Proceedings of the Fifth North American Conference on the Design and Use of Self-Consolidating Concrete, Chicago, Illinois, USA,

May 12–15,
2012 – Rambo, Silva and Toledo

Effect of hybrid steel-fiber reinforcement on material and structural performance of self-

consolidating concretes

Dimas Alan Strauss Rambo1, Flávio de Andrade Silva2 and Romildo Dias Toledo Filho3
1
Doctoral Student, Civil Engineering Department - COPPE - Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, P.O. Box
68506, CEP 21941-972, Rio de Janeiro – RJ, Brazil,
[email protected]
2
Professor, Civil Engineering Department - COPPE - Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, P.O. Box 68506,
CEP 21941-972, Rio de Janeiro – RJ, Brazil,
[email protected]
3
Professor, Civil Engineering Department - COPPE - Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, P.O. Box 68506,
CEP 21941-972, Rio de Janeiro – RJ, Brazil,
[email protected]

ABSTRACT:
The objective of this research is to evaluate the effect of hybridization of steel fibers on the rheological properties
and on the mechanical behavior of self-consolidating concretes in the material and structural scale. Straight and
hooked end steel fibers with different lengths were used as reinforcement in fiber volume fractions of 1.0 and 1.5%.
In the fresh state the concrete was characterized using a parallel plate rheometer, slump flow, L-box and V-funnel
tests. Following, the mechanical response was characterized under compression, tension and four point bending tests.
The structural tests, based on ASTM 1550, were performed in three different boundary conditions: with three
supports, six supports and fully supported. The obtained results indicated that the fiber hybridization can increase the
serviceability limit state while the structural testing allowed a formation of a multiple cracking pattern which was not
observed in the small beam tests. The observed cracking formation in the structural tests contributed to a significant
large scale ductile behavior.

Keywords: Flexural beam test, round panel test, crack formation, self-consolidating concrete, hybrid reinforcement,
steel fibers

1
Proceedings of the Fifth North American Conference on the Design and Use of Self-Consolidating Concrete, Chicago, Illinois, USA, May 12–15,
2012 – Rambo, Silva and Toledo

INTRODUCTION

The production of hybrid fiber reinforced self-consolidating concretes aims to combine the mechanical properties of
two or more different fibers to the rheological characteristics of self-consolidating matrices. Hybrid reinforcement
systems can be used in order to take advantage of each individual fiber properties1, which depend on the shape, type,
size and the volume fraction of the used fibers2. These systems can improve not only flexural and tensile strength,
but can also lead to a change in the cracking mechanisms. The manufacturing, the fiber dispersion and the fiber
orientation are very important to improve the post-cracking response of the fiber reinforced concrete3. Thus, the
rheological properties of the matrices should be suitable for the fiber addition 4.

The mechanical behavior of fiber reinforced concrete is usually evaluated using bending tests, mostly performed in
small prisms. This type of test does not represent the real structural behavior because it results in a different cracking
mechanism and normally leads to a higher dispersion on experimental results3,5,6,7. Structural or quasi-full scale tests
as ASTM C15508, however, have greater representativity in relation to the concrete volume, failure mechanisms and
toughness.

As reported by Bernard6 the mechanical tests need to reflect the material variations and not variations associated to
the test method. Round panel tests (fully supported) were performed in steel fiber reinforced concretes with different
dimensions. Results indicate that the main advantage of this test is to allow the detection of a multiple crack pattern
which is not observed in tests with small beams. Bernard9 investigated the influence of support conditions on flexural
and shear behavior of round steel fiber reinforced concrete slabs. According to the author, bending tests on panels
supported on three points show a consistent failure mode and allows a more reliable measure of the concrete
performance when compared to alternative methods of support. Minelli 5 performed a comparison between round
panel and flexural beam tests. Results reported that the geometry and fracture area involved in round panel tests leads
to a lower dispersion resulting in a better representation of the real structural behavior.

In this context, the effects of the steel fiber hybridization on the rheological and mechanical properties of self-
consolidating FRC were evaluated in the present work. Two different hybrid FRC systems were produced, using
straight and hooked end steel fibers with different lengths, in fiber volume fractions of 1.0 and 1.5 %. In the fresh
state the concrete was characterized using a parallel plate rheometer, slump flow, L-box and V-funnel tests.
Mechanical tests were realized in the structural and materials scale and the changes in the cracking mechanisms were
investigated.

EXPERIMENTIAL WORK

Materials and mix design

The compressible packing model (CPM) developed by de Larrard and his collaborators was used in this research to
design the matrix of the self-consolidating fiber reinforced concrete10,11. The matrix was designed by Marangon12
following the CPM routine. The materials used in the SCC composition were a Brazilian slag cement type CPIII 40
with a 28 days compressive strength of 40MPa, river sand with two classes of particle size: one ranging from
0.15mm to 4.8mm and the other from 0.15mm to 0.85mm, fly ash, silica flour (ground quartz), silica fume, and a
polycarboxilate superplasticizer with solid contents of 31.2%. The water/cementitious material ratio of the self-
consolidating concrete was 0.32. Figure 1 shows the grain size distribution of the used binder materials and
aggregates.

2
Proceedings of the Fifth North American Conference on the Design and Use of Self-Consolidating Concrete, Chicago, Illinois, USA, May 12–15,
2012 – Rambo, Silva and Toledo

(a) (b)
Figure 1 — Particle size distribution of (a) the used cementitious materials and (b) aggregates

Two steel fiber types, one straight (SF1) and one with hooked ends (SF2), were used as reinforcement. The straight
fiber presented a tensile strength of 1100MPa and elastic modulus of 200GPa , and the fiber with hooked ends (SF2)
a tensile strength of 1150MPa and elastic modulus of 200GPa. The length and aspect ratio of the SF1 fiber were
12mm and 67 and those presented by SF2 were 35mm and 65, respectively. The SF1 fiber was produced with a brass
coating providing the fiber a relatively smooth surface.

Five concrete mixtures, with the proportions presented in Table 1 were produced. One control mixture without steel
fibers, two mixtures with a fiber volume fraction of 1.0% (78kg/m³) named as C1.0% (1.0% of SF2) and C1.0%H
(0.5% of SF1 + 0.5% of SF2) and two mixtures with a fiber volume fraction of 1.5% (117kg/m³) named as C1.5%
(1.5% of SF2) and C1.5%H (0.5% of SF1 + 1.0% of SF2).

Table 1— Mix composition of concretes

Mixtures
Constituent
Matrix C1.0%H C1.0% C1.5%H C1.5%
Coarse aggregate (G) (kg/m³) 494 468 468 454 454
Sand (S1) (kg/m³) 830 830 830 830 830
*Sand (S2) (kg/m³) 100 100 100 100 100
Silica mesh 325 (kg/m³) 70 70 70 70 70
Cement (kg/m³) 360 360 360 360 360
Fly ash (kg/m³) 168 168 168 168 168
Silica fume (kg/m³) 45 45 45 45 45
Superplasticizer (kg/m³) 45.1 45.1 45.1 45.1 45.1
Viscosity modifier (kg/m³) 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36
Water (kg/m³) 150 150 150 150 150
Straight fiber (SF1) (kg/m³) 0 39 0 39 0
Hooked end fiber (SF2) (kg/m³) 0 39 78 78 117
Superplasticizer (%) 4 4 4 4 4
Water/binder ratio 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
*Sand (S2): Sand (S1) with diameter less than 0.85 mm

For the production of the samples, the concrete mixtures were placed in the steel molds in one layer. The samples
didn't suffer any kind of vibration. The specimens were covered in their molds for 48 hours prior to moist curing for
28 days in a cure chamber with 100% RH and 23±1°C.

Rheological Tests
The effect of the hybrid reinforcement on the plastic viscosity and shear yield stress was measured with a parallel
plate rheometer developed at the Laboratoire Central des Ponts et Chausse´s (LCPC)13. Ten rotation speeds ranging
from 0.2 rev/s to 0.8 rev/s were used to perform the tests. These speeds correspond to strain rates of 0.25s -1 and 6.0s-
1
.

3
Proceedings of the Fifth North American Conference on the Design and Use of Self-Consolidating Concrete, Chicago, Illinois, USA, May 12–15,
2012 – Rambo, Silva and Toledo

The V funnel tests were performed in an apparatus with rectangular top and bottom sections of 515mm x 75mm and
65mm x 75mm (length and width), respectively 14. Through this test the elapsed time (in seconds) between the
opening of the bottom and the time when all the concrete flows through the lower section can be determined in order
to measure the concrete flow ability. The L box test was used to measure the filling and passing ability of the studied
concretes15. Three different configurations of bars (12mm of diameter) were used. The space between bars was
94mm (one bar), 58.66mm (two bars) and 41mm (three bars). Finally, the slump flow test was used to describe the
flow ability of the fresh mixtures in unconfined condition 16. The determination of the concrete spread was performed
by the arithmetic average of two measurements of the perpendicular concrete mass diameter.

Mechanical tests: Material’s scale

The determination of the compressive strength and young modulus of the concretes produced was performed
following the requirements of NBR 573917, using three cylindrical samples of 100mm x 200mm for each concrete
mixture. The tests were performed in a Shimadzu universal testing machine model UH-F1000kN with a computer-
controlled hydraulic servo system.. The tests were controlled by the actuator displacement at a rate of 0.1 mm/min.
Direct tensile tests were performed in a Shimadzu universal testing machine. The tests were controlled by the
actuator displacement at a rate of 0.1 mm/min (strain rate of 1.6x10 -5s-1). Four dumbbell shaped specimens
measuring 400mm x 100mm x 48.5mm (length x width x thickness) were tested using a gage length of 100mm with
fixed–hinged boundary conditions for each concrete mix produced. Figure 2 shows the testing arrangement for the
tensile test. Steel plates were glued on both ends of the specimen at the gripping regions. A set of mechanical grips
were used. The tensile load and actuator displacement were recorded.

Figure 2 — Direct tensile test set-up

The bending tests were performed in the Shimadzu universal testing machine. Three specimens were produced for
each concrete mix produced, with cross sectional dimensions of 100mm x 100mm (width x thickness) and length of
400mm. The span used between supports was 300mm long and between the loading knives 100mm. The tests were
controlled by the actuator displacement at a rate of 0.5 mm/min. The deflections of the beams at the mid-span were
measured using one LVDT. The neutral axis movement was experimentally determined by strain-gages (51.1mm of
length) attached to compression and tensile surfaces. The crack opening in the bottom sample face of the beams was
measured using one LVDT positioned on the mid-span and aligned with the length.

Round Panel Tests: Structural scale

Structural tests were performed through round panel tests based on the ASTM C-15508. The nominal diameter and
the thickness of all tested specimens were 750mm and 75mm, respectively. Symmetrically arranged pivots (40mm of
diameter) were used to support the samples in the configurations I and II (see Figure 3(a) and (b)). In the
configuration III, a steel cylinder with 12mm of thickness and 750mm of external diameter were used to support the
panels. Three round panel specimens were tested to failure in a Shimadzu servo-controlled testing machine for each

4
Proceedings of the Fifth North American Conference on the Design and Use of Self-Consolidating Concrete, Chicago, Illinois, USA, May 12–15,
2012 – Rambo, Silva and Toledo

support condition. The load was applied using a rigid steel cylinder (50 mm of diameter) onto the upper surface of
the specimen at an actuator displacement rate of 0.5 mm/min. The deflection response (until 40mm) was measured
using a LVDT positioned at the central part of the bottom surface of the specimens. All concrete mixes were tested
under the configuration I (three supports), but only the composite C1.5% were tested using the three different
boundary conditions. A high strength epoxy adhesive was used in the configurations II and III to ensure contact
between the panels and the supports.

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 3 — Round panel test set-up: (a) with three supports (configuration I), (b) six supports (configuration II) and
(c) fully supported (configuration III)

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Rheological properties
Figure 4 shows the influence of steel fibers on the self-compacting concrete flow measured with the parallel plate
rheometer used in this study. The rheological parameters were calculated using the Herschel-Bulkley model where ,
a and b are characteristics material parameters that describe the fresh behavior of concrete.

(1)

To correlate the material parameters and ―a‖ of the Herschel-Bulkley model with the numerical parameterso, A
and b the expressions derived by De Larrard and co-workers18, shown in equations (2) and (3), were used. In those
expressions R1 and R2 are the internal and external sample radii of the rheometer (20mm and 120mm, respectively),
and h is the height of the sample (100 mm).

 (2)


(3)


The plastic viscosity was determined using the equivalent parameters a and b using equation (4), which correlates the
Herschel-Bulkley and Bingham models, where represents the maximum strain rate used during the test
( ).

(4)

From Figure 4 it can be seen that the addition of the 12mm straight steel fiber increase the torque for all rotation
speeds. This behavior was more pronounced for the reinforcement ratio of 1.5 %. The addition of the 35mm hooked
end steel fiber in both used ratios seems not to have affected the rheology. In fact the values of viscosity and yield
strength were lower for those reinforcement ratios than that computed for the unreinforced matrix (refer to Table 2).
In general the addition of SF1 fibers increased the viscosity of the mix.

5
Proceedings of the Fifth North American Conference on the Design and Use of Self-Consolidating Concrete, Chicago, Illinois, USA, May 12–15,
2012 – Rambo, Silva and Toledo

Figure 4 — Influence of steel fibers on the self-compacting concrete flow. The experimental points were adjusted
by the Herschel-Bulkley model

As showed in Table 2, even with the incorporation of steel fibers, all concretes had adequate deformability under
their own weight and viscosity necessary to avoid segregation. All studied concretes can be classified as self-
compacting as they presented values of slump flow consistent with the lower limit given by EFNARC 200519
(≥550mm). The slump flow diameter values ranged from 620 to 700mm. The unreinforced matrix and the concretes
produced with 1.0% of fibers (C1.0% and C1.0%H) also meet the EFNARC specification for viscosity (V funnel)
and passing ability (L-box). The concrete reinforced with 1.5%H was blocked in the V funnel and in the L-box with
2 bars. All the fiber reinforced concrete mixes were blocked in the L-box test with three bars. This behavior indicates
that for hybrid rebar/FRC systems the reinforcement ratio of 1% and above may result in poor quality casting.

Table 2 — Results of rheological tests

Spread V-Funnel L-Box (H2/H1) Viscosity Shear yield stress
Mixtures
(mm) (s) I II III (Pa.s) (Pa)
Matrix 620 18.15 0.95 0.90 0.85 187 183
C1.0%H 705 18.39 0.95 0.90 CF 230 111
C1.0% 720 19.28 1.00 0.86 CF 157 178
C1.5%H 620 CF 0.53 CF CF 341 220
C1.5% 700 19.56 0.86 0.50 CF 156 131
CF = Congestion of flow section
I, II, III = Number of steel bars

Mechanical response
Figure 5(a) shows typical curves obtained in the compressive tests for each fiber reinforced concrete produced in the
present work. The results of evaluation of all curves are given in Table 3. The fibers SF1 were able to control the
propagation of micro-cracks in the compressive tests. Even for small levels of deformation it is possible to notice that
the hybrid concretes (C1.0%H and C1.5%H) showed higher stiffness compared to the non-hybrids. At 3000με, for
example, the hybrid systems C1.0%H and C1.5%H showed load increases of, respectively, 15.5% and 24.2%
compared to the non-hybrids. Through the analysis of Table 3, it is clear that the hybridization of fiber reinforcement
increased both the deformation values: at the first crack, at the coalescence of cracks and at the rupture of the
concretes, in the two reinforcement ratios studied (1.0% and 1.5%). The increase in ultimate compressive strength
provided by the hybridization of the concrete C1.0%H relative to the control mixture and the non-hybrid concrete
C1.0% was, respectively, 19.47% and 12.66%. Similarly, the increase in ultimate compressive strength of the
concrete C1.5%H, when compared to control mixture and the non-hybrid concrete C1.5% was, respectively, 13.37%
and 23.81%.

6
Proceedings of the Fifth North American Conference on the Design and Use of Self-Consolidating Concrete, Chicago, Illinois, USA, May 12–15,
2012 – Rambo, Silva and Toledo

Table 3 — Results of compressive strength

First crack Coalescence of cracks Failure
EC
Mixtures ζFC FC ζCC CC ζU U (GPa)
(MPa) (µ) (MPa) (µ) (MPa) (µ)
26.95 795 59.12 2146 64.61 2797 33.63
Matrix
(3.96) (82.86) (1.96) (93.58) (0.26) (446) (2.66)
25.58 751 54.09 1713 68.51 2885 34.97
C1.0%
(2.51) (71.83) (4.34) (170) (1.46) (105) (1.20)
32.40 887 66.90 2159 77.19 3234 36.74
C1.0%H
(0.82) (37.16) (1.90) (45.25) (1.20) (272) (0.61)
24.74 700 49.30 1634 59.16 2639 35.70
C1.5%
(1.17) (32.07) (2.52) (115) (1.31) (189) (0.20)
34.39 949 63.13 2018 73.25 2972 36.92
C1.5%H
(1.29) (41.31) (0.59) (9.07) (2.00) (50.7) (0.34)

Figure 5 (b) presents one representative curve obtained in the direct tensile test for each material investigated in the
present work. The results of evaluation of all curves are given in Table 4. All fiber reinforced concretes presented a
single crack formation with either strain hardening or softening behavior. A quite small branch of hardening was
only observed for the C1.5% and C1.5%H. The tensile curves can be depicted in 3 distinct phases. Phase I
corresponds to the elastic-linear range where both matrix and the fiber behave linearly. Due to low volume fraction
of fibers (≤1.5%) the stiffness of the composite is dominated by matrix properties and this zone is limited to strain
measures of up to 0.016%. This was confirmed by the elastic modulus value of approximately 30MPa computed for
all concretes. Phase II is marked by the bend over point (BOP) which corresponds to the formation of matrix
cracking. Phase III was characterized by a strain softening behavior for composites reinforced with 1.0% and strain
hardening for 1.5% of reinforcement. The addition of the 12mm fibers did not affect the UTS and ζ BOP. As observed
for the bending tests the maximum UTS of 4.46MPa was observed for the C1.5%. The strain hardening was marked
by the formation of only one visible cracking. This crack was able to widen from 0.1 to 0.3% of deformation where a
strain softening behavior started.

Table 4 — Results of direct tensile tests

Tensile strength, deformation and modulus Tensile Toughness
Mixtures BOP BOP Et UTS UTS
T0.5mm T1.0mm T2.0mm T3.0mm T4.0mm
Pa (%) (GPa) Pa  (J) (J) (J) (J) (J)
2.19 0.0097 28.93
Matrix - - - - - - -
(0.57) (0.0022) (1.56)
3.75 0.0163 30.40 3.89 0.0888 5.7 10.4 16.9 20.5 22.5
C1.0%
(0.49) (0.0087) (1.33) (0.59) (0.12) (1.1) (2.9) (5.7) (7.5) (8.1)
3.74 0.0162 30.53 3.85 0.0650 5.8 9.9 15.0 18.5 20.3
C1.0%H
(1.31) (0.0048) (2.43) (1.31) (0.071) (2.1) (4.1) (5.3) (6.4) (7.5)
3.89 0.0113 32.07 4.46 0.174 6.3 11.1 16.8 21.1 25.0
C1.5%
(0.59) (0.0016) (3.28) (0.36) (0.092) (1.4) (2.8) (4.7) (6.1) (9.2)
3.09 0.0142 31.11 3.74 0.257 5.7 12.3 19.2 23.8 26.1
C1.5%H
(0.25) (0.0024) (3.53) (0.22) (0.040) (0.5) (1.1) (1.9) (2.2) (4.5)

Figure 5(c) presents one representative curve obtained in the four-point bending tests for each reinforcement ratio
and hybridization investigated in the present work. The results of evaluation of all curves are given in Table 5. All
fiber reinforced concretes (FRC) presented a deflection hardening behavior with a single cracking formation. The
curves can be divided in four main phases. The phase I corresponds to the linear elastic region where both matrix and
fiber behave linearly. In this region both compression and tension strains are compatible. The limit of proportionality
(LOP) delimit the phase II. The LOP increased with the increase in the fiber reinforcement ratio from 7.58 MPa
(unreinforced matrix) to 10.70 MPa (C1.0%H). When further increasing the reinforcement ratio to 1.5% it was
noticed a tendency of decreasing in LOP probably due to an increase in the matrix porosity. The post LOP range
(phase III) is characterized by a deflection hardening behavior but with the formation of one single crack. Phase IV is
characterized by the strain softening response due to the widening of the crack. The highest flexural behavior was
observed for the composite C1.5% which presented strength of 17.66 MPa. This represents an increase of 2.3 times

7
Proceedings of the Fifth North American Conference on the Design and Use of Self-Consolidating Concrete, Chicago, Illinois, USA, May 12–15,
2012 – Rambo, Silva and Toledo

in comparison to the unreinforced matrix. It seems that the fiber hybridization did not influence the flexural
performance. The toughness computed as the total area under the load displacement curve showed to be sensitive to
the hybridization of fibers.

Table 4 — Average results of the flexural beam test. Standard deviation values are presented in parentheses
Flexural strength and displacement Flexural Toughness
Mixtures PLOP LOP LOP  P u MOR MOR T 0.2mm T 1.0mm T2.0mm T3.0mm T4.0mm
(kN) (MPa) (mm)  (kN) Pa (mm) (J) (J) (J) (J) (J)
25.27 7.58 0.049
Matrix - - - - - - - -
(2.51) (0.75) (0.007)
29.60 8.88 0.059 43.08 12.93 0.83 5.61 38.57 71.25 95.24 112.9
C1.0%
(2.78) (0.84) (0.002) (11.06) (3.32) (0.16) (0.72) (2.56) (4.53) (7.20) (10.23)
36.02 10.70 0.053 44.36 13.30 0.53 6.72 40.82 71.92 91.37 105.28
C1.0%H
(3.31) (1.01) (0.007) (2.97) (0.89) (0.22) (0.56) (3.73) (6.56) (8.90) (11.02)
34.95 10.48 0.056 58.89 17.66 0.72 7.16 49.87 97.67 133.60 163.21
C1.5%
(2.82) (0.84) (0.007) (4.49) (1.34) (0.07) (0.15) (2.11) (5.41) (6.51) (6.95)
31.42 9.42 0.049 51.46 15.43 0.67 7.33 45.24 87.53 117.77 140.68
C1.5%H
(3.29) (0.98) (0.007) (13.35) (4.00) (0.05) (0.26) (12.05) (24.13) (34.65) (43.71)

At low levels of displacement (i.e. 0.2mm) the hybrid composites (C1.0%H and C1.5%H) showed a higher
efficiency on energy absorption capacity in comparison with non-hybrid systems (C1.0% and C1.5%). For example,
the concrete C1.0%H presented a toughness of 6.72 J while the C1.0% 5.61 J. This can be attributed to the ability of
the small fibers (SF1) to delay micro-cracks in the concrete matrix. However, for high displacement levels, the
opposite occurs, and the hybrid reinforced mixtures showed a more pronounced softening branch and lower
toughness values than that of the non-hybrid reinforced mixtures.

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 5 — Influence of the steel fiber reinforcement in the mechanical behavior of the self compacting concrete in
the materials scale: (a) Compressive strength, (b) direct tensile and (c) four point bending test results

The data acquisition of strains from the compression and tension faces during the bending test allowed a correlation
between the load capacity and the distance between the neutral axis (NA) and the top surface of the prisms during the
test. Through Figure 9 we can see that in the region I, the behavior of all mixtures refers to an elastic phase, where
the tensile and compressive strains show great similarity. The region II is characterized by the appearance of the first
cracks, leading to a rapid rise in the NA toward to the top of the prisms. In region III, it is clear the contribution of
short fibers (SF1) in maintaining the NA of hybrids systems. For the hybrid systems a gradual rise in NA is observed
as a result of stress redistribution due to crack formation. At the point where the distance between the NA and the top
of the prisms is 35 mm, for example, both hybrid systems exhibit load capacity 26% higher than values for the same
point in the non-hybrid systems. These values indicate that the fiber hybridization was effective in mitigating the
micro-crack formation during bending tests as previously indicated by the toughness results computed at 0.2 mm of
displacement. The end of the curves was characterized by disruption of strain gages glued on the tensile surfaces of
the prisms.

8
Proceedings of the Fifth North American Conference on the Design and Use of Self-Consolidating Concrete, Chicago, Illinois, USA, May 12–15,
2012 – Rambo, Silva and Toledo

Figure 6 — Curves of load vs. distance between the neutral axis and top surface

Figure 7 shows one representative curve obtained in the round panel test (Configuration I) for each studied material.
Table 5 presents the results and calculations related to the tests. In the same way as that observed for the flexural
beam tests the round panel test results can be divided in different phases. Phase I corresponds to the linear elastic
region where the compressive and tensile strains are compatible. The formation and propagation of the first crack
delimits the second phase. After the start of the phase II all FRC´s exhibited a deflection hardening behavior with the
formation of three major axial cracks and several multiple fine cracks. The localization and widening of one major
crack leads the FRC to failure which is followed by a strain softening behavior. While the unreinforced concrete
presented the formation of only three major radial cracks all steel fiber reinforced concretes also presented a
formation of multiple micro-cracks. In a different manner than that observed for the flexural beam tests the fiber
hybridization in the panels were beneficial in increasing the first crack and ultimate loads for both studied
reinforcement ratios. For example, when using hybrid fibers, for the reinforcement ratio of 1% the first crack and
ultimate load increased from 29.76 to 41.16 MPa and from 39.66 to 45.50 MPa, respectively. When looking at
Figure 7 it can be seen that for low displacements (i.e. < 2.5mm) the fiber reinforcement plays a major role in the
mechanical behavior of the FRC´s. For displacements at phase I (in the linear elastic region) it was observed that the
hybridization in the C1.5%H increased the load bearing capacity showing the capacity of the short 12mm fibers of
bridging the micro-cracks and increasing the serviceability limit of the structure. The toughness values computed at 5
and 10 mm confirmed this mechanism. At these displacements the energy absorption capacity was superior for
hybrid concretes than that observed by the concretes reinforced only with the 35mm hooked end fibers (refer to
Table 5).

Figure 7 — Influence of steel fiber reinforcement on the round panel test (Configuration I): load vs. displacement
results and a zoom in the results up to 2.5mm of displacement

9
Proceedings of the Fifth North American Conference on the Design and Use of Self-Consolidating Concrete, Chicago, Illinois, USA, May 12–15,
2012 – Rambo, Silva and Toledo

Table 5 — Average results of round panel test. Standard deviation values are presented in parentheses
First crack strength Flexural strength Toughness
Mixtures P   P  T5.0mm T10mm T20mm T30mm T40mm
(kN) (mm)  kN (mm) (J) (J) (J) (J) (J)
30.71 0.72
Matrix - - - - - - -
(3.72) (0.05)
29.76 0.95 39.66 3.42 164 336 519 781 870
C1.0%
(2.66) (0.08) (3.86) (0.26) (13.1) (40.3) (111) (150) (280)
41.16 1.46 45.50 3.26 189 368 547 627 649
C1.0%H
(0.61) (0.25) (1.97) (0.54) (13.2) (15.1) (25.9) (98.5) (170)
40.25 1.23 53.82 5.30 207 481 841 1021 1077
C1.5%
(0.58) (0.16) (4.76) (0.56) (17.7) (30.5) (87.9) (144) (320)
46.36 1.16 63.38 5.23 255 549 612 1207 1303
C1.5%H
(2.62) (0.51) (5.96) (0.65) (30.8) (64.8) (105) (250) (325)

Figure 8(a) shows the typical curves of load versus displacement obtained by the structural tests (configurations I, II
and III) for the mixture C1.5%. The values given in Table 6 demonstrated that the increase in the number of supports
used in configurations II and III leads to a more premature appearance of the first cracks in concrete and an increase
in the strength. The ultimate flexural strength for the configurations II and III were, respectively, 26.71% and
74.71% higher than values obtained for the configuration I. This fact reveals that the degree of hyperstaticity in
structural tests may potentiate the mechanism of multiple cracking which normally is not observed in the small beam
tests. The panels submitted to the configuration III, for displacements up to 7 mm, shows a punching failure process
resulting in perforation of the samples by the hydraulic actuator. The typical crack patterns obtained for the three
different structural tests performed in this study is shown in Figure 8(b), (c) and (d).

(a) (b) (c) (d)

Figure 8 — Results for mixture C1.5% in structural tests with different boundary conditions: (a) load vs.
displacement curves and crack pattern for (b) configuration I, (c) configuration II and (d) configuration III

Table 6 — Average results of round panel test. Standard deviation values are presented in parentheses
First crack strength Flexural strength
Boundary Number
P δ P δ
conditions of supports
(kN) (mm) (kN) (mm)
40.25 1.23 53.82 5.30
Configuration I Three
(0.58) (0.16) (4.76) (0.56)
35.43 0.94 68.20 5.09
Configuration II Six
(2.68) (0.12) (3.35) (0.14)
44.20 0.58 94.03 2.27
Configuration III Fully supported
(5.65) (0.13) (4.43) (0.007)

In the panels (C1.5%) tested according to configuration I and II, the crack pattern show three major cracks
surrounded by smaller cracks with radial direction. However, the number of cracks formed in the samples supported
by six pivots was noticeably higher than obtained in the configuration I. For the configuration III (fully supported), it

10
Proceedings of the Fifth North American Conference on the Design and Use of Self-Consolidating Concrete, Chicago, Illinois, USA, May 12–15,
2012 – Rambo, Silva and Toledo

was observed a multiple radial crack pattern originating from tangential efforts, without major cracks. Even under
punching shear, the concrete panels reinforced with 1.5% of hooked end fibers (SF2), showed no abrupt and fragile
failure.

CONCLUSIONS

- The inclusion of the 35mm hooked end steel fiber in both used ratios did not affect the rheology (viscosity and
yield strength) of the used concrete whereas the addition of short (12mm) fibers increased the viscosity of the mix.
The L-box test indicates that when using two or more reinforcing bars the flow ability of the concrete can be
compromised.
- Under compressive load the composites reinforced with hybrid steel fiber showed higher load capacity,
deformation and stiffness when compared with the non-hybrid composites with same reinforcement ratio.
- The direct tensile tests did not show any improvements for fiber hybridization. Nevertheless for concretes
reinforced with 1.5% of fibers a small strain hardening branch has been observed.
- The flexural beam tests showed that all concretes have a deflection hardening behavior but with the formation of
one macro crack. The fiber hybridization was effective to increase the toughness for central displacements up to
0.2mm. The computation of the distance between the neutral axis and the top surface by means of electrical strain
gages showed a gradual decrease when hybrid fibers are used in comparison to a sudden drop at 30 kN observed for
the non-hybrid systems. Therefore, the fiber hybridization was effective in mitigating the micro-crack formation
during bending tests.
- All FRC´s used in the round panel tests (configuration I) were characterized by a formation of three major cracks
and several micro-cracks. The fiber hybridization was very effective in limiting the initiation and propagation of
micro-crack thus increasing the first-crack and ultimate loads.
- Different boundary conditions were used in the round panel tests (for concrete mix C1.5%). The results showed
multiple crack patterns for all support configurations tested. The largest amount of cracking was observed on fully
supported condition. Although the number and orientation of cracks in the continuous supported tests (configuration
III) are not so well established as in the test with three pivots (configuration I), a good repeatability of the results was
observed.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors gratefully acknowledge the Brazilian Agency CNPq for its partial financial support.

REFERENCES

1. Sukontasukkul, P.; Mindess, P.; and Banthia, N., ―Penetration Resistance of Hybrid Fibre Reinforced Concrete
under Low Velocity Impact Loading‖. Annual Conference of the Canadian Society for Civil Engineering. Montreal,
2002.

2. Bentur, A; Mindess, S.; ―Fibre Reinforced Cementitious Composites‖, Elsevier Applied Science, England, 1990.

3. Di Prisco, M.; Dozio, D.; Colombo, M., ―On the bearing capacity of FRC structures is the material characteristic
value the right choice?‖ In: Toledo Filho RD, Silva FA, Koenders E, Fairbairn EMR, editors. Proceedings of the 2nd
International RILEM Conference on Strain Hardening Cementitious Composites (SHCC2-Rio), Rio de Janeiro,
2011, pp. 279-287.

4. Kuder, KG.; Ozyurt, N.; Mu, EB.; Shah, SP., ―Rheology of fiber-reinforced cementitious materials‖, Cement
and Concrete Reserch, 2007, No. 37, pp. 191–199.

5. Minelli, F.; and Plizzari, GA., ―Fiber reinforced concrete characterization: round panel vs. beam tests toward a
harmonization‖, In: Balázs GL and Nehme SG, editors. Proceedings of the 3rd Central European Congress on
Concrete Engineering – CCC‖, 2007, Visegrád, Publishing Company of Budapest University of Technology and
Economics, 2007, pp. 213-220.

6. Bernard, ES.; ―Shotcrete: More Engineering Developments‖, In: Proceedings of the second international
conference on engineering development in shotcrete, Cairns, Taylor & Francis, 2004, p. 304.

11
Proceedings of the Fifth North American Conference on the Design and Use of Self-Consolidating Concrete, Chicago, Illinois, USA, May 12–15,
2012 – Rambo, Silva and Toledo

7. Destree, X.; and Mandl, J., ―Steel fibre only reinforced concrete in free suspended elevated slabs: case studies,
design assisted by testing route, comparison to the latest SFRC standard documents‖, In : Walraven and Stoelhorst,
editors. Tailor Made Concrete Structures, London, Taylor & Francis Group, 2008, pp. 437-443.

8. ASTM C1550, ―Standard test method for flexural toughness of fiber reinforced concrete (using centrally loaded
round panel)‖, Philadelphia, American Society for Testing and Materials, 2005.

9. Bernard, ES., ―Behaviour of round steel fibre reinforced concrete panels under point loads‖, Materials and
Structures, 1999, 33, 181-188.

10. De Larrard, F., ―Concrete mixture proportioning: a scientific approach‖, London, E&FN SPON, 1999.

11. Sedran, T., ―Rhéologie et rhéométrie des bétons: application aux bétons autonivelants‖, Doctoral dissertation,
Ecole Nationale des Ponts et Chaussées: 1999, 484p.

12. Marangon, E., ―Desenvolvimento e caracterização de concretos auto-adensáveis reforçados com fibras de aço‖,
MSc dissertation, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: COPPE/UFRJ; 2006, 128p.

13. de Larrard, F.; Hu, C.; Sedran, T.; Szitkar, JC.; Joly, M.; Claux, F.; and Derkx, F., ―A new rheometer for soft-
to-fluid fresh concrete, ACI, 1997, pp.234-243.

14. NBR 15823-5, Concreto Autoadensável, Parte 5: ―Determinação da viscosidade – Método do funil V‖, Rio de
Janeiro: Associação brasileira de normas técnicas, 2010.

15. NBR 15823-4, Concreto Autoadensável, Parte 4: ―Determinação da abilidade passante – Método da caixa L‖,
Rio de Janeiro: Associação brasileira de normas técnicas, 2010.

16. NBR 15823-2, Concreto Autoadensável, Parte 2: ―Determinação do espalhamento e do tempo de escoamento –
Método do cone de Abrams‖, Rio de Janeiro, Associação brasileira de normas técnicas, 2010.

17. NBR 5739, ―Concreto - Ensaios de compressão de corpos-de-prova cilíndricos‖, Associação brasileira de
normas técnicas, Rio de Janeiro, 2007.

18. De Larrard, F.; Ferraris, CF.; Sedran, T., ―Fresh Concrete: A Herschel-Bulkley Material‖, Materials and
Structures, 1998, 31, pp. 494-498.

19. EFNARC, ―The European Guidelines for Self-Compacting Concrete. Specification, Production and Use‖, In:
European Project Group, 2005, 63p.

12