ACI MATERIALS JOURNAL
Title no. 109-M56
Fatigue Analysis of Plain and Fiber-Reinforced
Self-Consolidating Concrete
by S. Goel, S. P. Singh, and P. Singh
This paper investigates the flexural fatigue performance of self-
consolidating concrete (SCC) and self-consolidating fiber-reinforced
concrete (SCFRC) containing round corrugated steel fibers with a
size of 1 x 30 mm (0.04 x 1.18 in.) in different 0.5, 1.0, and 1.5%
volume fractions. Approximately 250 flexural fatigue tests and
195 complementary static flexural tests were executed on beam
specimens with a size of 100 x 100 x 500 mm (3.94 x 3.94 x 19.7 in.)
under four-point flexural loading. The fatigue-life data show that the
probabilistic distribution of fatigue life of SCC/SCFRC at a given
stress level can approximately be modeled by the two-parameter
Weibull distribution. Three different methods were used to obtain
the Weibull parameters. A single-log fatigue equation was used to
analyze the flexural fatigue performance of SCC/SCFRC with a
10% probability of failure. The results show significantly improved
fatigue performance of SCFRC with enhanced sensitivity of fatigue
lives to the change of applied stress. Theoretic fatigue lives for SCC/
SCFRC were estimated that exhibit an increase to a different extent.
Keywords: fatigue life; self-consolidating fiber-reinforced concrete; stress
level; Weibull distribution.
INTRODUCTION
Self-consolidating concrete (SCC) is an innovative concrete
that does not require vibration for placing and compaction.
It is able to flow under its own weight, completely filling
formwork, and encapsulate the reinforcement, achieving full
compaction, even in the presence of congested reinforce-
ment.1 The hardened SCC is dense and homogeneous and has
improved engineering properties and durability compared to
normally vibrated concrete (NVC). The improved construc-
tion practice and performance, combined with the health and
safety benefits, make SCC a very attractive solution for both
precast concrete and civil engineering construction.2
Due to its substantial engineering applications and
commercial benefits, SCC has generated tremendous interest
among researchers, engineers, and concrete technolo-
gists.3,4 Numerous research studies have shown that it is prac-
tical to make a flowable yet stable SCC tailored for any appli-
cation.5,6 A number of investigations related to the rheological,
mechanical, and structural behavior of SCC under statically
applied loads have been reported in literature that substantiate
the better performance of SCC compared to NVC.7-10
The importance of the homogeneity of the material is
evident for any application because it will affect the material
properties.11 SCC contains large proportions of finer parti-
cles and does not need mechanical vibrators for compaction,
which results in a denser and more homogenous concrete
compared to NVC. The denser structure of SCC dimin-
ishes the presence of air voids so better bonding between
the concrete and reinforcing materials is achieved; this
could be beneficial and lead to better results in terms of the
mechanical behavior of the constituents compared with that
of conventional concrete.12,13
ACI Materials Journal/September-October 2012
TECHNICAL PAPER
SCC possesses good fluidity and deformability, making
it more suitable for the addition of fibers as compared to
NVC and allows for much easier construction, resulting in
a more reliable quality in concrete placement and a more
homogeneous material structure.14 SCC reinforced with
steel fibers enhances its applications because the mechanical
performance of concrete is improved. Self-consolidating
fiber-reinforced concrete (SCFRC) is more ductile and
tougher than conventional SCC and has demonstrated higher
residual strengths.15 The workability of SCFRC is directly
influenced by the type and content of fibers used, as well as
the SCC matrix. A higher aspect ratio and volume concen-
tration of fibers improve the performance of SCFRC in the
hardened state but also affects its workability. Thus, studies
were conducted to obtain optimum fiber-reinforced concrete
(FRC) mixtures with required self-consolidating proper-
ties.16-18 Dhonde et al.17 revealed that SCFRC could be made
with satisfactory filling and passing ability using short fibers
(L 30 mm [1.2 in.] long), as these did not influence its
slump flow or stability. Researchers investigated whether
SCFRC shows either similar or improved performance in
terms of compressive strength, flexural strength, splitting
tensile strength, elastic modulus, creep and shrinkage, and
shear and pullout behavior compared to SCC and normally
vibrated fiber-reinforced concrete (NVFRC) under statically
applied loads.11,14,15,17,19-21 The microstructure around the
matrix, the distribution, and the orientation of the fibers are
different in SCC than in conventional concrete. Entrapped
air and neighboring fibers affect the performance of a fiber
in NVFRC more than in SCFRC. The steel fibers, due to
the lack of any mechanical vibrations in SCFRC, are more
favorably aligned into the direction of the flow, thereby
improving its bending characteristics. In SCC, the fibers are
fully embedded in the matrix, thereby imparting better bond
or pullout strength.13,21 Thus, it is expected that SCC and
SCFRC, as in the case of their mechanical properties, such
as compressive and flexural strength under statically applied
loads, may exhibit better fatigue characteristics.
The global thrust on construction of bridges and highway
pavements for infrastructure development has fascinated
many researchers,3,4,7,8 leading to investigations of the
fatigue behavior of concrete. The bridges and pavements
were expected to resist millions of cycles of repeated axle
loads during their intended life. Considering fatigue strength
an important parameter in the design of these structures,
ACI Materials Journal, V. 109, No. 5, September-October 2012.
MS No. M-2011-244.R1 received November 28, 2011, and reviewed under Institute
publication policies. Copyright 2012, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved,
including the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright
proprietors. Pertinent discussion including authors closure, if any, will be published in
the July-August 2013 ACI Materials Journal if the discussion is received by April 1, 2013.
573
S. Goel is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Civil Engineering at DAV Insti-
tute of Engineering and Technology, Jalandhar, India. His research interests include
self-consolidating concrete and recycling of materials in concrete.
ACI member S. P. Singh is a Professor in the Department of Civil Engineering at
Dr. B. R. Ambedkar National Institute of Technology, Jalandhar, India. He received
his PhD from the University of Roorkee, Roorkee, Uttarakhand, India, in 1999. His
research interests include the fatigue behavior of fibrous concrete composites and
recycling of materials in concrete.
P. Singh is a Professor in the Department of Civil Engineering at Dr. B. R. Ambedkar
National Institute of Technology. He received his PhD from Panjab University, Chan-
digarh, India, in 2002. His research interests include the behavior of laminated plates
and fiber-reinforced concrete.
the majority of research in the literature on the fatigue of
NVC and NVFRC has been focused on its behavior in
flexure.22-25 The research investigations were carried out
to suggest relationships between stress level S, which is
the ratio of maximum fatigue stress fmax to the modulus
of rupture fr and the number of load cycles N that causes
failure. One of the extensively used fatigue equations is a
single-log equation, as shown in the following22,25-27
fmax
S= = a b log10 ( N ) (1)
fr
where a and b are experimental coefficients. The fatigue
test data of NVC and NVFRC are random in nature and
show considerable scatter; even under carefully controlled
test procedures; thus, it becomes essential to introduce
probabilistic concepts to ensure adequate fatigue resis-
tance. Oh,27,28 Singh and Kaushik,25,29 and Mohammadi and
Kaushik30 conducted experimental and theoretical studies to
investigate the fatigue-life distributions of NVC and NVFRC
at different stress levels. From the test data, it was observed
that the statistical distribution of the fatigue life of NVC and
NVFRC can be approximately described by the two-param-
eter Weibull distribution.28-30 A number of investigations
have been made to study the fatigue behavior of NVC and
NVFRC; the fatigue characteristics of SCC/SCFRC have
yet to be investigated despite the fact that SCC/SCFRC has
been widely accepted for the construction of bridge deck,
bridge piers, and pier caps4 and possible future applications
in highway and airfield concrete pavements, wherein fatigue
is the predominant mode of loading.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
The literature available on SCC and SCFRC reported
studies on their mechanical properties under statically
applied loads, but to the best of the authors knowledge,
there is practically no information available on the fatigue
Table 1Proportions for SCC and SCFRC mixtures
Cement, Fly ash, Fine aggregates,
Mixture kg/m3 (lb/yd3) kg/m3 (lb/yd3) kg/m3 (lb/yd3)
SCC 410 (691) 205 (346) 846 (1427)
SCFRC0.5 410 (691) 205 (346) 846 (1427)
SCFRC1.0 410 (691) 205 (346) 846 (1427)
SCFRC1.5 410 (691) 205 (346) 846 (1427)
Note: NA is not available.
574
behavior of SCC/SCFRC. To this end, an experimental
investigation was set up to establish the probability distri-
butions for fatigue/fatigue-life data of SCC and SCFRC at
different stress levels. The two-parameter Weibull distribu-
tion was examined in this regard and distribution parameters
were obtained and compared with that of NVC and NVFRC.
To examine the fatigue performance, the Weibull distribu-
tion was used to incorporate the probability of fatigue failure
into the fatigue-life data and the theoretic fatigue lives for
SCC and SCFRC were obtained and compared with those of
NVC and NVFRC.
EXPERIMENTAL investigation
Materials and mixture proportions
The concrete mixtures were prepared with Grade 43 ordinary
portland cement conforming to Indian Standard (IS) 8112 and
fly ash (Class F). The mixtures were prepared using well-
graded crushed stone coarse aggregate with a nominal size
of 12.5 mm (0.49 in.) and locally available coarse sand with
a fineness modulus of 2.85. A polycarboxylic-ether-based
high-range water-reducing admixture (HRWRA) and a
polycarboxylate-polymer-based viscosity-modifying agent
(VMA) were used to achieve the flowable yet cohesive SCC
and SCFRC mixtures. Corrugated steel fibers were 30 mm
(1.18 in.) in length and 1 mm (0.04 in.) in diameter in all
the SCFRC mixtures. Table 1 shows the proportions of all
four mixtures of SCC and SCFRC used in this investiga-
tion. The mixture with no steel fibersthat is, the SCC
mixturewas taken as the control mixture. Three different
SCFRC mixtures contained steel fibers in volume fractions
of 0.5, 1.0, and 1.5%. The dosage of HRWRA and VMA
was adjusted to obtain the required workability for all the
SCC and SCFRC mixtures. All the mixtures were mixed in
a 100 L (0.1 m3) drum mixer in the laboratory. First, the fine
and coarse aggregates were fed into the mixer and mixed for
approximately 1 minute. The cement and fly ash were added
to the aggregates and the ingredients were mixed in a dry
condition for approximately 30 seconds. Subsequently, two-
thirds of the water was added to the dry mixture and mixing
was allowed for the next 60 seconds. HRWRA premixed
with the remaining one-third of the water was added to the
wet mixture and mixing continued for another 150 seconds.
In the case of the SCFRC mixtures, the steel fibers were
added to the wet mixture by uniformly sprinkling them into
the drum, and then the remaining one-third of the water
premixed with HRWRA and VMA was added. Mixing was
allowed for another 60 seconds for the SCFRC mixtures.
The SCC mixture did not show any sign of bleeding but the
SCFRC mixtures were unstable and bleeding was observed
during the filling of the molds; thus, a polycarboxylate-
polymer-based VMA was used to improve the stability of
the SCFRC mixtures.
Coarse aggregates, Fiber-volume HRWRA, by weight VMA, by weight
kg/m3 (lb/yd3) fraction, Vf of cement of cement
602 (1015) NA 1.7% NA
602 (1015) 0.5% 1.9% 0.25%
602 (1015) 1.0% 2.2% 0.35%
602 (1015) 1.5% 2.5% 0.50%
ACI Materials Journal/September-October 2012
Table 2Workability tests on fresh SCC and SCFRC mixtures
Test Parameter SCC SCFRC0.5 SCFRC1.0 SCFRC1.5 EFNARC guidelines
*
T500 , seconds 2.8 0.5 3.0 0.5 3.5 0.5 4.0 0.5 2 to 5
Slump flow Slump flow spread , *
750 20 710 30 700 30 700 20 650 to 800
mm (in.) (29.5 0.8) (27.9 1.2) (27.6 1.2) (27.6 0.8) (25.6 to 33.5)
T500J, seconds 3.0 0.5 4.0 0.5 4.0 0.5 5.0 0.5 3 to 6
Flow spread*, 720 25 710 25 700 20 680 20 600 to 750
J-ring mm (in.) (28.3 1) (27.9 1) (27.6 0.8) (26.8 0.8) (23.6 to 29.5)
Blocking step* Bj, 6.0 0.5 7.0 0.5 8.0 0.5 9.5 0.4
0 to 10 (0.4)
mm (in.) (0.24 0.02) (0.3 0.02) (0.33 0.02) (0.38 0.16)
V-funnel time*,
V-funnel 7.0 0.5 7.7 0.3 8.5 0.5 9.5 0.5 6 to 12
seconds
L-box passing
L-box 0.91 0.90 0.83 0.81 0.8 to 1.0
ability*
*
For random five batches.
Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm.

Table 3Compressive strength test results for SCC and SCFRC mixtures
28-day average* compressive strength, MPa (psi)
Batch No. SCC SCFRC0.5 SCFRC1.0 SCFRC1.5
1 35.9 (5210) 36.0 (5225) 41.1 (5965) 42.0 (6096)
2 35.2 (5109) 39.9 (5791) 39.1 (5675) 39.8 (5776)
3 35.0 (5080) 36.2 (5254) 39.6 (5747) 44.0 (6386)
4 34.9 (5065) 36.9 (5355) 41.6 (6038) 39.9 (5791)
5 36.6 (5312) 39.6 (5747) 41.2 (5980) 42.9 (6226)
6 35.7 (5181) 37.7 (5472) 39.3 (5704) 40.8 (5922)
7 36.7 (5326) 38.5 (5588) 39.8 (5776) 42.7 (6197)
8 35.2 (5109) 36.1 (5239) 41.6 (6038) 43.6 (6328)
9 36.8 (5341) 39.4 (5718) 39.8 (5776) 41.8 (6067)
10 36.5 (5298) 36.6 (5312) 42.2 (6125) 43.6 (6328)
11 35.8 (5196) 39.9 (5791) 38.8 (5631) 42.9 (6226)
12 36.5 (5297) 36.6 (5312) 40.8 (5922) 43.8 (6357)
13 36.3 (5268) 38.2 (5544) 39.0 (5660) 42.5 (6168)
14 35.5 (5152) 38.8 (5631) 38.9 (5646) 41.9 (6081)
15 36.2 (5254) 40.1 (5820) 41.0 (5951) 43.8 (6357)
16 35.4 (5139) 38.3 (5559) 40.7 (5907) 41.7 (6052)
Average 35.9 (5210) 38.1 (5530) 40.3 (5849) 42.4 (6154)
*
Average of three specimens.
Note: 1000 psi = 6.89 MPa.

Workability and casting of specimens
All the workability tests were conducted after approx-
imately 1 minute of final mixing; namely, slump flow,
V-funnel, J-ring, and L-box tests were carried out for SCC and
SCFRC mixtures per the guidelines of EFNARC.2 The results
of the workability tests conducted randomly on five batches
each of SCC and SCFRC mixtures are presented in Table 2.
Standard beam specimens with a size of 100 x 100 x 500 mm
(3.94 x 3.94 x 19.7 in.) for static flexural and flexural fatigue
tests and cube specimens with a size of 150 x 150 x 150 mm
(5.9 x 5.9 x 5.9 in.) for compressive strength tests were cast
in different batches. Each batch contained seven beam and
three cube specimens. The mixture was poured into the
specimen molds from a height of approximately 450 mm
(17.7 in.) in a single layer. Molds were filled without any
use of vibrator. The specimens were demolded 36 hours after
casting and moist-cured under laboratory conditions. For
ascertaining the quality of each batch of SCC and SCFRC,
compressive strength tests were conducted on cube specimens
after 28 days of curing. The beam specimens were cured
for 75 days and thereafter stored under laboratory conditions
for approximately 2 months to minimize the effect of strength
gain during the course of fatigue testing, which in itself is
extended in nature. To further eliminate the effect of strength
gain, if any, the testing was done batch-wise, wherein the static
flexural strength tests on a particular batch were conducted
just prior to the flexural fatigue testing of the same. The results
of the compressive strength tests on SCC and SCFRC speci-
mens are reported in Table 3. The average 28-day compressive
strength for all batches of SCC, SCFRC0.5, SCFRC1.0, and

ACI Materials Journal/September-October 2012 575

Table 4Static flexural strength test results for SCC and SCFRC mixtures
Static flexural strength*, MPa (psi)
Batch No. SCC SCFRC0.5 SCFRC1.0 SCFRC1.5
1 4.93 (715) 6.23 (904) 6.48 (940) 9.23 (1340)
2 4.96 (720) 6.35 (922) 7.60 (1103) 9.18 (1332)
3 4.60 (668) 6.11 (887) 7.60 (1103) 9.41 (1366)
4 5.02 (729) 5.84 (848) 6.93 (1006) 9.06 (1315)

5 4.87 (707) 6.02 (874) 7.77 (1128) 8.78 (1274)
6 4.42 (642) 5.89 (855) 7.94 (1152) 8.89 (1290)
7 4.67 (678) 6.26 (909) 7.15 (1038) 8.45 (1226)

8 4.69 (681) 6.16 (894) 6.54 (949) 9.28 (1347)

9 5.43 (788) 5.82 (845) 7.44 (1080) 9.32 (1353)
10 4.82 (700) 5.96 (865) 6.98 (1013) 8.31 (1206)
11 4.42 (642) 6.36 (923) 7.91 (1148) 9.44 (1370)
12 4.64 (673) 5.74 (833) 7.86 (1141) 8.73 (1267)
13 5.38 (781) 5.66 (821) 6.72 (975) 8.60 (1248)
14 4.72 (685) 5.92 (859) 6.85 (994) 8.69 (1261)
15 5.10 (740) 6.28 (911) 6.69 (971) 9.40 (1364)
16 4.89 (710) 6.21 (901) 6.76 (981) 9.34 (1355)
Average 4.85 (704) 6.05 (878) 7.20 (1045) 9.00 (1308)
*
Results correspond to different ages at testing.

Average of two specimens.

Notes: Without mark is average of three specimens; 1000 psi = 6.89 MPa.

SCFRC1.5 was 35.90, 38.10, 40.30, and 42.40 MPa (5210,
5530, 5849, and 6154 psi), respectively.
Fatigue test program
The flexural fatigue testing of SCC and SCFRC was the
primary objective of this investigation. The maximum and
minimum load limits are required to be defined to initiate
a fatigue test. These load limits were obtained for each
batch of specimens by testing three beam specimens from
a particular batch in static flexure. The beams were simply
supported over a span of 450 mm (17.7 in.) and loaded at
third points, thus leading to a four-point bending test. The
average static flexural strength fr for each batch of SCC and
SCFRC was obtained just before the fatigue tests, the results
of which are presented in Table 4. The static flexural tests
were carried out with a 100 kN (22.2 kip) servo-controlled
actuator run in the displacement control mode at a loading
rate of 0.5 mm/minute (0.02 in./minute). The static flex-
ural strength taken as an average of all the batches of SCC,
SCFRC0.5, SCFRC1.0, and SCFRC1.5 was 4.85, 6.05, 7.20,
and 9 MPa (704, 878, 1045, and 1308 psi), respectively. A
considerable increase in the peak loads over the first crack
loads was observed for SCFRC specimens, particularly for
mixtures containing 1.0 and 1.5% fiber-volume fractions.
The increment in peak load may be attributed to the contri-
bution of fibers after the cracking of the matrix.
After the static flexural strength of a particular batch of
SCC or SCFRC was established, the remaining beam speci-
mens were tested in flexural fatigue. The loading conditions
were kept the same for both static flexural and flexural
fatigue tests. The flexural fatigue tests were conducted at
stress levels S (S = fmax/fr, fmax is maximum fatigue stress, and
fr is static flexural strength), ranging from 0.90 to 0.65 with
the fatigue stress ratio R (R = fmin/fmax), kept constant at
0.10 throughout the investigation, as has been done in
previous studies.29-31 Constant-amplitude sinusoidal loads
were applied at a frequency of 10 Hz to complete the test
in a reasonable period of time. Because fatigue testing is a
time-consuming and expensive process and a large number
of specimens were proposed to be tested in this investiga-
tion, an upper limit of 2 million cycles of fatigue loading
was adopted. The test was terminated when the failure of the
specimen occurred or this upper limit was reached, which-
ever was earlier. For each SCC and SCFRC mixture, the
numbers of cycles to failure for the specimen under different
load conditions were noted as fatigue life N.
ANALYSIS OF FATIGUE-LIFE DATA
The fatigue test data obtained for the SCC and SCFRC
mixtures in this study shows considerable variability, even
at a given stress level. Thus, before initiating the analysis
process, some data points may deserve consideration for
rejection as outliers. Chauvenets criteria32 was applied
to the fatigue-life data at different stress levels tested in
this investigation and points meeting this criterion for
outliers were identified and excluded from further analysis.
Batson et al.,33 Singh and Kaushik,29 and Mohammadi and
Kaushik30 used the same criterion in their work on the
flexural fatigue of plain NVC and NVFRC.
Fatigue-life distributions of SCC and SCFRC
The fatigue test data of concrete is known to exhibit great
variability, which becomes enhanced in the case of FRC and
thereby necessitates introducing the probability concepts
in the design to secure the adequate fatigue resistance of
concrete structures such as bridges, highway pavements, and

576 ACI Materials Journal/September-October 2012

offshore structures. In this study, it is proposed to use the
two-parameter Weibull distribution to describe the proba-
bility distributions of fatigue life of SCC and SCFRC. Unlike
lognormal distribution suggested by ASTM 91-A34 that
shows decreasing hazard function, the Weibull distribution
gives increasing hazard function with an increase in life or
time, which demonstrates the actual behavior of engineering
materials subjected to fatigue load.32 Moreover, the Weibull
distribution is based on more convincing arguments, is rela-
tively easy to use, has well-developed statistics,35 and has
been used in previous studies for the statistical description
of fatigue data of NVC27,28 and NVFRC.29,30 In this study,
the graphical method was employed to show that the distri-
bution of fatigue life of SCC and SCFRC at a given stress
level S follows the two-parameter Weibull distribution. To
estimate the parameters of the Weibull distribution, different
methodsthat is, the graphical method, the method of
moments, and the method of maximum likelihood esti-
matewere suggested.36 The calculation of parameters by
different methods instills confidence in the results and hence Fig. 1Graphical analysis of fatigue-life data for SCC at
has been adopted herein. different stress levels S.

Graphical method and distribution parameters

The survivorship function LN(n) of the two-parameter that the two-parameter Weibull distribution is a reasonable
Weibull distribution may be written as follows27-30 assumption for the distribution of fatigue life of SCC at
all tested stress levels. The corresponding values of corre-
lation coefficient CC are 0.9768, 0.9919, 0.9912, 0.9926,
n and 0.9911 for fatigue-life data of SCC at stress levels of
LN = exp (2) 0.85, 0.80, 0.75, 0.70, and 0.65, respectively. The values of
u the correlation coefficient for all stress levels were greater
than 0.97, which further substantiated the validity of the
where n is the specific value of random variable N; a is the two-parameter Weibull distribution for the fatigue life of
shape parameter at stress level S; and u is the scale parameter SCC. The parameters a and u for all stress levels for the
at stress level S. fatigue-life data of SCC were estimated directly from the
Taking the logarithm twice on both sides of Eq. (2) regression analysis.
Similarly, the fatigue-life data of SCFRC with 0.5, 1.0, and
1.5% volume fractions of fibers at different stress levels were
1 analyzed by the graphical method and were shown to follow
ln ln = ln ( n) ln(u) (3)
the two-parameter Weibull distribution with the statistical
LN correlation coefficient exceeding 0.90. Figures 2 to 4 present
the plots of graphical analysis of SCFRC with 0.5, 1.0, and
Equation (3) represents a linear relationship between 1.5% volume fractions of fibers at different stress levels.
ln[ln(1/LN)] and ln(N). To obtain a graph from Eq. (3), the The corresponding correlation coefficients are also listed in
fatigue-life data corresponding to a particular stress level S these figures. The parameters of SCFRC containing different
are first arranged in ascending order of cycles to failure, and
fiber-volume fractions were estimated by this method.
the empirical survivorship function LN for each fatigue-life
data is obtained from the following expression27-30
Parameters from method of moments
The estimation of parameters of the Weibull distribution
i by the method of moments requires sample moments, such
LN = 1 (4) as sample mean and sample variance. The following rela-
k +1 tionships can be used to obtain the parameters a and u for
fatigue-life data of SCC and SCFRC28,29,36
where i denotes the failure order number; and k represents the
number of fatigue data points in a data sample under consid-
eration at a given stress level S. A graph is plotted between a = (CV) 1.08 (5)
ln[ln(1/LN)] and ln(N), and if the test data, at a particular stress
level, follow approximately a linear trend, then this indicates
that the two-parameter Weibull distribution is a reasonable and
assumption for the statistical description of fatigue-life data
at that stress level. The shape parameter a and the scale
parameter u can be obtained either from the graph or directly
from the regression analysis. Figure 1 shows the plot of the u= (6)
fatigue-life data of SCC at stress level S = 0.85, 0.80, 0.75, 1
+ 1
0.70, and 0.65. The approximate straight-line plot indicates

ACI Materials Journal/September-October 2012 577

Fig. 2Graphical analysis of fatigue-life data for SCFRC
with 0.5% steel fibers at different stress levels S.
Fig. 3Graphical analysis of fatigue-life data for SCFRC
with 1.0% steel fibers at different stress levels S.
where m is the sample mean of the fatigue-life data at a given
stress level; CV (= s/m, s is standard deviation of sample) is
the coefficient of variation of the data; and G() is the gamma
function. The parameters of the Weibull distribution for
the fatigue-life data of SCC and SCFRC with 0.5, 1.0, and
1.5% of volume fraction of steel fibers were estimated using
Eq. (5) and (6) for stress level S ranging from 0.9 to 0.65.
Parameters from method of maximum
likelihood estimate
The distribution parameters of the Weibull distribution
can also be obtained using the method of the maximum
likelihood estimate. The probability density function of the
Weibull distribution may be written as follows28-30
1 n Kaushik30 on NVC and NVFRC was selected for compar-
f N ( n) = n exp (7)
specimen size; static flexural strength of the concretes; and
where
578
Fig. 4Graphical analysis of fatigue-life data for SCFRC
with 1.5% steel fibers at different stress levels S.
q = ua (8)
The maximum likelihood equations can be modified
as follows
k
ni ln ( ni )
*
1 1 k
i =1
k
= ln ( ni ) (9)
ni
*
* k i =1
i =1
1 k *
* = ni (10)
k i =1
where a* and q* are the maximum likelihood estimates of
a and q, respectively. The value of the shape parameter is
first obtained by solving Eq. (9) by an iterative procedure.
An estimate of the value of a obtained by any of the two
preceding methodsthat is, the graphical method and
method of momentscan be used as a first trial. Once the
shape parameter is known, the value of u can be obtained
from Eq. (8).
The parameters of the Weibull distribution were also
obtained by the method of maximum likelihood for fatigue-
life data of SCC and SCFRC with 0.5, 1.0, and 1.5% of
volume fraction of steel fibers corresponding to different
stress levels S ranging from 0.90 to 0.65. The average
values of the parameters for SCC and SCFRC obtained from
different methods are listed in Table 5.
To analyze the beneficial effects of self-consolidation on
the fatigue life of concrete, the results of this investigation for
the fatigue life of SCC and SCFRC were compared with some
previous studies on the fatigue of NVC and NVFRC. The
work of Oh,27,28 Singh and Kaushik,25,29 and Mohammadi and
ison with SCC and SCFRC, as the aggregate type and size;
the shape, size, and volume fractions of the steel fibers used
in these studies are comparable to those used in this study.
ACI Materials Journal/September-October 2012
Table 5Average values of Weibull parameters for fatigue life of SCC
SCC SCFRC0.5 SCFRC1.0 SCFRC1.5
Stress level, S a u a u a u a u
0.90 3.4676 2122 2.8216 6277 2.3446 1959
0.85 4.3471 2106 2.6992 10,378 1.9790 55,992 1.8575 22,852
0.80 3.7858 15,825 2.0985 41,073 1.7666 250,772 1.6634 123,637
0.75 3.3747 66,618 1.8556 246,028 1.5993 1,044,763 1.4917 505,512
*
0.70 3.1740 192,119 1.7491 961,500 1.3830 105,597*
0.65 2.9867 1,415,250
*
Average of method of moment and method of maximum likelihood.

Fig. 5Comparison of shape parameters for fatigue life of Fig. 6Comparison of shape parameters for fatigue life of
SCC, NVC, SCFRC, and NVFRC with Vf = 0.5% of steel fibers. SCFRC and NVFRC with Vf = 1.0% of steel fibers.

Because the fatigue-life data of NVC and NVFRC specimens

of comparable size and static flexural strength were available,
it was thought prudent to concentrate all efforts and resources
on SCC and SCFRC and avoid repeating available results.
This was also demanded by the economy of the investiga-
tion because a large number of specimens were required to
be tested for improving the reliability of widely scattering
fatigue test results. The shape parameters obtained from this
investigation for SCC and SCFRC, together with the values
of shape parameters for NVC and NVFRC taken from the
literature, are plotted in Fig. 5 through 7.
Figures 5 through 7 show that the shape parameter for
the fatigue-life data of SCC and SCFRC decreases with a
decrease in the stress level, thus indicating higher vari-
ability in the fatigue-life distribution of SCC and SCFRC
at lower stress levels. Similar results have been reported by
previous investigators for the fatigue life of NVC28,30 and
NVFRC.29,30 The relative magnitude of the shape parameter
is an indicator of variability in the distribution of fatigue
life such that a relatively higher value of the shape param-
eter represents a lower variability in the distribution of
fatigue life and vice versa. The plots in Fig. 5 through 7 and
results compiled in Table 5 show that across all the consid- Fig. 7Comparison of shape parameters for fatigue life of
ered values of the shape parameter, there was a lower vari- SCFRC and NVFRC with Vf = 1.5% of steel fibers.

ACI Materials Journal/September-October 2012 579


Fig. 8Fatigue curves of SCC and SCFRC corresponding
to 10% probability of failure (Pf = 0.1) using single-log
failure equation.
ability in the distribution of fatigue life of SCC and SCFRC
compared to NVC and NVFRC, respectively. For example,
at stress level S = 0.85, the average value of the shape param-
eter for the fatigue life of SCC, obtained by the different
methods of analysis in this investigation, is 4.3471 compared
with 3.8920 and 3.5457 reported by Oh28 and Mohammadi
and Kaushik,30 respectively, for NVC, as plotted in Fig. 5.
This trend is established at all other stress levels tested in
this study. In particular, the shape parameter of SCC is
higher than that of NVC by 17%, 36%, 34%, 41%, and 36%
at stress level S = 0.85, 0.80, 0.75, 0.70, and 0.65, respec-
tively. A maximum decrease of approximately 15% in the
coefficient of variation in the fatigue-life data of SCC was
observed as compared to NVC.
Similar trends have been observed for fatigue life of
SCFRC with 0.5, 1.0, and 1.5% volume fractions of steel
fibers. The shape parameters calculated by all three aforemen-
tioned methods for SCFRC were found to be greater than the
shape parameters for NVFRC with the same volume fractions
of steel fibers at different stress levels tested in the investiga-
tion. For example, the average value of the shape parameter
for the fatigue life of SCFRC with 0.5% volume fractions of
steel fibers at stress level S = 0.80 was 2.0985, as compared
with 1.5448 reported by Singh and Kaushik25 for NVFRC
with 0.5% steel fibers. The average value of the shape param-
eters for SCFRC with 1.0 and 1.5% volume fraction of steel
fibers is 1.6904 and 1.6634 at stress level S = 0.80, compared
to 1.2385 and 1.4376 reported by Singh and Kaushik29 and
Mohammadi and Kaushik,30 respectively, for SFRC. The
maximum increase of 37%, 42%, and 55% in the shape param-
eter for SCFRC was observed compared to NVFRC with
0.5%, 1.0%, and 1.5% of steel fibers, respectively, reported by
Singh and Kaushik29; at the same time, a maximum decrease
of 21%, 25%, and 28% in the coefficient of variation for the
fatigue-life data of SCFRC was observed with 0.5%, 1.0%,
and 1.5% volume fraction of steel fibers, respectively. It can
also be observed from Fig. 5 to 7 that the shape parameter
decreases as the fiber-volume fraction increases, resulting in
higher variability in the fatigue life of SCFRC at higher fiber-
volume fractions, even at the same stress level. In general, for
all mixtures of SCFRC with different volume fractions of steel
580
fibers, the values of the shape parameter are lower as compared
to those of SCC. This indicates higher variability in the distri-
bution of fatigue life of SCFRC, as compared to SCC. The
reduction of variability in the distribution of the fatigue-life
data of SCC and SCFRC compared to NVC and NVFRC may
be attributed to the relatively denser and more homogeneous
composition of SCC. Without consolidation, the influence of
intrinsic deficiencies and material defects due to bleeding or
segregation induced by improper vibration practice may be
avoided. As a result, the homogeneity of SCC can be ensured
and may substantially enhance the mechanical properties and
reliability of structural members. In addition, the alignment
of the steel fibers in the direction of flow, as reported by few
researchers,13,21 may also be attributed to the better flexural
fatigue properties of SCFRC compared to NVFRC.
Goodness-of-fit test
As shown in the preceding section, the fatigue-life distri-
butions of SCC and SCFRC at different stress levels can
approximately be described by the two-parameter Weibull
distribution. Further, the values of the correlation coefficient
at each stress level also substantiated this. In addition, the
Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was applied as goodness of fit to
the fatigue-life data at each stress level tested in this inves-
tigation; it was observed that the model was acceptable at a
5% significance level.29,30,32 The calculations to this effect
are not given.
Flexural fatigue performance of SCC and SCFRC
In the preceding sections, the flexural fatigue-life data
of SCC and SCFRC were shown to follow the two-param-
eter Weibull distribution at different stress levels. This can
further be used to calculate the fatigue lives corresponding
to different failure probabilities Pf.29
Substituting 1 Pf = LN in Eq. (3), the following relation
is obtained
1
ln ln = ln ( n) ln(u) (11)
1 Pf
Rearranging Eq. (11)
1
ln ln + ln(n)
1 Pf
N = ln 1 (12)
Equation (12) can be used to calculate the fatigue life N
for a particular probability of failure Pf. Using the average
values of the parameters of the Weibull distribution for
fatigue-life data at a given stress level S as listed in Table 5,
Eq. (12) is used to calculate the fatigue lives for SCC and
SCFRC with 0.5, 1.0, and 1.5% of volume fractions of steel
fibers, corresponding to a failure probability of 10%that is,
Pf = 0.1. These calculated values of fatigue lives are plotted
in Fig. 8 to obtain fatigue curves for SCC and SCFRC with
0.5, 1.0, and 1.5% of volume fraction of steel fibers for a
failure probability of 0.1.
ACI Materials Journal/September-October 2012
Table 6Single-log fatigue equation and its coefficients a and b corresponding to 10% probability of
failure (Pf = 0.1) for SCC and SCFRC
Mixture Fatigue equation, S = a blog(N) Cc* a Enhanced extent, % b Enhanced extent, %
SCC S = 1.0912 0.0762log(N) 0.994 1.0912 0 0.0762 0
SCFRC0.5 S = 1.1532 0.0836log(N) 0.999 1.1532 5.57 0.0836 9.71
SCFRC1.0 S = 1.1698 0.0768log(N) 0.996 1.1698 7.20 0.0768 0.79
SCFRC1.5 S = 1.1397 0.0788log(N) 0.978 1.1397 4.44 0.0788 3.41
*
Cc is correlation coefficient.

Table 7Theoretic fatigue lives (number of cycles) for SCC and SCFRC calculated by single-log fatigue
equation corresponding to 10% probability of failure
Stress level, S 0.90 0.85 0.80 0.75 0.70
Mixture
SCC Theoretic fatigue life 323 1463 6630 30,039 136,100
Theoretic fatigue life 1068 4234 16,783 66,522 263,665
SCFRC0.5
Enhanced extent, % 230 189 153 121 93
Theoretic fatigue life 3259 14,590 65,329 292,513 1,309,747
SCFRC1.0
Enhanced extent, % 908 897 885 873 862
Theoretic fatigue life 1101 4747 20,460 88,192 380,145
SCFRC1.5
Enhanced extent, % 240 224 208 193 179

In this study, a single-log fatigue equation, Eq. (1), was
used to evaluate the performance of SCC and SCFRC corre-
sponding to a probability of failure Pf = 0.1. The single-log
fatigue equation is commonly used by researchers to describe
the relation between stress level S and fatigue life N.22,25,37 In
Eq. (1), the fatigue performance is dependent on the two
important coefficients/parameters a and b. The parameter a
reflects the height of the fatigue curve. The larger the param-
eter a, the higher the fatigue curve. The parameter b reflects
the steep degree of the fatigue curve. The larger the parameter
b, the steeper the fatigue curve, and the fatigue life of concrete
is more sensitive to the change in stress.37 The parameters a
and b of Eq. (1) are obtained from regression analysis for
the fatigue curves of SCC and SCFRC plotted in Fig. 8. The
estimated fatigue equations and the corresponding correla-
tion coefficients are also presented in Table 6. The param-
eters a and b of the single-log equation and their enhanced
extent generated for SCC and SCFRC with 0.5, 1.0, and 1.5%
of volume fraction of steel fibers for a failure probability of
10%that is, Pf = 0.1are also listed in Table 6. It can be
seen that the regression parameters of fatigue equations of all
SCFRC mixtures are increased to a different extent, and all
correlation coefficients are higher than 0.97. The increase in
the value of a indicates that the flexural fatigue performance
of all SCFRC mixtures is significantly improved. The value
of b increased for all SCFRC mixtures, indicating an increase
in the sensitivity of their fatigue lives to change of stress.
Compared with the SCC and other SCFRC mixtures, SCFRC
with 1.0% of steel fibers has the largest enhanced extent of
7.30% for a and the smallest enhanced extent of 0.78% for b,
thus indicating that the fatigue performance of SCFRC with
1.0% of steel fibers is improved to the largest extent and the
sensitivity of its fatigue life to change in stress is increased to
the smallest extent.
Table 7 shows the theoretic fatigue lives of various SCC
and SCFRC mixtures calculated by a single-log fatigue
equation corresponding to a 10% probability of failure at
five different stress levels. It can be seen that the theoretic
fatigue lives of SCFRC containing 0.5, 1.0, and 1.5% steel
fibers increased to a different extent. With the increasing
stress level, the enhanced extent of the theoretic fatigue lives
of the SCFRC mixtures increased, which indicates that the
SCC containing steel fibersthat is, SCFRChas an excel-
lent fatigue performance, particularly at higher stress levels
(corresponding to heavy traffic load) compared with SCC.
It can be seen from Table 7 that the enhanced extent of
the theoretic fatigue life of SCFRC with 1.0% of steel fibers
is the highestthat is, 908%at a stress level of 0.90. A
similar increase was observed for SCFRC with 1.0% of steel
fibers at all the other stress levels, indicating a superior flex-
ural fatigue performance of SCFRC1.0 compared to SCC and
other SCFRC mixtures used in the investigation. It can also
be seen from the results that the fatigue performance of SCC
is improved with the addition of steel fibers. It may, however,
be noted that the fatigue performance herein is represented
in terms of applied maximum fatigue stress expressed as a
percentage of corresponding static flexural stressthat is, in
terms of stress level S. In contrast, when the fatigue perfor-
mance is examined in terms of applied maximum fatigue
stress fmax, the ranking differs. Increasing the fiber content
from 0.5 to 1.5% seems to improve the fatigue performance
in terms of applied maximum fatigue stress. Similar trends
were obtained by earlier investigators38,39 while studying the
flexural fatigue performance of NVFRC.
It may be noted that the results, such as parameters of the
Weibull distribution and theoretic fatigue life of SCFRC
reported in this paper, are applicable to the type, size, and
volume fraction of the fibers used; therefore, additional work
is required to generate more data for other types, sizes, and
volume fraction of fibers.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The probability distributions of fatigue life of SCC
and SCFRC, at different stress levels, can be approximately

ACI Materials Journal/September-October 2012 581

modeled by the two-parameter Weibull distribution with a
statistical correlation coefficient greater than 0.90.
2. Higher values of shape parameters for SCC as well as
SCFRC shows a reduction in the variability in the distribu-
tion of fatigue life of SCC and SCFRC compared to NVC
and NVFRC, respectively.
3. The lower values of the shape parameter for SCFRC, as
compared with SCC, show that the variability in the distri-
bution of the fatigue life of SCFRC is larger and further
increases for lower fatigue stress levels.
4. Failure probability was incorporated in the single-log
equation to examine the flexural fatigue performance of SCC
and SCFRC. Theoretic fatigue lives and curves were gener-
ated for SCC and SCFRC, corresponding to a failure prob-
ability of 10%that is, 0.1.
5. The enhanced extent of the theoretic fatigue lives of
SCFRC increased to a different extent with an increase in
fiber content, thereby depicting a better flexural fatigue
performance of SCFRC as compared to SCCparticularly
at higher stress levels.
Notation
a, b = regression parameters of single-log fatigue equation
fmax = maximum fatigue stress
fmin = minimum fatigue stress
fr = static flexural strength
LN = survival probability
N = number of cycles to failure
Pf = probability of failure
R = stress ratio = fmin/fmax
S = stress level = fmax/fr
u = scale parameter
a = shape parameter
G() = gamma function
m = mean of data sample
s = standard deviation of data sample under consideration
REFERENCES
1. ACI Committee 237, Self Consolidating Concrete (ACI 237R-07),
American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2007, 30 pp.
2. EFNARC, The European Guidelines for Self Compacting Concrete,
Specification, Production and Use, Experts for Specialised Construction
and Concrete Systems, Farnham, UK, 2005, 68 pp.
3. Khayat, K. H., and Monty, H., Stability of Self-Consolidating
Concrete, Advantages, and Potential Applications, Proceedings of First
International Symposium on Self-Compacting Concrete, Stockholm,
Sweden, 1999, pp. 143-152.
4. Domone, P. L., Self Compacting Concrete: An Analysis of Case
Studies, Cement and Concrete Composites, V. 28, 2005, pp. 197-208.
5. Zerbino, R.; Barragan, B.; Garcia, T.; Agullo, L.; and Gettu, R., Work-
ability Tests and Rheological Parameters in Self Consolidating Concrete,
Materials and Structures, V. 42, 2009, pp. 947-960.
6. Sonebi, M.; Grnewald, S.; and Walraven, J., Passing Ability and
Filling Ability of Self-Consolidating Concrete, ACI Materials Journal,
V. 104, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 2007, pp. 162-170.
7. Domone, P. L., A Review of the Hardened Mechanical Properties
of Self Compacting Concrete, Cement and Concrete Composites, V. 29,
2007, pp. 1-12.
8. Persson, B., A Comparison between Mechanical Properties of
Self Compacting Concrete and the Corresponding Properties of Normal
Concrete, Cement and Concrete Research, V. 31, 2000, pp. 193-198.
9. Turkel, S., and Kandemir, A., Fresh and Hardened Properties of SCC
Made with Different Aggregate and Mineral Admixtures, Journal of Mate-
rials in Civil Engineering, ASCE, V. 22, No. 10, 2010, pp. 1025-1032.
10. Zhu, W., and Gibbs, J. C., Use of Different Limestone and Chalk
Powder in Self Compacting Concrete, Cement and Concrete Research,
V. 35, 2004, pp. 1457-1462.
11. Torrijos, M. C.; Barragan, B. E.; and Zerbino, R. L., Physical-Mechanical
Properties and Mesostructure of Plain and Fiber Reinforced Self-Compacting
Concrete, Construction & Building Materials, V. 22, 2008, pp. 1780-1788.
12. Hossain, K. M. A., and Lachemi, M., Bond Behavior of Self-Consol-
idating Concrete with Mineral and Chemical Admixtures, Journal of Mate-
rials in Civil Engineering, ASCE, V. 20, No. 9, 2008, pp. 608-616.
582
13. Barros, A. R.; Gomes, P. C. C.; and Barboza, A. S. R., Steel Fibers
Reinforced Self-Compacting ConcreteBehavior to Bending, Materials
and Structures, V. 4, No. 1, 2011, pp. 49-78.
14. Greenough, T., and Nehdi, M., Shear Behavior of Fiber-Reinforced
Self-Consolidating Concrete Slender Beams, ACI Materials Journal,
V. 105, No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 2008, pp. 468-477.
15. Ambroise, J.; Rols, S.; and Pera, J., Properties of Self-Leveling
Concrete Reinforced by Steel Fibres, Proceedings of 43rd Brazillian
Congress of the Concrete (IBRACON), So Paulo, Brazil, Aug. 2001.
16. Grnewald, S., and Walraven, J. C., Parameter Study on the Influ-
ence of Steel Fibers and Coarse Aggregate Content on the Fresh Proper-
ties of Self-Compacting Concrete, Cement and Concrete Research, V. 31,
2001, pp. 1793-1798.
17. Dhonde, H. B.; Mo, Y. O.; Hsu, T. C. C.; and Vogel, J., Fresh and
Hardened Properties of Self-Consolidating Fiber-Reinforced Concrete,
ACI Materials Journal, V. 104, No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 2007, pp. 491-500.
18. Sahmaran, M.; Yurtseven, A.; and Yaman, I. O., Workability of
Hybrid Fiber Reinforced Concrete, Building & Environment, V. 40, 2005,
pp. 1672-1677.
19. Cunha, V. M. C. F.; Barros, J. A. O.; and Sena-Cruz, J. M., Pullout
Behaviour of Steel Fibers in Self Compacting Concrete, Journal of Mate-
rials in Civil Engineering, ASCE, V. 22, No. 1, 2010, pp. 1-9.
20. Sahmaran, M., and Yaman, I. O., Hybrid Fiber Reinforced Self
Compacting Concrete with a High Volume Coarse Fly-Ash, Construction
& Building Materials, V. 21, 2007, pp. 150-156.
21. Grnewald, S., Performance Based Design of Self Compacting
Fibre Reinforced Concrete, PhD thesis, Delft University of Technology,
Delft, the Netherlands, 2004, pp. 103-119.
22. Hsu, T. T. C., Fatigue of Plain Concrete, ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings
V. 78, No. 4, July-Aug. 1981, pp. 292-305.
23. Raithby, K. D., Flexural Fatigue Behaviour of Plain Concrete,
Fatigue Engineering Materials, Structural, V. 2, 1972, pp. 269-278.
24. Ramakrishnan, V.; Oberling, G.; and Tatnall, P., Flexural Fatigue
Strength of Steel Fibre Reinforced Concrete, Fiber Reinforced Concrete
Properties and Applications, SP-105, S. P. Shah and G. B. Batson, eds.,
American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1987, pp. 225-245.
25. Singh, S. P., and Kaushik, S. K., Flexural Fatigue Analysis of Steel
Fiber-Reinforced Concrete, ACI Materials Journal, V. 98, No. 4, July-Aug.
2001, pp. 306-312.
26. Ballinger, C. A., Cumulative Fatigue Damage Characteristics of
Plain Concrete, Highway Research Record, V. 370, 1972, pp. 48-60.
27. Oh, B. H., Fatigue Analysis of Plain Concrete in Flexure, Journal of
Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 112, No. 2, 1986, pp. 273-288.
28. Oh, B. H., Fatigue-Life Distributions of Concrete for Various Stress
Levels, ACI Materials Journal, V. 88, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 1991, pp. 122-128.
29. Singh, S. P., and Kaushik, S. K., Flexural Fatigue Life Distributions
and Failure Probability of Steel Fibrous Concrete, ACI Materials Journal,
V. 97, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 2000, pp. 658-667.
30. Mohammadi, Y., and Kaushik, S. K., Flexural Fatigue-Life Distribu-
tions of Plain and Fibrous Concrete at Various Stress Levels, Journal of
Materials in Civil Engineering, ASCE, V. 17, No. 6, 2005, pp. 650-658.
31. Tepfers, R., and Kutti, T., Fatigue Strength of Plain, Ordinary, and
Lightweight Concrete, ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 76, No. 5, May 1979,
pp. 635-652.
32. Kennedy, J. B., and Neville, A. M., Basic Statistical Methods for Engi-
neers and Scientists, Dun-Donnelley Publishers, New York, 1986, pp. 125-128.
33. Batson, G.; Ball, C.; Bailey, L.; Lenders, E.; and Hooks, J., Flexural
Fatigue Strength of Steel Fiber Reinforced Concrete Beams, ACI JOURNAL,
Proceedings V. 69, No. 11, Nov. 1972, pp. 673-677.
34. ASTM Special Publication, 91-A, A Guide for Fatigue Testing
and the Statistical Analysis of Fatigue Data, ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, 1963, pp. 1-79.
35. Gumble, E. J., Parameters in Distribution of Fatigue Life, Journal
of Engineering Mechanics Division, V. 89 (EMS), 1963, pp. 45-63.
36. Wirsching, P. H., and Yao, J. T. P., Statistical Methods in Structural
Fatigue, Proceedings, ASCE, V. 96, 1970, pp. 1201-1219.
37. Li, H.; Zhang, M.; and Ou, J., Flexural Fatigue Performance of
Concrete Containing Nano-Particles for Pavement, International Journal
of Fatigue, V. 29, 2007, pp. 1292-1301.
38. Ramakrishnan, V., Flexural Fatigue Strength, Endurance Limit and
Impact Strength of Fibre Reinforced Refractory Concretes, Proceedings,
International Conference on Recent Developments in Fiber Reinforced
Cement and Concrete, College of Cardiff, Cardiff, Wales, UK, 1989,
pp. 261-273.
39. Johnston, C. D., and Zemp, R. W., Flexural Fatigue Performance
of Steel Fiber-Reinforced ConcreteInfluence of Fiber Content, Aspect
Ratio, and Type, ACI Materials Journal, V. 88, No. 4, July-Aug. 1991,
pp. 374-383.
ACI Materials Journal/September-October 2012