“Toughness Characteristics of Steel Fibre Reinforced Concrete”

Biography:

Arumugam E is a professor of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, Anna University,

India. He has obtained his B.E from Regional Engineering College, Tamilnadu; M.E from

P.S.G College of Technology, Tamilnadu and PhD from College of Engineering, Anna

University. His research interests include Stress Concentration, Fly ash concrete, Polymer

Concrete.

Nanda kumar S and Deviprasadh A are first year graduate students (M.E Construction

Engineering and Management) studying in College of Engineering, Anna University. They

both did their under-graduate in Hindustan College of Engineering, Chennai, and did their

project work in the above topic in Larsen & Toubro ltd, Chennai.

ABSTRACT

The objective of this investigation was to study the behaviour of Steel Fibre

Reinforced Concrete (SFRC). Hooked end fibres and corrugated (crimped) fibres with aspect

ratio of 55 were used. Specimens were cast without fibres and with fibres of 0.5% and 1%

volume fraction (Vf). Tests were conducted for studying the compressive, tensile, flexural

strength and energy absorption. Compressive and split tensile tests were conducted on cubes

and cylinders respectively. 15 Beams were cast and tested under two point loading to find

flexural strength, toughness and stiffness. An empirical equation for finding the toughness

index was developed based on fibre percentage. 30 panels were cast and tested under static

point load to calculate the energy absorption and ductility index.

Keywords: Steel Fibre Reinforced Concrete, Static load, Panels, Beams, Toughness,
Energy Absorption.

1
 INTRODUCTION

The advantages of using concrete include high compressive strength, good fire

resistance, high water resistance, low maintenance, and long service life. The disadvantages

of using concrete include poor tensile strength, low strain of fracture and formwork

requirement. Hence fibres are added to concrete to over come these disadvantages. The

addition of fibres in the matrix has many important effects. Most notable among the improved

mechanical characteristics of Fibre Reinforced Concrete (FRC) are its superior fracture

strength, toughness, impact resistance, flextural strength, resistance to fatigue etc. Improving

fatigue performance is one of the primary reasons for the extensive use of Steel Fibres in

concrete.

RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE

Although many tests were carried out on FRC materials, they were mainly based on flexure

test on beam specimens. Very few literatures were available on testing of panels or slabs

which is similar to most practical cases. Hence an attempt was made in this work to study the

behaviour of square FRC panels simply supported on all sides and subjected to concentrated

load on its center, which is the severe loading in most practical cases.

EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION

In order to study the interaction of steel fibres with concrete under compression, split tension,

flexure and static load, 45 cubes, 45 cylinders, 15 beams, 30 panels was casted respectively.

The experimental program was divided into five groups.

Each group consists of 9 cubes, 9 cylinders, and 3 beams, 3 panels of 50mm (1.97in)

thickness and 3 panels of 100 mm (3.94in.) thickness.

i.The first group is the control (Plain) concrete with 0% fibre (PCC)

ii.The second group consisted of hooked end steel fibre of Vf 0.5% (HSFRC 0.5)
 iii.The third group consisted of hooked end steel fibre of Vf 1.0% (HSFRC 1.0)

iv.The fourth group consisted of corrugated steel fibre of Vf 0.5% (CSFRC 0.5)

v.The fifth group consisted of corrugated steel fibre of Vf 1.0% (CSFRC 1.0)

SFRC beams of size 150x150x700mm (5.9 inch.x5.91inch.x27.56 inch.) were tested using a

servo controlled Universal Testing Machine (MTS) as per the procedure given in ASTM

C-78 and the load was applied at a rate of 0.1mm/min, load and displacement was recorded

constantly (Figure 5). Toughness was calculated as the energy equivalent to the area under the

load deflection curve as per the procedure given in the ASTM C-1018. Stiffness of the beam

specimen was found as the slope of the load-deflection curve upto the elastic region of the

curve.

The panel specimen of dimension was placed on a simply supported condition on all four

sides and a concentrated load was applied over an area of 9.46sq.inch. (61sq.cm).The actuator

as operated at a rate of 1.5 mm/min (0.06inch/min) and the corresponding load & deflection

was measured as per the European Specification for Sprayed Concrete (EFNARC). The

bottom deflection was also monitored using a Linearly Variable Differential Transducer

(LVDT) (Figure 3 and Figure 4). The testing was continued till a deflection of 25mm

(0.98inch) or failure which ever occurred earlier. The energy absorption upto the deflection

of25mm (0.98inch) was calculated as area under load deflection curve for that deflection,

with an increment of2mm (0.08inch). Ductility index was calculated as the ratio of the

deflection upto the ultimate load to the deflection upto the first crack load. The ultimate

deformation has been considered as the deformation corresponding to 15% load drop i.e. 85%

of the ultimate load. The ductility so calculated is called the displacement ductility.

Ductility (μd ) = Ultimate deflection (δu ) / Yield deflection (δy)

Materials

The materials used and their specifications are as follows:

CEMENT

Ordinary Portland cement was used and its specific gravity is 3.15*. The brand used was

“UltraTech” with P53 grade.

FINE AGGREGATE

Specific gravity of fine aggregate is 2.65 with water absorption 0.99%. Dry loose bulk density

was calculated as1502 Kg/m3 (93.76lbm/cubic foot).

COARSE AGGREGATE

A crushed granite stone aggregate of maximum size of 20 mm was used. Specific gravity of

coarse aggregate is 2.73 with water absorption 0.25% and dry loose bulk density 1500 Kg/m3

(93.63lbm/cubic foot).

STEEL FIBRES

HOOKED END STEEL FIBRES

Hooked end steel fibres commercially called as Dramix steel fibres manufactured by Bekaert

Corporation were used which had a length of 30 mm (1.18inch) and a diameter of 0.55 mm

(0.022inch) resulting in an aspect ratio of about 55 and conforms to ASTM A820 and

Belgium standard 1857*.The tensile strength of fibre is in the range of 1100 N/mm2*

(156,456.78 lbf/square inch)

CORRUGATED STEEL FIBRES

Corrugated steel fibres from Stewols & Co - India were used which had a length of 25 mm

and a diameter of 0.45 mm resulting in an aspect ratio of about 55 and conforms to ASTM

A820*.The tensile strength of fibre is in the range of1200 N/mm2* (1,706,801.27lbf/square

inch)

Note: * as per the manufacturers report

 EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Compressive Strength

The Compressive strength of concrete mixed with steel fibres was found to vary marginally.

50% of the 28 days strength of corrugated fibres was obtained in 3 days itself. The

compressive strength of ordinary concrete and fibre reinforced concrete are tabulated in

Table 1.

Split tensile strength

The split tensile strength was found to be increased as the percentage of fibre was increased.

For the hooked fibre with volume fraction of 0.5% and 1.0% the increase in tensile strength

was 8 % and 32.4%respectively. The increase was about 30% for corrugated fibres with

volume fraction of 1.0% and there was no increase in case of CSFRC (Corrugated Steel Fibre

Reinforced Concrete) of volume fraction 0.5%. The 28 days strength of 0.5% volume fraction

of HSFRC (Hooked Steel Fibre Reinforced Concrete) was 7% greater than that of CSFRC of

same volume fraction. The results are tabulated in table 1.

Flexure strength

The flexure strength was found to decrease marginally. The failure was brittle in case of plain

concrete and failure was ductile in case of steel fibre reinforced concrete. The addition of

steel fibre resulted in a consistent increase in ductility of the beams. The toughness index for

all the control beams was found to be 1. For all the SFRC beams the I5 and I10 values are

greater than 2.75 and 4 respectively. The toughness indices were calculated for all the

specimens and are tabulated in Table 2.

Empirical equation

The empirical equations for finding the toughness indices were found using the I5 and I10

values from the experimental results using Microsoft’s Excel office program which can be

seen in the Figure 1 and Figure 2.

Energy absorption

The maximum load and energy absorbed are tabulated in Table 3. The peak load obtained

with steel fibre reinforced concrete was found to increase more than 2 times when compared

to control (plain) concrete of same thickness.

50mm (1.97inch) panels

For HSFRC with 0.5% and 1% volume fraction the energy absorbed was 27.5 and 32.4 times

that of control concrete. For CSFRC with 0.5% and 1% volume fraction the energy absorbed

was 19.4 and 32.8 times that of control concrete. The energy absorbed by 0.5% volume

fraction of HSFRC was 42% more than that of 0.5% volume fraction of CSFRC. The energy

absorbed by 1% volume fraction of HSFRC and CSFRC was almost equal. The energy

absorbed for 1% volume fraction of HSFRC was 17% more than that of 0.5% volume fraction

of HSFRC .The energy absorbed for 1% volume fraction of CSFRC was 69% more than that

of 0.5% volume fraction of CSFRC.

100mm (3.94inch) panels

For HSFRC with 0.5% and 1% volume fraction the energy absorbed was 18.6 and 15.6 times

that of control concrete. For CSFRC with 0.5% and 1% volume fraction the energy absorbed

was 10.5 and 13.7 times that of control concrete. The energy absorbed by 0.5% volume

fraction of HSFRC was 73% more than that of 0.5% volume fraction of CSFRC.

The energy absorbed by 1.0% volume fraction of HSFRC was 7.7% more than that of 1.05%

volume fraction of CSFRC. The energy absorbed for 0.5% volume fraction of HSFRC was

20% more than that of 1.0% volume fraction of HSFRC. The energy absorbed for 1% volume

fraction of CSFRC was 33% more than that of 0.5% volume fraction of CSFRC.
Ductility

The ductility index for control concrete was found to be 1.00. The ductility index for all

SFRC panels was found to vary between 4to 5 for all 50mm thick panels and 2to3 for 100mm

panels. The energy absorbed for 1% volume fraction of CSFRC was 33% more than that of

0.5% volume fraction of CSFRC.

CONCLUSION

Based on the results of this experimental investigation the following conclusions are drawn:

1. Addition of steel fibres to concrete increases the compressive strength of concrete

marginally.

2. The tensile strength was found to be maximum with volume fraction of 1%.

3. The addition of fibres to concrete significantly increases its toughness and makes

the concrete more ductile as observed by the modes of failure.

4. The stiffness of beams was studied and was found to be maximum for hooked end

fibre with 1% volume fraction.

5. The ductility of steel fibre reinforced concrete was found to increase with increase

in volume fraction of fibres and the maximum increase was observed for hooked

fibres with 1% volume fraction.

6. The improvement in the energy absorption capacity of steel fibre reinforced

concrete panels with increasing percentage of steel fibre was clearly shown by the

results of the static load test on panels.

7. The 100mm thick panel absorbed the maximum energy of 1010Nm with Hooked

end steel fibre with volume fraction 0.5% for a deflection of 20mm.
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The authors thank Larsen & Toubro ltd. for their technical and other facilities provided at

various stages of this research work. The authors express their sincere gratitude and heartfelt

thanks to Dr.B.Sivarama Sarma, Head, R&D, Larsen & Toubro ltd, Chennai for his

valuable guidance and supervision throughout the project work. The authors are grateful to

Dr.M.Neelamegam, Deputy Director, SERC, Chennai for his esteemed suggestions and

guidance for this work. The authors sincerely thank all others who have helped directly or

indirectly at various stages of this work.

REFERENCES

1. Basi, Z. and Kaiser, H. (April 2001) "Steel Fibres as Crack Arrestors in Concrete."

The Indian Concrete Journal.

2. Craig, R., S. Mahadev, C.C. Patel, M. Viteri, and C. Kertesz. "Behaviour of Joints

Using Reinforced Fibrous Concrete." Fibre Reinforced Concrete International

Symposium, SP-81, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1984, pp. 125-167.

3. Craig, R. McConnell, J. Germann, N. Dib, and Kashani, F. (1984) "Behaviour of

Reinforced Fibrous Concrete Columns." Fibre Reinforced Concrete International

Symposium, SP-81, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, pp. 69-105.

4. Gopalakrishnan, S. Krishnamoorthy, T.S. Bharatkumar,B.H. and Balasubramanian, K.

(December 2003) “Performance Evaluation of Steel Fibre Reinforced Shotcrete”

National seminar on advances in concrete technology and concrete structures for the

future, Annamalai University

5. Kaushik S.K., Gupta.V.K., and Tarafdar.N.K., (1987) “Behaviour of fibre reinforced

concrete in shear” proceedings of the international symposium on Fibre Reinforced

Concrete International Symposium, volume I, chapter II, pp 1.133-1.149

6. Krishnamoorthy, T.S. Bharatkumar, B.H. Balasubramanian, K. and Gopalakrishnan,

 S. (February 2000) “Investigation on durability characteristics of SFRC” Indian

Concrete Journal page 94-98

7. Marc vandevalle, N.V. and Ganesh, P. (March 2003) Fibres in Concrete Indian

Concrete Journal, pp 939-940

8. Marc vandevalle, N.V. (1998) “Tunnelling the world” Dramix reference manual

9. Sivarama Sarma, B. (1997) , “Investigations on laced reinforced concrete beams with

normal and fibre reinforced concrete under monolithic and cyclic loading” Ph.D

Thesis, IIT, Madras.

10. P.Srinivasalu, N.Lakshmanan, K.Muthumani, B.Sivarama Sarma (1987) “Dynamic

behaviour of fibre reinforced concrete” proceedings of the international symposium on

Fibre Reinforced Concrete International Symposium, volume I, chapter II, pp 2.85

11. Taylor, M.R. Laydon, F.D. and Barr, B.I.G. (October 1996) “Toughness

characteristics of fibre reinforced concrete”, Indian Concrete Journal, pp.525-531

TABLES AND FIGURES

List of Tables:

Table 1 - Results of Compressive and Tensile strength

Table 2 - Results of beam stiffness

Table 3 - Results of energy absorption and ductility index

List of Figures:

Figure 1 - Empirical equation for CSFRC

Figure 2 - Empirical equations for HSFRC

Figure 3 - Panel failure in static load

Figure 4 - Panel arrangement for test

Figure 5 - Beam arrangement for test

 Table 1 Results of Compressive and Tensile strength
Specimen type Average Compressive strength Average Tensile Strength N/mm2
N/mm2(lbf/square inch) (lbf/square inch)
3 days 7 days 28 days 3 days 7 days 28 days

Control 25.27 39.59 59.89 2.55 3.54 4.81

specimens (3663.85) (5740.08) (8683.34) (369.72) (513.26) (697.39)
Hooked fibre 24.50 37.29 58.24 2.90 4.76 5.19
0.5% vf (3552.21) (5406.61) (8444.11) (420.47) (690.14) (752.49)
Hooked fibre 26.32 38.04 59.01 4.01 5.66 6.37
1.0% vf (3816.09) (5515.35) (8555.75) (581.40) (820.63) (923.588)

Corrugated 27.38 39.76 58.43 3.40 5.02 4.83

fibre 0.5% vf (3969.78) (5764.73) (8471.66) (492.96) (727.84) (700.29)

Corrugated 40.35 32.17 60.00 3.82 5.29 6.27

fibre 1.0% vf (5850.27) (4664.27) (8699.29) (553.86) (766.99) (909.08)

Table 2 Results of beam stiffness

Specimen Load Deflection 28 days flexural Toughness indices Stiffnes

ID kN mm Strength s
(kip) (inch) N/mm2 (kN/mm
(lbf/square )
inch) (kip/inc
h)

I5 I10

Control 34.00 1.30 6.04 1.00 1.00 26.15

specimens (7.64) (0.051) (875.73) (149.80)
28.50 1.13 5.06 1.00 1.00 25.30
(6.41) (0.044) (733.64) (145.68)
30.00 1.10 5.33 1.00 1.00 27.28
(6.74) (0.043) (772.77) (171.07)
Hooked 28.50 1.00 4.59 3.26 5.00 28.50
fibre0.5% (6.41) (0.0394) (665.50) (162.69)
27.00 1.30 4.80 3.44 4.67 20.77
(6.07) (0.051) (695.94) (119.02)
25.50 0.90 4.53 3.18 4.86 28.33
(5.73) (0.035) (656.80) (163.71)
Hooked 33.80 1.00 6.00 3.79 5.63 33.80
fibre1.0% (7.60) (0.0394) (869.93) (192.89)
31.50 1.00 5.68 4.16 5.88 31.50
(7.08) (0.0394) (823.53) (179.70)
 32.00 1.00 5.69 3.81 6.23 32.00
(7.19) (0.0394) (824.98) (182.49)
Corrugated 26.00 1.00 4.62 2.51 3.16 26.00
fibres0.5% (5.85) (0.0394) (669.85) (148.48)
27.00 1.10 4.80 2.70 4.18 24.55
(6.07) (0.043) (695.94) (141.16)
27.20 1.20 4.80 3.12 4.08 22.67
(6.12) (0.047) (695.94) (130.21)
Corrugated 26.50 1.30 4.71 3.1 5.02 20.38
fibres1.0% (5.96) (0.051) (682.89) (111.57)
27.50 1.10 4.80 3.71 5.92 25.00
(6.18) (0.043) (695.94) (143.72)
29.00 1.05 5.16 2.65 6.00 27.60
(6.52) (0.041) (748.14) (159.02)

Table 3 Results of energy absorption and ductility index

First Experimental Energy Deflection upto

Specimen ID crack Peak load absorbed 0.15% ultimate Ductility
load kN for 20mm load drop Index
kN (kip) deflection mm
(kip) Nm (inch)
(lbs-foot)
Control panel 10.92 _ 12.60 1.56 1.00
50mm (2.45) (894.04) (0.06)
8.54 _ 10.30 2.31 1.00
(1.92) (730.85) (0.091)
7.30 _ 5.76 1.51 1.00
(1.64) (408.71) (0.06)
Control panel 31.36 _ 53.55 2.88 1.00
100mm (7.05) (3799.69) (0.11)
40.04 _ 56.00 3.06 1.00
(9.00) (3973.53) (0.12)
37.51 _ 58.13 3.33 1.00
(8.43) (4124.66) (0.13)
Hooked 50mm 10.56 25.91 288.50 10.75 4.72
with 0.5%vf (2.37) (5.82) (20470.77) (0.42)
8.65 15.92 243.87 12.10 5.45
(1.94) (3.58) (17304.01) (0.48)
10.38 17.91 259.50 13.00 4.64
(2.33) (4.03) (18413.05) (0.51)
Hooked 37.63 77.62 936.00 11.50 3.73
100mm with (8.46) (17.45) (66414.69) (0.45)
0.5%vf
44.83 87.55 1105.80 8.60 2.56
(10.08) (19.68) (78462.99) (0.34)
 51.69 84.26 988.00 11.00 2.46
(11.62) (18.94) (70104.39) (0.43)
Hooked 50mm 9.87 19.35 327.50 10.15 4.77
with 1.0%vf (2.22) (4.35) (23238.05) (0.40)
12.61 23.94 262.63 11.10 7.87
(2.83) (5.38) (18635.14) (0.44)
9.30 23.16 338.25 10.00 4.27
(2.09) (5.21) (24000.82) (0.39)
Hooked 50.0 94.00 890.00 7.10 2.08
100mm with (11.24) (21.13) (63150.72) (0.28)
1.0%vf
33.43 100.00 952.70 10.00 2.52
(7.52) (22.48) (67599.65) (0.39)
Corrugated 8.75 13.23 164.50 9.00 3.26
50mm with (1.97) (2.97) (11672.24) (0.35)
0.5%vf
8.82 18.74 180.00 6.60 4.47
(1.98) (4.21) (12772.06) (0.26)
11.4 17.97 211.44 10.1 4.04
(2.56) (4.04) (15002.91) (0.40)

Corrugated 46.58 90.0 544.00 6.75 3.17

100mm with (10.47) (20.23) (38599.99) (0.27)
0.5%vf
49.45 62.59 564.50 5.10 1.93
(11.12) (14.07) (40125.54) (0.20)
46.20 89.89 644.25 6.80 2.31
(10.39) (20.21) (45713.31) (0.27)
Corrugated 11.15 31.14 361.50 9.10 4.95
50mm with (2.51) (7.00) (25650.54) (0.36)
1.0%vf
16.37 21.78 303.25 9.00 4.37
(3.68) (4.90) (21517.37) (0.35)
9.57 23.51 274.25 10.75 5.54
(2.15) (5.29) (19459.65) (0.42)
Corrugated 41.06 88.00 791.00 8.10 3.12
100mm with (9.23) (19.78) (56126.09) (0.32)
1.0%vf
45.18 95.00 769.88 8.20 3.00
(10.16) (21.36) (54627.50) (0.32)
 FOR I10 y = 3.68x + 1.9667 FOR I5 y = 0.7533x + 2.4
10
Toughness Indices

I5
8
I10
6
Expon.
4 (I5)
Expon.
(I10)
2

0
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25
Percentage of Fibre

Figure 1 Empirical equation for CSFRC

FOR I10 y = 2.14x + 3.7733 FOR I5 y = 1.2533x + 2.6667

10

I5
Toughness Indices

8
I10
6 Expon
. (I5)
Expon
4 . (I10)

0
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25
Percentage of fibre

Figure 2 Empirical equations for HSFRC

 Figure 3 Panel failure in static load

Figure 4 Panel arrangement for test Figure 5 Beam arrangement for test