TECHNIQUES

by J.P.J.G. Ferreira and F.A.B. Branco

THE USE OF GLASS FIBERREINFORCED CONCRETE

AS A STRUCTURAL MATERIAL

lass fiberreinforced concrete (GRC) consists basically of a cementitious matrix composed of cement,
sand, water, and admixtures, in which shortlength glass fibers are dispersed. The effect of the
fibers in this composite leads to an increase in the tension and
impact strength of the material (Bentur and Mindess1). GRC
has been used for over 30 years in several construction elements, mainly nonstructural ones, like facade panels (about
80% of the GRC production), piping for sanitation network
systems, decorative nonrecoverable formwork, and other
products (Bentur and Mindess1).
In the beginning of the GRC development, one of the most
concerning problems was the durability of the glass fibers,
which became fragile with time, due to the alkalinity of the
cement mortar. Since then, significant progresses have been
made, and presently, the problem is practically solved with
the new types of alkali-resistant glass fibers and with mortar
additives that prevent the processes that lead to the embrittlement of GRC (Bentur and Mindess1, Majumdar and
Ryder2, Cem-FIL3, Liang et al.4).
The light-weight characteristics and improved tensile
strength of GRC as compared with concrete led to a recent
research program to study the viability of its use as a structural material (Ferreira,5 Branco et al.,68 Branco,9 Viegas,10
Cian and Della Bella11). The research was developed in association with concrete precast companies for which the referred
improved characteristics are especially appealing as the
reduced weight of the precast elements is important for transportation and installation. To obtain a GRC with high durability, reinforcement systems were also analyzed, considering
carbon or glass strands and stainless steel bars, leading to
corrosion-free solutions (Ferreira5).
Although some of the average mechanical properties of GRC
are known (Cem-FIL3 and Knowles12), currently used for nonstructural elements, when structural design is considered,
a much more complete characterization is needed. Experimental tests were then performed on GRC specimens to determine its mechanical strength, Youngs modulus, creep and
shrinkage behavior, and stressstrain diagrams.
As the material characteristics were very much dependent on
the production procedures, the experimental tests had to consider cementitious matrix with different plain mortar productions, with several types of glass fibers and reinforced with
carbon or glass strands or with steel elements. These tests led
to a characterization of the production conditions to obtain
optimized material properties.
J.P.J.G. Ferreira (assistant professor) and F.A.B. Branco (full professor, vicechairman of the IABSE Technical Commission, member of ACI Committee No.
342 on Evaluation of Concrete Bridges, member of the CSCE and RILEM, and
chairman of the Civil Engineering Division of the Portuguese Association of
Engineers) are affiliated with the Department of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Technical University of Lisbon, Instituto Superior Tecnico, ICIST, Lisboa,
Portugal.

64

EXPERIMENTAL TECHNIQUES May/June 2007

PRODUCTION OF GRC
There are two main production techniques of GRC, usually
referred as spray-up and premix (Bentur and Mindess,1 and
Cem-FIL3). In the spray-up process, the mortar is produced
separately from the fibers, which are mixed only at the jet of
the spray gun. The glass fiber strands are cut within the spray
gun to the required size, typically between 25 mm (0.98 inch)
and 40 mm (1.57 inch), and are about 5% of the GRC total
weight. The subsequent compaction with a cylindrical roll
guarantees the adaptation of GRC to the form, the impregnation of the fibers within the mortar, the removal of the air
retained within the mix, and an adequate density.
In the GRC production method by premixture, mortar and
precut fibers are previously mixed. The quantity of fibers
added to the mortar is usually up to 3.5%, in terms of weight,
and the length of the fibers is around 12 mm (0.47 inch).
Longer fibers lead to an excessive reduction of the mixs workability. Production with premix GRC may involve several procedures such as injection and vibration, pressing, or
shotcreting (Fig. 1).
Production of GRC with homogeneous characteristics
requires a strict quality control, at the production stage and
in the final products. The European Standard EN 116913 or
the International Glassfiber Reinforced Concrete Association14 provide fundamental guidance and establish the general rules for production of GRC. The European Standard EN
1170, parts 1 to 7,15 establishes the specific test methods for
control of GRC. At the production stage, the most important
parameters to control are the composition of slurry, the relation between fiber and slurry delivery rates (bag test and
bucket test, respectively), and the workability (slump test).
The final products have to be tested, namely, in terms of surface finish, dimensional tolerances, density, and strength.
The most widespread strength control is the flexural test, to
be performed also according to the European Standard EN
1170.15
The production of GRC with the above methods leads to the
general average values for its properties (Table 1; Knowles12),
values that will be analyzed with experimental tests in the
following.

COMPRESSION BEHAVIOR TESTS

Youngs Modulus
Tests were performed to determine the Youngs modulus
of GRC, following the national standard LNEC E397,16 for
concrete.
The cylindrical specimens (Fig. 2) were produced with the
spray-up method by injecting cylindrical molds. The mortar
composition considered was as follows: white cement type BR
I 42,5R, 100 kg (220 pounds); sand, 100 kg (220 pounds);
polymer water dispersion Primal MC 76 S, 6.0 L (366 inch3);
doi: 10.1111/j.1747-1567.2007.00153.x

2007, Society for Experimental Mechanics

USE OF GRC AS A STRUCTURAL

MATERIAL

Compression Strength
Compression strength was obtained with spray-up and premix specimens. The compositions of each production technique were optimized, based on former experience and on
workability tests. The specimens were tested according to
the national standard LNEC E226.18
Four series of specimens were tested (Table 2). Spray-up GRC
mortar was identical to the one used for Youngs modulus
determination, while premix GRC mortar had the following:
white cement type BR I 42,5R, 100 kg; sand, 67 kg
(148 pounds); polymer Primal MC 76 S, 1.8 L (110 inch3);
fluidizer type Sikament: 163, 1.0 L (61 inch3); and water,
29 L (1770 inch3).
The plain mortar specimens (without fiber reinforcement) had
an explosive rupture, while the GRC ones, despite the crack
pattern, almost maintained the initial shape at rupture,
denoting a much more ductile behavior (Fig. 3). This distinct
type of GRC behavior, when compared to that of the plain
mortar, is relevant for structural use and will be highlighted
in the analysis of the stressstrain diagrams.
Based on the strength tests results, the average value (fm) and
characteristic value at 95% (fk) were determined (Table 2).
Fig. 1: Production of element with spray-up GRC13

fluidizer type Sikament: 163, 10.0 L (610 inch3); water, 34 L

(2075 inch3); and fiber, 45% Cem-FIL 53/76. The water dispersion of an acrylic polymer was added to achieve improved
durability by sealing the cementitious matrix.
Values of Youngs modulus for spray-up GRC around 17 GPa
(2466 3 103 psi) were obtained, which are within the average
values (Table 1). These values are approximately half of those
usually obtained for concrete and similar to those usually
obtained for current mortars without coarse aggregates
(Coutinho and Gonc
xalves17), which means that the structural
elements fabricated with GRC will be more flexible than concrete elements, which can even be more important in thinner
elements.

The results show that GRC strength is comparable to that

obtained for good quality concrete. The compression strengths
of premix and spray-up plain mortars are greater than the
corresponding values obtained for GRC specimens. The loss
of compression strength caused by the presence of fibers may
be due to a less compaction of the material associated to the
spaces occupied by the glass fibers.

StressStrain Diagrams
The tests to determine the stressstrain behavior in compression of GRC were performed according to the standard test for
compression strength but maintaining the load application
after the maximum forced is reached in order to assess the
postpeak behavior.
Five specimens were tested to determine the stressstrain
behavior in compression. Three of these specimens were

Table 1Typical values of some GRC properties12,14

PROPERTY

GRC SPRAY-UP

Dry density, kN/m3 (pci)

GRC PREMIX

1921 (108120)

1920 (108114)

Compression strength, MPa (psi)

5080 (725211603)

4060 (58028702)

Youngs modulus (compression), GPa (psi)

1020 (1450 3 1023 to 2901 3 1023)

1318 (1885 3 1023 to 2611 3 1023)

Impact strength, Nmm/mm (pound inch/inch )

1025 (57.1142.8)

Poisson ratio

0.24

Bendinglimit of linearity, MPa (psi)

Bendingmaximum strength, MPa (psi)
Direct tensionmaximum strength, MPa (psi)
Direct tensionmaximum extension (%)

814 (45.779.9)
0.24

711 (10151595)

58 (7251160)

2131 (30464496)

1014 (14502031)

811 (11601595)
0.61.2

47 (5801015)
0.10.2

May/June 2007 EXPERIMENTAL TECHNIQUES

65

USE OF GRC AS A STRUCTURAL

MATERIAL

compression strength, it ensures a better behavior in the postpeak zone, namely, preventing its fragmentation. This phenomenon is particularly important for thin-wall structural
elements, where crack propagation may lead to a disaggregation of the elements, leading to a premature collapse, and has
to be taken into account when modeling GRC compression
behavior.

TENSILE STRENGTH TESTS

The tensile behavior of GRC is one of the most important
parameters when considering its structural use. It has been
recognized (Chanvillard19 and Banthia et al.20) that the standard flexural tests do not provide reliable values of tension
strength and should be used mainly for quality control. On the
other hand, pure tensile tests are not usually performed
because of their operative difficulty. The tensile tests presented in this paper were performed using a tension-testing
machine (Fig. 5) with controlled pressure hydraulic grabs.
The specimens were 30 cm (11.8 inch) long, generally with
cross-section of 1 3 5 cm (0.39 3 1.97 inch). A large number
of tests were carried out to analyze different aspects, namely,
production techniques, compositions, aging, and continuous
reinforcement.

Plain Spray-Up GRC

The composition used in the spray-up GRC specimens was
equal to that referred in Compression Behavior Tests. The
different series are distinguished by the type, quantity (percentage of total weight) and length of dispersed fibers, and
type of sand (regular or sieved).
The two different types of fibers correspond to Cem-FIL fiber
roving designated, respectively, as Cem-FIL 53/76 and CemFIL 250/5. The first type is the most commonly used in GRC
hand-spray process, while Cem-FIL 250/5 presents improved
long-term strength.

Fig. 2: Tests to determine Youngs modulus

composed by premix GRC (series F), while the other two
(series G) were made of plain mortar. All specimens of series
F and G were produced following, respectively, the compositions of series A and E indicated for compression strength
evaluation.
Figure 4 shows the stressstrain diagrams obtained in these
tests, which clearly reflect the different type of collapse mode
depending on whether the fibers are present or not. Greater
ductility of GRC was seen when compared with plain mortar
(right diagram) that collapses when maximum force is reached.
Although the presence of the fibers leads to a reduction of

Within each series, all the specimens have identical characteristics. Table 3 presents the results (average [fm] and characteristic [fk] tension strength values) for each series within
each group.
These results show that the increase of fiber length and of
fiber percentage have, in general, a positive effect on the tension strength of the material (series 18). However, the use of
63 mm (2.48 inch)long fibers imply some production difficulties, namely, a decrease of workability, a more difficult fiber
impregnation, and more air trapping. Sieving the sand did
not have a favorable effect on tension strength (comparison
of series 5 with series 9 and 10), although a fibermatrix

Table 2Compression tests specimens

SERIES

NO. OF
SPECIMENS

PRODUCTION
TECHNIQUE

PERCENTAGE
OF FIBERS

Premix

2.5

Spray-up

45

10

66

LENGTH OF
FIBERS, mm (inch)

12 (0.47)
31 or 63 (1.22 or 2.48)

fm, MPa (psi)

fk, MPa (psi)

40.9 (5932)

36.1 (5236)

37.4 (5424)

32.6 (4728)

Premix (mortar)

51.8 (7513)

50.6 (7339)

Spray-up (mortar)

58.3 (8456)

43.7 (6338)

EXPERIMENTAL TECHNIQUES May/June 2007

USE OF GRC AS A STRUCTURAL

MATERIAL

Fig. 3: GRC (a) and plain mortar (b) ruptured specimens

50

50

Plain Mortar

Stress (MPa)

Stress (MPa)

Premix GRC
40
30
20
10

40
30
20
10
0

0
0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

Strain (m/m)

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

Strain (m/m)

Fig. 4: Stressstrain diagrams of premix GRC and of plain mortar

adherence increase was expected. Substituting fibers of type
53/76 by those of type 250/5 implied, in general, an increase on
tension strength (comparison of series 9 with series 11 and of
series 10 with 12).

Plain Premix GRC

The composition of premix specimens was equal to that
referred in Compression Behavior Tests but with a fiber incorporation of only 2.5%. This change proved to be necessary to
increase the workability and fiber dispersion regarding the
thickness of the structural elements to be fabricated. Table 4
shows the results obtained for the two tested series with differences in the specimens cross-section.

Fig. 5: Tension tests set up

Tension strength values of premix GRC are smaller, especially when compared to those obtained for spray-up GRC.
However, to produce considerable quantities of GRC for structural elements, this is a much more convenient method. The
tension strength, in this case, may be achieved by continuous
reinforcing elements. The dispersed glass fibers still have the
role of preventing premature disaggregation by microcracking propagation and increase the impact strength and energy
dissipation capacity of GRC.

Reinforced Spray-Up GRC

The test series of reinforced spray-up specimens were divided
in two groups, being the first with carbon strands reinforcement and the second with glass fiber strands (Tables 5 and 6).
The carbon fiber strands type Torayca T700SC-24000-50C
used in the tests have a tension strength of 4.893 kN (1100
pounds) (maximum stress of 5420 MPa [785.9 3 103 psi],
cross-section of 0.928 mm2 [1.44 3 1023 inch2]), ultimate extension of 2.3%, and Youngs modulus of 232 GPa21 (33.6 3
106 psi). The glass fiber strands used as continuous reinforcement, Cem-FIL 53/76, have a tension strength of 1.554 kN
(349 pounds) (maximum stress of 1700 MPa [246.5 3 103 psi],
cross-section of 0.914 mm2 [1.42 3 1023 inch2]), ultimate extension of 2.4%, and Youngs modulus of 72 GPa10 (10443 3 103
psi). Different reinforcement patterns were considered,
attempting to achieve optimized adherence to the matrix.
The sinusoidal layout indicates a longitudinal pattern
where the same strand passes different times along the length
of the specimen, without being cut at its ends. When fiber at
458 is indicated, the strands are positioned obliquely to the
longitudinal axes. In some cases, the reinforcing fibers were
May/June 2007 EXPERIMENTAL TECHNIQUES

67

USE OF GRC AS A STRUCTURAL

MATERIAL

Table 3Spray-up GRC tension test results

SERIES

NO. OF
SPECIMENS NS

PERCENTAGE
OF FIBERS

TYPE OF
FIBERS

LENGTH OF
FIBERS, mm (inch)

SAND SIEVE,
mm (inch

fm, MPa (psi)

fk, MPa (psi)

10

5.2

Cem-FIL 53/76

63 (2.48)

Nonsieved, ,1.0 (,0.039)

7.6 (1102)

5.6 (812)

10

4.0

Cem-FIL 53/76

31 (1.22)

Nonsieved, ,1.0 (,0.039)

5.3 (769)

4.4 (638)

10

4.4

Cem-FIL 53/76

31 (1.22)

Nonsieved, ,1.0 (,0.039)

5.3 (769)

3.3 (479)

10

4.6

Cem-FIL 53/76

63 (2.48)

Nonsieved, ,1.0 (,0.039)

5.9 (856)

4.4 (638)

5.0

Cem-FIL 53/76

31 (1.22)

Nonsieved, ,1.0 (,0.039)

8.0 (1160)

6.9 (1001)

5.0

Cem-FIL 53/76

63 (2.48)

Nonsieved, ,1.0 (,0.039)

10.5 (1523)

8.6 (1247)

4.0

Cem-FIL 53/76

63 (2.48)

Nonsieved, ,1.0 (,0.039)

9.9 (1436)

7.9 (1146)

4.0

Cem-FIL 53/76

31 (1.22)

Nonsieved, ,1.0 (,0.039)

6.3 (914)

4.4 (638)

10

5.0

Cem-FIL 53/76

31 (1.22)

Sieved, 0.6 (0.024)

7.9 (1146)

7.3 (1059)

10

10

5.0

Cem-FIL 53/76

31 (1.22)

Sieved, 0.3 (0.012)

6.8 (986)

5.4 (783)

11

10

5.0

Cem-FIL 250/5

31 (1.22)

Sieved, 0.6 (0.024)

8.1 (1175)

6.4 (928)

12

10

5.0

Cem-FIL 250/5

31 (1.22)

Sieved, 0.3 (0.012)

7.5 (1088)

6.4 (928)

Table 4Series of premix GRC specimens subjected

to tension tests
NO. OF
CROSS-SECTION,
SERIES SPECIMENS mm 3 mm (inch 3 inch)

fm, MPa
(psi)

fk, MPa (psi)

25

18

50 3 15 (1.97 3 0.59)

3.9 (566)

2.6 (377)

26

14

40 3 10 (1.57 3 0.39)

3.4 (493)

2.5 (363)

slightly wet in order to increase their adherence to the cementitious matrix. These patterns are illustrated in Fig. 6. The
specimens of each type were produced together on the same
steel mold and were individualized by sewing, after curing.
The fibers were positioned after projecting and compacting
half thickness of the specimens. GRC was again projected
and compacted until the specimens final thickness was
achieved. In all cases, the fibers were manually tensioned
when placed in the molds in order to ensure their efficacy
for specimens tension strength.
The results obtained show that the use of carbon strands
increases the tension strength of the specimens, although
its effectiveness strongly depends on the anchoring type adopted. The sinusoidal pattern proved to be the best anchoring

Table 5Series of spray-up GRC specimens with carbon fiber strands reinforcement
NO. OF
PERCENTAGE
SERIES SPECIMENS OF FIBERS

TYPE OF
FIBERS

LENGTH OF
FIBERS, mm (inch)

SAND SIEVE,
mm (inch)

REINFORCEMENT

fm, MPa (psi) fk, MPa (psi)

13

15

5.0

Cem-FIL 250/5

31 (1.22)

Sieved, 0.6 (0.024) 1 longitudinal

carbon strand

10.3 (1494)

8.7 (1262)

14

10

5.0

Cem-FIL 250/5

31 (1.22)

Sieved, 0.3 (0.012) 1 longitudinal

carbon strand

8.6 (1247)

6.2 (899)

15

5.0

Cem-FIL 250/5

31 (1.22)

Sieved, 0.6 (0.024) wet carbon strands 45

7.3 (1059)

5.3 (769)

16

10

5.0

Cem-FIL 250/5

31 (1.22)

Sieved, 0.6 (0.024) 4 wet sinusoidal

carbon strands

13.2 (1915)

9.1 (1320)

17

5.0

Cem-FIL 250/5

31 (1.22)

Sieved, 0.6 (0.024) 5 longitudinal wet

torsioned carbon strands

14.5 (2103) 11.9 (1726)

18

11

5.0

Cem-FIL 250/5

31 (1.22)

Siliceous sand,
3 longitudinal wet
,0.3 (,0.012)
torsioned strands

19

5.0

Cem-FIL 250/5

31 (1.22)

Siliceous sand,
3 wet sinusoidal
,0.3 (,0.012)
carbon strands

20

10

5.0

Cem-FIL 250/5

31 (1.22)

Siliceous sand,
3 longitudinal wet torsioned
,0.3 (,0.012)
carbon strands with knots
every 5 cm

68

EXPERIMENTAL TECHNIQUES May/June 2007

5.6 (812)

4.4 (638)

16.3 (2364) 12.6 (1827)

5.1 (740)

3.9 (566)

USE OF GRC AS A STRUCTURAL

MATERIAL

Table 6Series of spray-up GRC specimens with glass fiber strands reinforcement
NO. OF
PERCENTAGE
SERIES SPECIMENS
OF FIBERS

TYPE OF
FIBERS

LENGTH OF
FIBERS, mm (inch)

SAND SIEVE,
mm (inch)

REINFORCEMENT

21

4.0

Cem-FIL 53/76

31 (1.22)

Nonsieved

22

11

5.0

Cem-FIL 250/5

31 (1.22)

Siliceous sand,
3 longitudinal wet torsioned
,0.3 (,0.012)
glass fiber strands

23

10

5.0

Cem-FIL 250/5

31 (1.22)

Siliceous sand,
3 wet sinusoidal
,0.3 (,0.012)
glass fiber strands

24

10

5.0

Cem-FIL 250/5

31 (1.22)

Siliceous sand,
3 longitudinal wet torsioned
,0.3 (,0.012)
glass strands with knots
every 5 cm (1.97 inch)

GRC

Continuous fiber

Sinusoidal pattern

1 longitudinal glass
fiber strand

GRC

fm, MPa
(psi)

fk, MPa
(psi)

8.0 (1160)

7.3 (1059)

5.6 (812)

4.8 (696)

12.3 (1784) 10.8 (1566)

6.1 (885)

5.3 (769)

Fiber tendons

Fiber at 45 pattern

Fig. 6: Patterns of continuous reinforcement

Table 7Series of reinforced premix GRC specimens subjected to tension tests

SERIES

NO. OF SPECIMENS

27

17

28

13

29

30

16

CROSS-SECTION, mm 3 mm
(inch 3 inch)

fm, MPa (psi)

fk, MPa (psi)

1 carbon strand

50 3 15 (1.97 3 0.59)

4.2 (609)

3.3 (479)

REINFORCEMENT

1 carbon strand

40 3 10 (1.57 3 0.39)

5.0 (725)

3.7 (537)

1 carbon strand and

1 f3 mmsteel bar

50 3 15 (1.97 3 0.59)

7.3 (1059)

5.5 (798)

1 f3 mmsteel bar

40 3 10 (1.57 3 0.39)

6.2 (899)

5.0 (725)

system, followed by the simple longitudinal layout, the knot

arrangement, and the 458 pattern. Torsioning the strands did
not lead to noticeable increase of the strength. The total
strength of the carbon strands was never completely mobilized. Tension strength is practically not affected by the type
of dispersed glass fibers.

tension strength value is not changed by the presence of continuous reinforcement and that the increment on tension
strength of the specimens is mainly due to the reinforcement,
the rupture force of these elements was determined. Based on
that force and on the tension strength of the fibers, it can be

The use of glass fiber strands showed similar effects but with
lower increase in the tension strength of GRC.

Reinforced Premix GRC

The four series of reinforced premix GRC specimens (Table 7)
correspond, respectively, to reinforcements with one simple
carbon strand with no special anchoring scheme, one carbon
strand with a 3 mm (0.12 inch)diameter stainless steel bar,
and one single stainless steel bar.
The results show that the reinforcement increases the specimens tension strength. Considering that the plain GRC

Fig. 7: Slipping of continuous reinforcing elements in GRC

specimens
May/June 2007 EXPERIMENTAL TECHNIQUES

69

USE OF GRC AS A STRUCTURAL

MATERIAL

seen that the carbon strands are tensioned to 1113% of their

capacity. In the case of steel bars, this value is 59%, in the
series with carbon strands, and 29% in the series without
carbon strands. This difference between the steel stresses in
both cases is due to a better anchoring in the series with
carbon strand, where the steel bar had hooked ends.
This effect is partially related to the reduced length of the
specimens, which prevents the adequate anchoring of the
reinforcement. This fact is illustrated in Fig. 7, which shows
three specimens, with continuous reinforcement (one longitudinal carbon strand, one longitudinal steel bar, and both elements together, respectively), tested in tension, where the slip
of the reinforcement is evident.
Anchoring schemes that prevent excessive slip of reinforcing
elements can be used to increase their efficiency in tension
behavior, as demonstrated for spray-up specimens. It is
expected, however, that in real structural applications, this
problem can be less important if the anchoring of the continuous elements is in a nontensioned zone.

CREEP BEHAVIOR TESTS

Because some of the structural uses of GRC include prestressed elements, evaluation of creep behavior was required
to evaluate long-term losses. For this purpose, two specimens
were tested during 5 months under a constant load. To ensure
the stability of applied compressive stress, the specimens
were subjected to a gravity load of 85 kN (19,109 pounds),
as shown in Fig. 8. The strain variation in a control specimen
was also measured to evaluate the strain component due to
shrinkage and temperature variation.
To evaluate the creep coefficient for loads applied in different
ages, two specimens were loaded, one 8 days after production
(S1) and the other 28 days afterward (S3). With this procedure, the creep coefficient for loads applied on the 8th
and 28th days was obtained. The test procedures were based
in the national standard LNEC E399,22 for creep evaluation
in concrete, and LNEC E398,23 for shrinkage evaluation of
concrete.
Creep tests were performed on standard cylindrical specimens
of spray-up GRC, with the same mortar composition indicated
in Compression Behavior Tests, with 4% of 31 mm (1.22 inch)
long fibers. Figure 9 shows the tests results, where f(t) represents the creep coefficient, defined as the relation between
creep strain and instantaneous elastic strain.

Fig. 8: Specimens subjected to creep test

and built with three segments, produced separately and

prestressed longitudinally. The thin-walled cross-section
is externally a polygon with 12 sides and internally circular
(Fig. 11). The cross-section dimensions vary progressively
along the tower height. The wall thickness in the thinnest
zone is 0.03 m (1.18 inch). The tower segments are built
by injecting premix GRC in a mold. The reinforcing elements were previously placed in the mold connected
slightly tensioned to transverse stainless steel bars located
at its ends.

3.5
S1

S3

3.0
2.5

(t)

It can be observed that creep coefficient values are comparable to those usually obtained in concrete. The type of curve is
also similar to that of concrete, where the curves slope
decreases with time, nearly following a logarithmic curve.
The values indicate that the creep deformation decreases with
the age of the material when the load is applied.

2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5

APPLICATION TO A TOWER DESIGN

0.0
0

20

40

Prototypes
One of the first prototypes built with structural GRC was
a telecommunication tower (Fig. 10), 30-m (118.1 inch) high

70

EXPERIMENTAL TECHNIQUES May/June 2007

60

80

100

Age (days)

Fig. 9: Creep tests results

120

140

160

USE OF GRC AS A STRUCTURAL

MATERIAL

wind tunnel tests were carried out to obtain realistic wind

shape factors (Ferreira5).
The strength of the pre-stressed GRC was not enough to support the wind effects and supplementary reinforcing elements
had to be placed. In the prototype, the use of ordinary steel
bars was avoided for durability reasons and to prevent electro-magnetic interferences. Instead, carbon tendons (same
type of those used in tension specimens) were used as longitudinal reinforcement along the tower height, with supplementary stainless steel bars in the most tensioned zones.
The amount of reinforcement was established based on the
results of the tests previously presented and on numerical
models specifically developed for designing the tower crosssections (Ferreira5).

Numerical Model
A numerical model was developed to simulate the collapse
behavior of the tower cross-sections, considering a uniaxial
material behavior with a parabolic-constant diagram in compression (with similar shape as for concrete) and by a linear
diagram in tension, based on the experimental results of small
specimens. This numerical model allowed the evaluation of
the MN (bending moment versus axial load) curves considering that collapse occurs when GRC ultimate strain in tension or compression occurs in the outside fiber. Figure 12
shows the collapse curves obtained for several cross-sections
(distance to tower top indicated) along the tower height.
Fig. 10: Prototype tower

Design
The tower was designed with the national code for actions
(INCM24), namely, considering the effects of self-weight and
wind pressure. Due to the tower geometry, including antennas and stairs, the wind action simulation was complex and

The model accuracy was also tested with the experimental

collapse of tower segments and the differences between the
collapse bending moments predicted by the numerical models
and those obtained experimentally (Fig. 13) were less than
5%. Based on these results, the numerical model was adopted
for the towers design.

CONCLUSIONS
An experimental test program carried out on small specimens
allowed for the assessment of the main mechanical characteristics of GRC concerning its structural use. The GRC compositions of the final tested specimens were achieved based on
an optimization of the fabrication procedures and on previous
test results.
R
1000

Axial Load (kN)

0
-1000
-2000
-3000

200
0,0 m
5,5 m

400
6,5 m
18,5 m

600

800

1000

1200

1400

18,5 m
30,0 m

-4000
-5000
-6000

Bending Moment (kN.m)

Fig. 11: Tower cross-section

Fig. 12: MN curves for the tower cross-sections

May/June 2007 EXPERIMENTAL TECHNIQUES

71

USE OF GRC AS A STRUCTURAL

MATERIAL

Fig. 13: Examples of collapse tests on telecommunication towers

Although the tests performed in this study have shown that

spray-up GRC presents a better behavior than premix GRC,
namely, for tension loads, this last technique is better adapted
to the production of structural elements, especially for important volumes of material. This study also analyzed the effectiveness of the reinforcing elements introduced in GRC for
structural elements.
The results obtained in small specimens were used in
a numerical model to obtain the design bending moment versus axial load collapse curves of GRC telecommunication towers cross-sections. The results given by the numerical model
closely match the cross-sections resistance evaluated in the
experimental collapse tests of prototype towers, and the
numerical models were then adopted for the towers design.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors thank the financial support from FCT (Fundacx ao
para a Ciencia e Tecnologia) and from the European Commission for the research developed within project PRAXIS/P/
ECM/14046/1998.

REFERENCES
1. Bentur, A., and Mindess, S., Fiber Reinforced Cementitious
Composites, Elsevier Applied Science, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
(1990).
2. Majumdar, A., and Ryder, J., Glassfiber Reinforcement for
Cement Products, Glass Technology 9(3):7884 (1968).
3. Cem-FIL GRC Technical Data, Cem-FIL International Ltd,
Vetrotex, UK (1998).
4. Liang, A., Cheng, J., Hu, Y., and Luo, H.,Improved Properties of GRC Composites Using Commercial E-glass Fibers with New
Coatings, Materials Research Bulletin 37(4):641646 (2002).

72

EXPERIMENTAL TECHNIQUES May/June 2007

5. Ferreira, J., Structural Characterization of Glass-fiber Reinforced Concrete (GRC). Application to Telecommunications Towers
(available in Portuguese), PhD thesis, Instituto Superior Tecnico,
Lisbon, Portugal (2002).
6. Branco, F., Ferreira, J., and Calado, L., Structural Behaviour
of Prestressed GRC Towers, Proceedings of the 12th International
Congress of the International Glassfiber Reinforced Concrete Association, Dublin, 1323, GRCA International, Camberley, UK (2001).
7. Branco, F., Ferreira, J., Brito, J., and Santos, J., Building
Structures with GRC, Proceedings of CIB World Building Congress, Wellington, 11, CIB, Rotterdam, The Netherlands (2001).
8. Branco, F., Ferreira, J., Brito, J., and Santos, J., The Use of
GRC as a Structural Material, Proceedings of Symposium on
Mechanics of Composite Materials and Structures, Coimbra, Portugal, 12, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal (1999).
9. Branco, F., and Ferreira, J., Experimental Testing of a GRC
Access Ramp for Pedestrian Bridges, Report ICIST EP 55/01, IST,
Lisbon, Portugal (2001).
10. Viegas, J., Production Control of GFRC Structural Components in Portugal, Proceedings of the 12th International Congress
of the International Glassfiber Reinforced Concrete Association,
Dublin, 3340, GRCA International, Camberley, UK (2001).
11. Cian, D., and Della Bella, B., Structural Applications of GRC
for Precast Floors, Proceedings of the 12th International Congress
of the International Glassfiber Reinforced Concrete Association,
Dublin, 4152, GRCA International, Camberley, UK (2001).
12. Knowles, E., Recommended Practice for Glass Fiber Reinforced Concrete Panels, Committee on Glass Fiber Reinforced Concrete Panels, PCI, Chicago, IL (1987).
13. CEN, EN 1169:1999, Precast Concrete ProductsGeneral Rules
for Factory Production Control of Glass-fiber Reinforced Cement, CEN,
Brussels, Belgium (1999).
14. International Glassfiber Reinforced Concrete Association,
Specification for the Manufacture, Curing and Testing of GRC Products, 2nd ed., GRCA International, Camberley, UK (2000).
15. CEN, EN 1170: 1998: Parts 1-7: Precast Concrete Products:
Test Methods for Glass-fiber Reinforced Cement, CEN, Brussels,
Belgium (1998).

USE OF GRC AS A STRUCTURAL

MATERIAL
16. Laboratorio Nacional de Engenharia Civil, E397 Standard
Assessment of Compressive Youngs Modulus in Concrete (available
in Portuguese), Laboratorio Nacional de Engenharia Civil, Lisbon,
Portugal (1993).
17. Coutinho, A., and Goncxalves, A., Production and Properties of
Concrete (available in Portuguese), Laboratorio Nacional de Engenharia CivilLNEC, Lisbon, Portugal (1994).
18. Laboratorio Nacional de Engenharia Civil, E226 Standard
Compression Tests in Concrete (available in Portuguese), Laboratorio Nacional de Engenharia Civil, Lisbon, Portugal (1993).
19. Chanvillard, G., Caracterisation des performances dun
beton renforce de fibers a` partir dun essai de flexion. Partie 1: De
la subjectivite des indices de tenacite, Materials and Structures
32:418426 (1999).

20. Banthia, N., Moncef, A., Chokri, K., and Sheng, J., Uniaxial
Tensile Response of Microfiber Reinforced Cement Composites,
Materials and Structures 28:507517 (1995).
21. Toray Industries, Inc., Torayca Technical Reference Manual,
Toray Industries, Tokyo, Japan (1997).
22. Laboratorio Nacional de Engenharia Civil, E399 Standard
Assessment of Creep Coefficient in Compression (available in Portuguese),
Laboratorio Nacional de Engenharia Civil, Lisbon, Portugal (1993).
23. Laboratorio Nacional de Engenharia Civil, E398 Standard
Assessment of Retraction and Expansion in Concrete (available in Portuguese), Laboratorio Nacional de Engenharia Civil, Lisbon, Portugal.
24. Imprensa Nacional Casa da Moeda, RSACode for Safety
and Actions of Buildings and Bridges Structures (in Portuguese),
DL 235/83, Portugal (1983). n

May/June 2007 EXPERIMENTAL TECHNIQUES

73