Received: 1 December 2023 Revised: 19 March 2024 Accepted: 28 June 2024

DOI: 10.1002/suco.202301031

ARTICLE

Investigation on the flexural behavior of high-strength

fiber-reinforced concrete

Ricardo Laguardia Justen de Almeida 1 | Guilherme Aris Parsekian 1 |

Marco Antonio Carnio 2

1
Department of Civil Engineering, Federal
University of São Carlos, São Carlos, Abstract
Brazil The present research investigated the flexural behavior of high-strength fiber-
2
Department of Civil Engineering, reinforced concrete (HSFRC) with six different types of fiber: hooked-end and
Pontifical Catholic University of
crimped steel fibers, chopped and pultruded glass fibers; monofilament and
Campinas, Campinas, Brazil
twisted polymeric fibers. An extensive experimental program with 108 speci-
Correspondence mens for 3-point bending tests was carried out and the parameters analyzed
Ricardo Laguardia Justen de Almeida,
Federal University of São Carlos,
were the fiber content (0.50%, 0.75% and 1.00% in volume), the fiber type and
Department of Civil Engineering, São the compressive strength of the concrete (60 and 90 MPa). Statistical analyses
Carlos, São Paulo, Brazil. were performed and showed that regardless of the fiber material, increasing
Email: ricardoalmeida@estudante.
ufscar.br the amount of fibers added to concrete increases residual strength and tough-
ness. Limit of proportionality is not affected by the addition of fibers, while
postcracking behavior, on the other hand, is controlled by the fibers. Increas-
ing the compressive strength of the concrete matrix affect mainly the limit pro-
portionality of all mixes and the postcracking behavior of the concrete
reinforced with hooked-end steel fibers. The classification of HSFRC and the
conditions required for HSFRC for use in structural applications according to
the fib Model Code 2010 were also discussed, and it was verified that such con-
ditions are not consistent with the experimental results and should be revised
for high-strength fiber-reinforced concrete.

KEYWORDS
fiber-reinforced concrete, glass fiber, high-strength concrete, polymeric fiber, residual
flexural tensile strength, steel fiber

1 | INTRODUCTION and each type has its own set of properties and
advantages.1–4 When it comes to bending, these fibers
Fiber-reinforced concrete (FRC) is a type of concrete that play a crucial role in enhancing the tensile and flexural
incorporates fibrous materials to improve its structural strength of the concrete which is crucial in applications
properties. The addition of fibers to concrete helps to such as beams, slabs, and other members subjected to
resist cracking and enhance the flexural strength of the bending loads.5,6 FRC exhibits enhanced ductility and
composite material. Fibers are a secondary reinforce- toughness when compared with conventional concrete,
ment, providing capacity in the tensile zone where con- which are crucial properties in flexural applications. This
crete is weak. There are various types of fibers used in allows the concrete to deform and absorb energy before
FRC, including steel, glass, synthetic, and natural fibers, failure, providing warning signs before the ultimate

Structural Concrete. 2024;1–20. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/suco © 2024 fib. International Federation for Structural Concrete 1
2 DE ALMEIDA ET AL.

capacity and preventing sudden brittle failures. The Fiber content is commonly evaluated in research on
choice of fibers and their characteristics such type and the mechanical behavior of FRC and its effect on FRC
content must be tailored to the intended use and the spe- properties has been investigated by different authors.
cific conditions of a construction project. However, most of these studies involve conventional con-
Fiber-reinforced concrete has gained the construction crete with only one type of fiber, mostly steel.17–25
market mainly because of the publication of design The present research investigated the flexural behav-
guides and standards towards the use of the material.7,8 ior of HSFRC with six different types of fiber made of
In Brazil, technical standards to establish requirements, steel, glass and polymer. An extensive experimental pro-
procedures and test methods related to FRC structures gram with 108 specimens was carried out and the param-
and their constituent materials were published in 2021.9 eters analyzed were the fiber content (0.50%, 0.75% and
The set of standards published constitutes the first techni- 1.00% in volume), the fiber type and the compressive
cal guidelines on FRC developed nationwide and its strength of the concrete matrix. Statistical analyses were
application is limited to FRC with compressive strength performed to assess the influence of these parameters on
up to 50 MPa (hereafter referred as conventional con- the mechanical properties obtained from the tests such as
crete). The European standard that covers guidelines for limit of proportionality and residual flexural tensile
the design of reinforced concrete structures (EN 1992-1-1, strength. The classification of FRC and the requirements
2004) is currently under revision7,10 and will include an for using it in structural applications were also checked
annex aimed at steel fiber-reinforced concrete (SFRC). and discussed for each type of fiber.
The fib Model Code 2010 (MC2010)11 that is one of the
first standards to bring guidelines on FRC structures is
also under revision and the Model Code 2020 (MC2020) 2 | EXPERIMENTAL
should be published anytime soon.8 Nevertheless, INVESTIGATION
researchers have questioned the conditions required by
the MC2010 for using different fibers in structural ele- 2.1 | Materials and mix proportions
ments.12,13 Marahla and Garcia-Taengua14 state that
there is no clear definition in the literature that restricts The experimental program involved 27 mixes produced
the use of non-metallic fibers to non-structural applica- from two concrete matrices, namely group 1 (G1) and
tions, such as cracking control due to plastic shrinkage of group 2 (G2) targeting a compressive strength around
concrete. Besides, the study of non-metallic fibers has 60 and 90 MPa, respectively. Both concrete matrices were
currently been driven by the growing demand for more prepared with high initial strength cement, river sand
sustainable materials in civil construction with lower car- with a fineness modulus of 2.27, gravel (maximum parti-
bon emissions. cle size of 9.5 mm) and fresh water. A polycarboxylate-
Another aspect that should be highlighted is the based high-range water-reducing admixture (HRWRA),
lack of studies on the mechanical behavior of high- namely MC-PowerFlow 4001, was used due to the low
strength fiber-reinforced concrete (HSFRC) in the liter- water/binder ratio. Portland cement was provided by
ature. Oettel; Schulz and Haist15 created a database Holcim and its physical and chemical properties are pre-
with experimental results of 3-point bending tests sented in Table 1. Besides the materials aforementioned,
(3PBT) from a research carried out by the German silica fume was also used in group 2 to improve the parti-
DAfStb Subcommittee “Steel Fibre Reinforced Con- cle packing of all mixes. Silica fume is a very fine pow-
crete” and found that from the 1092 test results on dery material composed of spherical particles of
SFRC, only 204 involve high-strength concrete (just
over 18%). Galeote et al.16 analyzed results of almost
700 specimens from 3PBT occurred in Universitat Poli- TABLE 1 Chemical and physical properties of Portland
tècnica de Catalunya and Universidad Politècnica de cement.
Madrid to check the influence of the fibers in FRC
Property Value
behavior and establish possible correlations of residual
strength and type and amount of fibers. The authors SO3 3.10%
found out that only 22% of specimens reached MgO 0.92%
strengths from 55 to 80 MPa, emphasizing the need of Initial setting time 130 min
investigation in the mechanical behavior of HSFRC. It Final setting time 210 min
should be point out that the contribution of fibers in
Specific surface area 5021 cm2/g
high-strength concrete is even more notorious due to
Compressive strength 51.6 MPa
material higher brittleness.
DE ALMEIDA ET AL. 3

amorphous silicon dioxide (SiO2), typically around fibers, however, were added to the mixer with the coarse
100 times smaller than cement particles When added to aggregate and the first water to improve the uniformity
concrete, it fills in the gaps between cement particles, of the fibers' dispersion in the mixture as they were pro-
enhancing the overall density and strength of the con- vided in water-soluble glued bundles. The addition of
crete. Silica fume was provided by ELKEM and its prop- fibers to the mixer was carried out carefully as fibers
erties are presented in Table 2. The mix proportions of affect the fresh properties of the concrete, such as work-
both concrete matrices (G1 and G2) are presented in ability and air content. The dosage of superplasticizer for
Table 3. each mix was adjusted according to the fiber content
Six different types of fibers were analyzed within the added to maintain a suitable workability of the mixture
experimental program (Figure 1): hooked-end steel fiber for casting the specimens. Furthermore, the addition of
(HEST), crimped steel fiber (CRST), chopped glass fibers can increase the air content in the mixture, making
fiber (CHGL), pultruded glass fiber (PUGL), monofila- the material more porous and, consequently, affecting its
ment polymeric fiber (MOPO), and twisted polymeric mechanical properties. The air content on the fresh state
fiber (TWPO). The properties of the fibers are shown in of each mix was recorded and remained below 3.0%.
Table 4. After mixing, cylinders and prisms were casted and
The parameters analyzed were the fiber-type, fiber vibrated for about 30 s according to the guidelines of EN
content and compressive strength of the concrete matrix 14651 (2007)26 to avoid the alignment of the fibers and
(Figure 2). For each type of fiber, three volume fractions provide a random orientation. Specimens were then
(0.50%, 0.75% and 1.00%) were investigated. Three cylin- placed in a water tank for wet-curing for 6 days. After
ders (ϕ10
20 cm) and four prisms (15
15
55 cm) this period, the specimens were air-cured until the day of
were casted for each mix for assessing the compressive the test. Prior to testing, all cylinders were grinded to
strength and bending properties according to the ensure parallel and smooth surfaces of their ends and
European standard EN 14651 (2007),26 respectively. prisms were notched with a masonry saw (Figure 3).
A 400-liters concrete mixer was used to produce
HSFRC. At first, the coarse aggregate was added with
roughly 80% of the total water. Cement was added after 2.2 | Flexural tests
all of the coarse material had been soaked. To make sure
the cement was thoroughly mixed at this point, tiny Flexural tests were performed in the INSTRON closed-
amounts of the leftover water were added to the cement. loop machine with 500 kN capacity through displace-
Then the sand, the remaining water and the superplasti- ment control to evaluate the postcracking performance.
cizer were added and mixed. Before adding the fibers, all A load cell with 500-kN capacity was used to monitor the
ingredients were mixed for 1 min or until a homoge- load-bearing capacity of test specimens. A displacement
nous consistency was formed. The components were transducer (clip-gage) was positioned right under the
mixed for an additional 3 min after the fibers were added, notch at the mid-width of the test specimen to measure
with the exception of twisted polymeric fibers that were the crack mouth opening displacement (CMOD),
mixed for 5 min because of its twisted state to ensure whereas the force was applied in a three-point bending
complete dispersion and uniformity. Hooked-end steel test (Figure 4). Clip-gage sends a feedback signal to the
load cell to keep the CMOD increasing at the rate speci-
fied in EN 14651 (2007).26 Until it reaches the value of
TABLE 2 Chemical and physical properties of silica fume.
0.10 mm, CMOD increases at a constant rate of 0.05 mm/
Property Value min, point at which this rate increases to 0.20 mm/min.
SiO2 ≥ 85% The small CMOD rate implied at the beginning of the test
H 2O ≤ 3% is necessary because the concrete matrix is reaching its
tensile strength and the load is about to be transferred to
Specific surface area 15 m2/g ≤ area ≤ 35 m2/g
the fibers. Therefore, a small CMOD rate is required at
Bulk density 200–350 kg/m3
this stage to minimize the instability of the test.

TABLE 3 Mix proportions.

Material dosage [kg/m3]

Group Cement Silica fume Sand Coarse aggregate Water w/b

Group 1 (G1) 450 - 683 948 185 0.41
Group 2 (G2) 500 50 683 948 175 0.32
4 DE ALMEIDA ET AL.

F I G U R E 1 Types of fibers:
(a) hooked-end steel fiber (HEST);
(b) crimped steel fiber (CRST);
(c) chopped glass fiber (CHGL);
(d) pultruded glass fiber (PUGL);
(e) monofilament polymeric fiber
(MOPO); and (f) twisted polymeric
fiber (TWPO).

TABLE 4 Properties of the fibers.

Length Aspect Elastic Tensile Density

Fiber type [mm] ratio modulus [GPa] strength [MPa] [g/cm3] Base polymer
Hooked-end steel fiber 60 80 200 1225 7.85 -
Crimped steel fiber 40 40 200 800 7.85 -
Chopped glass fiber 36 67 72 1000–1700 2.68 -
Pultruded glass fiber 40 45 40–45 800–1000 2.00 -
Monofilament 54 75 8.5 550 0.91 polypropylene
polymeric fiber
Twisted polymeric 51 74 9.5 600–650 0.92 polypropylene/
fiber polyethylene

Force and CMOD are recorded throughout the test to 3 FLl

fL ¼ ð1Þ
calculate limit of proportionality (LOP) and residual flex- 2 bh2sp
ural tensile strength (fR,j). Assuming a linear stress distri-
bution at the cross-section, the limit of proportionality 3 Fjl
f R,j ¼ ð2Þ
and residual flexural tensile strength are calculated 2 bh2sp
according to Equations (1) and (2):
DE ALMEIDA ET AL. 5

V f = 0,50%
Hooked-end steel Hooked-end steel
V f = 0,75%
fiber fiber
V f = 1,00%

V f = 0,50%
Crimped steel
V f = 0,75%
fiber
V f = 1,00%

Vf = 0,50%
Chopped glass Chopped glass Group 2
Vf = 0,75%
fiber fiber fc = 90 MPa
Vf = 1,00%
Group 1
fc = 60 MPa
Vf = 0,50%
Pultruded glass
Vf = 0,75%
fiber
Vf = 1,00%

Vf = 0,50%
Monofilament Monofilament
Vf = 0,75%
polymeric fiber polymeric fiber
Vf = 1,00%

Vf = 0,50%
Twisted polymeric
Vf = 0,75%
fiber
Vf = 1,00%

FIGURE 2 Experimental planning.

F I G U R E 3 Production of high-
strength fiber-reinforced concrete
(HSFRC): (a) casting and vibration;
(b) curing; (c) notching and
(d) specimens ready for testing.

in which F L is the load corresponding to the LOP (f L) 3.5 mm, respectively; b is the width of the specimen; l
and defined as the highest load value in the interval is the span length; h sp is the distance between the tip
0–0.05 mm; Fj is the load corresponding to CMODj of the notch and the top of the specimen in the mid-
( j = 1, 2, 3, 4) relative to a CMOD of 0.5, 1.5, 2.5 and span section.
6 DE ALMEIDA ET AL.

Another important property of FRC is the flexural ductile the concrete becomes, leading to greater residual
toughness (Tf), defined as the energy dissipated by con- flexural tensile strength, flexural toughness (Tf) and mod-
crete in the postcracking phase up to failure12 and deter- ulus of rupture (MOR) – maximum tensile stress at post-
mined as the area under the curve fr,j-CMODj. The cracking in bending. The mean curve was obtained by
ductility of a structure is directly proportional to its frac- arithmetic average of stresses for incremental values of
ture energy, making it essential to measure this property CMOD of the specimens from the same mix (supplemen-
in FRC, especially in HSFRC due to its high brittleness. tary material; Data S1).
In this research, the toughness was determined up to Hooked-end steel fiber provided the best performance
CMOD3 = 2.5 mm associated with the ultimate limit among all the fibers analyzed with the highest residual
state according to MC2010,11 otherwise the flexural tests flexural tensile strength and deflection-hardening behav-
would be extremely long until the stresses in the material ior for the three volume fractions of fibers studied. This
reached zero load (Figure 5). behavior is observed until the crack reaches a value close
to CMOD2 = 1.50 mm, after which the load begins to
decrease. Crimped steel fibers, on the other hand, showed
3 | F LE X U R A L B E H A V I O R an almost constant drop in stress after the concrete
OF HSFRC matrix reached its tensile strength.
The two glass fibers type exhibit very different behav-
The influence of the fiber content on the postcracking iors. Although both types have an elastic modulus at least
behavior of FRC is clearly seen on the stress-CMOD equal to that of the concrete matrix (as is the case of pul-
curves shown in Figure 6 for Group 1 for all fiber-types: truded glass fibers), the chopped glass fiber showed a
the greater the amount of fibers in the concrete the more constant drop in strength up to CMOD1 = 0.5 mm,

FIGURE 4 Set-up of flexural test and specimen dimensions in mm.

F I G U R E 5 Determination of the
flexural toughness (Tf).
DE ALMEIDA ET AL. 7

Hooked-end steel fibers Crimped steel fibers

12 Vf = 0.50% 12
Vf = 0.75% Vf = 0.50%
10 Vf = 1.00% 10
Vf = 0.75%
Stress [MPa]

Stress [MPa]
8 8
Vf = 1.00%

6 6

4 4

2 2

0 0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5
CMOD [mm] CMOD [mm]

(a) (b)

Chopped glass fibers Pultruded glass fibers

7 7
Vf = 0.50%
6 6
Vf = 0.75%
Stress [MPa]

Stress [MPa]
5 5
Vf = 1.00%
4 4

3 3
Vf = 0.50%
2 2
Vf = 0.75%
1 1 Vf = 1.00%

0 0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5

CMOD [mm] CMOD [mm]

(c) (d)

Monofilament polymeric fibers Twisted polymeric fibers

5 5 Vf = 0.50%
Vf = 0.50%
Vf = 0.75%
4 Vf = 0.75% 4
Stress [MPa]

Vf = 1.00%
Stress [MPa]

Vf = 1.00%
3 3

2 2

1 1

0 0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5
CMOD [mm] CMOD [mm]

(e) (f)

F I G U R E 6 Stress-crack mouth opening displacement (CMOD) curves for fiber-reinforced concrete (FRC) of Group 1: (a) hooked-end
steel fiber; (b) crimped steel fiber; (c) chopped glass fiber; (d) pultruded glass fiber; (e) monofilament polymeric fiber; and (f) twisted
polymeric fiber.

moment in which the rate of strength loss is reduced. At compared with commonly used steel fibers. After this
large deformations (CMOD4 = 3.5 mm), the stresses in drop, the polymeric fibers maintain a practically constant
FRC with volume fractions of fibers of 0.50% and 0.75% level of stress as the load is applied. In the case of mono-
are almost zero. The pultruded glass fiber provided high filament fibers, a small portion of the strength is recov-
reinforcement capacity for the concrete presenting a ered around CMOD2 = 1.5 mm, at which point the
deflection-hardening behavior for 0.50% and 0.75% vol- strength begins to decrease. This behavior was also
umes of fiber. observed by Garcez et al.13 in their investigations with
Both polymeric fibers curves show a quick drop twisted polymeric fibers. The evolution of the crack of
shortly after the concrete matrix reaches its tensile G1-MOPO-0.75 mix is presented in Figure 7.
strength. According to,12 this behavior can be explained One of the main factors that explains the differences
due to the low stiffness of polymeric fibers when in the postcracking behavior of the FRC for different
8 DE ALMEIDA ET AL.

FIGURE 7 Cracking evolution of the mix G1-MOPO-0.75.

F I G U R E 8 Behavior of
flexural behavior of high-
strength fiber-reinforced
concrete (HSFRC) in bending:
Deflection-softening and
deflection-hardening.

types of fibers of the same material is the bonding below the critical volume. Deflection-hardening behavior
between the fiber and the concrete matrix. The anchor- is reached when modulus of rupture (MOR) is greater
age provided by the hooks at the ends of the steel fibers, than the stress at first cracking. Otherwise, there is a
for example, was more efficient than the conformations behavior defined as deflection-softening.3,27,28 Figure 8
along the length of the crimped steel fibers. Nevertheless, presents the stress-CMOD curves for three mixes studied
fiber pull-out tests should be performed to evaluate the to illustrate the different behaviors of the HSFRC in
bonding limit. bending and the influence of increasing the fiber content.
Naaman27 points out that the classification of the A summary of the mechanical properties is presented
composite according to its flexural behavior is particu- in Table 5: compressive strength (fc), limit of proportion-
larly interesting since in most applications of fiber- ality (fL), residual flexural tensile strength (fR,j) and flex-
reinforced concrete this is the predominant behavior. The ural toughness (Tf). The nomenclature for each mix was
behavior of fiber-reinforced concrete in bending is closely adopted as follows: the first two letters indicate the type
associated with the fiber content in the composite, espe- of fiber and the last two indicate the fiber material (steel,
cially with the concept of critical volume of fibers (Vf,crit), glass or polymeric), whereas the number accompanying
which corresponds to the fiber content that maintains the nomenclature indicates the volume of fibers. For
the same strength for the composite from the matrix fail- instance, CHGL-0.50 involves a mix with chopped glass
ure. According to this definition, the composite with fiber fibers with a volume fraction of 0.50%.
content above the critical volume presents a deflection- The stress-CMOD curves of Group 2 are shown in
hardening behavior, whereas a deflection-softening Figure 9. In general, the behavior is quite similar when
behavior is obtained in composites with fiber contents compared with the mixes of Group 1: hooked-end steel
 DE

TABLE 5 Mechanical properties obtained in 3PBT.

Mix fc,m [MPa] fL,m [MPa] fR1,m [MPa] fR2,m [MPa] fR3,m [MPa] fR4,m [MPa] Tfa [N/mm] fL,k [MPa] fR1,k [MPa] fR3,k [MPa] Class
ALMEIDA ET AL.

G1-HEST-0.50 65.50 (3.74) 5.42 (0.12) 5.65 (0.99) 6.47 (1.00) 5.07 (0.99) 3.95 (0.70) 14.76 5.10 3.04 2.45 3b
G1-HEST-0.75 70.25 (0.63) 5.81 (0.51) 9.03 (1.41) 9.95 (1.16) 8.29 (1.10) 7.02 (0.94) 22.81 4.48 5.33 5.41 5c
G1-HEST-1.00 71.55 (1.82) 6.39 (0.32) 10.62 (1.36) 10.79 (1.26) 9.60 (0.94) 8.29 (1.11) 25.57 5.53 7.05 7.13 7c
G1-CRST-0.50 57.27 (1.05) 5.59 (0.22) 3.57 (0.54) 3.01 (0.54) 1.84 (0.28) 1.42 (0.27) 7.90 5.02 2.15 1.10 2a
G1-CRST-0.75 61.28 (0.55) 5.39 (0.42) 4.78 (0.89) 3.94 (0.40) 2.58 (0.49) 1.84 (0.45) 10.23 4.28 2.44 1.29 2a
G1-CRST-1.00 55.25 (1.06) 5.65 (0.39) 5.65 (0.98) 4.78 (1.12) 3.44 (0.50) 2.59 (0.56) 12.26 4.62 3.06 2.13 3a
G1-CHGL-0.50 53.42 (1.58) 5.05 (0.27) 1.79 (0.22) 0.70 (0.08) 0.36 (0.02) 0.21 (0.02) 3.36 4.34 1.20 0.30 1a
G1-CHGL-0.75 54.32 (1.05) 5.46 (0.26) 2.3 (0.29) 1.00 (0.11) 0.57 (0.05) 0.35 (0.03) 4.23 4.77 1.53 0.44 1.5a
G1-CHGL-1.00 53.58 (0.96) 5.33 (0.52) 3.27 (0.56) 1.72 (0.29) 1.01 (0.15) 0.64 (0.08) 5.92 3.96 1.81 0.62 1.5a
G1-PUGL-0.50 54.84 (1.41) 4.99 (0.38) 3.69 (0.68) 3.93 (0.82) 3.69 (0.69) 3.52 (0.74) 9.64 4.00 1.89 1.88 1.5c
G1-PUGL-0.75 54.66 (0.79) 5.31 (0.22) 4.85 (0.88) 5.34 (1.03) 5.20 (1.03) 4.95 (0.86) 12.75 4.74 2.53 2.50 2.5c
G1-PUGL-1.00 49.03 (0.67) 5.07 (0.36) 5.14 (1.09) 5.89 (1.34) 5.83 (1.31) 5.59 (1.25) 13.95 4.11 2.27 2.39 2c
G1-MOPO-0.50 48.722 (0.56) 4.65 (0.21) 1.50 (0.25) 1.65 (0.37) 1.55 (0.32) 1.41 (0.26) 4.46 4.10 0.85 0.70 -
G1-MOPO-0.75 48.69 (1.16) 4.32 (0.16) 2.052 (0.33) 2.37 (0.46) 2.25 (0.40) 2.03 (0.36) 5.92 3.91 1.18 1.19 1c
G1-MOPO-1.00 48.48 (0.50) 4.50 (0.08) 2.83 (0.34) 3.30 (0.51) 3.10 (0.38) 2.78 (0.36) 7.96 4.29 1.93 2.10 1.5c
G1-TWPO-0.50 68.12 (3.10) 4.63 (0.09) 1.23 (0.17) 1.12 (0.20) 1.15 (0.21) 1.14 (0.21) 3.45 4.40 0.77 0.59 -
G1-TWPO-0.75 65.57 (1.81) 4.39 (0.25) 1.65 (0.20) 1.58 (0.17) 1.62 (0.16) 1.60 (0.16) 4.46 3.74 1.11 1.21 1c
G1-TWPO-1.00 64.74 (0.75) 4.77 (0.27) 2.17 (0.38) 2.27 (0.38) 2.34 (0.40) 2.31 (0.39) 5.97 4.07 1.18 1.30 1d
G2-HEST-0.50 84.01 (1.37) 5.84 (0.35) 5.71 (0.72) 4.56 (0.69) 2.48 (0.45) 1.56 (0.38) 11.77 4.91 3.83 1.30 3a
G2-HEST-0.75 90.61 (4.54) 6.50 (0.24) 8.61 (1.11) 6.78 (0.96) 3.53 (0.33) 2.20 (0.28) 17.04 5.86 5.68 2.65 5a
G2-HEST-1.00 88.47 (1.71) 7.42 (0.47) 13.00 (1.48) 10.49 (1.27) 6.73 (0.81) 4.69 (1.12) 25.75 6.19 9.10 4.59 9a
G2-CHGL-0.50 88.40 (5.05) 6.33 (0.21) 1.56 (0.17) 0.56 (0.08) 0.26 (0.05) 0.14 (0.03) 2.95 5.77 1.11 0.12 1a
G2-CHGL-0.75 92.84 (1.75) 6.53 (0.41) 3.08 (0.52) 1.70 (0.20) 0.97 (0.08) 0.61 (0.05) 5.82 5.44 1.71 0.75 1.5a
G2-CHGL-1.00 89.03 (3.81) 6.66 (0.18) 4.44 (0.36) 2.58 (0.16) 1.49 (0.11) 0.90 (0.06) 8.20 6.18 3.49 1.20 3a
G2-MOPO-0.50 82.30 (2.47) 5.48 (0.15) 1.31 (0.23) 1.49 (0.29) 1.49 (0.31) 1.37 (0.26) 4.10 5.09 0.71 0.66 -
G2-MOPO-0.75 76.74 (5.79) 5.18 (0.42) 2.58 (0.40) 3.17 (0.58) 3.17 (0.49) 2.92 (0.49) 7.67 4.06 1.54 1.88 1.5d
G2-MOPO-1.00 77.00 (4.98) 5.75 (0.36) 2.96 (0.24) 3.94 (0.37) 3.94 (0.31) 3.55 (0.23) 9.26 4.80 2.34 3.14 2e

Note: Standard deviation in brackets ().

a
Flexural toughness corresponding to the mean curve.
9
10 DE ALMEIDA ET AL.

Hooked-end steel fibers Chopped glass fibers

14 Vf = 0.50% 7
Vf = 0.75% Vf = 0.50%
12 6
Vf = 1.00%
Vf = 0.75%
Stress [MPa]

Stress [MPa]
10 5
Vf = 1.00%
8 4

6 3

4 2

2 1

0 0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5
CMOD [mm] CMOD [mm]

(a) (b)
Monofilament polymeric fibers
6 Vf = 0.50%

5 Vf = 0.75%
Vf = 1.00%
Stress [MPa]

0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5
CMOD [mm]

(c)

F I G U R E 9 Stress-crack mouth opening displacement (CMOD) curves for fiber-reinforced concrete (FRC) of Group 2: (a) hooked-end
steel fiber; (b) chopped glass fiber; (c) monofilament polymeric fiber.

fibers providing the highest residual flexural tensile 2 was only 5.35% and 5.07%, respectively, compared with
strength; glass fibers with a continuous drop after the coefficients of variation above 15% for residual flexural
limit of proportionality is reached; and the ability of poly- tensile strength for both groups. The residual strengths
meric fibers to maintain constant stress up to large crack are subject to the high intrinsic variability of the fibers
openings. Few differences must be highlighted. For associated with their distribution and orientation within
hooked-end steel fibers mixes, the stress reduction rate is the concrete matrix, factors that explain the high coeffi-
more evident than its corresponding mixes in Group cient of variation.30
1, and the chopped glass FRC curves are more distant The influence of fiber content on the LOP was
from each other when compared with Group 1. assessed through variance analyses (ANOVA) and Tukey
test with a significance level of 95% (α = 0.05) and the
results of are presented in Figures 10 and 11 for Groups
3.1 | Limit of proportionality 1 and 2, respectively, in which columns (representing the
mixes) that do not share a letter are significantly differ-
The limit of proportionality (LOP) is defined as the point ent. The statistical analysis shows that, with the excep-
at which the load is transferred from the concrete matrix tion of hooked-end steel fibers, the fiber content did not
to the fibers. This point is also defined in the literature as influence significantly the LOP. In both groups, the LOP
the stress at the first crack.29 From this moment on, the of hooked-end mixes increased with the increase in fiber
behavior of the concrete is governed by the fibers in the content, and the mixes with a volume fraction of 1.0%
postcracking stage. In the case of conventional concrete presented a significantly higher LOP than the mix with
(without fibers), postcracking behavior is practically neg- Vf = 0.50%. Furthermore, only for group 1, monofilament
ligible as the stress suffers an abrupt drop characterizing polymeric fibers provided the highest LOP with
the brittleness of concrete. In fact, Table 5 shows that Vf = 0.50%, which is significantly higher than G1-MOPO-
LOP is little influenced by the fiber content as the mean 0.75. Monofilament polymeric fiber mixes presented the
coefficient of variation for the mixes of Groups 1 and lowest values of limit of proportionality possibly due to
DE ALMEIDA ET AL. 11

F I G U R E 1 0 Statistical
analysis (α = 0.05) based on
Tukey test on the limit of
proportionality of Group 1 to
evaluate the influence of fiber
content: Columns that do not
share a letter are significantly
different.

fR1 and fR3 as a function of the fiber content as shown in

Figures 12 and 13, respectively. It should be noted that
these linear regressions are only valid for fiber-reinforced
concrete with fiber content ranging from
Vf = 0.50%–1.00%.
Statistical analysis shows that increasing the fiber vol-
ume fraction from 0.50% to 0.75% provides a significant
increase in fR1 only for hooked-end steel fibers
(Figure 14). In all other mixes, the residual strength fR1
associated with Vf = 0.75% is equivalent to the
fR1 obtained with Vf = 0.50%. Furthermore, significant
differences between volume fractions of 0.75% and 1.00%
were observed only in the mixes with chopped glass
fibers and monofilament polymeric fiber. The statistical
analysis also demonstrates that the influence of fiber con-
F I G U R E 1 1 Statistical analysis (α = 0.05) based on Tukey test
tent on fR3 is more evident in mixes with chopped glass
on the limit of proportionality of Group 2 to evaluate the influence
fiber in which significant differences were observed
of fiber content: Columns that do not share a letter are significantly
between the three volume fractions studied (Figure 15).
different.
Linear regressions were also performed to the
mixes of Group 2 and the coefficients of determination
the lower compressive strengths when compared with (R 2 ) are even higher than those of Group 1, suggesting
other mixes. a strong correlation between the residual strength and
fiber content for higher compressive strengths
(Figures 16 and 17).
3.2 | Residual flexural tensile strength The statistical analysis shows the clear influence of
fiber content on both residual strengths (fR1 and fR3), cre-
The residual flexural tensile strength increase as the fiber ating three different classes (A, B and C) for the three vol-
content increases, as shown in Table 5. Regardless of ume fractions analyzed in most cases, indicating
fiber material and shape, this behavior can be seen in all significant differences between the results (Figure 18).
mixes for both groups. In fact, as there is an increase in
the fiber content in the concrete, the greater the number
of fibers crossing the crack and providing a residual 3.3 | Flexural toughness
strength in the postcracking stage. In Group 1, hooked-
end steel fibers provided the highest residual strengths, Flexural toughness is a way of evaluating the ductility
followed by crimped steel fibers and pultruded glass and dissipated energy by the specimen until it reaches a
fibers. Linear regressions with high coefficients of deter- certain crack opening. This behavior is closely associated
mination (R2) represents the increase of residual strength with the fiber pull-out process from the concrete matrix.
12 DE ALMEIDA ET AL.

Steel fibers Glass fibers Polymeric fibers

12.00
fR1 = 12.44Vf + 0.97 Chopped glass fiber Monofilament polymeric fiber
10.00 R² = 0.96
Pultruded glass fiber Twisted polymeric fiber
fR1 [MPa]

8.00
fR1 = 4.63Vf + 2.39
6.00 R² = 0.89

fR1 = 4.15Vf + 1.55

4.00 R² = 0.99 fR1 = 2.66Vf + 0.13
R² = 0.99
fR1 = 4.42Vf + 0.24
2.00 Hooked-end steel fiber R² = 0.97
fR1 = 1.87Vf + 0.28
Crimped steel fiber
R² = 0.99
0.00
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25

Volume fraction of fibers [%]

FIGURE 12 Linear regressions to estimate the residual flexural tensile strength fR1 of Group 1.

Steel fibers Glass fibers Polymeric fibers

12.00
Chopped glass fiber Monofilament polymeric fiber
10.00
fR3 = 9.06Vf + 0.85
Pultruded glass fiber Twisted polymeric fiber
R² = 0.94
fR3 [MPa]

8.00

fR3 = 2.89Vf + 2.39

6.00 R² = 0.89

Hooked-end steel fiber fR3 = 3.10Vf - 0.02

4.00 R² = 1.00
Crimped steel fiber

2.00
fR3 = 3.20Vf + 0.22 fR3 = 2.96Vf + 0.24 fR3 = 2.38Vf - 0.08
R² = 1.00 R² = 0.97 R² = 0.98
0.00
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25
Volume fraction of fibers [%]

FIGURE 13 Linear regressions to estimate the residual flexural tensile strength fR3 of Group 1.

F I G U R E 1 4 Statistical
analysis (α = 0.05) based on
Tukey test on the residual
strength fR1 of Group 1 to
evaluate the influence of fiber
content: Columns that do not
share a letter are significantly
different.

Figures 19 and 20 show that toughness increases as the followed by pultruded glass fiber and crimped steel fiber.
fiber content increases for both groups. Hooked-end steel The two polymeric fibers investigated and chopped glass
fibers provided the highest toughness to concrete, fiber showed similar performances.
DE ALMEIDA ET AL. 13

F I G U R E 1 5 Statistical
analysis (α = 0.05) based on
Tukey test on the residual
strength fR3 of Group 1 to
evaluate the influence of fiber
content: Columns that do not
share a letter are significantly
different.

Steel fibers Glass fibers Polymeric fibers

14.00

12.00 Chopped glass fiber Monofilament polymeric fiber

fR1 = 14.57Vf - 1.82
10.00
fR1 [MPa]

R² = 0.99

8.00

6.00
fR1 = 3.30Vf - 0.19
4.00 R² = 0.91
fR1 = 2.44Vf - 0.93
R² = 0.99
2.00
Hooked-end steel fiber

0.00
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25

Volume fraction of fibers [%]

FIGURE 16 Linear regressions to estimate the residual flexural tensile strength fR1 of Group 2.

Steel fibers Glass fibers Polymeric fibers

12.00

Hooked-end steel fiber

10.00 Chopped glass fiber Monofilament polymeric fiber
fR3 [MPa]

8.00

6.00 fR3 = 8.50Vf - 2.13

R² = 0.92 fR3 = 4.91Vf - 0.82
fR3 = 5.76Vf - 1.29 R² = 0.96
4.00 R² = 1.00

2.00

0.00
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25

Volume fraction of fibers [%]

FIGURE 17 Linear regressions to estimate the residual flexural tensile strength fR3 of Group 2.
14 DE ALMEIDA ET AL.

F I G U R E 1 8 Statistical analysis (α = 0.05) based on Tukey test on the residual strengths fR1 and fR3 of Group 2 to evaluate the influence
of fiber content: Columns that do not share a letter are significantly different.

F I G U R E 1 9 Flexural
toughness of mixes of Group 1.

3.4 | Influence of the compressive

strength

A comparison of the stress-CMOD curves of both groups

for the same reinforcing index is shown in Figure 21. As
explained earlier, a higher limit of proportionality in the
mixes of Group 2 is possibly due to the greater compres-
sive strength of the concrete matrix. Statistical analysis
over the limit of proportionality between the two groups
shows that there are significant differences between the
corresponding mixes of Groups 1 and 2 for most mixes
(Figure 22), confirming the hypothesis that the compres-
sive strength of the concrete matrix clearly affects this
parameter.31,32 This aspect is more evident in mixes
with glass and polymeric fibers and can be checked in
FIGURE 20 Flexural toughness of mixes of Group 2.
Table 6.
DE ALMEIDA ET AL. 15

fR1 fR2 fR3 fR4 fR1 fR2 fR3 fR4 fR1 fR2 fR3 fR4
14 14 14

12 12 12

Stress [MPa]
Stress [MPa]

Stress [MPa]
10 10 10
Hooked-end Hooked-end Hooked-end
8 steel fiber 8 steel fiber 8 steel fiber

6 Vf = 0.50% 6 Vf = 0.75% 6 Vf = 1.00%

4 Group 1 4 Group 1 4 Group 1

2 Group 2 2 Group 2 2 Group 2

0 0 0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5
CMOD [mm] CMOD [mm] CMOD [mm]

fR1 fR2 fR3 fR4 fR1 fR2 fR3 fR4 fR1 fR2 fR3 fR4
8 8 8

6 6 6

Stress [MPa]
Stress [MPa]

Stress [MPa]
Chopped Chopped Chopped
glass fiber glass fiber glass fiber
4 4 4
Vf = 0.50% Vf = 0.75% Vf = 1.00%

Group 1 Group 1 Group 1

2 2 2

Group 2 Group 2 Group 2

0 0 0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5
CMOD [mm] CMOD [mm] CMOD [mm]

fR1 fR2 fR3 fR4 fR1 fR2 fR3 fR4 fR1 fR2 fR3 fR4
8 8 8

6 6 6
Stress [MPa]
Stress [MPa]

Stress [MPa]
Monofilament Monofilament Monofilament
polymeric fiber polymeric fiber polymeric fiber
4 4 4
Vf = 0.50% Vf = 0.75% Vf = 1.00%

Group 1 Group 1 Group 1

2 2 2

Group 2 Group 2 Group 2

0 0 0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5
CMOD [mm] CMOD [mm] CMOD [mm]

FIGURE 21 Comparison of stress-crack mouth opening displacement (CMOD) curves of groups 1 and 2.

10.0 the concrete and directly affects the pull-out behavior

Limit o f pro po rtio nality [MP a]

Group 1
A Group 2 of the fiber. As the residual strength and energy dissipa-
8.0
A B A
A A tion are directly associated with the fiber pull-out effect,
A B A
6.0 A
B
B B A A there may be greater residual strength for different con-
B
B B crete matrices with the same fiber content. On the other
4.0 hand, the residual strengths of the hooked-end steel fiber
2.0
of Group 2 were lower than their equivalent in Group
1. After reaching the modulus of rupture between CMOD1
0.0 and CMOD2 = 1.50 mm, the curves of Group 2 show a
Hooked-end Chopped Monofilament
steel fiber glass fiber polymeric fiber drop in load greater than the slope of the respective
branch of Group 1. As the load is applied, there is an
Steel fibers Glass fibers Polymeric fibers increasingly greater distance between the curves of groups
V f = 0.50% V f = 0.75% V f = 1.00% 1 and 2. With the exception of fR1 which has a close value
for both groups, the remaining residual strengths of Group
F I G U R E 2 2 Statistical analysis (α = 0.05) based on Tukey test 2 (fR2, fR3 and fR4) are all lower than the strengths of Group
on the limit of proportionality to evaluate the influence 1. This can be attributed to a possible rupture of the fibers
compressive strength of concrete: Columns that do not share a
due to the high bonding strength between the fiber and
letter are significantly different.
the concrete matrix, but pull-out tests should be performed
to confirm this hypothesis.
The residual strengths of mixes with glass and poly- No significant differences were observed through sta-
meric fibers of Group 2 are greater than their correspond- tistical analysis in the hooked-end steel fiber and mono-
ing mixes in Group 1 for volume fractions of 0.75% and filament polymeric fiber mixes over the fR1 residual
1.00%. Although the postcracking behavior of concrete in strength because of the variation of the compressive
bending is mostly governed by fibers, this is probably due strength (Figure 23). On the other hand, Tukey test
to silica fume in the composition of concrete of the Group pointed significant differences at volume fractions of
2. The presence of silica fume may reduce the porosity of 0.75% and 1.00% for chopped glass fiber mixes.
16 DE ALMEIDA ET AL.

TABLE 6 Ratio of the mechanical properties: Group 2/Group 1.

Ratio of the mechanical properties: Group 2/Group 1

Mix fL [MPa] fR1 [MPa] fR2 [MPa] fR3 [MPa] fR4 [MPa] Tf [N/mm]
HEST-0.50 1.08 1.01 0.70 0.49 0.39 0.80
HEST-0.75 1.12 0.95 0.68 0.43 0.31 0.75
HEST-1.00 1.16 1.22 0.97 0.70 0.57 1.01
CHGL-0.50 1.26 0.87 0.80 0.74 0.65 0.88
CHGL-0.75 1.20 1.34 1.69 1.69 1.73 1.38
CHGL-1.00 1.25 1.36 1.49 1.47 1.40 1.39
MOPO-0.50 1.18 0.88 0.90 0.96 0.98 0.92
MOPO-0.75 1.20 1.26 1.34 1.41 1.44 1.30
MOPO-1.00 1.28 1.05 1.19 1.27 1.28 1.16

20.0 Group 1 15.0 Group 1

Group 2 Group 2
15.0 A A
A 10.0 A
f R1 [MPa]

A
A f R3 [MPa] B
10.0
A
AA
5.0 B A
A A B
5.0 A B B B
B A AA
AA A A A A AA
A B
A B B
0.0 0.0
Hooked-end Chopped Monofilament Hooked-end Chopped Monofilament
steel fiber glass fiber polymeric fiber steel fiber glass fiber polymeric fiber

Steel fibers Glass fibers Polymeric fibers Steel fibers Glass fibers Polymeric fibers

V f = 0.50% V f = 0.75% V f = 1.00% V f = 0.50% V f = 0.75% V f = 1.00%

F I G U R E 2 3 Statistical analysis (α = 0.05) based on Tukey test F I G U R E 2 4 Statistical analysis (α = 0.05) based on Tukey test
on the residual strength fR1 to evaluate the influence compressive on the residual strength fR3 to evaluate the influence compressive
strength of concrete: Columns that do not share a letter are strength of concrete: Columns that do not share a letter are
significantly different. significantly different.

For the residual strength associated with the ULS reinforced concrete structures.33,34 The fib Model Code
(fR3), statistical analysis indicated significant differences 201011 classifies FRC based on the postcracking residual
for all the mixes when comparing the two groups, with strength obtained through 3PBT according to EN 14651
the exception of the mixes with monofilament polymeric (2007). The classification of FRC is based on the characteris-
fibers with Vf = 0.50% (Figure 24). These results reveal tic residual strengths fR1,k and fR3,k which determine the
the strong influence of the concrete compressive strength behavior of the material in the serviceability limit state (SLS)
on the fR3 parameter on HSFRC. and ultimate limit state (ULS), respectively. The material is
classified using two parameters: (i) the number correspond-
ing to fR1,k class and (ii) the letter corresponding to fR3,k/fR1,k
4 | C L ASS I FICATION AND ratio. The strength classes of fR1,k range from 1.0 to 8.0 MPa,
REQUIREMENTS FOR U SING FRC I N whereas fR3,k/fR1,k ratio is represented by the letters “a,” “b,”
S T R U C T U R A L A P PL I C A T I O N S “c,” “d” and “e,” as identified in Table 7 and Figure 25.
The characteristic values of the properties are deter-
The mechanical property of concrete most influenced by the mined according to EN 1990 (2002):
addition of fibers is the postcracking residual strength, and
this represents an important design parameter for fiber- f Rj,k ¼ f Rj,m ð1  k N
CVÞ ð3Þ
DE ALMEIDA ET AL. 17

TABLE 7 Classification of FRC according to fib Model when the maximum postcracking stress (modulus of rup-
Code 2010. ture) is greater than the stress at first cracking, which
Letter Condition
corresponds to the behavior of hooked-end steel fibers
and some mixes of pultruded glass fibers. According to
a 0.5 < fR3,k/fR1,k ≤ 0.7
the classification proposed by MC2010,11 the deflection-
b 0.7 < fR3,k/fR1,k ≤ 0.9 hardening behavior is obtained in FRC classified as “c,”
c 0.9 < fR3,k/fR1,k ≤ 1.1 “d” or “e” (Figure 25), which is the case of pultruded
d 1.1 < fR3,k/fR1,k ≤ 1.3 glass fiber and polymeric fiber. From this criterion, steel
e 1.3 < fR3,k/fR1,k fibers provided deflection-softening behavior since the
residual strengths fR3 are lower than fR1 in all mixes.
The fib Model Code 201011 establishes the following
14 fR1,k fR3,k conditions that FRC must fulfill to fibers replace (par-
12 e tially or completely) conventional reinforcement in rein-
d
10 forced concrete elements to guarantee a minimum level
c
Stress [MPa]

8
of ductility:
b
6
a f R1,k
4
≥ 0:4 ð4Þ
f L,k
2

0 f R3,k
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 ≥ 0:5 ð5Þ
CMOD [mm] f R1,k

F I G U R E 2 5 Behavior of fiber-reinforced concrete (FRC)

according to the classification proposed in fib Model Code 2010. In Group 1, only steel fibers, pultruded glass fibers
and monofilament polymeric fibers (the latter with
Vf = 1.00%) satisfy the conditions aforementioned
where, fRj,k is the characteristic value of residual flexural (Figures 26 and 27). Polymeric fibers do not meet
tensile strength corresponding to CMOD = CMODi Equation (4) due to the low elastic modulus of the fiber
(i = 1, 2, 3, 4) [MPa]; fRj,m is the mean value of residual compared with the elastic modulus of the concrete
flexural tensile strength corresponding to matrix. On the other hand, the fiber's ability to maintain
CMOD = CMODi (i = 1, 2, 3, 4) [MPa]; kN is a parameter an almost constant stress up to large crack openings
that depends on the number of test specimens, defined in makes this type of fiber to easily fulfill Equation (5). In
Annex D of EN 1990 (2002), adopted as 2.63 (n = 4); CV this context, authors in the literature have proposed dif-
is the coefficient of variation [%]. ferent criteria for using polymeric fibers in structural
The classification of all mixes in the research is pre- applications.12 In Group 2, only monofilament polymeric
sented in Table 5. According to the definition of fibers satisfy both conditions required by the fib Model
Naaman,27 deflection-hardening behavior is obtained Code 2010. Due to the quick drop in load after the

F I G U R E 2 6 Requirements
for using fiber-reinforced
concrete (FRC) in structural
applications (Group 1): fR1,k/fL,
k >0.40.
18 DE ALMEIDA ET AL.

F I G U R E 2 7 Requirements
for using fiber-reinforced
concrete (FRC) in structural
applications (Group 1): fR3,k/fR1,
k >0.40.

FIGURE 28 Requirements for using fiber-reinforced concrete (FRC) in structural applications (Group 2).

maximum stress is reached in tests with hooked-end steel bending tests involving six different fibers. The parame-
fibers (Figure 28), the residual strength fR3 is quickly ters analyzed were the fiber type, the fiber content and
reduced, so that Equation (5) is not met. Nevertheless, the compressive strength of the concrete matrix. Regard-
the energy dissipated (toughness) during flexural tests by less of the fiber material, the results showed that greater
hooked-end steel fibers mixes is significantly higher than residual flexural tensile strength and toughness are
the energy dissipated by polymeric fibers mixes. In this obtained increasing the amount of fibers added to con-
context, there is the following inconsistency: steel fibers crete. In addition to higher residual strengths, increasing
that provide the greatest toughness and ductility to con- fiber content may provide deflection-hardening behavior
crete may not be used in structural applications as they to FRC as observed with hooked-end steel fibers and pul-
do not meet the conditions required by MC2010; and truded glass fibers mixes. Steel fibers showed the highest
polymeric fibers, whose toughness provided to concrete is residual strengths, followed by pultruded glass fibers,
significantly lower, meet the requirements and can be polymeric fibers (both types) and chopped glass fibers.
used in structural elements. Therefore, these results sug- The latter showed almost zero residual strength from
gest that such conditions must be reviewed for high- CMOD3 = 2.50 mm.
strength fiber-reinforced concrete. The limit of proportionality is not affected by the
addition of fibers to concrete. This is a parameter gov-
erned mainly by the tensile strength of the concrete
5 | C ON C L U S I ON S matrix. Post-cracking behavior, on the other hand, is con-
trolled mainly by the fibers.
This research presented the flexural behavior of high- Increasing the compressive strength of the concrete
strength fiber-reinforced concrete through 3-point matrix affect mainly the limit proportionality of all mixes
DE ALMEIDA ET AL. 19

and marginally the postcracking behavior of the concrete 11. International Federation for Structural Concrete. fib Model
reinforced with hooked-end steel fibers, which showed a Code for concrete structures 2010. Berlin: Verlag Ernst & John;
quicker drop in strength after reaching the modulus of 2013.
12. Nana WSA, Tran HV, Goubin T, Kubisztal G, Bennani A,
rupture when compared with the same mix with lower
Bui TT, et al. Behaviour of macro-synthetic fibers reinforced
compressive strength. concrete: experimental, numerical and design code investiga-
The classification of FRC and the conditions required tions. Structures. 2021;32:1271–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
for FRC for use in structural applications according to istruc.2021.03.080
the fib Model Code 2010 were also presented and dis- 13. Garcez EO, Kabir MI, Macleod A. Self-compacting concrete
cussed, and it was verified that such conditions are not reinforced with twisted-bundle macro-synthetic fiber. Appl Sci.
consistent with the observed experimental results (espe- 2019;9:2543.
14. Marahla RH, Garcia-Taengua E. Sensitivity of the flexural per-
cially toughness) and should be revised for high-strength
formance of glass and synthetic FRC to fibre dosage and
fiber-reinforced concrete.
water/cement ratio. In: RILEM Bookseries. 2021.
15. Oettel V, Schulz M, Haist M. Empirical approach for the resid-
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT ual flexural tensile strength of steel fiber-reinforced concrete
The data that support the findings of this study are avail- based on notched three-point bending tests. Struct Concr. 2022;
able from the corresponding author upon reasonable 23(2):993–1004.
request. 16. Galeote E, Picazo Á, Alberti MG, de la Fuente A, Enfedaque A,
Galvez JC, et al. Statistical analysis of an experimental database
ORCID on residual flexural strengths of fiber reinforced concretes:
Ricardo Laguardia Justen de Almeida https://orcid.org/ performance-based equations. Struct Concr. 2022;23(5):3140–53.
17. Manfredi RP, de Andrade Silva F. Test methods for the charac-
0000-0002-4251-1146
terization of polypropylene fiber reinforced concrete: a compar-
ative analysis. KSCE J Civ Eng. 2020;24(3):856–66.
R EF E RE N C E S 18. Ryabchikov A, Kiviste M, Udras SM, Lindpere M, Vassiljev A,
1. Chen G, Zhao L, Gao D, Yuan J, Bai J, Wang W. Flexural ten- Korb N. The experimental investigation of the mechanical
sile behavior of single and novel multiple hooked-end steel properties of steel fibre-reinforced concrete according to differ-
fiber–reinforced notched concrete beams. J Mater Civ Eng. ent testing standards. Agron Res. 2020;18(1):969–79.
2022;34(6):1–15. 19. Carrillo J, Vargas JD, Arroyo O. Correlation between flexural–
2. Ju Y, Zhu M, Zhang X, Wang D. Influence of steel fiber and tensile performance of concrete reinforced with hooked-end
polyvinyl alcohol fiber on properties of high performance con- steel fibers using US and European standards. J Mater Civ Eng.
crete. Struct Concr. 2022;23(3):1687–703. 2021;33(8):04021211.
3. Bentur A, Mindess S. Fibre reinforced cementitious composites. 20. Wu H, Qin X, Huang X, Kaewunruen S. Engineering, mechani-
2nd ed. New York: Taylor & Francis; 2007. p. 601. cal and dynamic properties of basalt fiber reinforced concrete.
4. Pakravan HR, Ozbakkaloglu T. Synthetic fibers for cementi- Materials (Basel). 2023;16(2):623.
tious composites: a critical and in-depth review of recent 21. Gao D, Luo F, Yan Y, Tang J, Yang L. Experimental investiga-
advances. Constr Build Mater. 2019;207:491–518. https://doi. tion on the flexural performance and damage process of steel
org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.02.078 fiber reinforced recycled coarse aggregate concrete. Structures.
5. Shafei B, Kazemian M, Dopko M, Najimi M. State-of-the-art 2023;51:1205–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2023.03.122
review of capabilities and limitations of polymer and glass 22. Manfredi RP, de Andrade SF, Cardoso DCT. On punching
fibers used for fiber-reinforced concrete. Materials (Basel). shear strength of steel fiber-reinforced concrete slabs-on-
2021;14(2):1–45. ground. ACI Struct J. 2022;119(4):185–96.
6. Blazy J, Blazy R. Polypropylene fiber reinforced concrete and 23. Ding C, Gao D, Guo A. Analytical methods for stress-crack
its application in creating architectural forms of public spaces. width relationship and residual flexural strengths of 3D/4D/5D
Case Stud Constr Mater. 2021 Jun;1:14. steel fiber reinforced concrete. Constr Build Mater. 2022;346(97):
7. De la Fuente A, Monserrat-L opez A, Tosic N, Serna P. Design of 128438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2022.128438
steel fibre reinforced concrete structures according to the annex 24. Resende TL, Cardoso DCT, Shehata LCD. Experimental and
L of the eurocode-2 2023. Hormig on y Acero. 2023;74:169–86. theoretical investigation on the stress transfer across cracks
8. Colombo M, Conforti A, di Prisco M, Leporace-Guimil B, due to combined action of steel fibers and aggregate interlock.
Plizzari G, Zani G. The basis for ductility evaluation in SFRC Cem Concr Compos. 2021;124:104239.
structures in MC2020: an investigation on slabs and shallow 25. Gondokusumo GS, Venkateshwaran A, Tan KH, Liew JYR.
beams. Struct Concr. 2023;24(4):4406–23. Unified equations to predict residual flexural tensile strength of
9. Almeida RLJ de, Parsekian G, Carnio MA. Concreto reforçado lightweight steel fiber-reinforced concrete. Struct Concr. 2021;
com fibras: projeto de fibras no ELU. CONCRETO & Constru- 22(4):2202–22.
ções. 2022;XLIX(105):90–7. 26. European Committee for Standardization. EN 14651: test
10. di Prisco M, Kanstad T, Plizzari G, Minelli F, Haus A. Euro- method for metallic fiber-reinforced concrete – measuring the
code 2 – annex L –European harmonized standard for steel flexural tensile strength (limite of proporcionality (LOP), resid-
fibre reinforced concrete. X RILEM-fib international sympo- ual). 2007 p. 17.
sium on fibre reinforced concrete. Switzerland: Springer; 2021. 27. Naaman AE. Fiber reinforced cement and concrete composites.
p. 539–51. First. Techno Press 3000. 2018 p. 765.
20 DE ALMEIDA ET AL.

28. Naaman AE, Reinhardt HW. Proposed classification of HPFRC

composites based on their tensile response. Mater Struct Guilherme Aris Parsekian, Pro-
Constr. 2006;39(5):547–55. fessor and Researcher of Concrete
29. Naaman AE. High performance fiber reinforced cement com- and Structural Masonry, Depart-
posites. High-performance construction materials: science and ment of Civil Engineering, Federal
applications. 1st ed. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing University of São Carlos, São Car-
Co. Pte. Ltd; 2008. p. 91–154. los, São Paulo, Brazil.
30. Głodkowska W, Laskowska-Bury J. Proposition for determin-
E-mail: [email protected]
ing the residual strength of fiber-reinforced cement composite.
Materials (Basel). 2022;15:18.
31. Chen G, Gao D, Zhu H, Song Yuan J, Xiao X, Wang W. Effects of
Marco Antonio Carnio, Founder
novel multiple hooked-end steel fibres on flexural tensile behaviour
of Evolução Engenharia and Profes-
of notched concrete beams with various strength grades. Structures.
2021;33:3644–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2021.06.016 sor in Pontifical Catholic University
32. Zhao J, Wang Q, Xu G, Shi Y, Su Y. Influence of macro- of Campinas, Department of Civil
synthetic fiber on the mechanical properties of iron ore tailing Engineering, Campinas, São Paulo,
concrete. Constr Build Mater. 2023;367:130293. https://doi.org/ Brazil. E-mail: mac@evengenharia.
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2023.130293 com.br
33. Di Prisco M, Colombo M, Dozio D. Fibre-reinforced concrete
in fib model code 2010: principles, models and test validation.
Struct Concr. 2013;14(4):342–61.
34. Di Prisco M, Plizzari G, Vandewalle L. Fibre reinforced concrete:
new design perspectives. Mater Struct Constr. 2009;42(9):1261–81.
SU PP O R TI N G I N F O RMA TI O N
Additional supporting information can be found online
AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES in the Supporting Information section at the end of this
article.
Ricardo Laguardia Justen de
Almeida, Civil Engineer, Projects
and Construction Coordination, How to cite this article: de Almeida RLJ,
Federal University of Alfenas, Alfe- Parsekian GA, Carnio MA. Investigation on the
nas, Minas Gerais, Brazil. flexural behavior of high-strength fiber-reinforced
E-mail: ricardoalmeida@estudante. concrete. Structural Concrete. 2024. https://doi.
ufscar.br org/10.1002/suco.202301031