Set 1), (b) Effect of ber type on load
deection response for glass with three different lengths at 6 kg/m
3
at age of
28 days (Set 2).
Fig. 3. Effect of ber dosage on load deection response for hooked steel bers with
large sample size at 28 days (Set 3).
Fig. 4. Material models for FRC materials: (a) tension for strain softening
composites, (b) compression.
246 B. Mobasher et al. / Construction and Building Materials 70 (2014) 243253
are then normalized with respect to the values at cracking M
cr
and
/
cr
and presented in Eqs. (5) and (6). The transition from deection
softening to deection hardening is dened by critical normalized
postpeak tensile strength (l
crit
) as dened in Eq. (7).
M
i
M
0
M
cr
; M
cr
1
6
bd
2
Ee
cr
5
/
i
/
0
i
/
cr
; /
cr
2e
cr
d
6
l
crit
x
3x1
7
Calculation of k, M
0
and /
0
for the ve stages of governing strain
is presented in Table 4. During stage 1, the tensile and compressive
zones are both elastic with a linear momentcurvature plot and
the neutral axis at the centroid of the sample. This case continues
until reaching the point of rst cracking. There are two potential
regions when the elastic Stage 1 ends and the tensile cracking as
dened in Stage 2 starts. The compression side may or may
not enter the plastic zone. Elastic compression shown in Fig. 5a
is denoted as Stage 2.1, while tensile cracking, with the
compression in plastic range is dened as Stage 2.2 (tensionplastic
compression).
Two potential regions at the end of Stage 2 depending on
whether the transition takes place form region 2.1 or 2.2 exist.
Stage 3.1 shown in Fig. 5b is an elastic response in compression
while plastic compression is dened as Stage 3.2. It is important
to note that depending on the relationship among material param
eters, any of the stages 2.1, and 2.2, or 3.1, and 3.2 are potentially
possible in succession.
By applying the momentarea method to the bilinear moment
curvature response, midspan deection of threepoint bending
tests can be derived explicitly [50]. After cracking, the curvature
distribution depends on the normalized postpeak tensile strain.
The maximum deection during the elastic stage of loading is
determined from the curvature at cracking (/
cr
) and Eq. (8). If
l > l
crit
, as the postcrack curvature increases, the moment contin
ues to increase with the deection determined by Eq. (9). On the
other hand, if l < l
crit
, as the postcrack curvature increases, the
moment either increases or decreases at the levels below the bilin
ear cracking moment M
cr
, the deection during this stage is deter
mined by Eq. (10), and the term L
p
represents the length of
localization zone.
d
cr
1
12
L
2
/
cr
8
d
u
L
2
24M
2
u
2M
2
u
M
u
M
cr
M
2
cr
/
u
M
2
u
M
u
M
cr
/
cr
h i
l > l
crit
9
d
u
/
u
L
p
8
2L L
p
M
u
/
cr
L
12M
cr
L 2L
p
l < l
crit
10
Similarly, a set of equations for the fourpoint bending can be
written as
d
cr
23
216
L
2
/
cr
11
d
u
L
2
216M
2
u
23M
2
u
4M
u
M
cr
M
2
cr
/
u
4M
2
u
4M
u
M
cr
/
cr
h i
l>l
crit
12
d
u
5/
u
L
2
72
M
u
L
2
/
cr
27M
cr
l < l
crit
13
Table 4
Governing equations for the calculation of k, M
0
and /
0
for each stage specied by strains at top and bottom bers (c = 1 in the present study).
Stage Parameters k M
0
= M/M
cr
/
0
= ///
cr
1
0 < b < 1
k
1
1
2
for c 1
1
c
p
1c
for c1
(
M
0
1
2b c1 k
3
1
3k
2
1
3k11
1k1
/
0
1
b
2 1k1
2.1
1 < b < a
k
21
D21
D21cb
2
p
D21cb
2
M
0
21
2cb
3
C21 k
3
21
3C21k
2
21
3C21k21C21
1k21
/
0
21
b
2 1k21
0 < k < x
D
21
g b
2
2b 1
2b 1 C
21
2b
3
3b
2
1g3b
2
1
b
2
2.2
1 < b < a k
22
D22
D222xcb
,
M
0
22
3cxb
2
C
22
k
2
22
2C
22
k
22
C
22
,
/
0
22
b
2 1k22
x < k < k
cu
D
22
D
21
cx
2
C
22
C
21
cx
3
b
2
3.1
a < b < b
tu
k
31
D31
D31cb
2
p
D31cb
2
M
0
31
2cb
3
C31 k
3
31
3C31k
2
31
3C31k31C31
1k31
/
0
31
b
2 1k31
0 < k < x D
31
g a
2
2a 1
2l b a 2a 1
C
31
2a
3
3a
2
1g3l a
2
b
2
3a
2
1
b
2
3.2
a < b < b
tu
k
32
D32
D322xcb
,
M
0
32
3cxb
2
C
32
k
2
32
2C
32
k
32
C
32
,
/
0
32
b
2 1k32
x < k < k
cu
D
32
D
31
cx
2
C
32
C
31
cx
3
b
2
ctop cr
=
tbot cr =
1
1
hc1
h
t1
kh
h
1
1
yc1
y
t1
Fc1
y
t2
f
t1
f
c1
2 h
t2
cr
F
t2 2
ft2
F
t1
2.1
(a)
ctop cr
=
tbot cr =
1
1
hc1
h
t1
kh
h
1
1
yc1
y
t1
Fc1
y
t2 f
t1
f
c1
2
h
t2
cr
F
t2
2
f
t2
F
t1
3.1
3 ht3 3 Ft3
y
t3
ft3
trn
(b)
Fig. 5. Strain and stress diagrams at the post crack stage, (a) Stage 2.1 in Table 4; (b)
Stage 3.1 in Table 4.
B. Mobasher et al. / Construction and Building Materials 70 (2014) 243253 247
From the approximate bilinear momentcurvature diagram, the
total load P
i
at a given stage of loading i can be calculated by Eq.
(14) for /
i
through /
u
, where S = L/2 for three point bending tests,
respectively.
P
i
2M
i
S
14
When a exural specimen is loaded well into the post peak
region, two distinct zones develop and the deformation localizes
in the cracking region, while the remainder of the specimen under
goes general unloading. To correlate the stresscrack width rela
tionship into the stressstrain approach, localization is treated as
an average response within the cracking region. Results are used
as a smeared crack in conjunction with the momentcurvature
diagram to obtain load deformation behavior as presented by
Soranakom and Mobasher, and Bakhshi et al. [53,55].
4.2. Prediction of loaddeection response of FRC
The backcalculation procedure computes the tensile material
properties from experimental three and fourpoint bending
loaddeection data. Results of backcalculation of stressstrain
responses by trilinear tensile model for all mixtures are shown in
Table 5. Fig. 6 represent the effect of curing time on the back cal
culated tensile stressstain response and exural loaddeection
response of type A and B macro synthetic bers. The initial
response is linear elastic up to the rst crack stage at about
2 MPa for 14 day and increased to 2.32.6 MPa for 28 day samples.
After cracking, load is transferred to the bers bridging the cracks
resulting in the signicant drop in the sample stiffness and increas
ing the crack width. Backcalculated tensile stressstrain responses
show that after an average strain level of about 0.0030.004 mm/
mm, the residual strength of the macro synthetic ber composites
reaches a constant value and that strain is maintained until 34%
level. The postcrack residual strength at this plateau zone
increased from about 0.4 to 0.7 MPa between 14 to 28 days.
The load versus deection response based on the simulated t
of the data matches the experimental response as shown in
Fig. 6b. The overall predictions are well established. Representative
properties for the simulation of upper and lower bound values
obtained from these samples indicate E = 1821 GPa, a = 3040,
l = 0.210.3, g = 0.020.026 and e
cr
= 107125 lstr. In all these ts,
the parameters for the ratio of compressive to tensile stiffness and
strength were held constants at c = 1, and x = 10. The limits of the
modeling were set at b
tu
= 267406 and k
cu
= 70.
Backcalculated tensile stressstrain response and experimen
tal and simulated loaddeection response for ARglass bers are
shown in Fig. 7a and b, respectively. The tensile strength of the
glass ber campsites are affected only marginally by the ber
length as the tensile strength increased from about 2.92 to
3.6 MPa by increasing the ber length from 6 to 24 mm. The
backcalculated tensile strength for parameter l in this case is
0.11, 0.05 and 0.06, representing the effect of ber length from 6
to 12 and 24 mm and corresponds to residual tensile strength at
the plateau zone for glass ber reinforced samples in the range
of 0.20.3 MPa. Representative properties for the simulation of
Table 5
Average back calculated tensile parameters.
Sample ID Youngs
modulus
First crack
tensile strain
First crack
tensile strength
Post crack
modulus
Post crack
tensile strength
Transitional tensile strain Ultimate tensile strain Tensile toughness
E, GPa e
cr
, lstr r
cr
MPa g l a e
trn
, lstr e
tu
, mm/mm b
tu
G
f
, MPa
P3A14d 19 107 2.07 0.020 0.21 40 4280 0.029 267 0.016
P3A28d 21 125 2.63 0.026 0.26 30 3750 0.045 359 0.034
P3B14d 18 107 1.88 0.020 0.23 40 4280 0.031 292 0.016
P3B28d 20 115 2.3 0.024 0.3 30 3450 0.047 406 0.035
G6628d 32 90 2.92 0.026 0.11 35 3150 0.025 286 0.012
G61228d 32 98 3.18 0.023 0.05 42 4116 0.033 340 0.011
G62428d 33 110 3.64 0.049 0.06 20 2200 0.018 160 0.008
S13HL28d 31 61 1.89 0.126 0.12 8 488 0.033 545 0.008
S13HL56d 31 54 1.68 0.106 0.15 9 486 0.029 543 0.008
S26HL28d 31 63 1.95 0.074 0.33 10 630 0.032 509 0.021
S26HL56d 28 72 1.99 0.111 0.22 8 576 0.043 597 0.019
S39HL28d 21 89 1.84 0.064 0.42 10 890 0.038 431 0.030
S39HL56d 21 76 2.09 0.049 0.41 13 988 0.041 542 0.036
Fig. 6. (a) Effect of curing time on back calculated tensile stress strain response. (b)
Effect of curing time on experimental and simulated load deection response for
polymeric bers. (Set 1).
248 B. Mobasher et al. / Construction and Building Materials 70 (2014) 243253
upper and lower bound values obtained from these samples indi
cate E = 3233 GPa, a = 2042, l = 0.060.11, g = 0.0230.049,
e
cr
= 90110 lstr. The simulated loaddeection responses show
good agreements with experimental data and the descending part
of loaddeection response is tted quite well.
Effect of steel ber was evaluated using different dosages of 13,
26 and 39 kg/m
3
using data from Set 3. Hookedend steel bers
designated as type H ber were used in the concrete mixes poured
into samples specied as type L specimens (450 mm 150 mm
150 mm). At 28 days, the steel ber reinforced samples showed
increases in exural toughness as ber dosage increased. This is
evidenced by the calculation of the area under loaddeection dia
gram shown in Fig. 8b. Flexural toughness increased by 43% and
165% by increasing steel ber dosages from 13 kg/m
3
to 26 kg/m
3
and 39 kg/m
3
, respectively. The residual exural loads increased
proportionally with the ber dosage. While this improvement is
clearly evident in the measured toughness (l = 0.120.15 to
0.220.33 and to 0.42 for the 13, 26 and 39 kg/m
3
dosages, respec
tively), rst crack tensile strength is not largely affected by the
ber dosage and is stable at around 1.89, 1.95 and 1.84 MPa with
increasing ber content. Simulations presented in Fig. 8b are
reasonable ts for the 13 and 26 kg/m
3
dosage curves, but fail to
capture the almost linear unloading in the post cracking region
of the 39 kg/m
3
. This may be attributed to uneven distribution of
bers in the mix or larger concentrations of steel in the tensile
region. Representative properties for the simulation of upper and
lower bound values obtained from these samples indicate E = 21
31 GPa , a = 813, g = 0.0490.126, e
cr
= 5489 lstr. The choice of
the model used in the back calculation procedure may be altered
using parameters, a and, g to change from a strain softening to
strain hardening model to properly capture both the peak and
residual strength values. It is noted that there is a clear and consis
tent post crack residual strength measure that is similar to metal
plasticity as the yielding behavior extends to deections in excess
of 4 mm.
4.3. Model extension to HPFRC
Kim et al. [49] performed an experimental study on the effect of
Hooked (H) and twisted (T) steel bers on exural and tensile
responses of high strength cementitious matrix (84 MPa) with a
ber content of 79 kg/m
3
. Flexural tests were performed on three
different geometries of specimens, S (small) for 50 mm
25 mm 300 mm specimens, M (medium) for 100 mm 100 mm
300 mm and L (large) for 150 mm 150 mm 450 mm. Proper
ties of hooked bers in this study are very similar to the ones pre
sented in the previous section, with the exception of length of
bers and diameter of the hooked bers which are 30 mm, and
0.38 mm in Kims study, respectively. The ratio of water to cemen
titious materials was 0.26, and other details of mix design can be
found in the reference paper [49].
Present method of approach is validated by comparing results
of back calculated stressstrain responses with experimental
tensile results. As shown in Fig. 9, the present approach predicts
the experimental results quite well. The results of exural tests
on HPFRC are also shown in Fig. 10b which represents the compar
ison of two steel ber types of hooked (H) and twisted (T) at two
Fig. 7. a) Effect of ber length on back calculated tensile stress strain response, b)
Effect of ber length on experimental and simulated load deection response for
glass bers. (Set 2).
Fig. 8. (a) Effect of steel ber dosage on back calculated stress strain response. (b)
Effect of steel ber dosage on experimental and simulated load deection response.
(Set 3).
B. Mobasher et al. / Construction and Building Materials 70 (2014) 243253 249
different specimen sizes. The ber content in all mixtures is 79 kg/
m
3
. The HPFRC showed very clear delineations between sample
size (M or L) and ber deformation type (H or T). The twisted bers
in both the M and L sample sizes showed increases in exural
toughness, (+116%) and hooked bers (+190%).
Peak tensile strength of about 5 MPa and peak exural strength
in the range of 1214 MPa are observed in these samples and do
not seem to be inuenced by sample size and ber distributions.
The maximum loads are 40, 57, 87 and 98 kN for the HM, TM, HL
and TL samples respectively. The larger (L) samples show a slightly
higher deection capacity with 6 mm total deection compared to
the medium (M) samples at 4 mm deection. This additional duc
tility could be from the combined effect of length and high dosage
rate of steel bers which deform and yield as the load increases.
Backcalculated tensile stressstrain responses resulted in sim
ulated loaddeection responses for HPFRC mixtures with steel
bers are shown in Fig. 10a and b for the Twisted bers with the
exural simulation which compare the twisted and hooked bers
and show an excellent t for the experimental data through sample
failure. Parameters related to this simulation are summarized in
Table 6. As shown in this table and Fig. 10a, back calculated
stressstrain responses for hooked bers for both medium and
large size specimens are very similar. Back calculated stressstrain
responses for twisted bers however differ from medium to large
size samples. The rst crack tensile strength of the twisted bers
in medium specimens are 30% higher than large specimens which
may be attributed to a more uniform ber distribution in large
samples. The backcalculated tensile strength parameter l in cases
of both bers are also as much as 35% higher for medium size
specimens. Similar to residual stress parameter, transitional tensile
strains are 20 + 25% more in favor of medium size samples, but
ultimate tensile strains are almost identical for all samples. None
theless, the difference between exural test results of different
sizes are much more signicant than predicted stressstrain
responses using this method of approach.
4.4. Residual strength comparison with ASTM C1609 (f
D
150
), RILEM, and
JCISF4 (r
b
)
Flexural FRC beams results are also analyzed using the data
reduction approach according to ASTM C1609 [46]. Load and net
deection are recorded up to an endpoint deection of L/150.
Residual strength (f
D
150
) is calculated using an elastically equivalent
approach:
f
D
150
P
D
150
L
bd
2
15
where L is the span length, P
D
150
is the residual load at net deection
of L/150, b and d are the average width and depth. ASTM C 1609
method uses an elastically equivalent elastic measure and overesti
mates the residual uniaxial tensile strength lEe
cr
obtained based on
the present approach by almost three times. Therefore, it is imper
ative to note that the f
D
150
parameter is not even an equivalently elas
tic stress and can not to be associated with the post crack tensile
strength parameter r
cst
in Fig. 4a.
Fig. 9. (a) Simulation of exural responses of HPFRC materials with hookedend
bers, (b) comparing back calculated tensile stressstrain responses with experi
mental tensile stressstrain response for data set of Kim et al. [45]. (Set 4).
Fig. 10. (a) Effect of sample size and steel ber deformation on back calculated
stress strain response (H or T represents hooked or twisted and M or L represents
Medium or Large), (b) Effect of sample size and steel ber content on experimental
and simulated load deection responses for data set of Kim et al. [45]. (Set 4).
250 B. Mobasher et al. / Construction and Building Materials 70 (2014) 243253
Similar to ASTM C 1609, JCISF recommends testing ber rein
forced concrete by thirdpoint loading and measuring the net
deection by Linear Variable Differential Transformers (LVDTs).
Equivalent exural strength (r
b
) is calculated by Eq. (16) [48].
r
b
T
b
d
tb
:
L
bd
2
16
where r
b
is the equivalent exural strength (N/mm
2
), T
b
is the ex
ural toughness (N mm), L is the span length (mm), d
tb
is the deec
tion of 1/150 of span (mm), b is the width of failed crosssection
(mm) and d is the height of failed crosssection (mm).
According to RILEM TC 162TDF [47] bending test method can
be used for the determination of residual exural tensile strength
as well. The tensile behavior is obtained by the loaddeection
curve of a simply supported notched beam of 150 150 mm cross
section and 500 mm loaded under threepoint bending arrange
ment tested using CMOD (Crack Mouth Opening Displacement)
control. The residual exural tensile strength (f
eq,3
) is dened with
respect to d
3
, dened as:
d
3
d
L
2:65 mmmm 17
where d
L
is the deection at the limit of proportionality (mm).
The energy absorption capacity, D
Bz,3
is measured as the area
under the loaddeection curve up to a deection d
3
and consists
of two parts. The part that includes the inuence of steel bers (D
f

BZ,3
) is used for calculation of the equivalent exural tensile
strength, f
eq,3
, by means of the following equation.
f
eq;3
3
2
D
f
BZ;3
2:5
!
:
L
bh
2
sp
18
where L is the span length (mm), b is the width of the specimen
(mm), and h
sp
is the distance between tip of the notch and top of
cross section (mm).
As shown in Fig. 11, direct correlation of JCI residual strength
and the present method indicate JCISF4 method overestimates
the residual uniaxial tensile strength lEe
cr
by as much as 3.22
times. The exact correction factor for the JCI method is 1/(3.22).
A plot of corresponding values from two tests reects the relation
ship between the two residual strength measures. It is imperative
to note that the f
D
150
parameter can be used as a tensile stress mea
sure associated with the post crack tensile strength parameter r
cst
in Fig. 4a, so long as this parameter is corrected by a scale factor of
1/(2.94). Correction factors for presented standard parameters are
as follows:
f
D
150
2:94lr
cr
f
eq;3
3:10lr
cr
r
b
3:22lr
cr
19
Similar to other test methods, direct correlation of RILEM resid
ual strength and the present method indicates that RILEM method
overestimates the residual uniaxial tensile strength lEe
cr
by as
much as three times. Alternatively, standard residual exural
strength parameters can be correlated to the tensile strength by
a coefcient factor of 1/3. This value is in accordance with the draft
of ACI 544.3R report based on the stress coefcients values adopted
by Barros 2004 [56] who presented a linear relationship between
tensile stress at large strains and exural strength using a coef
cient factor of 0.27.
r
3
0:27f
R 4
20
It is noted that in the proposed methods for design by FIB [57], a
correction factor of 1/3 is used for scaling the parameter f
R3
from
exural tests to obtain f
Ftu
as the ultimate residual strength. This
correction factor can be justied by calibration of various specimen
sizes, and various ber types and dosages. The proposed value and
the present calculation therefore correlate quite well. The present
approach can be used as theoretical justication for the empirical
values obtained and used in the FIB model code.
Since the inherent assumption of the available standard method
assumes that the neutral axis is still at the centroid of the speci
men, and the stress distribution is linear throughout. This leads
to very high nominal exural stress levels in tension ber which
are far more than tensile strength. Extreme caution must be
exercised in application of the ASTM 1609, JCISF4 and RILEM TC
162TDF methods in design and analysis of ber reinforced con
crete sections, as the results show overestimation of the residual
parameter by as much as 2.943.22 times. These results are very
similar to the results of previous study on toughness parameters
of early age ber reinforced concrete materials [58].
5. Conclusions
Characterization of tensileexural strain softening of ber
cement composites with alternative ber types, ber content and
lengths shows that the presence of ber signicantly increases
Table 6
Average 28day back calculated tensile parameters of HPFRC (Kim et al. [45]).
Sample ID Youngs
modulus
First crack
tensile strain
First crack
tensile strength
Post crack
modulus
Post crack
tensile strength
Transitional tensile strain Ultimate tensile strain Tensile toughness
E, GPa e
cr
, lstr r
cr
MPa g l a e
trn
, lstr e
tu
, mm/mm b
tu
G
f
, MPa
S79HM28d 20 260 5.2 0.006 0.2 140 0.0364 0.061 235 0.0532
S79TM28d 20 380 7.6 0.007 0.2 110 0.0418 0.062 163 0.0916
S79HL28d 20 260 5.2 0.008 0.13 105 0.0273 0.061 235 0.0378
S79TL28d 20 290 5.8 0.008 0.13 115 0.0334 0.062 214 0.0439
cr
cr
eq, 3 cr
2
b
2
cr
2
Fig. 11. Comparison of residual strength (lr
cr
) with JCISF4, RILEM and ASTM
C1609 residual parameters (Sets 1,2, 3, 4).
B. Mobasher et al. / Construction and Building Materials 70 (2014) 243253 251
the ductility of the material. Based on the results of experiments
and analyses in this study, following conclusions may be drawn:
1. By applying the load deection backcalculation technique one
can generate tensile constitutive data with a higher degree of
accuracy than the current standard methods.
2. Using a closed form set of governing parameters and variables
applied through each stage of material response, the stress dis
tribution that considers a shifting neutral axis also provide a
more accurate representation of the residual strength and
toughness of FRC.
3. The inherent assumption of the available standard method
assumes that the neutral axis is still at the centroid of the
cracked specimen, and the stress distribution is linear through
out. This leads to very high nominal exural stress levels in ten
sion ber which are far more than residual tensile strength.
4. Caution must be exercised in application of the ASTM C1609,
JCISF4 and RILEM TC 162TDF methods in design and analysis
of ber reinforced concrete sections, as the results show overes
timation of the residual parameter by as much as 2.943.22
times. Strength parameters provided by these standards must
be scaled by as much as 0.310.34 before designing FRC ele
ments for bending loadings.
References
[1] diPrisco M, Plizzari G, Vandewalle L. Fibre reinforced concrete: new design
perspectives. Mater Struct 2009;42(9):126181.
[2] Walraven J. High performance ber reinforced concrete: progress in
knowledge and design codes. Mater Struct 2009;42(9):124760.
[3] AASHTOAGCARTBA. The use of stateofthepractice of ber reinforced
concrete. Task Force 36 Report, Subcommittee on New Highway Materials.
AASHTOAGCARTBA Joint Committee; 2001.
[4] ACI. Stateoftheart report on ber reinforced concrete. ACI 544.1R96,
American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI; 1997.
[5] The Concrete Society. Concrete industrial ground oors a guide to their
design and construction. Slough, Technical Report 34, 2nd ed.; 1994.
[6] Mindess S, Young JF, Darwin D. Concrete. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River
(NJ): PrenticeHall; 2003.
[7] Bentur A, Mindess S. Fibre reinforced cementitious
composites. London: Elsevier Applied Science; 1990.
[8] Bakhshi M, Mobasher B. Experimental observations of earlyage drying of
Portland cement paste under lowpressure conditions. Cem Concr Comp
2011;33(4):47484.
[9] Bakhshi M, Mobasher B. Simulated shrinkage cracking in the presence of Alkali
Resistant Glass bers. ACI Special Publication; 2011. 280.
[10] Soranakom C, Bakhshi M, Mobasher B. Role of Alkali resistant glass bers in
suppression of restrained shrinkage cracking of concrete materials. In: 15th
international glass bre reinforced concrete association congress, GRC 2008,
CDProceedings. Prague; April 2023, 2008.
[11] Rahmani T, Kiani B, Bakhshi M, Shekarchizadeh M. Application of different
bers to reduce plastic shrinkage cracking of concrete. In: 7th RILEM
international conference on cracking in pavements. Springer, Netherlands;
2012. P. 63542.
[12] Belletti B, Cerioni R, Meda A, Plizzari G. Design aspects on steel berreinforced
concrete pavements. J Mater Civ Eng 2008;20(9):599607.
[13] Sorelli LG, Meda A, Plizzari GA. Steel ber concrete slabs on ground: a
structural matter. ACI Struct J 2006;103(4):5518.
[14] Pelisser F, Santos Neto AB, La Rovere HL, Pinto RCA. Effect of the addition of
synthetic bers to concrete thin slabs on plastic shrinkage cracking. Construct
Build Mater 2010;24:21716.
[15] Vondran GL. Applications of steel ber reinforced concrete. Concr Int
1991;13(11):449.
[16] Rollings RS. Corps of Engineers Design Procedures for Rigid Aireld Pavements.
In: Proceedings, second international conference on concrete pavement
design. Purdue University, West Lafayette (IN); 1981.
[17] Parker F. Steel brous concrete for airport pavement applications. Technical
Report 57412. Vicksburg (MS): US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station; 1974.
[18] Romualdi JP, Batson GB. Mechanics of crack arrest in concrete. J Eng Mech Div,
ASCE 1963;89:14768.
[19] Beckett D, Van De Woestyne T, Callens S. Corner and edge loading on ground
oors reinforced with steel bers. Concrete 1999;33(3):224.
[20] Falkner H, Teutsch M. Comparative investigations of plain and steel bre
reinforced industrial ground slabs. Germany: Institut Fur Baustoffe, Massivbau
und Brandschutz, Technical University of Brunswick; 1993. No. 102.
[21] Tatnall PC, Kuitenbrouwer L. Steel ber reinforced concrete in industrial oors.
Concr Int 1992;14(12):437.
[22] Beckett D. Comparative tests on plain, fabric reinforced and steel bre
reinforced concrete ground slabs. Concrete 1990;24(3):435.
[23] Kukreja CB et al. Ultimate strength of ber reinforced concrete slabs. In:
Proceedings of international symposium on ber reinforced concrete, vol. 1.
Madras; 1987. p. 23755.
[24] Sham SHR, Burgoyne CJ. Load tests on Dramix steel bre reinforced concrete
slabs a report to Sir Frederick snow and partners, consulting engineers
imperial college of science and technology, department of civil
engineering. Concrete Laboratories; 1986.
[25] Ferrara L, Meda A. Relationships between bre distribution, workability and
the mechanical properties of SFRC applied to precast roof elements. Mater
Struct 2006;39(288):41120.
[26] Gettu R, Barragn B, Garcia T, Ortiz J, Justa R. Fiber concrete tunnel lining.
Concr Int 2006;28(8):639.
[27] Bernard E. Correlations in the behaviour of bre reinforced shotcrete beam and
panel specimens. Mater Struct 2002;35(3):15664.
[28] Malhotra VM, Carette AGG, Bilodeau A. Mechanical properties and durability
of polypropylene ber reinforced highvolume y ash concrete for shotcrete
applications. ACI Mater J 1994;91(5):47886.
[29] Armelin HS, Helene P. Physical and mechanical properties of steelber
reinforced drymix shotcrete. ACI Mater J 1995;92(3):25867.
[30] Morgan DR. Steel ber reinforced shotcrete for support of underground
openings in Canada. Concr Int 1991;13(11):5564.
[31] Banthia N, Trottier JF, Wood D, Beaupre D. Inuence of ber geometry in steel
ber reinforced drymix shotcrete. Concr Int 1992;14(5):248.
[32] American Concrete Institute. State of the art report on ber reinforced
shotcrete, 506.1R98. AC1 Committee 506, American Concrete Institute,
Detroit, MI; 1998.
[33] Mechtcherine V. Novel cementbased composites for the strengthening and
repair of concrete structures. Constr Build Mater 2013;41:36573.
[34] Mobasher B. Mechanics of ber and textile reinforced cement composites. 1st
ed. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press; 2011.
[35] Glassbre Reinforced Concrete: practical design and structural analysis.
Dsseldorf: Publisher BetonVerlag; 1995.
[36] Sukontasukkul P, Pomchiengpin W, Songpiriyakij S. Postcrack (or postpeak)
exural response and toughness of ber reinforced concrete after exposure to
high temperature. Constr Build Mater 2010;24:196774.
[37] Sueki S, Soranakom C, Mobasher B, Peled A. Pulloutslip response of fabrics
embedded in a cement paste matrix. ASCE J Mater Civil Eng 2007;19(9)
[September 1].
[38] Li CY, Mobasher B. Finite element simulations of ber pullout toughening in
ber reinforced cement based composites. Adv Cem Bas Mater 1998;7:12332.
[39] Roesler J, Gaedicke C. Fiber reinforced concrete for aireld rigid pavements.
Technical Note 3 Center of Excellence for Airport Technology (CEAT), Urbana
(IL); October 2004. 11p.
[40] Mechtcherine V, Millon O, Butler M, Thoma K. Mechanical behaviour of strain
hardening cementbased composites under impact loading. Cem Concr
Compos 2011;33:111.
[41] Mobasher B, Li CY. Mechanical properties of hybrid cement based composites.
ACI Mater J 1996;93(3):28493.
[42] Buratti N, Mazzotti C, Savoia M. Postcracking behaviour of steel and macro
synthetic brereinforced concretes. Constr Build Mater 2011;25:271322.
[43] Soulioti DV, Barkoula NM, Paipetis A, Matikas TE. Effects of bre geometry and
volume fraction on the exural behaviour of steelbre reinforced concrete.
Strain 2011;47:e53541.
[44] Caggiano A, Cremona M, Faella C, Lima C, Martinelli E. Fracture behavior of
concrete beams reinforced with mixed long/short steel bers. Constr Build
Mater 2012;37:83240.
[45] Banthia N, Bindiganavile V. Repairing with hybridberreinforced concrete.
Concr Int 2001;23(6).
[46] ASTM C160910. Standard test method for exural performance of ber
reinforced concrete (using beam with thirdpoint loading). ASTM Standard
Book. V. 04.02; 2010.
[47] RILEM TC 162TDF, RILEM nal recommendations on test and design methods
for steel bre reinforced concrete: bending test, Materials and Structures,
2002;35:57982.
[48] Japanese Concrete Institute, JCISF4. Methods of tests for exural strength and
exural toughness of ber reinforced concrete (using beam with thirdpoint
loading). 1984; p. 4556.
[49] Kim DJ, Naaman AE, ElTawil S. Correlation between tensile and bending
behavior of FRC composites with scale effect. In: Proceedings of FraMCoS7,
7th international conference on fracture mechanics of concrete and concrete
structures. Jeju Island, South Korea. May 2328; 2010.
[50] Soranakom C, Mobasher B. Closed form solutions for exural response of ber
reinforced concrete beams. J Eng Mech 2007;133(8):93341.
[51] Soranakom C, Mobasher B. Closedform momentcurvature expressions for
homogenized berreinforced concrete. ACI Mater J 2007;104(4):3519.
[52] Soranakom C, Mobasher B, Bansal S. Effect of material nonlinearity on the
exural response of ber reinforced concrete. In: Proceeding of the eighth
international symposium on brittle matrix composites BMC8. Warsaw,
Poland; 2006. p. 8598.
[53] Soranakom C, Mobasher B. Correlation of tensile and exural responses of
strain softening and strain hardening cement composites. Cem Concr Compos
2008;30:46577.
252 B. Mobasher et al. / Construction and Building Materials 70 (2014) 243253
[54] Soranakom C, Mobasher B. Flexural analysis and design of textile reinforced
concrete. In: 4th Colloquium on textile reinforced structures (CTRS4). Dresden,
Germany; June 35 2009. p. 27388.
[55] Bakhshi M, Barsby C, Mobasher B. Backcalculation of tensile properties of
strain softening and hardening cement composites. In: ParraMontesinos GJ,
Reinhardt HW, Naaman AE, editors. High Performance ber reinforced cement
composites 6 (HPFRCC6). Ann Arbor, MI; 2012. p. 8390.
[56] Barros JAO, Cunha VMCF, Ribero AF, Antunes JAB. Postcracking behaviour of
steel bre reinforced concrete. Mater Struct 2004;37.
[57] b. Model Code 2010  First complete draft, vol. 1. Bulletin 2010;55:22031.
[58] Bakhshi M, Barsby C, Mobasher B. Comparative evaluation of early age
toughness parameters in ber reinforced concrete. Maters Struct
2014;47:85372.
B. Mobasher et al. / Construction and Building Materials 70 (2014) 243253 253