BEFIB2012 Fibre reinforced concrete UM, Guimares, 2012

Joaquim Barros et al. (Eds)

SHEAR RESISTANCE OF MACRO-SYNTHETIC AND STEEL FIBRE REINFORCED CONCRETE BEAMS WITHOUT STIRRUPS
* * Benoit Parmentier , Niki Cauberg and Lucie Vandewalle
* Division Structures, Belgian Building Research Institute (BBRI) Avenue P. Holoffe, 21, B-1342 Limelette, Belgium e-mail: benoit.parmentier@bbri.be, web page: www.bbri.be

Department of Civil Engineering, K.U.Leuven (KUL), Heverlee, Belgium e-mail: lucie.vandewalle@bwk.kuleuven

Keywords: macro synthetic fibres, steel fibres, shear, beams, prediction. Summary: Twenty-eight FRC beams were tested in four-point bending to compare the experimental ultimate shear capacity with the analytical models published by RILEM and fib. Different types of fibre, fibre dosages and span over depth ratios were investigated on a limited series of FRC mixtures (steel, synthetic and hybrid). All the FRC specimens presented an increase of the shear capacity that the models underestimate.

INTRODUCTION

Fibres are discrete reinforcement that improve the post-cracking behaviour of concrete. While common applications of fibre reinforced concrete (FRC) mainly deal with hyperstatic structures, the use of FRC is also developed for single isostatic elements. From the economical point of view, the goal is to replace shear reinforcement and in particular the minimum reinforcement required by standards (Eurocode 2, ACI,...). Recently, theoretical models were developed and translated into the new version of Model Code. The prediction of the shear capacity of beams in bending is based on semi-empirical methods. In order to check these models, an experimental programme was carried out on small concrete beams. In particular, the application of the models to macro synthetic fibre reinforced concrete (SyFRC), hybrid steel fibre reinforced concrete (HySFRC) were verified. Moreover, specific small shear span to depth ratio were also taken into account.

2 EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAMME
Twenty-eight concrete beams were designed and tested under four-point bending. The beams were designed to fail in shear according to Eurocode 2 (EN 1992-1-1). There were no stirrups in the beams. The experimental parameters were the shear span to depth ratio (a/d), the fibre type and the fibres dosage (Vf). For each concrete composition, three a/d were used: 0.5, 1.5 and 2.5 to reflect (very) short beams. The beams with a very small a/d were used to check the limits of the prediction models. The length of the beams was 2500mm with a free span of 2300mm (see Figure 1). The cross-section (b x h) of the elements was 200 x 300 mm. In order to fail in shear, all the beams were reinforced with two longitudinal reinforcement bars with a diameter of 20 mm, which corresponds to a steel ratio of 1.21% for a cover of 30 mm and without stirrups. The longitudinal bars were properly anchored. Three different types of fibre were used in the concrete. The first one was an undulated steel fibre (UN), the second one was a steel fibre with a conical end anchorage (CF) and the last one was a macro-synthetic fibre (Sy). The volume fractions (Vf) were 0.26% (20 kg/m) and 0.51% (40 kg/m) for the steel fibres and 0.49% (4.5 kg/m) for the macro-synthetic fibre. Synergetic effects of

BEFIB2012: Benoit Parmentier, Niki Cauberg and Lucie Vandewalle.

steel fibres were also considered in the study by testing a mix of CF and UN fibres (at a respective volume fraction of 0.26%). Finally, a reference series (B) with only longitudinal reinforcement but without any fibres was also tested. Each series consists of 2 samples to improve the reliability of the results.

Figure 1: Geometry of the specimens and test set-up The overview of the testing programme is presented in Table 1. The first sixteen samples were cast and tested at BBRI while the other specimens were cast and tested at KUL. 2.1 Material properties The concrete composition was the same for all the beams except for the fibres type and/or dosage. The concrete composition and the main concrete properties are presented in Table 1. The cement was a CEM I 52.5N with a dosage of 320 kg/m. This dosage was used to allow for a large range of applications related to different durability issues. The coarse aggregates are crushed limestone mixed from three different grades (d/D = 4/6, 6/10 and 10/14). The coarse-to-fine aggregate ratio is close to 50:50 in order to target a good workability with the fibres (i.e. a slump higher than 50 mm). The characteristics of the fibres are summarised in Table 2. The first steel fibre (UN) is an undulated fibre with a nominal tensile strength of 1100 N/mm while the second one (CF) is a steel fibre with a conical end anchorage with the same tensile strength and approximately the same aspect ratio allowing for a comparison of the mechanical performance for the same dosage into the concrete.

BEFIB2012: Benoit Parmentier, Niki Cauberg and Lucie Vandewalle.

Table 1 : Concrete composition and main (average) concrete properties Material B0 UN20 UN40 CF20 CF40 Sy4.5 CF20 + UN20
Vf =0.51%

Vf =0.26% Vf =0.26% Vf =0.51% Vf =0.26% Vf =0.51% Vf =0.49%

Cement [kg/m] 320 Coarse aggregate [kg/m] 1011 Fine aggregate [kg/m] 894 Water 176 High range water reducer [l/m] 1.25 w/c 0.55 Slump [mm] > 50 Cube compressive strength 51.1 54.1 54.0 50.5 50.8 [N/mm] NA 4.4 5.1 5.2 4.9 Flexural strength ( ) (10) (5) (7) (7) f L [N/mm] * Residual strength at 0.5 mm NA 2.2 4.5 3.3 4.3 CMOD (16) (28) (13) (31) ( ) f R1,m [N/mm] * Residual strength at 2.5 mm NA 1.7 3.7 2.8 2.9 ( ) ( ) CMOD * fR3,m [N/mm] * (28) (27) (32) (31) Residual strength at 3.5 mm NA 1.5 3.1 2.5 2.5 ( ) ( ) CMOD * fR4,m [N/mm] * (22) (30) (29) (48) * The coefficient of variation (%) of residual strengths is given in brackets.

54.5 4.3 (8) 1.6 (14) 1.9 (17) 1.9 (13)

50.9 5.0 (6) 4.4 (15) 2.7 (26) 2.1 (28)

The macro-synthetic fibres (Sy) are made of a blend of polypropylene and polyethylene. This fibrillated fibre differs substantially from the steel fibres by its lower tensile strength (ratio 1:1.8) and its reduced elasticity modulus (ratio 1:42). Table 2 : Nominal characteristics of the fibres Tensile Young Density Length Diameter Aspect ratio Fibre strength modulus [kg/m] [mm] [mm] [/] [N/mm] [kN/mm] UN 1100 210 7850 50 1.0 50 CF 1100 210 7850 54 1.0 54 Sy 600 5 920 50 / / The characteristics of the hardened concrete were evaluated on companion samples cast together with the beams. The average concrete compressive strength was 41.8 N/mm at 28 days measured on cubes 150x150 mm according to EN 12390-3. The post-peak behaviour was quantified according to the EN 14651 (based on the last RILEM recommendations) ie. by using a three-point bending test (span=500 mm) on notched specimens with dimensions of 150x150x600mm. The limit of proportionality fL, the residual flexural tensile strengths fR1, fR3 and fR4 for a crack mouth opening displacement (CMOD) of 0.5, 2.5 and 3.5 mm, respectively, were measured for each series. These properties will be used to calculate the shear capacity with the help of two analytical models (RILEM and fib) described later in this paper. Six specimens per FRC type were used for these bending tests. The average results are given in Table 1.

BEFIB2012: Benoit Parmentier, Niki Cauberg and Lucie Vandewalle.

The average curves of the bending tests exhibit residual strengths of more than 40% of the peak (the flexural strength, here) up to a mid-span deflection = 3 mm that correspond to a CMOD of 3.5 mm (see Figure 2). This value of the crack mouth opening displacement is generally associated with the ultimate limit state (ULS) for SFRC while a value of CMOD of 0.5 mm is more representative for the serviceability limit state (SLS). All the specimens showed a drop of the load after exceeding the limit of proportionality (strain-softening in bending). This drop depends on the fibre dosage and fibre type. Logically, the mixtures with 40 kg/m performed the best. The SyFRC presented the largest drop of the load after the peak and the lowest residual resistance at SLS-level. But after 2 mm of deflection, this mixture developed higher residual strengths than the mixture UN20 and showed also a large plateau. Finally, the coefficient of variation of the different series ranged from 13% up to 48% which is quite high but common for this type of test.
20

15

Load [kN] 10

CF20 UN40 CF40 UN20 UN20CF20

Sy4.5

0.5

1.5 2 2.5 Mid-span Deflection [mm]

3.5

Figure 2: Load-deflection curves of the 3-point bending tests for the different types of FRC 2.2 Instrumentation and testing The test set-up is shown in figure 1. The deflections of the beam were measured at the supports, at , and of the span by help of linear variable differential transformers (LVDT) with a range of 25 mm. The tests were performed between 28 and 37 days after casting the beam. At different load levels, the load was kept constant to measure crack openings. The visual observation of the crack pattern was used to determine the load corresponding to the formation of the first diagonal crack. The ultimate shear capacity was associated with the maximum load carried by the specimen before failure. 2.3 Experimental results As an example, the load versus mid-span deflection curves are given in Figure 3 for the UN20-1 (a/d=0.5) and CF20-2 (a/d = 0.5). Some creep occurs during the measurement of the cracks when the load was kept constant. The repeatability between two samples of each series was good. The results of the tests are given in Table 3. All the beams with a/d = 0.5 failed by compression of the strut between the support and the load application point.

BEFIB2012: Benoit Parmentier, Niki Cauberg and Lucie Vandewalle.

1000 Load [kN] 800

UN20-1 (a/d=0.5)

600

400
CF20-2 (a/d=2.5)

200

4 6 8 Mid-span deflection [mm]

10

12

Figure 3: Load-deflection curves for CF20-2 (a/d=2.5) and UN20-1 (a/d=0.5) This failure mode is comparable with a deep beam failure mode associated with walls subjected to bending. When the a/d ratio reaches 2.5, the diagonal crack near the supports tends to open and propagates towards the longitudinal rebar. Afterwards this crack propagates along the longitudinal rebar to the support due to anchorage failure. This combination of cracks results in a shear bond failure. The failure modes are indicated by asterisks besides the ultimate loads in Table 3. . The experimental ultimate shear strength VRd,exp is calculated as a function of the recorded peak force corrected by a transfer coefficient that takes some direct transfer of the load into the supports into account when 0.5d a 2d. As defined by Eurocode 2, a reduction factor = a/(2d) has to be applied on the shear force when 0.5d a 2d. So: VRd,exp = .Vexp,max = .Pmax/2 (1) For the cases a/d=0.5, 1.5 and 2.5, this factor is 0.25, 0.75 and 1.0, respectively. The first series without fibres and for a/d=0.5 gave the highest ultimate loads of the testing programme. Moreover, these beams presented a shear strength that was almost two times the shear strength developed by the samples tested at a/d=2.5. This shear capacity for a/d=0.5 was not in line with the theoretical prediction for concrete without fibres (see further) nor comparable with the other results for the same span to depth ratio (the shear capacity was always less, even with fibres). It seems that the direct transfer of the forces between the load and the support was so pronounced that even the factor did not take this effect properly into account. According to this, the second series without fibres (B-2) was used as a reference for checking the increase of the ultimate shear capacity (average shear strength) for the other beams with fibres.

BEFIB2012: Benoit Parmentier, Niki Cauberg and Lucie Vandewalle.

Table 3 : Experimental results First Diagonal Crack [kN] 280 270 90 110 320 420 120 120 320 250 90 90 320 360 120 90 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Shear strength VRd,exp [kN] 103.5 122.0 68.2 60.5 98.7 101.5 99.5 90.6 104.8 95.2 81.3 121.9 106.1 122.4 111.3 140.1 148.4 104.9 123.0 167.4 133.4 123.0 99.4 128.1 162.6 105.5 118.0 111.7 74% 145.3 126% 111.2 73% 150.4 134% 116.9 82% 106.1 65% 113.9 77% 106.1 65% 101.6 58% 100.0 56% 95.1 48% 64.3 (REF.) 100.1 56% Average Shear strength VRdm,exp [kN] 112.7 Increase in Shear capacity [%] /

Series

a/d

Ultimate load Pmax [kN] 813.1** 960.6** 132.6* 117.2* 774.3** 797.2** 195.3* 177.4* 823.5** 746.3** 158.9* 240.1* 833.6** (493.2)** 241.1 218.8 369.8 392.0 206.0 242.2 442.6 352.0 242.2 195.0 337.8 429.8 207.2 232.2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

B-1-1 B-1-2 B-2-1 B-2-2 CF20-1-1 CF20-1-2 CF20-2-1 CF20-2-2 UN20-1-1 UN20-1-2 UN20-2-1 UN20-2-2 UN40-1-1 UN40-1-2 UN40-2-1 UN40-2-2 CF40-1-1 CF40-1-2 CF40-2-1 CF40-2-2 UN20CF20-1-1 UN20CF20-1-2 UN20CF20-2-1 UN20CF20-2-2 Sy4.5-1-1 Sy4.5-1-2 Sy4.5-2-1 Sy4.5-2-2

0.5 0.5 2.5 2.5 0.5 0.5 2.5 2.5 0.5 0.5 2.5 2.5 0.5 0.5 2.5 2.5 1.5 1.5 2.5 2.5 1.5 1.5 2.5 2.5 1.5 1.5 2.5 2.5

(*) Shear bond failure mode (**) Deep beam failure mode Note: the value in bracket indicates a problem during the test. This result was not taken into account for further analysis.

BEFIB2012: Benoit Parmentier, Niki Cauberg and Lucie Vandewalle.

Figure 4: Crack pattern of the beam UN20-2-2 after failure For the concrete mixtures used in this study, the increase of ultimate shear capacity ranges from 48% (UN20) to 82% (CF40) for a/d = 2.5 and up to 134% if we take all the specimens into account. Within the series a/d=2.5, the trend of the results seems logical with higher performance coupled with a higher fibre dosage. We notice that the hybrid mix of steel fibres and the mixture with macro synthetic fibres performed good, even better than some mixtures with steel fibres at the same volume fraction. The results with a large increase of the shear capacity (more than 100%) were only observed for a/d=1.5 for the tests performed at the KU Leuven and for one sample for a/d=0.5 tested at BBRI. Obviously, the number of samples was limited and this conclusion should be confirmed by other tests.

PREDICTION OF THE SHEAR STRENGTH

Fibres improve the concrete toughness and its contribution to shear capacity by their bridging effect between the crack sides. Other mechanisms are also improved by the presence of fibres: confinement of the aggregate interlock, dowel action of the longitudinal reinforcement at the bottom chord, etc...The theoretical ultimate shear capacity of the beams was estimated by using two analytical methods: the RILEM and the fib model. 3.1 RILEM Model The first model was published by RILEM [1]. The design value of the shear capacity of beams with longitudinal reinforcement but without stirrups is given by: VRdf = VRd,c + Vfd (2)

with: VRd,c : shear capacity of the beam reinforced with with longitudinal reinforcement but without stirrups, see EN 1992-1-1 ; : shear resistance provided by the fibres. This contribution is given by: Vfd Vfd = 0.7kf kl fd bw d with: kf : factor for taking the contribution of the flanges of a T-section into account: (3)

h f h f k f = 1 + n b and w d
with : hf bf bw : height of the flanges (mm) : width of the flanges (mm) : width of the web (mm)

k f 1.5

(4)

BEFIB2012: Benoit Parmentier, Niki Cauberg and Lucie Vandewalle.

n=

bf b w 3 hf
200 d

and

n
and

3b w hf
k2

(5)

kl = 1+
with : d fd

(d in mm)

(6)

: effective depth (mm) : design value of the increase in shear strength due to the fibres:

fd = 0.12 fR4,k
If we use average values instead of design and characteristic values:

(7)

fm = 0.18 fR4,m
with: fR4,k fR4,m 3.2 fib Model : characteristic value of the residual flexural strength for a CMOD = 3.5 mm : average value of the residual flexural strength for a CMOD = 3.5 mm

(8)

The second model was recently published as a draft by fib for the new version of the Model Code (MC10). It was endorsed by the commission TG 8.3 [2]. To simplify the design equations, the contribution of the fibres to the shear resistance is mainly based on the improvement due to pull-out mechanism. The analytical expression for the calculation of the shear capacity is rearranged from the EC2 expression by adding a term 7.5fFtuk/fctk to the longitudinal reinforcement ratio: = 0,18 . . 100. . 1 + 7,5. .
1 3

with: C k

+ 0,15. . .

(9)

: partial safety factor for the concrete without fibres (1,5) ; : factor taking the effect of the depth of the cross-section into account : k =1+
. 200

fFtuk fctk cp bw

: longitudinal reinforcement ratio : l=

2,0 with d in mm, as defined before;

: characteristic value of the ultimate flexural residual tensile strength of the fibre reinforced concrete by considering wu=1.5 mm [MPa] ; : characteristic value of the tensile strength for the concrete matrix [MPa] ; : average stress acting on the cross-section due to an axial force (loading or prestressing action) ; : smallest width of the cross-section in the tensile area.

To determine the value of fFtuk in the above equation, two approaches can be followed to describe the post-peak behaviour of the fibre reinforced concrete. These approaches are based on two distinctive stress-crack opening constitutive laws in tension: the linear elastic model and the rigidplastic model (see Figure 5).

BEFIB2012: Benoit Parmentier, Niki Cauberg and Lucie Vandewalle.

(a) (b) Figure 5: Simplified post-cracking constitutive laws: stress-crack opening (continuous and dashed lines refer to softening and hardening post-cracking behaviour respectively) The linear elastic model (b) defines the residual strength significant at ultimate limit state fFtu by:
f FTu = f Fts wu (f FTs 0.5f R 3 + 0.2f R1 ) 0 CMOD3

(10)

with fRj the residual flexural tensile strength corresponding with CMOD = CMODj:
f R, j = 3 Fj l
2 2 b hsp

(11)

Fj b hsp fFTs

: load corresponding with CMOD = CMODj ; : span length [mm] ; : width of the specimen [mm] ; : distance between the notch tip and the top of the specimen [mm], 125 mm ; : serviceability residual strength given by: fFts = 0.45 fR1 (12)

wu is the crack opening corresponding to the ultimate limit state. A value of wu=1.5 used in the following, is considered on the safe side.

For the rigid-plastic model (a), fFTu can be calculated by: = 3 3 (13)

3.3 Comparison with experimental results and discussion The estimation of the shear capacity VRdc of the reference beams seems very good for a/d=2.5. For the FRC mixtures, the rigid-plastic model was used for the calculation of fFtu in the analytic expression provided in the draft of the MC10. The predictions by the two models presented above give very similar results (see Table 4, sorted by increasing theoretical fibres contribution to the shear capacity VRdf,MC10). The difference becomes obviously larger when the values fR3 and fR4 associated with each concrete mixture significantly differ, as seen in Figure 6. But even for an increase of 30% of the ratio fR3/fR4 (indicating a steep decrease of the residual strength between CMOD=2.5 and CMOD=3.5), the models differ by less than 10% for the specimens reported in this study. The predictions are always on the safe side and underestimate the average experimental results by 10 up to 40% (up to 81% for synthetic fibres and a/d=1.5, see also Figure 7). Once again, the worst estimations are observed for

BEFIB2012: Benoit Parmentier, Niki Cauberg and Lucie Vandewalle.

a/d=1.5. The average underestimation is 30% which is quite large but not so bad if we recall that the models were actually not developed for a/d<2.5 (the models treat only shear diagonal tension failures). The comparison between all the experimental results and the fib MC10 and the RILEM models are graphically illustrated in Figure 8 and Figure 9, respectively. Table 4 : Comparison between average experimental results and theoretical models VRdm,exp [kN] VRdc [kN] Vfd,m [kN] VRdf,RILEM [kN] VRdf,MC10 [kN] VRdf,RILEM VRdm,exp VRdf,MC10 VRdm,exp

Series

a/d

B-2 CF20-2 UN20-2 CF20-1 UN20-1 Sy4.5-1 Sy4.5-2 CF40-2 CF40-1 UN20CF20-2 UN20CF20-1 UN40-2 UN40-1

2.5 2.5 2.5 0.5 0.5 1.5 2.5 2.5 1.5 2.5 1.5 2.5 0.5
1.02

64.3 101.6 100 111.7 145.3 150.4 111.2 100.1 95.1 106.1 116.9 113.9 106.1*

64.3 64.3 66.6 65.5 66.0 64.1 64.3 64.1 64.1 63.9 64.4 64.7 66.3

0.0 18.4 18.4 23.4 23.4 25.8 25.8 30.7 30.7 30.7 30.7 38.1 38.1

64.3 82.7 85.0 88.9 89.3 89.9 90.2 94.8 94.8 94.7 95.2 102.8 104.5

64.3 85.8 87.5 88.1 88.5 94.9 95.0 95.3 95.3 96.2 96.5 102.4 103.4

1.00 0.81 0.85 0.80 0.61 0.60 0.81 0.95 1.00 0.66 0.84 0.88 0.98

1.00 0.84 0.87 0.79 0.61 0.63 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.67 0.85 0.88 0.97

(*) This result indicates that only one test result was taken into account for the average.

1.00

VRd,f,m RILEM/fib Ratio

0.98

0.96

0.94
1.00 1.10 1.20 1.30

fR3/fR4
Figure 6: A larger difference between fR3 and fR4 results in a bigger variation between the models

10

BEFIB2012: Benoit Parmentier, Niki Cauberg and Lucie Vandewalle.

1.75

VRdm,exp / VRdf,RILEM

1.5

1.25

1 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2

VRdm,exp / VRdf,MC'10
Figure 7: The analytical models tend to predict the experimental results the same way (all results)
180 BBRI Experiments KUL Experiments fib MC'10

VRdm,exp [kN] 160

140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 1 2 3

SAFE

fRm,3 [MPa]
Figure 8: Experimental results versus fib MC10 prediction as a function of fR3,m (solid marks indicate results for a/d=2.5)

11

BEFIB2012: Benoit Parmentier, Niki Cauberg and Lucie Vandewalle.

180

VRdm,exp [kN] 160

140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 1 2

BBRI Experiments KUL Experiments

SAFE

RILEM

fRm,4 [MPa]
Figure 9: Experimental results versus RILEM prediction as a function of fR4,m

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Twenty-eight beams were tested in four-point bending to compare the experimental ultimate shear capacity with the analytical models published by RILEM and fib (MC10). The use of fibres with a volume fraction Vf = 0.26% gave an increase of the shear capacity of minimum 48% for a/d between 0.5 and 2.5. The type of anchorage of the steel fibre in the matrix (end cone or undulation along the length) does not seem to influence the ultimate shear capacity. The mixtures with macro synthetic fibres performed as good as the steel fibre mixtures with the same Vf in terms of ultimate shear capacity. Finally, the models as referred to in this study provide almost the same results with a maximum difference of less than 10%. They both underestimate the experimental results presented in this paper by 30%, in average. As foreseen, they tend to be less accurate for a/d<2.5. Specific models should be developed to predict the behaviour of beams presenting this configuration.

AKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The financial support of the Federal Service Economy (Project FRC07-09) and the Public Service of Wallonia (BEFIME project) are gratefully acknowledged.

REFERENCES
[1] RILEM TC 162-TDF, Test and design methods for steel fibre reinforced concrete Recommandations for the s-e design method. Materials and Structures, 33, 75-81 (2000). [2] Di Prisco, M., G. Plizzari, and L. Vandewalle. "MC2010: Overview on the shear provisions for FRC." in Shear and punching shear in RC and FRC elements workshop., 15-16 October 2010, Salo (Italy). Fdration internationale du Bton (fib), 2010.

12