ACI 506.

1R-08

Guide to Fiber-Reinforced Shotcrete

Reported by ACI Committee 506

 First Printing
November 2008

American Concrete Institute
Advancing concrete knowledge

Guide to Fiber-Reinforced Shotcrete

Copyright by the American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI. All rights reserved. This material
may not be reproduced or copied, in whole or part, in any printed, mechanical, electronic, film, or other
distribution and storage media, without the written consent of ACI.

The technical committees responsible for ACI committee reports and standards strive to avoid ambiguities,
omissions, and errors in these documents. In spite of these efforts, the users of ACI documents occasionally
find information or requirements that may be subject to more than one interpretation or may be
incomplete or incorrect. Users who have suggestions for the improvement of ACI documents are
requested to contact ACI. Proper use of this document includes periodically checking for errata at
www.concrete.org/committees/errata.asp for the most up-to-date revisions.

ACI committee documents are intended for the use of individuals who are competent to evaluate the
significance and limitations of its content and recommendations and who will accept responsibility for the
application of the material it contains. Individuals who use this publication in any way assume all risk and
accept total responsibility for the application and use of this information.

All information in this publication is provided as is without warranty of any kind, either express or implied,
including but not limited to, the implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose or
non-infringement.

ACI and its members disclaim liability for damages of any kind, including any special, indirect, incidental,
or consequential damages, including without limitation, lost revenues or lost profits, which may result
from the use of this publication.

It is the responsibility of the user of this document to establish health and safety practices appropriate to
the specific circumstances involved with its use. ACI does not make any representations with regard to
health and safety issues and the use of this document. The user must determine the applicability of all
regulatory limitations before applying the document and must comply with all applicable laws and regulations,
including but not limited to, United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) health
and safety standards.

Order information: ACI documents are available in print, by download, on CD-ROM, through electronic
subscription, or reprint and may be obtained by contacting ACI.

Most ACI standards and committee reports are gathered together in the annually revised ACI Manual of
Concrete Practice (MCP).

American Concrete Institute

38800 Country Club Drive
Farmington Hills, MI 48331
U.S.A.
Phone: 248-848-3700
Fax: 248-848-3701
www.concrete.org

ISBN 978-0-87031-312-7
 ACI 506.1R-08

Guide to Fiber-Reinforced Shotcrete

Reported by ACI Committee 506

Peter C. Tatnall
Chair
Lawrence J. Totten Dudley R. Morgan*
Vice Chair Secretary

Jon B. Ardahl Jill E. Glassgold Jeffery L. Novak* Raymond C. Schallom, III*

Lars F. Balck, Jr. Charles S. Hanskat H. Celik Ozyildirim Raymond J. Schutz
Michael Ballou* Warren L. Harrison Harvey W. Parker Philip T. Seabrook
Nemkumar Banthia* Thomas Hennings* Ryan E. Poole W. L. Snow, Sr.
Chris D. Breeds Merlyn Isaak John H. Pye Curtis White
Patrick O. Bridger Marc Jolin James A. Ragland* Peter T. Yen
Wern-Ping Nick Chen Kristian Loevlie Venkataswamy Ramakrisnan George Yoggy*
Jean-Franois Dufour* Mark R. Lukkarila Michael Rispin Christopher M. Zynda
John R. Fichter Gregory McKinnon

*Subcommittee members who prepared this report.

Subcommittee Chair.

This guide describes the technology and applications of fiber-reinforced CONTENTS

shotcrete (FRS) using synthetic and steel fibers. Mechanical properties, Chapter 1Introduction and scope, p. 506.1R-2
particularly toughness, impact, and flexural strength, are improved by fiber 1.1Introduction
addition, and these improvements are described along with other typical
properties and benefits, such as control of shrinkage cracking. Proportions
1.2Scope
of typical mixtures, batching, mixing, and application procedures are 1.3Historical background
described, including methods of reducing rebound and equipment used to
apply FRS. Applications of FRS are described, including rock-slope stabili- Chapter 2Notation and definitions, p. 506.1R-2
zation work, construction and repair of tunnel and mining linings, fire 2.1Notation
explosive spalling-resistant linings, channel linings, pools and rockscapes,
and structure repair. Available design information is briefly discussed, and 2.2Definitions
design references are listed.
Chapter 3Materials, p. 506.1R-2
Keywords: fiber-reinforced shotcrete; fibers; linings; mining; repair; steel 3.1General
fibers; synthetic fibers; tunnels. 3.2Fibers
3.3Other materials
ACI Committee Reports, Guides, Manuals, Standard
Practices, and Commentaries are intended for guidance in
planning, designing, executing, and inspecting construction. Chapter 4Mixture proportions, p. 506.1R-3
This document is intended for the use of individuals who are 4.1General
competent to evaluate the significance and limitations of its 4.2Wet-process
content and recommendations and who will accept
responsibility for the application of the material it contains. 4.3Dry-process
The American Concrete Institute disclaims any and all
responsibility for the stated principles. The Institute shall not
be liable for any loss or damage arising therefrom.
ACI 506.1R-08 supersedes ACI 506.1R-98 and was adopted and published
Reference to this document shall not be made in contract November 2008.
documents. If items found in this document are desired by the Copyright 2008, American Concrete Institute.
Architect/Engineer to be a part of the contract documents, they All rights reserved including rights of reproduction and use in any form or by any
shall be restated in mandatory language for incorporation by means, including the making of copies by any photo process, or by electronic or
mechanical device, printed, written, or oral, or recording for sound or visual reproduction
the Architect/Engineer. or for use in any knowledge or retrieval system or device, unless permission in writing
is obtained from the copyright proprietors.

506.1R-1
506.1R-2 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT

Chapter 5Production, p. 506.1R-4 considerations (including an example in the Appendix),

5.1General specifications, and some examples of applications.
5.2Batching and mixing
5.3Application 1.3Historical background
FRS with steel fibers was first placed in North America
Chapter 6Test procedures, p. 506.1R-4 early in 1971 in experimental work directed by Lankard, et
6.1General al. (1971). Steel FRS (SFRS) was proposed for underground
6.2Fresh properties support by Parker in 1971 (Parker 1974). Additional trials
6.3Hardened properties were made by Poad in an investigation of new and improved
methods of using shotcrete for underground support (Poad et
Chapter 7Performance of fiber-reinforced al. 1975). Subsequently, the first practical applications of
shotcrete, p. 506.1R-6 SFRS were made in a tunnel adit at Ririe Dam, ID in 1973
7.1Flexural strength
(Kaden 1977). Since that time, SFRS has been used
7.2Compressive strength throughout the world. Shotcrete using micropolypropylene
7.3Shear strength fibers was first placed in Europe in 1968 (Hannant 1978).
7.4Bond strength Macrosynthetic fibers for use in shotcrete were developed in
7.5Rebound considerations the mid-1990s and have been used in mining and slope stabi-
7.6Shrinkage crack control lization projects (Morgan and Heere 2000).
7.7Impact resistance
7.8Thermal explosive spalling CHAPTER 2NOTATION AND DEFINITIONS
2.1Notation
Chapter 8Design considerations, p. 506.1R-8 AS = area of conventional steel per unit width
8.1General
a = AS fY /0.85fc b
8.2Empirical design
b = unit width of section
8.3Comparable moment capacity
d = moment arm from loaded surface to center of
Chapter 9Specification and quality control reinforcement
100
considerations, p. 506.1R-9 f 600 = post-cracking residual flexural strength of a 4 in.
9.1General (100 mm) deep beam as determined at 0.02 in.
9.2Performance specifications (0.5 mm) deflection (Span/600) using ASTM
9.3Prescriptive specifications C1609/C1609M
fY = yield strength of conventional reinforcement
Chapter 10Applications, p. 506.1R-9 fc = compressive strength of shotcrete
10.1General
t = FRS section thickness
10.2Ground support
10.3Rehabilitation and repair = strength reduction factor, = 0.9 for flexure
10.4Architectural shotcrete
10.5Explosive spalling resistance 2.2Definitions
aspect ratio, fiberthe ratio of length to diameter of a
Chapter 11References, p. 506.1R-11 fiber in which the diameter may be an equivalent diameter.
11.1Referenced standards and reports deniermeasure of fiber diameter, taken as the mass in
11.2Cited references grams of 9000 m (29,528 ft) of the fiber.
equivalent diameter, fiberdiameter of a circle with an
AppendixExample of comparable moment area equal to the cross-sectional area of the fiber.
capacity calculations, p. 506.1R-13 macrofibera fiber with an equivalent diameter greater
than or equal to 0.012 in. (0.3 mm) for use in concrete.
CHAPTER 1INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE
1.1Introduction microfibera fiber with an equivalent diameter less than
Fiber-reinforced shotcrete (FRS) is mortar or concrete 0.012 in. (0.3 mm) for use in concrete.
containing discontinuous discrete fibers that is pneumatically
projected at high velocity onto a surface. Continuous CHAPTER 3MATERIALS
meshes, woven fabrics, and long rods are not considered as 3.1General
discrete fiber-type reinforcing elements in this guide. FRS is conventional shotcrete with fibers added. Materials
for use in FRS should conform to the requirements of ASTM
1.2Scope C1436, which covers the typical materials used in shotcrete,
This document provides information on fiber-reinforced including chemical and mineral admixtures, fibers, and the
shotcrete using synthetic and steel fibers. Topics covered combined grading of aggregates for fine and coarse mixtures:
include materials used, mixture proportions, production of Grading No. 1: No. 4 to No. 100 sieve (4.75 mm to 150 m),
shotcrete, testing procedures, performance of FRS, design and No. 2: 3/8 in. to No. 100 sieve (9.5 mm to 150 m).
 GUIDE TO FIBER-REINFORCED SHOTCRETE
Fig. 3.1Examples of steel fibers.
3.2Fibers
Fibers for use in shotcrete can be made of steel, glass,
synthetic polymers, and natural materials. Only steel and
synthetic fibers are considered herein because they are the
most commonly used. Figures 3.1 and 3.2 illustrate steel and
macrosynthetic fibers being used in shotcrete.
Fibers for use in shotcrete are generally divided into two
groups by their diameter. Fibers with equivalent diameters
greater than 0.012 in. (0.3 mm) are known as macrofibers;
fibers with diameters less than 0.012 in. (0.3 mm) are known
as microfibers. The descriptor denier is often used to indicate
the fineness of microfibers. A typical synthetic shotcrete
microfiber has a denier of 6, which results in an equivalent
diameter of 0.0012 in. (32 m). More information on fibers,
denier, and equivalent diameters can be found in ACI 544.1R.
One parameter to characterize macrofibers is the aspect
ratio. Typical aspect ratios of macrofibers for shotcrete range
from 40 to 65 for common fiber lengths of 0.75 to 2 in. (19
to 50 mm), although steel fiber lengths are generally less
than 1.5 in. (38 mm). Synthetic microfiber lengths vary from
0.25 to 2 in. (6 to 50 mm).
ASTM C1116/C1116M defines the required properties of
FRS and fibers used in shotcrete.
3.2.1 MacrofibersMacrofibers are defined as those
fibers for use in shotcrete with equivalent diameters greater
than 0.012 in. (0.3 mm). The majority of macrofibers used in
shotcrete are either steel or synthetic fibers. Steel fibers used
in shotcrete are generally between 0.75 to 1.4 in. (19 to 35 mm)
in length and 0.016 to 0.03 in. (0.4 to 0.8 mm) in equivalent
diameter. Synthetic macrofibers can be longer and vary
between 1.5 to 2 in. (40 to 50 mm) long, with equivalent
diameters similar to the steel fibers. The fibers should meet
the requirements of ASTM C1436.
3.2.2 MicrofibersMicrofibers used in shotcrete are
normally polyolefin-based or nylon, and should meet the
requirements of ASTM C1436. If the microfibers are used to
resist explosive spalling in fires, then fibers should be
polypropylene, with equivalent diameters less than 0.0013 in.
(33 m) and less than 0.5 in. (12 mm) long (Tatnall 2002).
506.1R-3
Fig. 3.2Examples of macrosynthetic fibers.
3.3Other materials
While the normal materials used in shotcrete are used in
FRS, supplementary cementitious materials are often used,
such as silica fume, slag, and fly ash. For applications that
require vertical and overhead placement with macrofibers,
these materials can help build thicker layers without
sloughing and reduce fiber rebound. For shotcretes that
contain more than about 0.3% by volume of fibers, the addition
of water-reducing admixtures is common to maintain desired
water-cementitious material ratios. Admixtures that meet the
requirements of ASTM C1436 are normally acceptable for
use in FRS.
CHAPTER 4MIXTURE PROPORTIONS
4.1General
Proportioning shotcrete mixtures that contain fibers
should follow the general guidelines outlined in ACI 506R.
While FRS mixtures are normally proportioned to attain a
specified compressive strength, many times an ultimate flexural
strength and postcrack performance, such as residual
strength(s), or an energy absorption, toughness, or both, are
specified. Nonfibrous shotcrete proportioning methods
should be used to attain compressive and flexural require-
ments (ACI 506R), and the recommendations from fiber
suppliers selected for the type (material and shape) and
quantity of fibers to attain postcrack performance require-
ments should be used.
4.2Wet process
FRS for wet-process shotcrete is typically delivered to the
pump in accordance with ASTM C1116/C1116M. Because
rebound of macrofibers is typically less in wet-process shotcrete,
fiber dosages are sometimes less than for dry-process shotcrete
for the same postcrack performance. Steel fiber quantities used
are in the range of 20 to 100 lb/yd3 (12 to 60 kg/m3).
Macrosynthetic fiber quantities are usually in the range of
8.5 to 15 lb/yd3 (5 to 9 kg/m3). Microsynthetic fibers are
normally used at dosages of 1 to 4 lb/yd3 (0.6 to 2.4 kg/m3).
4.3Dry process
Dry-process shotcrete can be delivered to the shotcrete
machine in transit mix trucks, volumetric batcher, in
506.1R-4 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT
prepared prepackaged containers, or mixed on site. Because
rebound of fibers in dry-process is normally greater than
rebound of fibers for wet-process shotcrete, fiber quantities
may be slightly higher than those indicated in Section 4.2
(Dufour et al. 2006). Therefore some macrosynthetic fibers
do not lend themselves to successful shooting using the dry-
process because they do not get coated with the cementitious
paste and can tend to fly away in the shotcrete stream. Users
should check with the fiber suppliers before using synthetic
fibers when using the dry process.
CHAPTER 5PRODUCTION
5.1General
Production of shotcrete follows closely the production
procedures for producing concrete. Tolerances for batching
materials should follow established provisions for concrete.
5.2Batching and mixing
5.2.1 Wet processWet-process FRS should be batched
and mixed in accordance with ASTM C1116/C1116M,
which covers plant batching and mixing, transit truck
mixing, and volumetric plant batching and mixing. Fibers
may be added to a plant mixer by depositing them on top of
aggregates just before they are introduced into the mixer.
Various fiber dispensers have been developed to measure
and add fibers to the mixture. When fibers are added to a
transit mixer, they should be added at a rate of about 100 lb/
minute (45 kg/minute) for steel fibers, and about 10 lb/
minute (4.5 kg/minute) for synthetic fibers while the mixer
is turning at maximum speed. When using a volumetric
batcher, a dispenser is essential to obtaining the proper quantity
of fibers in the mixture. If fibers are added to a transit mixer
on site, adequate mixing time should be attained to ensure
dispersion of the fibers. A minimum of 40 revolutions of the
mixer after fiber addition should be recorded. Further
guidance for production of FRS is available in ACI 544.3R.
5.2.2 Dry processDry-process shotcrete may be batched
and mixed as for wet-process shotcrete except water is not
added to the mixture. Adequate mixing should be ensured to
achieve good fiber distribution. In many cases, packaged,
dry, combined FRS mixtures are delivered to the project site.
They are used for both dry-process FRS, and are sometimes
placed in a mixer with water added to produce wet-process
FRS. If used for FRS, these materials should meet the require-
ments of ASTM C1480/C1480M for Grade FR shotcrete.
5.3Application
5.3.1 Equipment for FRSGenerally all the equipment
used for nonfibrous shotcrete application are used in the appli-
cation of FRS. Grates used over pump hoppers should be used
with FRS, and some manufacturers offer grates designed to
accommodate pumping FRS. As with nonfibrous shotcrete,
dry-process FRS should be predampened. Predampening
helps to reduce fiber rebound and fibers that fly away.
5.3.2 ApplicationAll proper techniques of applying shot-
crete, including safety requirements, as outlined in ACI 506R
should be used to apply FRS. While fibers tend to orientate
themselves in the plane of the shotcrete structure, some fibers
may protrude the surface. If this is objectionable, a thin coat
on nonfibrous shotcrete may be applied to cover the fibers.
CHAPTER 6TEST PROCEDURES
6.1General
Many test methods used for nonfibrous concrete and shot-
crete may be applicable to FRS, such as ASTM C143/
C143M, C138/C138M, C42/C42M, and C78. ASTM test
methods directly applicable to FRS are mentioned in ACI
544.2R, and updated annually in Shotcrete magazine
(Tatnall 2007). ASTM C1609/C1609M (a beam test) and
ASTM C1550 (a flexural panel test) are important because
they evaluate the postcracking flexural performance of fiber-
reinforced concrete and FRS. A more detailed discussion of
FRS testing follows.
6.2Fresh properties
6.2.1 Consistency and pumpabilityASTM C143/C143M is
typically used to measure the consistency of wet-process
shotcrete from batch to batch. This method uses samples of
FRS taken as the shotcrete is delivered to the pump. A
standardized test method has not yet been developed to
characterize the pumpability of a mixture.
6.2.2 Unit density and air contentASTM C138/C138M
may be used to determine the unit density and air content of
FRS. ASTM C231 and C173/C173M may also be used to
determine air content. For wet-process FRS, the samples are
normally taken as the shotcrete is delivered to the pump. For
dry-process FRS, samples should be taken from the shot
section or panels shot for sampling purposes and tests can be
conducted using the same test methods. For wet-process
FRS, samples may also be taken from shot panels.
6.3Hardened properties
6.3.1 StrengthSpecimens of shotcrete, including FRS,
for assessing the hardened properties should always be taken
from sections that have been shot in-place or from panels
shot for the purpose. Specimens made from concrete before
it is shot will not reflect the compactive effort, mixing
actions, and rebound effects on the final shotcrete structure.
Panels shot for sampling should be prepared in accordance
with ASTM C1140.
6.3.1.1 Compressive strengthShotcrete specimens
should be obtained and tested in accordance with ASTM
C1604/C1604M.
6.3.1.2 Flexural strengthShotcrete specimens should
be obtained in accordance with ASTM C42/C42M. Flexural
strength may be obtained using either ASTM C78 or C293,
although C78 is the more common test method used. Typically,
4 x 4 x 14 in. (100 x 100 x 350 mm) specimens are used for
flexural testing. See also Section 6.3.2.2.
6.3.1.3 Shear strengthThe Japan Concrete Institute
published a test method (JCI-SF 6) for determining the punching
shear strength of fiber-reinforced concrete that may be used to
assess FRS. Beam specimens are loaded in a jig to produce
the punching action, and shear strength is reported as the load
divided by two times the width and depth of the specimen.
 GUIDE TO FIBER-REINFORCED SHOTCRETE 506.1R-5

Fig. 6.1Example of ASTM C1550 load-deflection curve and integration of area under curve.

6.3.1.4 Bond strengthAlthough there is no ASTM test

method for shotcrete bond to substrate, ASTM C1583/
C1583M can be used to determine the direct tensile pulloff
bond strength. European Specification for Sprayed Shot-
crete (EFNARC 1996) recommends a similar test method
for bond strength determination.
6.3.2 ToughnessToughness with respect to FRS generally
relates to the ability of a shotcrete specimen to absorb energy
before and after cracking, and is normally considered in the
flexural mode of failure, although compressive toughness
has been measured (JCI-SF 5). Described another way, it is
a measure of the specimens ability to carry load after
cracking. A number of test methods have been developed to
characterize toughness of FRS.
6.3.2.1 Energy absorptionASTM C1609/C1609M
and C1550 are used to determine the energy absorption of
FRS specimens. ASTM C1609/C1609M uses a square cross
section flexural beam specimen with a span-depth ratio of 3,
and FRS is normally tested using a specimen with a depth of
4 in. (100 mm). The load versus central deflection is
recorded for third-point loading, and a load-deflection curve
is plotted. The area under the load-deflection curve from Fig. 6.2Example of ASTM C1609/C1609M load-deflection
start to an end-point deflection of span/150 is reported as the diagram and flexural parameters.
D
energy absorbed, T XXX . In ASTM C1550, a 31.5 in. (800
mm) diameter round panel, 3 in. (75 mm) thick, is supported 100 100
termed f 600 and f 150 , where the superscript indicates the
on three symmetrically arranged pivots and subjected to a specimen depth in millimeters, and the subscript indicates
central point load. The load and deflection are recorded to deflection in terms of span/xxx. In this test method, the first-
produce a load-deflection curve. The area under this curve is peak and ultimate strengths (modulus of rupture) are also
integrated to produce an energy-versus-deflection curve. reported. Figure 6.2 shows an example of a load-deflection
Energy quantities may be determined at selected deflections diagram that was recorded using ASTM C1609/C1609M
up to 1.6 in. (40 mm). Figure 6.1 illustrates an ASTM C1550 and the various parameters reported. ASTM C1399 may be
load-deflection and the resulting energy-deflection curve. used to determine the average residual strength of a FRS
6.3.2.2 Postcrack strengthASTM C1609/C1609M beam specimen. The beam is cracked in a controlled manner,
can be used to determine the postcrack flexural strength of then the load-versus-deflection curve is generated. Residual
FRS. In this test method, the postcracking strengths are loads are determined and averaged at specified deflections,
termed residual strengths, and are reported at deflections of and the strength after cracking is reported.
span/600 and span/150; the user may select other deflections 6.3.3 Other methods
greater than span/600. The residual strengths required to be 6.3.3.1 Density, boiled absorption, and permeable voids
reported for a typical 4 in. (100 mm) deep specimen are ASTM C642 is typically used to determine the density,
506.1R-6 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT
absorption, and permeable voids of FRS. Determining these
characteristics provides an indication of the quality of the
materials and application of FRS.
6.3.3.2 Explosive spallingEFNARC and others in
Europe are developing a standard test method to assess
the probability of explosive spalling of concrete and shot-
crete when subjected to a high-temperature-rise fire, such
as those fuelled by hydrocarbons. Many investigators use
the Rijkswaterstaat (RWS) temperature-versus-time curve,
which increases the furnace temperature from ambient to
2462 F (1350 C) in about 15 minutes, and then holds the
temperature for 2 hours. The loss in FRS mass is then
measured (TNO 1996).
CHAPTER 7PERFORMANCE
OF FIBER-REINFORCED SHOTCRETE
7.1Flexural strength
Macrofibers are added to increase the postcracking flexural
strength (the ability to carry flexural loads after cracking).
In general, fibers are not added to shotcrete to increase the
flexural strength of shotcrete. This postcrack performance is
measured as energy absorbed after cracking. Two ASTM
test methods were developed to measure the toughness of
FRS. ASTM C1609/C1609M is a flexural beam test method
that normally uses 4 x 4 x 14 in. (100 x 100 x 350 mm) speci-
mens sawn from shot panels and tested on a 12 in. (300 mm)
span in third-point loading. Net central beam deflections and
loads are recorded and used to produce a load-deflection
diagram. Postcracking loads are determined at specified
deflections of span/600 and span/150, and converted to
residual engineering strengths using elastic analysis. The
total area under the load-deflection diagram is calculated
using an end-point deflection of span/150, and reported as
toughness (Fig. 6.2).
ASTM C1550 is also a flexural test method developed
using a round panel specimen 31.5 in. (800 mm) in diameter,
3 in. (75 mm) thick. The panel is supported symmetrically at
three evenly spaced points at the perimeter and centrally
loaded. Appropriate end-point deflections are selected based
on the intended application. The net central deflections and
loads are recorded and used to produce a load-deflection
diagram. The area under the load-deflection diagram is
integrated to produce an energy-versus-deflection curve that
is used to evaluate the performance of FRS (Fig. 6.1).
The beam test method has the advantage of resulting in
material flexural strengths that can be used in engineering
design and serviceability considerations as illustrated in
Chapter 8. The difficulty in determining net deflections and
using the required closed-loop, servo-controlled testing
machines, and the inherent variability of beam flexural
testing are disadvantages. The round panel test method has
the advantage of low variability, and the fact that the test
specimen is the shot-panel; thus, specimens do not have to be
sawn from it, which eliminates a step. The disadvantage is
that test results are reported in terms of energy (inch-pounds
or Joules), which is not readily convenient for use by
designers. Correlations between beam test results and panel
test results are not valid (Bernard 2004). The beam tests are
thus used in normal practice to determine the residual
strengths available from given fibers and dosages, while the
round panel tests are used for quality control and assurance
during construction.
7.2Compressive strength
The compressive strengths of FRS are not affected by the
inclusion of fibers when using typical fiber contents of from
0.1 to 1% by volume. The mode of compressive failure may
be changed from brittle to a more yielding failure, depending
on the fiber used and the fiber content.
7.3Shear strength
The shear strength of FRS batched with macrofibers may
be increased depending on the fiber type and quantity of
fibers used, and the test method used to characterize shear
strength, as is true for fiber-reinforced concrete (ACI
544.1R). Significant improvements in shear strength and
shear toughness were reported by Mirsayah and Banthia
(2002) for steel FRS, and improvements were also reported
for macrosynthetic FRS (Majdzadeh et al. 2006).
7.4Bond strength
Bond strengths of FRS to rock have been reported from
30 to 540 psi (0.2 to 3.7 MPa) (Sandell 1977; Rose 1981;
Talbot et al. 1994), depending on preparation of the substrate
and the age at testing. Because there are no standardized test
methods to evaluate bond strength, many evaluations are
conducted by drilling cylindrical cores through the shotcrete
and substrate and pulling the two apart. The results of this
evaluation are variable, and the method requires a number of
core samples for proper evaluation.
7.5Rebound considerations
7.5.1 GeneralThe factors that affect rebound encompass a
wide range of items and conditions. Generally, a greater
percentage of steel fibers than aggregates rebound from the
substrate. Ryan (1975) reported fiber retention of 40%
overhead and 65% on vertical surfaces. Parker et al. (1975)
reported fiber retention of 44 to 88% (average 62%) for dry-
mix coarse aggregate mixtures shot onto vertical panels. In
the Atlanta Research Chamber tests, the average rebound in
a 10-minute test in which 2500 lb (1130 kg) of mixture was
shot was 22% for a 3 in. (75 mm) thick dry-mix placement.
The fiber content before shooting was 3.3% by mass of the
dry material, while fiber content in the rebound material was
4.6% (Rose 1981). Tests have also indicated that steel fiber
rebound is highly dependent on fiber geometry (Amelin and
Banthia 1998a).
An example of less rebound was reported for a trial in
Nevada (Henager 1977) in which 4 yd3 (3 m3) of steel fiber
mixture consisting of 700 lb/yd3 (415 kg/m3) cement,
2700 lb/yd3 (1602 kg/m3) sand, and 150 lb/yd3 (89 kg/m3)
1/2 x 0.010 in. (13 x 0.25 mm) fiber placed 6 in. (150 mm)
thick had a total estimated rebound of 10%. A control batch
without fibers applied under identical conditions by the same
personnel had an estimated rebound of 31%. The work was
done in a tunnel, and included vertical and overhead surfaces.
 GUIDE TO FIBER-REINFORCED SHOTCRETE
For dry-mix shotcrete, Parker et al. (1975) reported
average rebounds of 18.3 and 17.7% for a nonfibrous
mixture and a fiber mixture, respectively, and concluded that
the mere presence of fibers in a mixture does not affect
rebound appreciably. Instead, other factors appear to be
more important than fiber.
Krantz (1984) stated, Due to rebound, the effective
amount of fibers is reduced to about only 50 to 70% of the
amount in the mix in dry-mix shotcrete. For wet-mix shot-
crete, the amount of fiber rebound is approximately 5 to 10%.
7.5.2 Factors affecting rebound of fibersQuantitative
data on rebound of SFRS with the dry-process were obtained
in a study that systematically investigated variables one at a
time and used high-speed photography to observe the shot-
crete airstream (Parker et al. 1975).
The photography showed that many of the steel fibers
were in the outer portion of the airstream, and that many of
them were blown away radially from near the point of
intended impact shortly before or after they hit. Some fibers
were blown up into the air and floated down. It was obvious
that the fibers were mostly blown away by the remnant air
currents and that the effect was not one of fibers simply
bouncing off the surface. When lower air pressure or less air
was used, the amount and velocity of the remnant air currents
was less, and the rebound of fiber was correspondingly less.
Reducing air pressure or air volume, however, resulted in
reduced in-place compaction.
Banthia et al. (1992, 1994) present data on the effect of
five steel fiber geometries on rebound and other shotcrete
characteristics. They show ranges of fiber rebound for dry-
process of 35 to 78%, and wet-process of 12 to 18%.
Very little is documented in the literature with respect to
rebound of macrosynthetic fibers. The use of monofilament
macrosynthetic fibers in wet-mix shotcrete applications has
grown significantly worldwide since their introduction in the
late 1990s. Unlike the stiffer steel fibers, which have to be
used at relatively short lengths of approximately 1.2 in.
(30 mm) to reduce line blockage, the more flexible
macrosynthetic fibers can generally be used in well-propor-
tioned wet-mix shotcrete mixtures at lengths ranging from 2 to
3 in. (50 to 75 mm) without significantly reducing the pump-
ability and shootability of the mixture. Due to excess fiber
rebound and problems getting fibers through some dry-mix
equipment, however, success in using macrosynthetic in dry-
mix shotcrete is limited.
Dufour et al. (2006) identified key parameters that affect
the performance of monofilament macrosynthetic fiber in
dry-mix shotcrete. Modifications were made to the geometrical
characteristics of a specific fiber type to eliminate the problems
observed and enable the production of high-quality
macrosynthetic dry-mix FRS. It was shown that the rebound
of both steel and macrosynthetic fibers at dosages of 75 and
11.6 lb/yd3 (45 and 6.9 kg/m3), respectively, was comparable
with a mixture that contained silica fume when shot at the
wettest stable plastic consistency.
While the rebound of shotcrete for both mixtures
containing steel and macrosynthetic fibers was 19.8 and
17.9%, respectively, of the total mass of shotcrete, it was
506.1R-7
determined that the fiber rebound of the total mass of fiber
shot was 31.1 and 31.5%, respectively.
7.5.3 Conditions that reduce reboundParker et al.
(1975) concluded that the rebound process differed during
establishment of an initial critical thickness (Phase 1) and
subsequent shooting onto fresh shotcrete (Phase 2).
During Phase 1, anything that promotes adherence of
material on the substrate should reduce rebound. This includes
the following mixture conditions: a high cement content;
more fines in the mixture (fly ash or very fine sand); smaller
maximum size aggregate; proper wetness of aggregates so that
particles are well-coated with cement; and a finer gradation.
After initial critical thickness is established, Phase 2
rebound is reduced by any condition or set of conditions that
makes the shotcrete on the substrate softer or more plastic, at
least until it tends to drop off. Thus, for maximum reduction
of Phase 2 rebound, shotcreting as wet as possible (that is,
the wettest stable consistency) is one of the most beneficial
and easiest conditions to control.
A large number of measures can be used to reduce rebound
of steel FRS in the dry process. The most effective of these
measures (which also applies to nonfibrous shotcrete) seems
to be reduction of the air pressure, air velocity, or amount of
air at the nozzle; use of more fines and smaller aggregate; use
of shorter, thicker fibers; predampening to get the correct
moisture content; and shotcreting at the wettest stable
consistency (Parker et al. 1975; Henager 1977).
7.6Shrinkage crack control
The use of fibers in concrete to control shrinkage cracking
has been demonstrated for many years (ACI 544.1R).
Microfibers used in concrete and shotcrete can provide resis-
tance to plastic shrinkage cracking due to excessive moisture
loss at early ages at volume percentages as low as 0.1%
(Padron and Zollo 1990). Macrofibers, on the other hand,
provide resistance to drying shrinkage cracking and control
crack widths at dosages as low as 0.25% by volume (Grzy-
bowski and Shah 1990). When shotcrete is used in thin
layers, and curing conditions may not be favorable, the use
of fibers can mitigate potential cracking distress.
One of the major problems with dry-process shotcrete is
the high aggregate rebound. Further, large aggregate particles
have a tendency to rebound as much as four times the rate of
small particles (Amelin et al. 1997). This increases the
cementitious content in the in-place shotcrete sometimes by
as much as a factor of 2 (Amelin and Banthia 1998b). With
very high cementitious contents and inadequate curing,
early-age shrinkage cracking in dry-process shotcrete is a
major concern. This is particularly true for high surface-
volume ratio placements such as repairs and lining elements
where shotcrete is generally fully restrained, and large
amounts of water may evaporate early on.
Fiber reinforcement is one of the most effective ways of
controlling plastic and drying shrinkage-induced cracking in
dry-process shotcrete. Research results (Banthia and Campbell
1998) indicate that both steel and synthetic macrofibers are
effective. Fibers not only delay the formation of cracks, but
also reduce crack widths and total crack areas. The geometry
506.1R-8 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT
Fig. 7.1Explosive spalling loss due to rapid temperature-
rise heating from hydrocarbon fire.
of the fiber has a strong influence on its crack arrest capabil-
ities. Excessive loss of fiber, however, may also occur
through rebound in dry-process shotcrete, thereby dimin-
ishing the effectiveness of fiber reinforcement.
7.7Impact resistance
Shotcrete linings in rock stabilization and underground
support construction in mines and tunnels are highly
susceptible to impact loads caused by blasting or rock bursts.
In deeper hard-rock mines, the high in-place and mining-
induced stresses in the rock lead to rock bursts in the form of
extensive, unstable rock fractures and rock-mass dilation
that causes sudden ground movement in openings and drifts.
Rock burst hazards increase as mines advance to greater
depths, and high-quality ground support is required to minimize
rock burst damage and to enhance the safety of the workers.
Rock burst conditions impart large amounts of impact load,
and if the shotcrete does not possess adequate impact
resistance, failure may occur. Although nonmining shotcrete
applications are possibly less vulnerable to impact loads,
these may not be summarily ruled out.
Fiber reinforcement of shotcrete is one of the most effective
ways of increasing the impact resistance of shotcrete. In a
large study at the University of British Columbia (Gupta et
al. 2000; Banthia et al. 1999a,b,c,d), 10 different types of
fibers were investigated for their effectiveness at enhancing
the impact resistance of wet-process shotcrete. Instrumented
impact tests were performed and comparisons were made
with companion quasi-static tests. Both beams and plate
specimens were tested. Results indicated that fiber reinforce-
ment was highly effective in improving the fracture toughness
under impact loading. Steel fibers were found to be the most
effective, but the improvements depended on the geometry
of the fiber. In the case of synthetic fibers, while polypropylene
or polyvinyl alcohol macrofibers adequately improved the
resistance of shotcrete to impact loads, pitch-based carbon
microfibers were seen as relatively ineffective. Results
further demonstrated that FRS is a highly strain-rate-sensitive
material, and its fracture toughness under high rates of
loading (such as those occurring under impact) is very
different from its fracture toughness under quasi-static rates of
loading. In some instances, FRS was seen to absorb less energy
under impact loading than under quasi-static rates of loading.
7.8Thermal explosive spalling
Microfibers of polypropylene in shotcrete have demonstrated
resistance to explosive spalling when subjected to high-
temperature-rise fires, such as those fueled by hydrocarbons
(Tatnall 2002). The fibers should have an equivalent diameter
of less than 0.0013 in. (33 m), and used in shotcrete tunnel
linings at dosages of 1.6 to 3.4 lb/yd3 (1 to 2 kg/m3) for
explosive spalling resistance (Tatnall 2002). Figure 7.1
shows shotcrete panels with and without microfibers
subjected to fire testing.
CHAPTER 8DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
8.1General
FRS has been used successfully for ground support for
more than 25 years. Performance attributes are typically
considered to be holding, retaining, and reinforcing.
Although design with FRS and conventional shotcrete is
basically the same, the material properties can be signifi-
cantly different, thereby allowing considerable difference in
shotcrete thickness and amount of reinforcement. Most
available design data are for ground support, such as in tunnel
linings. Simplistic and typically conservative analytical
models have been developed from observation of shotcrete
performance under service conditions and from large-scale
testing in laboratory and field facilities (Vandewalle 2005).
8.2Empirical design
The earliest empirical guidelines were developed from
local experience for underground rock support, and the use of
them in other locales may not lead to adequate results because
of changing geological and construction conditions. For more
than 30 years, engineers have used rock mass classification
systems such as rock mass rating (RMR) system and rock
mass quality (Q) system to correlate shotcrete experience in
differing ground conditions (Grimstad et al. 2002) These
guidelines can be used to estimate shotcrete thickness, bid
quantities, and support requirements during construction.
Grant et al. (2001) presented a method to relate the
empirically produced Barton chart (Grimstad and Barton
1993) to toughness values for SFRS based on a European test
method. Papworth (2002) expanded the 2001 work to
 GUIDE TO FIBER-REINFORCED SHOTCRETE
include recommendations for FRS toughness values required
based on ASTM C1550 tests using 1.6 in. (40 mm) central
deflections for various values of rock quality, and deformations
expected for both steel and macrosynthetic FRS.
8.3Comparable moment capacity
One method to estimate the required fiber quantity is to
compare the moment capacity of a conventionally reinforced
shotcrete section to the moment capacity of an FRS section
(Vandewalle 2005). In the conventionally reinforced section,
the shotcrete is assumed cracked, and the welded wire
reinforcement or reinforcing bars carry the entire tensile
(flexural) load. The moment capacity may be calculated from
Mo. CapConv. = AS fY (d a/2) (8-1)
The moment capacity of an FRS section, which is assumed
cracked, can be calculated from its residual strength as
determined from the ASTM C1609/C1609M test results,
and the section modulus of the FRS section, as follows
100
Mo. CapFRS = f 600 bt2/6 (8-2)
Setting the conventionally reinforced moment capacity
equal to the FRS moment capacity, one can calculate the
residual strength required, and, based on testing, determine
the quantity of selected fibers required to provide the
residual strength and, thus, the moment capacity required for
comparable capacity of the FRS section (Vandewalle 1993).
An example is illustrated in the Appendix.
CHAPTER 9SPECIFICATION AND QUALITY
CONTROL CONSIDERATIONS
9.1General
Specifications for FRS should generally follow the recom-
mendations found in ACI 506R and ACI 506.2 for shotcrete.
Additional requirements should be added to specify the type
or types (material) of fibers allowed, and either the perfor-
mance criteria required or the type and quantity of fibers
required. The user is cautioned that specification of a
minimum dosage rate is not a guarantee of a minimum
performance level. Specification of a performance level
includes the synergistic effects of concrete flexural strength
and fiber material, type, and dosage rate. Materials for FRS
should meet the requirements of ASTM C1436. Materials
for prepackaged, preblended, dry, combined shotcrete
should meet the requirements of ASTM C1480/C1480M for
Grade FR shotcrete.
9.2Performance specifications
If fibers are added to control plastic shrinkage cracking or
to provide resistance to explosive spalling in fires, it is best
to prescribe the type, size, and quantities of fibers required
per cubic yard (cubic meter) of shotcrete. Macrofibers are
normally used to increase the toughness and residual
strength of the shotcrete in flexure, not the compressive
strength nor the ultimate flexural strength (modulus of
rupture). The specifier should establish criteria, in addition
506.1R-9
to the required compressive and flexural strengths, for the
residual strength(s) required. Typically in specifications for
ground support, 7-day flexural and residual strengths are
required. For conditions where small deformations of the
shotcrete are expected and minimum limits on crack width
are required, the specifier should consider a residual strength
100
at small deflection, such as f 600 , which is the residual strength
at a test beam deflection of the span/600, or at 0.02 in. (0.5 mm).
If, on the other hand, large deformations are expected and
crack widths are not as critical in the structure, then a residual
strength should be specified at a larger beam deflection, such as
100
f 150 , which is the residual strength at a deflection of span/
150, or 0.078 in. (2.0 mm). Typical residual strength values
100
specified for ground support FRS are f 600 50% of the
100
modulus of rupture, and f 150 30% of the modulus of rupture.
The 1.6 in. (40 mm) end-point deflection value in ASTM
C1550 was chosen to evaluate crack widths primarily
associated with mining applications. A smaller deflection,
such as 0.27 to 0.39 in. (7 to 10 mm), should be used when
specifying C1550 test results for civil tunnels (Bernard 2004).
9.3Prescriptive specifications
Prescriptive specification of FRS is not recommended,
except as described previously for microfibers, unless the
designer and specifier have knowledge of the performance of
the specific fiber and dosage specified. If this type specification
is used, guidance should be provided for utilization of
alternative fibers and dosages.
CHAPTER 10APPLICATIONS
10.1General
Applications of FRS include slope stabilization projects,
mining and tunneling ground support, dam repairs and
upgrades, bridge superstructure repairs, and sealing unstable
ground. Examples of some applications follow.
10.2Ground support
10.2.1 TunnelingA recent example of both macrofiber
and microfiber reinforced shotcrete is the renovation
completed in 2005 of the 1880s Weehawken Tunnel in New
Jersey for use on the Hudson-Bergen Light Rail rapid transit
system. The old brick-lined railroad tunnel through the Pali-
sades was enlarged to handle the transit line and install a
station halfway through the 4154 ft (1266 m) long tunnel.
The 42 ft (12.8 m) diameter shaft for the station elevators and
the running tunnel used steel fiber-reinforced shotcrete for
initial support. The transition section between the 27 ft (8.2 m)
wide tunnel and the 65 ft (19.8 m) wide station used steel
FRS with micropolypropylene fibers for explosive spalling
protection in case of fires in the final lining (Garrett 2004;
Tatnall 2007). Figures 10.1 and 10.2 show FRS applied in the
Weehawken tunnel and the nearby Exchange Place tunnels.
10.2.2 MiningRispin et al. (2005) reported on the use of
steel fibers in shotcrete in deep hard-rock mining in Ontario,
Canada, where the use of SFRS and rock bolts serve as the
ground support system and facilitate the use of robotic
application of the shotcrete that keeps miners from working
under unsupported rock (Fig. 10.3). Owners of the Perseverance
506.1R-10 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT
Fig. 10.1Weehawken tunnel and station shaft: initial steel
fiber-reinforced shotcrete lining.
Fig. 10.2Exchange Place final lining steel fiber-reinforced
shotcrete.
Mine in Western Australia used macrosynthetic fibers in shot-
crete with and without rock bolts for ground control in very
poor rock with high deformation; the macrosynthetic FRS
demonstrated strain-hardening capabilities after cracking
(Clements and Bernard 2004). ODonnell (2000) described
the usage development of SFRS as the primary support system
for a mine in Ontario, Canada at depths to 7000 ft (2130 m).
He concluded that the benefits were safer workplaces,
productivity gains, reduction in reconditioning costs, quicker
and safer remediation work, increased stability of drill hole
collars, and verification that 84 lb/yd3 (50 kg/m3) of a 1.25 in.
(30 mm) deformed steel fiber was an adequate fiber content
for the deformations experienced in this mine.
10.2.3 Slope stabilization
10.2.3.1 Rock and earth slopesKeienburg (2006)
described the use of SFRS for stabilizing an open pit mine in
South Africa. Ballou (2004) described rock-slope stabiliza-
tion projects in the western U.S., and outlined some of the
Fig. 10.3Shooting with robotic arm holding nozzle.
advantages for using FRS, including costs, aesthetics, and
schedule. Journeaux (2004) detailed the rock-slope stabiliza-
tion of the historic Kings Bluff and the Weehawken Tunnel
Portal in New Jersey using prepackaged, tinted dry-process
SFRS.
10.2.3.2 Soil nailingBallou and Niermann (2002) and
Smith et al. (1993) described techniques for using SFRS for
soil nailing projects in the U.S.
10.3Rehabilitation and repair
Examples of repairs to structures include the ongoing
repairs to berth facing at the Port of Saint John, NB (Gilbride
et al. 2002), where SFRS was used to rebuild deteriorated
concrete berths at a port that experiences 33 ft (10 m) sea
tides that cause many cycles of wetting and drying and
freezing and thawing (Fig. 10.4). Experience at this port
since 1982 with using steel fiber-reinforced concrete and
shotcrete shows that the steel fibers do not corrode, even in
this severe environment, except for the first few tenths of an
inch (millimeters) after many years of service. Repairs to
berths, wharves, and dolphins using microsynthetic fibers in
the Caribbean are described by Hutter et al. (2007), and the
repairs to the Pointe de la Prairie Lighthouse in Qubec won
the American Shotcrete Association Outstanding Repair and
Rehabilitation Award (Giroux and Reny 2006).
In 1994, a 4 in. (100 mm) thick bonded overlay of SFRS
was used to stiffen the arches of the Littlerock Dam in
Southern California in a seismic retrofit project. Forrest et al.
(2004) outline many details of this project, including the
design basis, preparation, quality control and assurance
procedures, mixture proportions, and application procedures.
10.4Architectural shotcrete
Garshol (2000) described the use of steel FRS to build a 36 ft
(11 m) tall troll at an amusement park in Norway. In 1999, a
series of concrete lions on the Centre Street Bridge in
Calgary, AB were rehabilitated using prepackaged
microfiber-reinforced shotcrete (Kroman et al. 2002).
 GUIDE TO FIBER-REINFORCED SHOTCRETE 506.1R-11

C231 Test Method for Air Content of Freshly

Mixed Concrete by the Pressure Method
C293 Test Method for Flexural Strength of
Concrete (Using Simple Beam with Center-
Point Loading)
C642 Test Method for Density, Absorption, and
Voids in Hardened Concrete
C1116/C1116M Specification for Fiber-Reinforced Concrete
C1140 Practice for Preparing and Testing Speci-
mens from Shotcrete Test Panels
C1399 Test Method for Obtaining Average
Residual-Strength of Fiber-Reinforced
Concrete
Fig. 10.4Shooting berth faces on rising tide at Port of
Saint John, NB, Canada. C1436 Specification for Materials for Shotcrete
C1480/C1480M Specification for Packaged, Pre-Blended,
10.5Explosive spalling resistance Dry, Combined Materials for Use in Wet or
Due to a number of extreme fires in highway and rail Dry Shotcrete Application
tunnels and the resulting damage to concrete and shotcrete C1550 Test Method for Flexural Toughness of
linings, many new tunnels are using low dosages (1.6 to 5 lb/yd3 Fiber Reinforced Concrete (Using Centrally
[1 to 3 kg/m3]) of micropolypropylene fibers to resist explosive Loaded Round Panel)
spalling of shotcrete. Examples include the Weehawken C1583/C1583M Test Method for Tensile Strength of
Tunnel in New Jersey (Garrett 2004), the 35 mile (57 km) Concrete Surfaces and the Bond Strength or
long Gotthard Base twin rail tunnels through the Swiss Alps Tensile Strength of Concrete Repair and
(Spirig 2004). Polypropylene fibers were specified for the Overlay Materials by Direct Tension (Pull-
Bindermichl tunnel Linz and the U2/U5 tunnel in Vienna, off Method)
Austria (Winterberg and Dietze 2004).
C1604/C1604M Test Method for Obtaining and Testing
Drilled Cores of Shotcrete
CHAPTER 11REFERENCES
11.1Referenced standards and reports C1609/C1609M Test Method for Flexural Performance of
The standards and reports listed below were the latest Fiber-Reinforced Concrete (Using Beam
editions at the time this document was prepared. Because with Third-Point Loading)
these documents are revised frequently, the reader is advised
to contact the proper sponsoring group if it is desired to refer Japan Concrete Institute
to the latest version. JCI-SF 5 Method of Test for Compressive Strength and
Compressive Toughness of Fiber Reinforced
American Concrete Institute Concrete
506R Guide to Shotcrete JCI-SF 6 Method of Test for Shear Strength of Fiber
506.2 Specifications for Shotcrete Reinforced Concrete
544.1R Report on Fiber Reinforced Concrete
544.2R Measurement of Properties of Fiber Reinforced These publications may be obtained from these organizations:
Concrete
544.3R Guide for Specifying, Proportioning, and Produc-
American Concrete Institute
tion of Fiber-Reinforced Concrete
P.O. Box 9094
ASTM International Farmington Hills, MI 48333-9094
C42/C42M Test Method for Obtaining and Testing www.concrete.org
Drilled Cores and Sawed Beams of Concrete
C78 Test Method for Flexural Strength of ASTM International
Concrete (Using Simple Beam with Third- 100 Barr Harbor Dr.
Point Loading) West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959
C138/C138M Test Method for Density (Unit Weight),
www.astm.org
Yield, and Air Content (Gravimetric) of
Concrete
Japan Concrete Institute
C143/C143M Test Method for Slump of Hydraulic-
Cement Concrete Mubanchi, Yotsuya 1-chrome, Shinjuku-ku
C173/C173M Test Method for Air Content of Freshly Tokyo 160, Japan
Mixed Concrete by the Volumetric Method www.jsce.or.jp
506.1R-12 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT
11.2Cited references
Amelin, H. S.; Banthia, N.; Morgan, D. R.; and Steeves, C.,
1997, Rebound in Dry-Mix Shotcrete, Concrete Inter-
national, V. 19, No. 9, Sept., pp. 54-60.
Amelin, H. S., and Banthia, N., 1998a, Steel Fiber
Rebound in Shotcrete: Influence of Fiber Geometry,
Concrete International, V. 20, No. 9, Sept., pp. 74-79.
Amelin, H. S., and Banthia, N., 1998b, Mechanics of
Aggregate Rebound in Shotcrete (Part 1), Materials and
Structures, RILEM, V. 31, Mar., pp. 91-98.
Ballou, M., 2004, Steep Slope Stabilization with Fiber-
Reinforced Shotcrete, Shotcrete, V. 6, No. 4, Fall, pp. 12-14.
Ballou, M., and Niermann, M., 2002, Soil and Rock Slope
Stabilization Using Fiber-Reinforced Shotcrete in North
America, Shotcrete, V. 4, No. 3, pp. 20-23.
Banthia, N., and Campbell, K., 1998, Restrained
Shrinkage Cracking in Bonded Fiber Reinforced Shotcrete,
The Interfacial Transition Zone in Cementitious Composites,
RILEM Proceedings, V. 35, E&FN Spon, pp. 216-223.
Banthia, N.; Gupta, P.; and Yan, C., 1999a, Impact
Resistance of Fiber Reinforced Wet-Mix Shotcrete, Part 1:
Beam Tests, Materials and Structures, RILEM, V. 32,
Oct., pp. 563-570.
Banthia, N.; Gupta, P.; and Yan, C., 1999b, Impact
Resistance of Fiber Reinforced Wet-Mix Shotcrete, Part 2:
Plate Tests, Materials and Structures, RILEM, V. 32,
Nov., pp. 643-650.
Banthia, N.; Gupta, P.; Yan, C.; and Morgan, R., 1999c,
How Tough is Fiber Reinforced Shotcrete? Part 1: Beam
Tests, Concrete International, V. 21, No. 6, June, pp. 59-62.
Banthia, N.; Gupta, P.; Yan, C.; and Morgan, R., 1999d,
How Tough is Fiber Reinforced Shotcrete? Part 2: Plate
Tests, Concrete International, V. 21, No. 8, Aug., pp. 62-66.
Banthia, N.; Trottier, J.-F.; Beaupr, D.; and Wood, D.,
1994, Influence of Fiber Geometry in Steel Fiber-Reinforced
Wet-Mix Shotcrete, Concrete International, V. 16, No. 6,
June, pp. 27-32.
Banthia, N.; Trottier, J.-F.; Wood, D.; and Beaupr, D., 1992,
Steel Fiber Dry-Mix Shotcrete: Influence of Fiber Geometry,
Concrete International, V. 14, No. 5, May, pp. 24-28.
Bernard, E. S., 2004, Design Performance Requirements
for Fibre Reinforced Shotcrete Using ASTM C 1550,
Shotcrete: More Engineering Developments, Taylor &
Francis Group, Oct., pp. 67-80.
Clements, M. J. K., and Bernard, E. S., 2004, The Use of
Macro-Synthetic Fiber-Reinforced Shotcrete in Australia,
Shotcrete, V. 6, No. 4, Fall, pp. 20-22.
Dufour, J.-F.; Trottier, J.-F.; and Forgeron, D., 2006,
Behavior and Performance of Monofilament Macro-
Synthetic Fibres in Dry-Mix Shotcrete, Proceedings, Shot-
crete for Underground Support X, D. R. Morgan and H. W.
Parker, eds., Whistler, BC, Canada, Sept., pp. 194-205.
EFNARC, 1996, European Specification for Sprayed
Concrete, European Federation of Producers and Applicators
of Specialist Products for Structures, Aldershot, UK, 30 pp.
Forrest, M. P.; Morgan, D. R.; Obermeyer, J. R.; Parker,
P. L.; and LaMoreaux, D. D., 2004, Seismic Retrofit of
Littlerock Dam, Shotcrete, V. 6, No. 1, Winter, pp. 20-26.
Garrett, R., 2004, Construction Chemistry at
Weehawken, Tunnelling & Trenchless Construction, Dec.,
pp. 21-25.
Garshol, K. F., 2000, The Shotcrete Troll, Shotcrete, V. 2,
No. 1, Feb., p. 21.
Gilbride, P.; Morgan, D. R.; and Bremner, T. W., 2002,
Deterioration and Rehabilitation of Berth Faces in Tidal
Zones at the Port of Saint John, Shotcrete, V. 4, No. 4, Fall,
pp. 32-38.
Giroux, P., and Reny, S., 2006, 2005 Outstanding Repair
Project: Pointe de la Prairie Lighthouse, Shotcrete, V. 8,
No. 4, Fall, pp. 30-32.
Grant, N. B.; Ratcliffe, R.; and Papworth, F., 2001,
Design Guidelines for the use of SFRS in Ground Support,
Proceedings, International Conference on Engineering
Developments in Shotcrete, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia, E.
S. Bernard, ed., Apr., pp. 111-118.
Grimstad, E., and Barton, N., 1993, Updating of the Q-
System for NMT, Proceedings, International Symposium on
Sprayed Concrete, Fagernes, Norway, Oct. 17-21, pp. 46-66.
Grimstad, E.; Kankes, K.; Bhasin, R.; Magnussen, A. W.;
and Kaynia, A., 2002, Rock Mass Quality Q Used in
Designing Reinforced Ribs of Sprayed Concrete and Energy
Absorption, Proceedings, Fourth International Symposium
on Sprayed ConcreteModern Use of Wet-Mix Sprayed
Concrete for Underground Support, Davos, Switzerland,
Norwegian Concrete Association, Oslo, Sept., pp. 134-155.
Grzybowski, M., and Shah, S. P., 1990, Shrinkage
Cracking in Fiber Reinforced Concrete, ACI Materials
Journal, V. 87, No. 2, Mar.-Apr., pp. 138-148.
Gupta, P.; Banthia, N.; and Yan, C., 2000, Fiber Reinforced
Wet-Mix Shotcrete under Impact, Journal of Materials in
Civil Engineering, V. 12, No. 1, Feb., pp. 81-90.
Hannant, D. J., 1978, Fiber Cements and Fiber Concretes,
John Wiley and Sons, New York, 219 pp.
Henager, C. H., 1977, The Technology and Uses of Steel
Fibrous Shotcrete: A State-of-the-Art Report, Battelle-North-
west, Richland, WA, Sept., 60 pp.
Hutter, J.; Dufour, J.-F.; and Fullam, N., 2007, Shotcrete
Repairs in BarbadosA Caribbean Experience, Shotcrete,
V. 9, No. 1, Winter, pp. 10-14.
Journeaux, D., 2004. Rock Stabilization of Two Historically
Sensitive Rock Slopes Using Shotcrete, Shotcrete, V. 6, No. 2,
Spring, pp. 10-13.
Kaden, R. A., 1977, Fiber Reinforced Shotcrete: Ririe Dam
and Little Goose (CPRR) Relocation, Shotcrete for Ground
Support, SP-54, American Concrete Institute/American Society
of Civil Engineers, Farmington Hills, MI, pp. 66-88.
Keienburg, M., 2006, Slope Stabilization in an Open Pit
Mine, Shotcrete, V. 8, No. 3, Summer, pp. 28-30.
Krantz, G. W., 1984, Selected Pneumatic Gunites for Use
in Underground Mining: A Comparative Engineering
Analysis, Bureau of Mines Information Circular 1984, U.S.
Department of Interior, Washington, DC, 64 pp.
Kroman, J.; Morgan, D. R.; and Simpson, L., 2002,
Shotcrete Lions for Calgarys Centre Street Bridge,
Shotcrete, V. 4, No. 1, Winter, pp. 4-8.
 GUIDE TO FIBER-REINFORCED SHOTCRETE 506.1R-13

Lankard, D. R.; Walker, A. J.; and Snyder, M. J., 1971,
R/M Batching and Placement of Steel Fibrous Concrete,
Concrete Products, V. 7, No. 10, Oct., pp. 60-61 and 72.
Majdzadeh, F.; Soleimani, S. M.; and Banthia, N., 2006,
Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Beams with a Fiber
Matrix, Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, V. 33,
No. 6, June, pp. 726-734.
Mirsayah, A., and Banthia, N., 2002, Shear Strength of
Steel Fiber Reinforced Concrete, ACI Materials Journal,
V. 99, No. 5, Sept.-Oct., pp. 473-479.
Morgan, D. R., and Heere, R., 2000, Evolution of Fiber
Reinforced Shotcrete, Shotcrete, V. 2, No. 2, May, pp. 8-11.
ODonnell, J. D. P., 2000, Shotcrete: A Key to Advances
in Safety and Productivity in Mining, Shotcrete, V. 2, No. 3,
Aug., pp. 20-22.
Padron, I. and Zollo, R. F., 1990, Effect of Synthetic
Fibers on Volume Stability and Cracking or Portland Cement
Concrete and Mortar, ACI Materials Journal, V. 87, No. 4,
July-Aug., pp. 327-332.
Papworth, F., 2002, Design Guidelines for the Use of
Fiber-Reinforced Shotcrete in Ground Support, Shotcrete,
V. 4, No. 2, Spring, pp. 16-21.
Parker, H. W., 1974, Current Field Research Program
on Shotcrete, Proceedings, Use of Shotcrete for Under-
ground Support, SP-45, ASCE, pp. 330-350.
Parker, H. W.; Fernandez, G.; and Loring, L. J., 1975,
Field-Oriented Investigation of Conventional and Experi-
mental Shotcrete for Tunnels, Report No. FRA-OR&D 76-06,
Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, DC, Aug.,
628 pp.
Poad, M. E.; Serbousek, M. O.; and Goris, J., 1975, Engi-
neering Properties of Fiber-Reinforced and Polymer-
Impregnated Shotcrete, Report of Investigations No. 8001,
U.S. Bureau of Mines, Washington, DC, 25 pp.
Rispin, M.; Gause, C.; and Kurth, T., 2005, Robotic
Shotcrete Applications for Mining and Tunneling, Shotcrete,
V. 7, No. 3, Summer, pp. 4-9.
Rose, D., 1981, The Atlanta Research Chamber, Applied
Research for Tunnels: Blasting Techniques Conventional
Shotcrete Steel-Fiber-Reinforced Shotcrete Monographs on
the State-of-the-Art of Tunneling, Report No. UMTA-GA-
06-0007-81-1, U.S. Department of Transportation, Wash-
ington, DC, Mar., 535 pp.
Ryan, T. F., 1975, Steel Fibers in Gunite, An Appraisal,
Tunnels and Tunnelling (London), July, pp. 74-75.
Sandell, B., 1977, Steel Fiber Reinforced Shotcrete (Stalfi-
berarmerad Sprubeton), Proceedings, Informations-Dagen
1977, Cement-Och Betonginstitutet, Stockholm, pp. 50-75.
Smith, R. E.; Pearlman, S. L.; and Wolosick, J. R., 1993,
Soil Support Using Steel Fiber Reinforced Shotcrete: A
Few Case Histories, Proceedings, Shotcrete for Under-
Talbot, C.; Talbot, C.; Pigeon, M.; Beaupr, D.; and
Morgan, D. R., 1994, Influence of Surface Preparation on
Long-Term Bonding of Shotcrete, ACI Materials Journal,
V. 91, No. 6, Nov.-Dec., pp. 560-566.
Tatnall, P. C., 2002, Shotcrete in Fires: Effects of Fibers on
Explosive Spalling, Shotcrete, V. 4, No. 4, Fall, pp. 10-12.
Tatnall, P. C., 2007, U.S. Standards Update, Shotcrete
Corner, Shotcrete, V. 9, No. 2, Spring, pp. 36-38.
TNO, 1996, The Netherlands Organization for Applied
Scientific Research, TNO, Postbus 49, 2600 AA Delft, The
Netherlands, www.nitg.tno.nl/eng.
Vandewalle, M., 1993, Steel Fibre Reinforced Shotcrete
Design, Proceedings, Shotcrete for Underground Support
VI, Engineering Foundation Conference, Niagara-on-the-
Lake, ON, Canada, May 2-6, pp. 99-109.
Vandewalle, M., 2005, Tunnelling is an Art, N.V. Bekaert,
S.A., Zwevegem, Belgium, 400 pp.
Winterberg, R., and Dietze, R., 2004, Efficient Passive
Fire Protection Systems for High Performance Shotcrete,
Proceedings, Second International Conference on Engi-
neering Developments in Shotcrete, Oct. 4, Cairns, Queen-
sland, Australia, E. S. Bernard, ed., Taylor and Francis Group,
pp. 275-290.
APPENDIXEXAMPLE OF COMPARABLE
MOMENT CAPACITY CALCULATION
Chapter 8 discusses design considerations, and Section 8.3
provides a method and equations for comparing the moment
capacity of a conventionally reinforced shotcrete section to
that of an FRS section. An example of these calculations is
presented in this Appendix.
Example:
Assume a shotcrete tunnel lining is 4 in. (102 mm) thick
using 5000 psi (34.5 MPa) shotcrete, and is reinforced with
one layer of 4 x 4 x W4.0/W4.0 WWR (102 x 102-MW26 x
MW26). The welded wire reinforcement is assumed in the
center of the shotcrete lining. The yield strength of the
welded wire reinforcement, fY , is 65,000 lbf/in.2 (448.3 MPa).
What is the post-cracking residual flexural strength required
for a comparable fiber-reinforced shotcrete section?
Inch-pound units SI units
Using Eq. (8-1):
b = unit width = 12 in. (1 ft) b=1m
AS = area of conventional
reinforcing per unit width
AS = 0.04 in.2 12 in./4 in. AS = 26 mm2 1000 mm/102 mm
= 0.12 in.2/ft = 254.9 mm2/m
fY = 65,000 lbf/in.2 fY = 448.3 N/mm2
fc = 5000 lbf/in.2 fc = 34.5 N/mm2
a = AS fY / 0.85fc b
2
0.12 in. 65,000 psi - 254.9 mm 448.3 N/mm -
2 2
a = -------------------------------------------------------- a = --------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.85 5000 psi 12 in. 0.85 34.5 N/mm 1000 mm
2

ground Support VI, Engineering Foundation Conference, a = 0.153 in. a = 3.897 mm

Niagara-on-the-Lake, ON, Canada, May 2-6, 11 pp. t = section thickness = 4 in. t = 102 mm
Spirig, C., 2004, Sprayed Concrete Systems in the d = t /2 = 4 in./2 = 2 in. d = 102 mm/2 = 51 mm
Gotthard Base Tunnel, Proceedings, Second International
Mo. CapConv = AS fY (d a/2)
Conference on Engineering Developments in Shotcrete, Mo. CapConv = 0.9 0.12 65,000 = 0.9 254.9 448.3
Cairns, Queensland, Australia, E. S. Bernard, ed., Taylor and (2 0.153/2) (51 3.897/2)
Francis Group, Oct., pp. 245-249. Mo. CapConv = 13,503 in.-lb/ft = 5,044,677 N-mm = 5.045 kN-m
506.1R-14 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT

Using Eq. (8-2):

100
Thus, a 4 in. (102 mm) thick FRS lining with a postcrack
Determine f 600 , residual strength required: residual flexural strength of 422 psi (2.91 MPa) as determined
100
100
Mo. CapFRS = f 600 b t2/6 at 0.02 in. (0.5 mm) deflection ( f 600 ) using ASTM C1609/
C1609M will provide comparable moment capacity to the
100
f 600 = 6 Mo. Cap/b t2, where Mo. Cap. conventionally reinforced lining.
is that of the conventional reinforcing.

100
f 600 = 6 13,503 in.-lb/ft/ = 6 5.045 kN-mm 1000 mm/m/
12 in./ft 42 in.2 1 m 1022 mm2
= 422 lbf/in.2 = 2.91 N/mm2

American Concrete Institute
Advancing concrete knowledge

As ACI begins its second century of advancing concrete knowledge, its original chartered purpose
remains to provide a comradeship in finding the best ways to do concrete work of all kinds and in
spreading knowledge. In keeping with this purpose, ACI supports the following activities:

Technical committees that produce consensus reports, guides, specifications, and codes.

Spring and fall conventions to facilitate the work of its committees.

Educational seminars that disseminate reliable information on concrete.

Certification programs for personnel employed within the concrete industry.

Student programs such as scholarships, internships, and competitions.

Sponsoring and co-sponsoring international conferences and symposia.

Formal coordination with several international concrete related societies.

Periodicals: the ACI Structural Journal and the ACI Materials Journal, and Concrete International.

Benefits of membership include a subscription to Concrete International and to an ACI Journal. ACI
members receive discounts of up to 40% on all ACI products and services, including documents, seminars
and convention registration fees.

As a member of ACI, you join thousands of practitioners and professionals worldwide who share a
commitment to maintain the highest industry standards for concrete technology, construction, and
practices. In addition, ACI chapters provide opportunities for interaction of professionals and practitioners
at a local level.

American Concrete Institute

38800 Country Club Drive
Farmington Hills, MI 48331
U.S.A.
Phone: 248-848-3700
Fax: 248-848-3701
www.concrete.org
 Guide to Fiber-Reinforced Shotcrete

The AMERICAN CONCRETE INSTITUTE

was founded in 1904 as a nonprofit membership organization dedicated to public
service and representing the user interest in the field of concrete. ACI gathers and
distributes information on the improvement of design, construction and
maintenance of concrete products and structures. The work of ACI is conducted by
individual ACI members and through volunteer committees composed of both
members and non-members.

The committees, as well as ACI as a whole, operate under a consensus format,

which assures all participants the right to have their views considered. Committee
activities include the development of building codes and specifications; analysis of
research and development results; presentation of construction and repair
techniques; and education.

Individuals interested in the activities of ACI are encouraged to become a member.

There are no educational or employment requirements. ACIs membership is
composed of engineers, architects, scientists, contractors, educators, and
representatives from a variety of companies and organizations.

Members are encouraged to participate in committee activities that relate to their

specific areas of interest. For more information, contact ACI.

www.concrete.org

American Concrete Institute
Advancing concrete knowledge