ACI MATERIALS JOURNAL

Title no. 105-M29

TECHNICAL PAPER

Correlating Flexural and Shear Toughness of Lightweight Fiber-Reinforced Concrete

by Hiroshi Higashiyama and Nemkumar Banthia
The purpose of this study was to assess the correlation between flexural toughness and shear toughness of normalweight and lightweight fiber-reinforced concretes (FRC). A crimped steel fiber with a crescent geometry was used throughout. For flexure, third-point loading tests were preformed as per ASTM C1609. For shear, direct shear tests were performed using a modified version of the JSCE-G 553-1999 procedure. The flexural load-deflection curves were analyzed using the post-crack strengths (PCSm) method and the JSCE-G 552-1999 procedure. The shear load-deflection curves were analyzed using similar approaches. Results indicate that for a given fiber type and volume fraction, normalweight FRC depicts superior flexural and shear toughness characteristics than its lightweight counterpart. Also, for a given FRC, there appears to be a good correlation between its flexural toughness and shear toughness.
Keywords: fiber-reinforced concrete; lightweight concrete; shear; toughness.

Table 1Material properties

Material Cement Fine aggregate Type Portland Properties Density: 3.15 g/cm3

Density: 2.53 g/cm3 (SSD condition) River sand 2.48 g/cm3 (absolute dry condition) Water absorption: 1.83% Maximum size: 2.36 mm Density: 2.73 g/cm3 (SSD condition) Pea gravel 2.69 g/cm3 (absolute dry condition) Water absorption: 1.63% Maximum size: 12.5 mm

Coarse aggregate

Pumice

Density: 1.46 g/cm3 (SSD condition) 0.92 g/cm3 (absolute dry condition) Water absorption: 56.7% Maximum size: 9.5 mm Density: 1.81 g/cm3 (SSD condition) 1.61 g/cm3 (absolute dry condition) Water absorption: 12.6% Maximum size: 12.5 mm

INTRODUCTION The usefulness of fiber-reinforced concrete (FRC) in various civil engineering applications is indisputable. FRC has been used successfully in structures subjected to bending and/or shear such as highway bridge slabs, piles, tunnel linings, architectural concrete, precast elements, offshore structures, structures in seismic regions, thin and thick repair, crash barriers, footings, and various hydraulic structures. FRC exhibits better performance not only under static and quasi-statically applied loads but also under fatigue, impact, and impulse loadings and under environmentally imposed cracking.1-8 Shear failure of reinforced concrete structures is often brittle and catastrophic. Previous studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of fiber reinforcement in improving the shear performance of reinforced concrete beams and slabs.9-13 Studies related to direct measurements of the material properties of FRC in shear, however, are limited.4,6,8 Such studies are necessary to generate the basic materials properties of FRC in shear, to model the constitutive response, and to assess the capacity of reinforced concrete elements for which shear may dominate the design. Lightweight concrete is now used extensively in concrete construction. In addition to its heat insulation properties, lightweight concrete also reduces the structural dead load, which in turn reduces structural sections, saves resources, and improves the structural efficiency. Unfortunately, lightweight concrete also fails in a brittle manner; hence, it is often argued that fiber reinforcement is an even better proposition for lightweight concrete than for normalweight concrete. Indeed, high effectiveness of fiber reinforcement for lightweight concrete has been previously reported.11,14 ACI Materials Journal/May-June 2008

Expansive shale

Notes: SSD = saturated surface-dry; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 g/cm3 = 0.0361 lb/in.3

RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE A number of structures fail in shear and such failures are often brittle and catastrophic with limited warning before collapse. Fiber reinforcement is known to improve the shear performance of concrete but little is known about the materials properties of FRC in shear. The flexural performance of FRC remains better understood due to the greater incidence of such tests in reality and because a great majority of project specifications are written based on the flexural performance. Most model codes also use flexural performance characteristics for analysis and design. If a clear correlation could be established between the flexural performance and shear performance of FRC, both before and after matrix cracking, then the understanding of the performance and safely of structures subjected to high shear forces can be dramatically improved. EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM Materials, mixtures, and specimens Material properties and mixture proportions of concrete used in this study are given in Tables 1 and 2, respectively. Notice that two types of lightweight coarse aggregate,
ACI Materials Journal, V. 105, No. 3, May-June 2008. MS No. M-2006-508.R1 received January 1, 2007, and reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copyright 2008, 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 MarchApril 2009 ACI Materials Journal if the discussion is received by December 1, 2008.

251

ACI member Hiroshi Higashiyama is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Kinki University, Higashi-Osaka, Osaka, Japan. He received his BS from Kinki University and his MS and PhD from Osaka University, Osaka. His research interests include cement-based fiber-reinforced composites, punching shear of reinforced concrete slabs, and composite structures. Nemkumar Banthia, FACI, is a Professor of Civil Engineering and Canada Research Chair at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada. He is a member of ACI Committees 446, Fracture Mechanics; 506, Shotcreting; 544 Fiber Reinforced Concrete; 549, Thin Reinforced Cementitious Products and Ferrocement; and E801, Student Activities. His research interests include cement-based and polymerbased fiber-reinforced composites with an emphasis on testing and standardization, fracture behavior, constitutive modeling, strain-rate effects, and repair performance. He was awarded ACIs Wason Medal for Materials Research in 1997.

procedure, and three 100 x 100 x 350 mm (4 x 4 x 14 in.) beams for flexural strength and toughness evaluation as per ASTM C1609.17 All specimens were cast in plastic molds, compacted on a vibration table, and stored under polyethylene sheets for 24 hours, after which they were demolded and stored in a curing tank containing lime-saturated water for an additional 27 days. After this time, the specimens were stored in dry laboratory environment for one additional week until tested. During this week, a notch was sawn in the shear specimens as described in the following. Flexural toughness tests Flexural toughness tests were conducted as per ASTM C160917 under third-point flexure on a span length of 300 mm (12 in.) as shown in Fig. 1. The ASTM C160917 procedure is an improved version of the ASTM C101818 test procedure which suffered from a lack of objectivity and human judgment error.5,19-21 A 250 kN (56,200 lbf) floor-mounted universal testing machine was used. As is recognized, during a test, specimen supports settle in the direction of the applied load. To exclude the extraneous deflection emanating from support settlement, a yoke was installed around the specimen.19 Two linear variable displacement transducers (LVDTs) mounted on the opposite sides of the specimen measured the specimen deflection. The LVDTs were held in place by the yoke and the recording ends were in contact with a bracket attached to the top surface of the specimen. Average deflection measured by two LVDTs was fed back to the servo-valve for closed-loop control in a test. Applied load and deflection data were acquired at a frequency of 5 Hz. The ASTM C160917 procedure recommends analyzing the load-deflection curves to obtain the following two toughness parameters: f100,0.50: residual strength at a net deflection equal to 1/600 of the span (or 0.50 mm [0.02 in.] for a 300 mm [12 in.] span); and f100,2.00: residual strength at a net deflection equal to 1/150 of the span (or 2.00 mm [0.08 in.] for a 300 mm [12 in.] span). Because the test procedure is based on converting load values to stress values in the cracked zone instead of the energy values and it provides a rather disjointed and discontinuous measure of toughness, an alternate method called the post-crack strengths (PCSm) method19 was employed in this study (Fig. 2). The post-crack strength at a deflection of L/m, PCSm, is given by

pumice (PU), and expansive shale (EX) were investigated. Also, a normalweight pea gravel (PE) was used to produce normalweight concrete. River sand (RS) was used as the fine aggregate. The cement used was a general purpose portland cement (ASTM Type I). Two lengths (38 mm [1.5 in.] and 63.5 mm [2.5 in.]) of a crimped steel fiber 1.14 mm (0.045 in.) equivalent diameter and a crescent cross section were investigated. According to the manufacturer, the guaranteed tensile strength of this fiber is 828 MPa (120 x 103 psi). Two fiber volume fractions of 0.5 and 1.0% were investigated (Table 2). A pan-mixer was used for mixing and the steel fibers were added to the mixture at the end to ensure proper fiber dispersion and lack of fiber balling. From each mixture, the following specimens were cast: three 100 x 200 mm (4 x 8 in.) cylinders for compressive strength determination as per ASTM C3915 three 100 x 100 x 350 mm (4 x 4 x 14 in.) beams for determination of shear strength and toughness properties as per the JSCE-G 553-199916

Fig. 1Flexural toughness test.17 Table 2Mixture proportions

Mixture PE-0 PE-5 PE-10 PU-0 PU-5-38 PU-5-64 PU-10 EX-5 Expansive shale
Notes: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 kg/cm3 = 1.686 lb/yd3.

Aggregate type Pea gravel

Water, kg/m3 200 200 200 190 190 190 190 190

Cement, kg/m3 333 333 333 380 380 380 380 380

Fine aggregate, kg/m3 840 840 840 810 810 810 810 820

Coarse aggregate, kg/m3 880 (PE) 880 (PE) 880 (PE) 480 (PU) 480 (PU) 480 (PU) 480 (PU) 590 (EX)

Fiber volume fraction Vf , % 0.0 0.5 1.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.5

Fiber length lf , mm 38.0 38.0 38.0 63.5 38.0 38.0

Pumice

252

ACI Materials Journal/May-June 2008

( E post, m )L PCS m = -----------------------------------L --- bh 2 peak m

(1)

where Epost,m is the post-peak energy value up to a deflection of L/m; peak is the deflection at the first peak load; L is the span length of specimen; and b and h are the width and height of the specimen, respectively. Also, note that m is a specified divisor of the span length used to calculate a deflection value of interest. PCSm values are calculated from the post-peak energy and not the total energy such that the prepeak energy has been omitted from the calculations (Fig. 2). In addition to the PCSm analysis, the load-deflection curves were analyzed using the JSCE-G 552-199922 procedure. The JSCE-G 552-199922 procedure is identical to the ASTM C160917 procedure except the flexural energy up to a deflection of span/150 is converted to parameter called the flexural toughness factor (FT) by using the following expression ( Area )LFT = ---------------------L -------- bh 2 150 (2)

Fig. 2Post-crack strength analysis.

where (Area) is the area surrounded by load versus deflection curve up to a deflection of L/150; L is the span length; and b and h are the width and height of specimen, respectively. Direct shear tests Direct shear tests were performed using a modified version8 of the JSCE-G 553-199916 procedure, as shown in Fig. 3(a) and (b). In this test, the shear force is applied using two knife edges 150 mm (6 in.) apart in a rigid loading frame. The specimen is supported on two rigid steel blocks 155 mm (6.2 in.) apart. These tests were conducted in a 1.78 MN (398,720 lbf) capacity rigid machine by applying the shear stress at a rate of 0.06 to 0.1 MPa/second (8.7 to 14.5 psi/second).16 Vertical deflection, that is, relative displacement between the two shear planes at the failure location, was measured by averaging signals from two LVDTs attached to the bottom surface of the specimen (Fig. 3(a)). The applied load and vertical deflection data were recorded at a frequency of 1 Hz. Before the test, a 10 mm (0.4 in.) deep and 2.5 mm (0.1 in.) wide notch was sawed on all four faces of the specimen to predefine the plane for shear failure. The effective width and height of such specimens was therefore 80 x 80 mm (3.2 x 3.2 in.). As in the case of the flexural tests, shear post-crack strength (SPCSm) values were determined from the shear tests using the following expression (adopted from Eq. (1)) E post, m SPCSm = --------------------------------------he ---- b h peak e e m (3) Shear toughness factors (STm) were also calculated by modifying the expression for flexural toughness factor (Eq. (2)) accordingly Area m STm = -------------------he ---- b h - e e m (4)

Fig. 3(a) Direct shear test; and (b) schematic of direct shear test.

where Epost,m is the post-peak energy value up to a deflection of he/m; peak is the deflection at the first peak load; and be and he are the effective width and height of the specimen, respectively. Also note that m is a specified divisor of the effective height of the specimen used to calculate a deflection value of interest. ACI Materials Journal/May-June 2008

253

Fig. 4Load-deflection curves in flexure: (a) pea gravel aggregate (PE) and expansive shale (EX); and (b) pumice aggregate (PU). (Note: 1 kN = 224.8 lbf; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.) where Aream is the area surrounded by load versus deflection up to a deflection of he/m, and be and he are the effective width and height of the specimen in the direct shear test, respectively. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Load-deflection curves Representative load-deflection curves are given in Fig. 4 for flexure and in Fig. 5 for shear. The curves obtained from the flexural tests and the direct shear tests, respectively, for the PE aggregate and the EX aggregate are given in Fig. 4(a) and 5(a), and the curves obtained from the flexural tests and the direct shear tests, respectively, for the PU aggregate are given in Fig. 4(b) and 5(b). Notice that for specimens with no fiber reinforcement, a rapid softening occurred in flexural tests after reaching the peak load. In the direct shear tests, on the other hand, unreinforced specimens showed a dramatic drop in the load and a highly brittle response. For specimens with fiber reinforcement, notice a gradual drop in the load under both flexure and shear. Note greater post-peak load retention in the case of shear compared with flexure. In other words, FRC depicted better toughness and residual strength characteristics in shear than in flexure herein. The deflections in a direct shear test were much larger than that in the flexural tests. Flexural, shear, and compressive strengths Flexural strength fb and shear strength fv were calculated from respective tests assuming an elastic response 254

Fig. 5Load-deflection curves in direct shear: (a) pea gravel aggregate (PE) and expansive shale (EX); and (b) pumice aggregate (PU). (Note: 1 kN = 224.8 lbf; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.) P first peak L f b = --------------------------2 bh P first peak f v = -----------------------2b e h e

(5)

(6)

where Pfirst-peak is the first-peak load supported by the specimen; L is the span length of specimen; b and h are the width and height of flexural specimen, respectively; and be and he are the effective width and height of shear specimen, respectively. The compressive strength, flexural strength, and shear strength values are given in Table 3. The ductility of FRC increases with an increase in fiber content. The fiber content, on the other hand, has only a minor effect on both the flexural and shear strengths. The relationship between the shear strength and the flexural strength is shown in Fig. 6 and the relationship between the shear strength and the compressive strength is shown in Fig. 7. From these results, notice that the shear strength is almost linearly related with the flexural strength but not to the compressive strength (a low correlation constant of 0.286) as shown in Fig. 7(a). The same trend was obtained by Kohno et al.23 When the shear strength data are plotted as a function of fc 0.596 a much better correlation emerges (refer to Fig. (7b)). Flexural and shear toughness comparisons based on PCSm and SPCSm values Flexural and shear post-crack strength values, PCSm (Eq. (1)) and SPCSm (Eq. (3)), are given in Table 4. In the case of the ACI Materials Journal/May-June 2008

Table 3Compressive, flexural, and shear strengths

Flexural Shear Aggregate Compressive strength, strength, Fiber volume Specimen type strength, MPa MPa MPa fraction Vf , % PE-0 PE-5 PE-10 PU-0 PU-5-38 PU-5-64 PU-10 EX-5 Expansive shale Pumice Pea gravel 46.9 41.2 41.9 24.6 23.3 20.9 25.0 45.9 5.19 4.50 5.55 1.92 2.57 2.49 3.41 3.22 5.82 5.86 7.82 3.35 4.09 3.76 4.34 4.31 0.0 0.5 1.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.5

Note: 1 MPa = 145 psi.

Fig. 6Shear strength and flexural strength. (Note: 1 MPa = 145 psi.)

Table 4Flexural post-crack strengths and shear post-crack strengths

Flexural post-crack strengths, MPa PCSm PCS3000 PCS1500 PCS1000 PCS750 PCS600 PCS400 PCS300 PCS200 PCS150 SPCSm SPCS80 SPCS40 SPCS25 SPCS20 SPCS15 SPCS10 PE-5 3.945 3.459 3.290 3.226 3.152 3.017 2.818 2.464 2.190 PE-10 5.575 4.822 4.835 4.621 4.507 4.323 4.094 3.637 3.220 PU-5-38 PU-5-64 2.431 2.031 1.901 1.868 1.823 1.741 1.695 1.538 1.375 2.653 2.466 2.452 2.456 2.475 2.500 2.493 2.356 2.163 PU-10 3.055 3.333 3.362 3.352 3.336 3.068 2.904 2.559 2.260 EX-5 2.946 2.598 2.473 2.393 2.351 2.200 2.023 1.763 1.595

Shear post-crack strengths, MPa PE-5 10.564 6.947 6.302 5.489 4.544 3.290 PE-10 13.211 11.151 9.238 7.995 6.517 6.442 PU-5-38 PU-5-64 5.639 4.632 3.754 3.194 2.617 1.915 7.143 6.570 5.980 5.601 5.109 4.247 PU-10 8.240 7.821 7.826 7.282 6.429 5.137 EX-5 6.819 6.155 6.380 5.948 5.067 4.320

Notes: PE = pea gravel; PU = pumice; and EX = expansive shale. 1 MPa = 145 psi.

PCSm calculation, the L/m were chosen between L/3000 and L/150. L/150 corresponds with the JSCE-G 552-199922 procedure. And in the case of the SPCSm calculation, the he /m were chosen between he /80 and he/10 herein. Because a specimen carried shear load to much larger deflections, the SPCSm values were calculated over a much wider range of m values. The SPCSm values at various values of m (80, 40, 20, and 10) are plotted against the corresponding values of the ultimate flexural post-crack strength, PCS150, in Fig. 8(a) to (d). Notice that SPCSm values at various values of m (80, 40, 20, and 10) show an approximately linear relationship with the flexural PCS150 values for the FRCs investigated. The SPCSm values can be related to the PCS150 by an expression of the type SPCSm = k1 PCS150 (7)

Fig. 7(a) Shear strength plotted as function of fc (where fc is compressive strength). Notice a poor correlation; and (b) shear strength plotted as function fc 0.596 (where fc is compressive strength). Notice a much better correlation. (Note: 1 MPa = 145 psi.) he k 1 = 0.379 ---- + 4.279 m

(8)

where the value of constant k1 as a function of he /m is given by (refer to Fig. 9) ACI Materials Journal/May-June 2008

A downward trend in Fig. 9 indicates that the post-peak shear capacity of FRC drops more precipitously with an increase in the deflection (or crack opening) than its flexural capacity. Data in Table 4 also indicates that both the post-crack strengths in shear and flexure are higher for normalweight FRC than for lightweight FRC. 255

Fig. 8Shear post-crack strengths (SPCSm) and flexural post-crack strength (PCS150): (a) m = 80; (b) m = 40; (c) m = 20; and (d) m = 10. (Note: 1 MPa = 145 psi.)

Fig. 10Shear toughness factors (STm) and flexural toughness factor (FT): (a) m = 80; (b) m = 40; (c) m = 20; and (d) m = 10. (Note: 1 MPa = 145 psi.)

Fig. 9Coefficient k1 relating to SPCSm to PCS150 (Eq. (8)).

Fig. 11Coefficient k2 relating to FT to STm (Eq. (10)).

Table 5Flexural toughness factors and shear toughness factors

PE-5 PE-10 PU-5-38 PU-5-64 PU-10 FT, MPa L/150 2.200 3.217 he/80 he/40 STm, MPa he/25 he/20 he/15 he/10 8.069 8.972 6.673 9.724 6.239 8.830 5.548 7.917 4.684 6.676 3.468 6.688 1.378 4.289 4.295 3.723 3.264 2.833 2.117 2.149 4.600 5.583 5.509 5.287 4.933 4.194 2.250 5.122 6.411 6.945 6.675 6.089 5.027 EX-5 1.603 5.253 5.573 4.242 5.690 4.963 4.284

calculated for a value of m equal to 80, 40, 20, and 10. Plots of FT and STm for various values of m are shown in Fig. 10(a) to (d). From these figures, notice that the STm values at various values of m show a linear correlation with the FT values. The STm at various values of m can be related to the FT values by an expression of the type STm = k2 FT (9)

where the value of constant k2 as a function of he /m is given by (refer to Fig. 11) he k 2 = 0.164 ---- + 3.284 m (10)

Notes: PE = pea gravel; PU = pumice; and EX = expansive shale. 1 MPa = 145 psi.

Flexural and shear toughness comparisons based on toughness factors Flexural toughness factors (FT [Eq. (2)]) and shear toughness factors (STm [Eq. (4)]) for various FRCs are given in Table 5. As in the case of SPCSm, the STm values were once again 256

A downward trend in Fig. 11 indicates once again that the post-cracking shear capacity of FRC drops more sharply with an increase in the deflection (or crack opening) than its flexural capacity. Data in Table 5, as in the case of Table 4, indicates that both the flexural and shear toughness factors ACI Materials Journal/May-June 2008

for normalweight FRC are higher than those for lightweight FRC. It should be pointed out that the relationships developed in Eq. (7) to (10) are applicable only for the crimped steel fiber investigated herein. For other fibers, similar expressions need to be developed. CONCLUSIONS Based on the research, the following conclusions can be drawn: 1. Ductility of FRC increases with an increase in fiber content. The fiber content, on the other hand, has only a minor effect on both the flexural and shear strengths; 2. There is a linear correlation between the shear strength and flexural strength of FRC but not between the shear strength and its compressive strength; 3. The post-crack shear capacity of FRC drops more sharply with an increase in the deflection (or crack opening) than its flexural capacity; 4. Normalweight FRC depicts better post-crack flexural and shear toughness than lightweight FRC; and 5. Based on two characterization criteria, it is shown that the shear toughness and flexural toughness values for a given FRC are linearly related. Expressions are proposed to derive the shear toughness characteristics for a given FRC from its flexural toughness parameters. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The continued support of the National Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada is gratefully acknowledged.

REFERENCES
1. Banthia, N.; Mindess, S.; and Trottier, J.-F., Impact Resistance of Steel Fiber Reinforced Concrete, ACI Materials Journal, V. 93, No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 1996, pp. 472-479. 2. Shah, S. P., and Rangan, B. V., Fiber Reinforced Concrete Properties, ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 68, No. 2, Feb. 1971, pp. 126-137. 3. Snyder, M. J., and Lankard, R., Factors Affecting the Flexural Strength of Steel Fiber Concrete, ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 69, No. 2, Feb. 1972, pp. 96-100. 4. Valle, M., and Buyukozturk, O., Behavior of Fiber Reinforced HighStrength Concrete under Direct Shear, ACI Materials Journal, V. 90, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 1993, pp. 122-133. 5. Banthia, N., and Trottier, J.-F., Concrete Reinforced with Deformed Steel Fibers Part II: Toughness Characterization, ACI Materials Journal, V. 92, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 1995, pp. 146-154. 6. Khaloo, A. R., and Nakseok, K., Influence of Concrete and Fiber Characteristics on Behavior of Steel Fiber Reinforced Concrete under Direct Shear, ACI Materials Journal, V. 94, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 1997, pp. 592-601.

7. Banthia, N.; Yan, C.; and Mindess, S., Restrained Shrinkage Cracking in Fiber Reinforced Concrete: A Novel Test Technique, Cement and Concrete Research, V. 26, No. 1, 1996, pp. 9-14. 8. Mirsayah, A. A., and Banthia, N., Shear Strength of Steel FiberReinforced Concrete, ACI Materials Journal, V. 99, No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 2002, pp. 473-479. 9. Batson, G.; Jenkins, E.; and Spatney, R., Steel Fibers as Shear Reinforcement in Beams, ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 69, No. 10, Oct. 1972, pp. 640-644. 10. Narayanan, R., and Darwish, I. Y. S., Use of Steel Fibers as Shear Reinforcement, ACI Structural Journal, V. 84, No. 3, May-June 1987, pp. 216-227. 11. Swamy, R. N.; Jones, R.; and Chian, A. T. D., Influence of Steel Fibers on the Shear Resistance of Lightweight Concrete I-Beams, ACI Structural Journal, V. 90, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 1993, pp. 103-114. 12. Roesler, J. R.; Lange, D. A.; Altoubat, S. A.; Rieder, K. A.; and Ulreich, G. K., Fracture of Plain and Fiber-Reinforced Concrete Slabs under Monotonic Loading, Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, ASCE, V. 16, No. 5, 2004, pp. 452-460. 13. Maidzadeh, F.; Soleimani, S. M.; and Banthia, N., Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Beams with a Fiber Concrete Matrix, Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, V. 33, No. 6, 2006, pp. 726-734. 14. Gao, J.; Sun, W.; and Morino, K., Mechanical Properties of Steel Fiber-Reinforced, High-Strength, Lightweight Concrete, Cement and Concrete Composites, V. 19, 1997, pp. 307-313. 15. ASTM C39/C39M-05, Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength Cylindrical Concrete Specimens, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2005, 7 pp. 16. JSCE-G 553-1999, Test Method for Shear Strength of Steel Fiber Reinforced Concrete, Standard Specifications for Concrete Structures, Test Methods and Specifications, JSCE, 2005, 362 pp. 17. ASTM C1609/C1609M-05, Standard Test Method for Flexural Performance of Fiber-Reinforced Concrete (Using Beam With Third-Point Loading), ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2005, 8 pp. 18. ASTM C1018-97, Standard Test Method for Flexural Toughness and First-Crack Strength of Fiber-Reinforced Concrete (Using Beam with Third-Point Loading) (withdrawn 2006), ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2005, 7 pp. 19. Banthia, N., and Trottier, J.-F., Test Methods for Flexural Toughness Characterization of Fiber Reinforced Concrete: Some Concerns and a Proposition, ACI Materials Journal, V. 92, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 1995, pp. 48-57. 20. Gopalaratnam, V. S.; Shah, S. P.; Batson, G. B.; Criswell, M. E.; Ramakrishnan, V.; and Wecharatana, M., Fracture Toughness of Fiber Reinforced Concrete, ACI Materials Journal, V. 88, No. 4, July-Aug. 1991, pp. 339-353. 21. Banthia, N., and Mindess, S., Toughness Characterization of FiberReinforced Concrete: Which Standard to Use? Journal of Testing and Evaluation, V. 32, No. 2, 2004, pp. 138-142. 22. JSCE-G 552-1999, Test Method for Bending Strength and Bending Toughness of Steel Fiber Reinforced Concrete, Standard Specification for Concrete Structures, Test Methods and Specifications, JSCE, 2005, 362 pp. 23. Kohno, K.; Horii, K.; Yukimoto, K.; and Gotoh, Y., Study on Shear Strength of Steel Fiber Reinforced Concrete, Proceedings of the 5th Annual Conference of Japan Concrete Institute, V. 5, 1983, pp. 5-8. (in Japanese)

ACI Materials Journal/May-June 2008

257

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.