SP-2765

5.1

FRC PERFORMANCE COMPARISON: UNIAXIAL DIRECT TENSILE TEST, THIRD-POINT BENDING
TEST, AND ROUND PANEL TEST

Shih-Ho Chao, Jae-Sung Cho, Netra B. Karki, Dipti R. Sahoo, and Nur Yazdani



Synopsis: The evaluation of the properties of FRC mixtures is of prime importance for these mixtures to be used
effectively and economically in practice. Although currently there are various standards or testing methods for
evaluation of the properties of FRC, there is no agreement on which standard is the best for a specific structural
application. This can be a major reason that has inhibited the introduction of FRC into structural design code. This
study investigated three major different material evaluation methods, i.e. uniaxial direct tensile test, third-point
bending test, and round panel test, as well as behavior of specimens tested by the three methods. The advantages and
limitations of those methods are discussed.








































Keywords: ASTM C1550, ASTM C1609, fiber reinforced concrete, residual strength, shear, uniaxial direct tensile
test
Chao et al.
ACI member Shih-Ho Chao is Assistant Professor in the Department of Civil Engineering at the University of
Texas at Arlington. He received his PhD in structural engineering from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor in
2005. He is an associate member of ACI Committee 544, Fiber Reinforced Concrete, Joint ACI-ASCE Committee
423, Prestressed Concrete, and ACI Committee 408, Bond and Development of Reinforcement. His research
interests include fiber reinforced concrete, prestressed concrete, and seismic behavior of structural members.


Jae-Sung Cho is doctoral student in the Department of Civil Engineering at the University of Texas at Arlington.
He received his B.S. in Civil engineering from the Kookmin Univeristy, Seoul, Korea in 2002 and his ME degree
from the University of Texas at Arlington in 2004. His research interests include fiber reinforced concrete and
prestressed concrete.


Netra B. Karki is doctoral student and graduate teaching assistant in the Department of Civil Engineering at the
University of Texas Arlington. He received his M.S. degree in Structural Engineering from Tribhuvan University,
Nepal. His research work is in the behavior of fiber reinforced prestressed concrete flexural members.


Dipti R. Sahoo is Assistant Professor at the Indian Institute of Technology at Bhubaneswar. He was a former
postdoctoral Fellow in the Department of Civil Engineering at the University of Texas at Arlington. He received his
PhD in Structural Engineering from Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur, India. His research interests include
fiber reinforced concrete, seismic behavior of structural members, and seismic strengthening of structures using
supplemental energy dissipation devices.


ACI member Nur Yazdani is Professor and Chair of Civil Engineering at the University of Texas at Arlington. He
is currently chairing ACI-SEI joint committee on Concrete Bridge Design. He is a member of ACI committees on
Fiber Reinforced Concrete and Durability. His research interests include concrete bridge materials, design and
rehabilitation, hazard mitigation and engineering education.



























FRC Performance Comparison: Uniaxial Direct Tensile Test,
Third-Point Bending Test, and Round Panel Test
5.3


INTRODUCTION

Due to the presence of fibers and its interaction with concrete matrix, many mechanical properties, such as
tensile, compressive, flexural, and shear of fiber reinforced concrete (FRC) are quite different from those of plain
concrete. Behavior of structural members with identical FRC mixture can also exhibit significantly different
behavior when subjected to different types of loadings. As a consequence, various test methods for evaluating the
FRC mechanical properties have been developed. However there is no agreement on which standard is the best for a
specific structural application. This is a major reason that has inhibited the introduction of FRC into structural
design code. This study investigated three major FRC evaluation methods, i.e. uniaxial direct tensile test, third-point
bending test (ASTM C1609, ASTM, 2007), and round panel test (ASTM C1550, ASTM, 2005), as well as the
behavior and the response of specimens. The advantages and limitations of those methods are discussed.



RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE

Several material testing methods have been used for evaluating the performance of FRC; these methods can
show very different results for the same FRC material. A particular method should be carefully selected and the
results should be interpreted with caution. This study investigated three commonly used FRC test methods and
discusses the potential problems they have.



BASIC REQUIREMENTS FOR A MATERIAL TEST METHOD

Although material properties measured by a standard test are not necessarily representative of the fiber
concrete in the structure, those test results can ensure that the FRC was batched properly and can give indications of
performance if used in structures. An ideal material test method for FRC needs to account for many factors. For
example, Mindess et al. [2003] have suggested that the toughness or residual strength parameters obtained from
FRC material tests should satisfy the following criteria:

1. It should have a physical meaning that is both readily understandable and of fundamental significance
if it is to be used for the specification or quality control of FRC.
2. The end-point used in the calculation of the toughness parameters should reflect the most severe
serviceability conditions anticipated in the particular application.
3. The variability inherent in any measurement of concrete properties should be low enough to give
acceptable levels of both within-batch and between-laboratory precision.
4. It should be able to quantify at least one important aspect of FRC behavior (e.g. strength, toughness, or
crack resistance) and should reflect some characteristics of the load vs. deflection curve itself.
5. It should be as independent as possible of the specimen size and geometry.

It has been recognized that none of the standard tests used for obtaining FRC toughness or residual strength
is able to fulfill all the criteria described above [Bentur and Mindess, 2007]. As a result, it is important to understand
the limitation and difficulties encountered when using a particular material test method. In this study, three types of
FRC evaluation methods were employed for the same FRC mixture and their features as well as limitations are
discussed.


Uniaxial Direct Tensile Test

This test type can identify the key properties of FRC such as strain-hardening or strain-softening, elastic
modulus, and stress versus strain relationships under tension, which are the constitutive properties of FRC that are
useful for modeling and design of FRC structural members [Naaman, et al., 2007]. However currently there is no
Chao et al.
standard method for this test in the U.S., in part because it is difficult to provide a gripping arrangement which will
not lead to specimen cracking at grips.
Specimens used in this study were specifically designed so that a pin-pin loading condition is created at the
ends (Figure 1). The advantages of this adopted end condition are : 1) a pure axial load is applied since the
additional end moment, if any, could be largely minimized; 2) no specific treatment, such as adhesives, would be
needed to fix the ends to the setup. Both ends are strengthened by the double dog-bone geometry and steel meshes to
ensure that cracking would only occur at the central portion within the gauge length. The double dog-bone shape
was used to mitigate the stress concentration resulted from the reduction of cross-section. The central portion has a
square cross-section with a dimension of 102x102 mm (4x4 in.). This dimension was selected to reduce the size
effect [Naaman and Reinhardt, 2006] while maintaining a suitable weight for laboratory handling. The strains were
measure by a pair of linear variable differential transformers (LVDTs) with a gauge length of approximately 178
mm (7 in.). Tests were carried out by a closed-loop, servo-controlled machine with a loading rate of approximately
0.05 mm/min (0.002 in./min).


Third-Point Bending Test (ASTM C1609)

This test method is used to evaluate the flexural performance of FRC by using parameters derived from the
load-deflection curve obtained by testing a simply supported beam under third-point loading. The bending test setup
used in this study was based on ASTM C1609 [ASTM, 2007], as shown in Figure 2. Specimens have a prism shape
with a dimension of 150x150x500 mm (6x6x20 in.). The width and depth of test specimens are greater than three
times the length of the steel fiber used in this study, so the preferential fiber alignment effect is minimized [ASTM,
2007]. A pair of LVDTs was mounted on a jig based on the ASTM C1609 requirement to ensure accurate
determination of the net deflection at the mid-span, exclusive of the effects of seating or twisting of the specimen on
its supports. Tests were carried out by a closed-loop, servo-controlled machine with a loading rate of approximately
0.05 mm/min (0.002 in./min).


Round Panel Test (ASTM C1550)

This recently developed bending test method [ASTM, 2005] was based on extensive studies carried out by
Bernard [2000, 2001a, 2001b, 2002,]. This test involves the central point loading of a large round panel, 800 mm
(31.5 in.) in diameter and 75 mm (2.95 in.) thick, supported on three symmetrically arranged pivots as shown in
Figure 3. Although this method was originally developed for fiber reinforced shotcrete, it can also be used for
evaluating plate-like members such as concrete slabs-on-grade. The test panel experiences bi-axial bending in
response to the central point load. The performance of FRC specimens tested by this method is quantified in terms
of the energy absorbed between the onset of loading and selected values of central deflection. Some suggested
performance-based specification are [Bernard, 2002] : 1) Energy absorbed up to a deflection of 5 mm (0.2 in.) to
indicate performance for applications in which crack control is important; 2) Energy absorbed up to a deflection up
to 40 mm (1.6 in.) to evaluate performance for applications where large cracks can be tolerated.

The radius of the hemispherical end of the loading piston and the supports were fabricated according to the
dimensions and criteria given in ASTM C1550 [ASTM, 2005]. A closed-loop, servo-controlled machine is required
by ASTM C1550 for performing this test. However the specimen size, plus the steel support, is too large to fit into
the available machines at the structures laboratory at UT Arlington. Instead, the tests were carried out under a stiff
reaction frame through a hydraulic cylinder with careful control of the loading rate, which was approximately 4
mm/min (0.16 in./min) as specified by ASTM C1550.







FRC Performance Comparison: Uniaxial Direct Tensile Test,
Third-Point Bending Test, and Round Panel Test
5.5

EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM, TEST RESULTS, AND DISCUSSION

Materials and Specimen Preparation

The steel fiber used in this study is shown in Figure 4 and Table 2 gives mix proportions for the concrete
mixture. As shown in Figure 4, different from many steel fibers with double end bends which provide better
mechanical bond and better composite performance, the steel fiber used has only a single bend at the both ends. Two
fiber volume fractions, 0.5% and 1.5% were used. Three round panel, six ASTM beams, and six tensile specimens
were cast for both fiber contents.

Mixing and casting of all specimens (Figure 5) were done on the same day with three batches due to the
capacity limitation of the drum mixer used. All specimens were then moved to the curing room with a controlled
environment (27
o
C (80
o
F) and 100% RH). Tests were conducted approximately 30 days after casting.


Comparison between Three FRC Evaluation Methods Conducted in Phase 1

a. Uniaxial Direct Tensile Test

Figure 6 (a) presents typical response of two replicate (in terms of geometry and mix composition) tensile
specimens with 1.5% fiber content and Figure 6 (b) shows locations of cracks in four of the replicate specimens. The
following observations can be made:

1. In general the locations of major cracks were confined within the intended gauge length, by using the
double dog-bone ends and steel mesh reinforcement.

2. While the first cracking stresses of two replicate specimens were close, the post-cracking response and
residual strength showed significant variability.

3. Consistent location of cracks and propagation path cannot be well controlled. This is the major factor
that led to the variability in the post-cracking response.


b. Third-Point Bending Test (ASTM C1609)

Figure 7 (a) shows load versus deflection response for three replicate specimens. As can be seen, while the
first cracking loads, approximately 45 kN (10,000 lbf), were the same, the peak flexural strength and the post-
cracking responses deviated significantly. This high variability issue in third-point bending test has been recognized
as an inherent problem due to the lack of control over the position of cracks [Bernard, 2002], which was also
observed in this study as shown in Figure 7 (b). Another factor leading to the variability is the non-uniform fiber
distribution [Dupont and Vandewalle, 2004]. Experimental evidence shown by Bernard [2002] also indicated that
the residual strength of a third-point loaded beam is the least attractive parameter because it displays very poor
reliability in that the coefficient of variation is generally greater than 20%. This large scatter in the residual strength
can be a major problem if characteristic values have to be determined.


c. Round Panel Test (ASTM C1550)

Previous studies [Bernard, 2002] indicated that the variation in cracking load, peak load, or energy
absorbed up to a specified central deflection from this test is generally low (coefficient of variation between 5% to
13%). This could be due to the following:

Chao et al.
1. Location of cracks as well as crack patterns can be well controlled: panels tested by this method almost
always break into three segments upon failure, at angles of about 120
o
, as seen in Figure 8 (b). This is due to
the fact that this type of failure consumes the least amount of energy [Bernard and Pricher, 2000].

2. Increased cracked area: the three major cracks give a somewhat average mechanical behavior to
minimize the influence of non-uniform fiber distribution. On the contrary, in both the unixial direct
tensile test and ASTM third-point bending test, the performance is usually governed by one major
crack, which could be largely affected by the extent of fiber distribution.

The load versus central deflection curves of two replicate panel specimens are shown in Figure 8(a); scatter
in the post-cracking response is noticeable. This was probably the consequence of specimens not being cast from the
same batch, eccentric loading, or complicated cracking propagation path, etc. Some issues with this type of test are:

1. As mentioned earlier in this paper, the specimen together with the steel support fixture is too large to
fit into many commonly used testing machines [Bentur and Mindess, 2007]. As a result, some previous
tests had to be carried out by 80% scaled (both the diameter and thickness) specimens [Xu et al.,
2004]. In addition, the specimen itself is too heavy to be handled in the laboratory; one specimen
weights 888 N (200 lbf) .

2. When central deflection of the tensile surface of the panel is measured directly with a LVDT, an
incomplete or erroneous deflection record may occur if the crack opening becomes too large, as shown
in Figure 9. ASTM C1550 has suggested using a LVDT with a probe approximately 20 mm (0.8 in.)
wide if the opening becomes an issue. Greater probe width is not recommended because off-center
cracks may induce exaggerated apparent deflections if they occur adjacent to a wide probe [ASTM,
2005]. However, the opening in the center could be greater than 20 mm (0.8 in.) at large deflections (as
shown in Figure 9) and thus lead to incorrect measurement.


Performance of Specimens with Different Fiber Volume Fractions

Figures 10 through 12 show the performance comparison of specimens with 0.5% and 1.5% fiber content.
As can be seem, the different fiber volumes were distinguished well in all three tests. The energy indices suggested
by ASTM C1550 for performance evaluation were also calculated up to 25 mm (1in.) central deflection and shown
in Figure 12.

Figure 13 gives the responses from the three tests for specimens with the same mixture and 0.5% fiber
content. It is noted that Mix 1 with 0.5% Type 1 steel fibers exhibited a sudden drop in strength after the first
cracking in all three tests. However different testing methods showed distinct post-cracking behavior. For specimens
under uniaxial tension, the residual strength rapidly dropped to 15% of the peak strength after the first cracking, yet
the peak residual strength ratios increased to 45% and 75% when subjected to one-way bending (third-point bending
test) and bi-axial bending (round panel test), respectively. Increasing fiber volume fraction from 0.5% to 1.5% made
the descending curve more gradual from all three tests, as revealed by Figure 14. It is interesting to note that, while
the specimen under direct tension exhibited a softening behavior after the first cracking, more ductile response was
observed in the specimens subjected to one-way and bi-axial bending. Deflection hardening response up to 4 mm
(0.16 in.) central deflection occurred in the round panel specimen, which indicates significant stress redistribution
after first cracking, before deflection softening response occurred. It is noted that tests conducted by Xu et al [2004]
using 80% scaled specimens gave somewhat opposite results; that is, significant deflection-hardening behavior was
observed in beam-type tests, but only minor hardening behavior was noticed in their round panel tests.

Observation obtained from this study suggests that different material evaluation methods may be required
for members under a particular loading situation.



FRC Performance Comparison: Uniaxial Direct Tensile Test,
Third-Point Bending Test, and Round Panel Test
5.7

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This study investigated three major different material evaluation methods for FRC, uniaxial direct tensile
test, third-point bending test (ASTM C1609), and round panel test (ASTM C1550), as well as the behavior of
specimens tested by the three methods. The advantages and limitations of those methods were reviewed. The
following conclusions are drawn from this study:

1. The three major material evaluation methods (uniaxial direct tensile test, third-point loading bending
test, and round panel test) can give significant different performance for the same FRC material. A
strain-softening FRC under direct tension can exhibit significant deflection-hardening behavior under
bi-axial bending.

2. This study may raise an interesting question if load-deflection curves of FRC is a material property or
if they are testing-method dependent. Which test data is more representative of material property? Can
we compare tension directly with bending since the cracking or failure mechanism is different? Based
on the test results from this study, it seems that the behavior of FRC depends on how the FRC
members are carrying the loading. The response from a uniaxial direct tensile test can be more
representative of the behavior of a FRC member subjected to direct tension or pure shear (diagonal
tension); while the responses from third-point loading bending test and round panel test are more
representative of the behavior of members subjected to uni- and bi-axial bending, respectively. Direct
comparison between tensile and bending test may not be meaningful since the load-carrying
mechanisms are different. However, based on the test results, one can ascertain that the uni- and bi-
axial bending behavior of an FRC member will be better (or more ductile) if the uniaxial direct tensile
test gives good performance.

3. Both the uniaxial direct tensile test and the third-point loading bending test show very high coefficient
of variations in the post-cracking responses. This can be attributed to the lack of control of crack
locations and non-uniform fiber distribution. Further improvement of these two material tests to
achieve higher level of reliability in post-cracking performance is needed. Although previous studies
suggest that round panel test could considerably reduce the variability in testing data, its use in
ordinary laboratories could be limited due to the specimen (plus support) size and weight.

4. The high deviation in the test results calls for a better FRC material test method that required less
number of specimens and still gives small deviation. An average of load-deflection curves of many
replicates can still be misleading if the coefficient of variation is too high.



ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Materials used in this investigation were provided by Hanson Pipe & Precast at Grand Prairie, Texas. Their
help is gratefully appreciated. This research was supported in part by grants from the Texas Department of
Transportation (Project 0-6348). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in this study are those of the
authors, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the sponsors.


REFERENCES

1. ASTM C1609/C 1609M-07, Standard Test method for Flexural Performance of Fiber-Reinforced Concrete
(Using Beam with Third-Point Loading), ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2007, 9 pp.
2. ASTM C1550-05, Standard Test method for Flexural Toughness of Fiber Reinforced Concrete (Using
Centrally Loaded Round Panel), ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2005, 13 pp.
Chao et al.
3. Bentur, A. and Mindess, S., Fiber Reinforced Cementitious Composites, 2
nd
Edition, Taylor & Francis, 601
pp.
4. Bernard, E. S., Behaviour of Round Steel Fibre Reinforced Concrete Panels under Point Loads, Materials and
Structures, 33, 2000, pp.181-188.
5. Bernard, E. S. and Pircher, M., Influence of Geometry on Performance of Round Determinate Panels Made
with Fibre Reinforced Concrete, Engineering Report No. CE10, School of Civil Engineering and Environment,
UWS Nepean, Kingswood NSW, Australia, January, 2000.
6. Bernard, E. S., The Influence of Strain Rate on Performance of Fiber-Reinforced Concrete Loaded in Flexure,
Cement, Concrete, and Aggregates, CCAGDP, American Society for testing and Materials, Vol. 23, No. 1, June
2001, pp. 11-18.
7. Bernard, E. S. and Pircher, M., The Influence of Thickness on Performance of Fiber-Reinforced Concrete in a
Round Determinate Panel Test, Cement, Concrete, and Aggregates, CCAGDP, American Society for testing
and Materials, Vol. 23, No. 1, June 2001, pp. 27-33.
8. Bernard, E. S., Correlations in the Behaviour of Fibre Reinforced Shotcrete Beam and Panel Specimens,
Materials and Structures, 35, 2002, pp.156-164.
9. Dupont, D. and Vandewalle, L., Comparison between The Round Plate Test and The RILEM 3-Point Bending
Test, 6
th
RILEM Symposium on Fibre-Reinforced Concrete (FRC) BEFIB 2004, 20-22 September 2004,
Varenna, Italy, pp. 101-110.
10. Mindess, S., Young, J. F., and Darwin, D., 2003, Concrete, 2
nd
Edition, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
11. Naaman, A. E. and Reinhardt, H. W., Proposed Classification of HPFRC Composites based on their Tensile
Response, Materials and Structures, 39, 2006, pp.547-555.
12. Naaman, A. E., G. Fischer, and Krstulovic-Opara, N., Measurement of Tensile Properties of Fiber Reinforced
Concrete: Draft Submitted to ACI Committee 544, High Performance Fiber Reinforced Cement Composites
(HPFRCC5), Mainz, Germany, July 10-13, 2007, pp. 3-12.
13. Xu, H., Mindess, S. Banthia, N., Toughness of Polymer Modified, Fiber Reinforced High Strength Concrete:
Beam Tests vs. Round Panel Tests, International RILEM Symposium on Concrete Science and Engineering: A
Tribute to Arnon Bentur, Editors: Weiss, J., Kovler, K., Marchand, J., and Mindess, S., RILEM Publications
SARL, 2004.

Table 1 Properties of steel fiber used in this study
Length (L)
[1]
Diameter (D)
[1]
Aspect ratio (L/D)
[1]
Tensile Strength
[2]

Hooked-end
steel fiber
(single-bend)
39 mm (1.55 in.) 0.97 mm (0.038 in.) 40
1034 MPa
(150 ksi )
[1] Measured; [2] Provided by manufacturers



Table 2 Mix proportion (by weight) and average compressive strength
Cement
(Type-I)
Fly Ash
(Class C)
Sand
[3]

Coarse
Aggregate
[4]

Water
Super-
plasticizer
[5]

Steel Fibers
Average
Compressive
Strength
1.00 0.48 2.23 2.90 0.44 0.002
0.364
[6]
(or
0.121
[7]
), Type 1
fiber
65.4 MPa (9.5 ksi )
[3] ASTM Natural River Sand (Fineness Modulus = 2.57); [4] Maximum size = 3/4 in. (19 mm); [5] High Range
Water Reducing Admixture; [6] 1.5% by volume; [7] 0.5% by volume [1 MPa = 0.145 ksi]








FRC Performance Comparison: Uniaxial Direct Tensile Test,
Third-Point Bending Test, and Round Panel Test
5.9































Chao et al.


Figure 1 Geometry and dimensions of the direct tensile specimen



Figure 2 Setup and specimen for ASTM C1609 third-point bending test


(a) (b)

FRC Performance Comparison: Uniaxial Direct Tensile Test,
Third-Point Bending Test, and Round Panel Test
5.11


(c) (d)


(e)

Figure 3 Setup and specimen for ASTM C1550 round panel test




Figure 4 Steel fibers (single-bend hook) used in this study


Chao et al.

(a) (b)

(c)

(d)

Figure 5 Specimen casting and curing
FRC Performance Comparison: Uniaxial Direct Tensile Test,
Third-Point Bending Test, and Round Panel Test
5.13



(a) Replicate specimen results




(b) Location of major cracks

Figure 6 Direct tensile test results
Chao et al.

(a) Replicate specimen results


SP#1 SP#2

SP#3

(b) Location of major cracks

Figure 7 Third-point bending test results
FRC Performance Comparison: Uniaxial Direct Tensile Test,
Third-Point Bending Test, and Round Panel Test
5.15



(a) Replicate specimen results


SP#1 SP#2


(b) Location of major cracks

Figure 8 Round panel test results
Chao et al.


Figure 9 Opening of cracks and location of LVDT





Figure 10 Stress versus strain (crack opening) responses of specimens with different fiber fractions under direct
tensile test

FRC Performance Comparison: Uniaxial Direct Tensile Test,
Third-Point Bending Test, and Round Panel Test
5.17



Figure 11 Load versus deflection responses of specimens with different fiber fractions under third-point bending
test





Figure 12 Load versus central deflection responses of specimens with different fiber fractions under round panel
test as well as absorbed energy up to 25 mm deflection



Chao et al.

0
100
200
300
400
500
600
S
t
r
e
s
s
(
p
s
i
)
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
Strain (up to peak strength)(%)
0
1
2
3
4
S
t
r
e
s
s
(
M
P
a
)
Uniaxial Direct Tensile Test
Mix #1; Type 1 steel fiber
V
f
= 0.5%








Figure 13 Performance of specimens with same FRC mixture (0.5% V
f
) under different type of material tests
Uniaxial Direct Tensile Test

Peak Post-Cracking Strength =
15% Peak Strength
Third-Point Bending Test

Peak Post-Cracking Strength =
45% Peak Strength
Round Panel Test

Peak Post-Cracking Strength =
75% Peak Strength
FRC Performance Comparison: Uniaxial Direct Tensile Test,
Third-Point Bending Test, and Round Panel Test
5.19










Figure 14 Performance of specimens with same FRC mixture (1.5% V
f
) under different type of material tests


Uniaxial Direct Tensile Test

Elastic behavior up to first cracking,
then followed by softening response
Third-Point Bending Test

Minor stress redistribution after first
cracking, then followed by deflection
softening response
Round Panel Test
Significant stress redistribution after first
cracking (deflection hardening response up
to 4 mm central deflection), then followed
by deflection softening response