Journal of Testing and Evaluation, Vol. 39, No.

4
Paper ID JTE103291
Available online at: www.astm.org

Nemkumar Banthia,1 Sidney Mindess,2 and Zhengwu Jiang3

Influence of Feedback Control on Flexural

Toughness of Fiber Reinforced Concrete in
ASTM C1399 Tests

ABSTRACT: The influence of feedback control on the measured flexural toughness of fiber reinforced concrete (FRC) remains elusive. Some
tests such as ASTM C1609/C1609M-07 require closed-loop control, while others such as ASTM C1399/C1399M-10 are considered control independent, and hence open-loop testing is allowed. Recent field experience has indicated that results from even ASTM C1399/C1399M-10 tests may be
test control dependent. Towards this end, a test program was initiated to understand the influence of feedback control in ASTM C1399/C1399M-10
tests. Tests were performed on specimens of two different concrete strengths and one dosage of a polymeric fiber under both open-loop and closedloop environments. In addition to performing the analysis using the ASTM C1399/C1399M-10 approach, Ri values as per the Canadian Highway
Bridge Design Code (CHBDC-S06-16) were calculated. Ri values are derived from the Average Residual Strength (ARS) values obtained from
ASTM C1399/C1399M-10 tests. The results indicate that while the influence of feedback control on the measured ARS values in the case of normal
strength FRC is only marginal, its influence on high strength FRC is significant. The same applies to the Ri values calculated in CHBDC-S06-16,
where the results indicate that based on the published minimum acceptance criteria, the choice of feedback control may in fact govern the acceptance
or rejection of a given FRC material. In the context of these findings, it is recommended that beyond a certain compressive strength, ASTM C1399/
C1399M-10 tests should only be performed in a closed-loop environment.
KEYWORDS: testing, fiber reinforced concrete, flexural toughness, feedback control, load instability

Introduction
It is well known that concrete is a quasi-brittle material with a low
strain capacity. Randomly distributed fiber used as reinforcement
can improve concrete brittleness, cracking resistance, toughness,
and ductility [1,2]. Fiber reinforced concrete (FRC) exhibits better
performance not only under static and quasi-statically applied
loads, but also under fatigue, impact, and impulsive loadings. This
energy-absorption attribute of FRC is often termed toughness.
Experimental characterization of FRC toughness remains an actively debated topic [36].
There are a number of available techniques for measuring the
toughness enhancement due to fiber reinforcement. Most of these
techniques adopt the simple flexural beam specimen as the basis for
quantifying toughness, although specimens loaded in other configurations such as compression, tension, and bi-axial bending
(plates) are also sometimes adopted [716]. The available test
methods for measuring the toughness of FRC include ASTM
C1018-98, ASTM C1399/C1399M-10, ASTM C1609/C1609M07, ASTM C1550 [14], JSCE SF-4 [8], JSCE SF-5 [9], and JSCE
SF-6 [15]. The suitability of these techniques, the concerns with
their applicability, and the subjectivity they introduce has been disManuscript received August 3, 2010; accepted for publication December 6,
2010; published online January 2011.
1
Professor of Civil Engineering, Univ. of British Columbia, 2024-6250 Applied Science Ln., Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada (Corresponding author),
e-mail: banthia@civil.ubc.ca
2
Professor Emeritus of Civil Engineering, Univ. of British Columbia, 20246250 Applied Science Ln., Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada, e-mail:
smindess@civil.ubc.ca
3
Associate Professor, Key Laboratory of Advanced Civil Engineering Materials of Ministry of Education, Tongji Univ., Shanghai 200092, China, e-mail:
jzhengwu@126.com

cussed [36]. A number of the concerns emanate from the fact that
post-crack loads and deflections have to be measured in the
specimensomething not done in most traditional concrete tests
and these requirements result in issues arising from spurious specimen deflections, the inability to correctly locate the instant of first
cracking, and the large instability that occurs when a brittle material cracks. ASTM C1018-98, the first of the beam tests developed
for FRC, suffered from a number of these drawbacks and has since
been replaced by the ASTM C1609/C1609M-07 beam tests that
successfully address these concerns [5]. ASTM C1550 is a round
determinate panel test and is generally used only for fiber reinforced shotcrete. Finally, there is a RILEM recommended test [16]
for steel FRC that employs a simply supported notched beam under
three-point loading. The material performance is characterized either in terms of areas under the load-deflection curve, or by the load
bearing capacity at a certain deflection or crack mouth opening displacement.
One of the least understood parameters in FRC toughness measurement is the influence of feedback control. Tests can be run in an
open-loop arrangement or a closed-loop arrangement. In a closedloop system, there is feedback loop (via a sensor installed on the
specimen) to the machine controls, which can then manipulate/
adjust its inputs based on a predetermined criterion. In an openloop system, on the other hand, a feedback loop does not exist and
the test cannot be run with a desired specimen response. The most
common feedback control signal is in the form of specimen deformation. A closed-loop system can provide a stable deformation rate
and produce a stable specimen response, thereby improving precision. Improved stability and precision are of particular interest in
testing cementitious materials, as they are brittle and often display
instability at the instant of cracking.
ASTM C1399/C1399M-10 is a test that addresses the issue of
load instability (and hence bypasses the need to perform the test in

Copyright
by ASTM
Int'l (all
rights reserved);
Mon Harbor
Jul 13 16:20:13
EDT
2015
Copyright
2011
by ASTM
International,
100 Barr
Drive, PO
Box
C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959.

Downloaded/printed by
(UFPA) Universidade Federal do Para ((UFPA) Universidade Federal do Para) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.

2 JOURNAL OF TESTING AND EVALUATION

TABLE 1Mixture proportions of normal and high strength concretes
investigated.
Quantity

Ingredient
Cement type GU
Silica fume
Flyash type C
Sand
Aggregate 14 mm
Water
Air
Darex II
Fiber
(STRUX 90/40)
ADVA 190
w/cm

NS-FRC
fc = 35 MPa
303

74
710
1051
146
6.5 %
10

HS-FRC
fc = 80 MPa
400
32
150
560
890
190
6.5 %
36

mL/100 kg

3.0
359.0
0.387

3.0
400.0
0.326

kg/ m3
mL/100 kg

Unit
kg/ m3
kg/ m3
kg/ m3
kg/ m3
kg/ m3
kg/ m3

Note: ADVA 190 is a polycarboxylate-based high-range water-reducing admixture; Darex II is an air-entraining admixture; and Flyash Type is described in
ASTM C618 Type C [19].

Ri =
FIG. 1ASTM C1399/C1399M-10 test: (a) Test setup showing the 12 mm plate
under the specimen for initial loading; (b) reloading without the plate; (c) initial and reloading curves.

a closed-loop environment) by testing the beam in two stages. Fiber

reinforced beams are first pre-cracked under four-point flexural
loading, as in the ASTM C78 method [17], but in series with a 12
mm thick steel plate (Fig. 1). The steel plate provides the support
and absorbs the energy that is released from the machine at the occurrence of the peak load when the compliance of the specimen
changes suddenly. At a prescribed net deflection, the cracked beam
is unloaded and the steel plate is removed. The beam is then reloaded in four-point bending to obtain the residual load-deflection
curve. The loads supported by this beam at 0.5, 0.75, 1.0, and 1.25
mm are averaged and normalized to obtain residual strength (RS)
values by using an elastic analysis. In other words

RS =

P0.5 + P0.75 + P1.0 + P1.25

L
2
bd
4

ARS
R

where:
ARS = mean value of the ARS determined by carrying out the
ASTM C1399/C1399M-10 test on at least five FRC beam specimens and
R = mean value of the MOR determined by performing the
ASTM C78 test on at least five FRC specimens.
The approach is based on the rationale that the post-cracking

(1)

where:
P0.5, P0.75, P1.0, and P1.25 = load values at 0.5, 0.75, 1.0, and 1.25
mm beam deflection, respectively,
L = test span,
b = width of the beam, and
d = depth of the beam.
Notice that the RS is the resulting stress and has units of MPa.
The average of RS values over multiple replicates is often called
Average Residual Strength (ARS).
In the Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code [18], the ARS is
further normalized with respect to the modulus of rupture (MOR)
obtained from ASTM C78. The Residual Strength Index, Ri, is defined as

(2)

FIG. 2STRUX 90/40 fiber and properties.

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Mon Jul 13 16:20:13 EDT 2015
Downloaded/printed by
(UFPA) Universidade Federal do Para ((UFPA) Universidade Federal do Para) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.

BANTHIA ET AL. ON FIBER REINFORCED CONCRETE IN ASTM C1399 TESTS

TABLE 2Test program (number of specimens).

ASTM C78
ASTM C1399/C1399M-10
using open-loop control
ASTM C1399/C1399M-10
using closed-loop control

TABLE 3ASTM C78 results.

Normal Strength Matrix

fc = 35 MPa
5

High Strength Matrix

fc = 80 MPa
5

load carrying capacity of concrete with fibers (ARS) needs to be

normalized with respect to its MOR R in order to generate a nondimensional parameter Ri, which can then be specified based on a
specific bridge application. The parameter therefore is intended to
characterize the toughness of FRC over and beyond the stress carried by the concrete matrix at the instant of first crack. It also
implicitly recognizes that very high strength concretes (higher R
values) are intrinsically brittle, and hence a greater fiber dosage
(higher ARS) may be required to provide a needed crack control.
Doubts are often raised in the case of ASTM C1399/
C1399M-10 as to the ability of the pre-cracking procedure (with
steel plate) to effectively replace proper closed-loop testing. Part of
the problem is that in an uncontrolled open-loop test, during initial
loading, the deflection is very hard to control and the net deflection
requirements are seldom met. This is of particular concern in the
case of very high strength matrices. The primary objective of this
study was to investigate the effect of feedback control on the measured ARS and Ri values of FRC.

Experimental Program
Materials and Mixes
ASTM Type GU (Type 1) Portland cement was used in all concrete
mixes. Local natural river sand and gravel coarse aggregate with a

MOR (MPa)
Sample
1
2
3
4
5
Average R
a

Normal Strength Concrete

4.60
4.91
4.90
5.48
4.67
4.9 (7.1 %)a

High Strength Concrete

6.78
7.47
7.72
7.66
6.85
7.3 (6.15 %)a

Numbers in parentheses are COV.

maximum size of 14 mm was used. The mixture proportions of the

two concretes usednormal strength and high strengthare given
in Table 1.
Concrete mixtures (Table 1) were reinforced with 3.0 kg/ m3
(0.33 % by volume) of the STRUX 90/40 fiber (Fig. 2). Beams with
dimensions of 100 100 350 mm were cast in acrylic moulds,
demolded 24 h later, and cured in lime-saturated water for an additional 27 days. All tests were performed at an age of 28 days. The
test program is described in Table 2.

Test Details
The tests were performed and analyzed as per ASTM C1399/
C1399M-10 (Fig. 1). For both closed-loop and open-loop tests, a
fatigue-rated Instron 8800 test machine was used. In all tests, a
yoke was installed around the specimen to eliminate spurious deformation arising from crushing and support settlement and record
only the net deformation of the neutral axis. Simple supports, as
prescribed by ASTM, were used. These have rollers that are able to
rotate but not move horizontally. The lack of horizontal translation
may have added additional restraint in a specimen during a test,
especially at large deflections. This was ignored out of necessity.

FIG. 3Reloading curves in ASTM C1399/C1399M-10 tests for NS-FRC under open-loop control and RS analysis (numbers appearing in parenthesis represent
COV).

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Mon Jul 13 16:20:13 EDT 2015
Downloaded/printed by
(UFPA) Universidade Federal do Para ((UFPA) Universidade Federal do Para) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.

4 JOURNAL OF TESTING AND EVALUATION

FIG. 4Reloading curves in ASTM C1399/C1399M-10 tests for NS-FRC under closed-loop control and RS analysis (numbers appearing in parenthesis represent
COV).

FIG. 5Reloading curves in ASTM C1399/C1399M-10 tests for HS-FRC under open-loop control and RS analysis (numbers appearing in parenthesis represent
COV).

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Mon Jul 13 16:20:13 EDT 2015
Downloaded/printed by
(UFPA) Universidade Federal do Para ((UFPA) Universidade Federal do Para) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.

BANTHIA ET AL. ON FIBER REINFORCED CONCRETE IN ASTM C1399 TESTS

FIG. 6Reloading curves in ASTM C1399/C1399M-10 tests for HS-FRC under closed-loop control and RS analysis (numbers appearing in parenthesis represent
COV).

Results

Discussion

Modulus of Rupture Tests as per ASTM C78

Table 3 indicated the results of the MOR tests as per ASTM C78.
Notice that the two concretes closely followed a MOR to compressive strength fic relationship of
MOR = 0.82fc

(3)

Residual Strength Tests as per ASTM C1399/

C1399M-10
The reloading curves for Normal Strength Fiber Reinforced Concrete (NS-FRC) tested using open-loop control and the related
analysis (Eq 1) are given in Fig. 3. Closed-loop curves for the same
concrete are given in Fig. 4. Similarly, for High Strength Fiber Reinforced Concrete (HS-FRC), the open-loop reloading curves are
given in Fig. 5 and the closed-loop curves are given in Fig. 6. ARS
values as per ASTM C1399/C1399M-10 and Ri values as per the
Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code [18] are compiled in
Table 4.
TABLE 4Results of ASTM C1399/C1399M-10 ARS and CHBDC Ri.
Open-Loop Control

Closed-Loop Control

ASTM C1399/
ASTM C1399/
C1399M-10 ARS,
C1399M-10 ARS,
MPa (COV, %)
CHBDC Ri
FRC Type
MPa (COV, %)
CHBDC Ri
NS-FRC
1.48 (10.1 %)
0.30
1.51 (11.5 %)
0.31
HS-FRC
1.52 (24.5 %)
0.21
2.18 (23.9 %)
0.30

At the outset, based on Figs. 36, fiber reinforcement can be seen as

an effective way of enhancing the post-crack strength of concrete.
For the fiber type and dosage investigated, fibers carry post peak
stresses in the range of about 2030 % of the stresses carried at the
first crack, i.e., the stress corresponding to the MOR of the material. For the well bonded fibers such as the ones used here, fibers
require some crack opening (strain) before stresses can build-up. In
the current study, in the reloading regime, the fibers required an
approximate vertical net displacement of 0.2 mm before a plateau
value of stress could be attained. In some instances, deflection
hardening was seen to occur. The lower values of ARS for a given
FRC imply that there is some slip at the fiber-matrix interface, and
so only lower stresses can be developed at a given displacement or
crack opening. There is some statistical variability expected due to
uneven fiber distribution through the depth of the beam, but with a
sufficiently large sample size of five specimens per batch, the confidence in the ARS values is high.
The ASTM C1399/C1399M-10 standard specifically notes that
a closed-loop test control is not required. This may be completely
valid for NS-FRCs (Table 4), which only had a marginal increase in
its ARS values when a closed-loop environment was adopted. In the
case of HS-FRC, on the other hand, the influence of load control on
the apparent values of ARS is significant (Table 4). Here, an increase of nearly 40 % in the ARS was noted simply by changing the
deflection control from open-loop to closed-loop.
A dramatic increase in the ARS of HS-FRC upon changing the
load control from open-loop to closed-loop is interesting and may
have its genesis in the increased brittleness in high strength matrices. To further understand the reasons for this, the initial loading
curves under open-loop control for NS-FRC and HS-FRC were
compared, and the results are given in Fig. 7. Notice that at the instant of cracking (i.e., at the occurrence of the peak load), the lack

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Mon Jul 13 16:20:13 EDT 2015
Downloaded/printed by
(UFPA) Universidade Federal do Para ((UFPA) Universidade Federal do Para) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.

6 JOURNAL OF TESTING AND EVALUATION

FIG. 7Open-loop initial loading curves (with steel plate) for high strength (left) and normal strength (right) FRC. Notice the greater variability in peak load and a
greater damage induced in HS-FRC signified by a larger average PID.

of feedback control leads to significant load instability and the

beam regains its load carrying capacity only at a much larger deflection. Here, a deflection at which the curve becomes stable once
again is defined as Post-Instability-Deflection (PID). When the PID
values are compared, it is clear that the average PID for HS-FRC is
much higher than that for NS-FRC. When combined with higher
peak loads, this means that in an open-loop test, during initial loading, a high strength matrix is subjected to a greater release of machine energy and consequently sustains greater damage, which
then manifests itself in a crack of greater length and opening. This
damage adversely affects its ability to carry loads during the reloading exercise, thereby reducing the ARS value. In a closed-loop
test, on the other hand, the release of energy at peak load is minimal
and so is the damage.
In Fig. 7, one can also note a greater variability in the recorded
peak loads for HS-FRC than for NS-FRC. This likely resulted in
different degrees of damage during initial loading in different
specimens and, consequently, inconsistent crack lengths and
widths. All these factors led to a higher Coefficient of Variation
(COV) in ARS for HS-FRC.
Table 5 presents the acceptance criteria for FRC as per CHBDC
[18]. Notice that for the specific application of surfacing of stressed
log bridges, while HS-FRC tested using the closed-loop arrangement would meet the minimum value of Ri, the same concrete
tested using an open-loop arrangement would not. This is of major
concern, and since a closed-loop arrangement better represents the
material performance, the ASTM C1399/C1399M-10 test should
only be performed in such an arrangement, especially for concretes
with higher strengths.
TABLE 5Current acceptance criteria for FRC as per CHBDC S06-16.
Application
Barrier wall with one mesh of bars
Barrier wall with two meshes of bars
Deck slab with one crack-control mesh
Deck slab with two crack-control meshes
Surfacing of stressed log bridges
a

Fibers not needed.

Minimum Value of Ri
0.25
0.0a
0.25
0.0a
0.30

Conclusions
The influence of feedback control was investigated in ASTM
C1399/C1399M-10 tests using two concrete strengths. The following conclusions were drawn.
(1) NS-FRC only had a marginal increase in its ARS values
when the test controls were changed from open-loop to
closed-loop. In the case of HS-FRC, however, the influence
of the load control on the apparent values of ARS was significant. An increase of nearly 40 % in the ARS was noted
simply by changing the deflection control from open-loop
to closed-loop.
(2) Higher ARS values noted for HS-FRC under closed-loop
control may have their genesis in the increased brittleness
in such concretes. When the PID values are compared, it is
clear that the average PID for HS-FRC is significantly
higher than that for NS-FRC.
(3) High strength concrete displays much greater variability in
ASTM C1399/C1399M-10 results regardless of the feedback control employed. The initial loading in HS-FRC tests
results in cracks of inconsistent lengths and openings, and
this leads to greater inconsistency in the reloading curves.
(4) The ASTM C1399/C1399M-10 test should only be performed in a closed-loop environment, especially for high
strength concrete matrices.

References
[1] Bentur, A. and Mindess, S., Fiber Reinforced Cementitious
Composites, Elsevier Applied Science, London, 1990.
[2] Banthia, N. and Sappakittipakorn, M., Toughness Enhancement in Steel Fiber Reinforced Concrete Through Fiber Hybridization, Cem. Concr. Res., Vol. 37(9), 2007, pp. 1366
1372.
[3] Banthia, N. and Dubey, A., Measurement of Flexural Toughness of Fiber Reinforced Concrete Using a Novel Technique,
Part 1: Assessment and Calibration, ACI Mater. J., Vol.
96(6), 1999, pp. 651656.

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Mon Jul 13 16:20:13 EDT 2015
Downloaded/printed by
(UFPA) Universidade Federal do Para ((UFPA) Universidade Federal do Para) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.

BANTHIA ET AL. ON FIBER REINFORCED CONCRETE IN ASTM C1399 TESTS

[4] Banthia, N. and Dubey, A., Measurement of Flexural Toughness of Fiber Reinforced Concrete Using a Novel Technique,
Part 2: Performance of Various Composites, ACI Mater. J.,
Vol. 97(1), 2000, pp. 311.
[5] Banthia, N. and Trottier, J.-F., Test Methods of Flexural
Toughness Characterization of FRCs: Some Concerns and a
Proposition, ACI Mater. J., Vol. 92(1), 1995, pp. 4857.
[6] Banthia, N. and Trottier, J.-F., Concrete Reinforced with Deformed Steel Fibers, Part II: Toughness Characterization,
ACI Mater. J., Vol. 92(2), 1995, pp. 146154.
[7] ASTM C1018-97, 1997, Test Method for Flexural Toughness and First Crack Strength of Fiber Reinforced Concrete,
Using Beam with Third-Point Loading, Annual Book of
ASTM Standards, Vol. 4.02, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, pp. 543550.
[8] JSCE SF-4, 1984, Method of Testing for Flexural Strength
and Flexural Toughness of Fiber Reinforced Concrete, Japan
Society of Civil Engineers, Tokyo, pp. 5866.
[9] JSCE SF-5, 1984, Method of Testing for Compressive
Strength and Compressive Toughness of Steel Fiber Reinforced Concrete, Japan Society of Civil Engineers (JSCE),
Tokyo, pp. 6773.
[10] Casanova, P. and Rossi, P., Analysis of Fiber Reinforced
Concrete Beams Subjected to Bending, Mater. Struct., Vol.
29(6), 1996, pp. 354361.
[11] EFNARC, 1997, European Specification for Sprayed Concrete, European Federation of Producers and Applicators of
Specialized Products for Structures, Hampshire, United Kingdom.
[12] ASTM C1609/C1609M-07, 2007, Standard Test Method for
Flexural Performance of Fiber-Reinforced Concrete (Using
Beam with Third-Point Loading), Annual Book of ASTM

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

Standards, Vol. 04.02, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.

ASTM C1399/C1399M-10, 2010, Standard Test Method for
Obtaining Average Residual-Strength of Fiber-Reinforced
Concrete, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 04.02,
ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM C1550-05, Standard Test Method for Flexural Toughness of Fiber Reinforced Concrete (Using Centrally Loaded
Round Panel), Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 04.02,
ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.
JSCE SF-6, 1990, Method of Test for Shear Strength of Steel
Fiber Reinforced Concrete (SFRC), Japan Society of Civil
Engineers, Tokyo, pp. 4955.
RILEM TC 162-TDF, Recommendations of RILEM TC 162TDF: Test and Design Methods for Steel Fibre Reinforced
Concrete: Bending Test, Mater. Struct., Vol. 35(253), 2002,
pp. 579582.
ASTM C78-08, Standard Test Method for Flexural Strength
of Concrete (Using Simple Beam with Third-Point Loading),
Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 04.02, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.
CHBDC-S06-10, 2010, Canadian Highway Bridge Design
Code, Chapter 16. Fiber Reinforced Structures, Section 16.6
on Fiber Reinforced Concrete, Canadian Standards Association, Mississauga, Canada.
ASTM C618-08 Type C, Standard Specification for Coal Fly
Ash and Raw or Calcined Natural Pozzolan for Use in Concrete, Standard Specification for Coal Fly Ash and Raw or
Calcined Natural Pozzolan for Use in Concrete, Annual Book
of ASTM Standards, Vol. 04.02, ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA.

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Mon Jul 13 16:20:13 EDT 2015
Downloaded/printed by
(UFPA) Universidade Federal do Para ((UFPA) Universidade Federal do Para) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.