Experimental Study On The Behaviour of Steel Fibre Reinforced Concrete
Experimental Study On The Behaviour of Steel Fibre Reinforced Concrete
A PROJECT REPORT
Submitted by
DEVI PRASADH.A
NANDA KUMAR.S
of
BACHELOR OF ENGINEERING
in
CIVIL ENGINEERING
ANNA UNIVERSITY
CHENNAI 600 025
APRIL 2005
1
To our beloved parents
2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First the authors thank the Almighty whose blessings made this project
a success.
This experimental work couldn’t have been made possible without the
support of Larsen & Toubro ltd. The authors thank the L&T for their
technical and other facilities provided at various stages of this research
programme.
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 express their heartfelt thanks to Mr.Sankaralingam, Deputy
General Manager, (Bridges) L&T, Chennai whose guidance made this project
possible.
The authors express their heartfelt thanks to Mr.S.N.Rajan, Mr.S.Manohar,
Mr.V.Senthil Kumar, Mr.R.Selvam, Mr.M.Senthil Kumaran, of R&D
department in L&T for their support during the experimental work. They also
express their sincere thanks to Laboratory staff of L&T for providing all
possible logistic support to carry out the experimental programme.
4
The authors also thank Ms.JessyRooby, Ms.PratheepaPaul,
Dr.AngelinePrabavathy, Mr.Kalyan Kumar and other faculty members of
Civil Engineering department, HCE who contributed to the development of this
work in many ways.
The authors express their heartfelt thanks to their parents, brothers, sisters,
and friends for their good wishes and constant encouragement throughout the
period of this research work.
The authors sincerely thank all others who have helped directly or indirectly at
various stages of this work.
The authors
5
ABSTRACT
corrugated fibres with aspect ratio of 55 were used. Specimens were cast
without fibres and with fibres of 0.5% and 1%. Tests were conducted for
absorption.
cast and tested under two point loading to find flexural strength,
calculate the energy absorption, ductility index and secant stiffness was
found.
6
ANNA UNIVERSITY
CHENNAI 600025
BONAFIDE CERTIFICATE
Ms.P.S.JOANNA
SUPERVISOR
LECTURER
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
HINDUSTAN COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
CHENNAI-603103
7
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT iv
LIST OF TABLE vii
LIST OF FIGURES viii
LIST OF SYMBOLS x
LIST OF ABBREVIATONS xi
1. INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 GENERAL 1
1.2 CONVENTIONAL REINFORCED CONCRETE 2
1.3 FIBRE REINFORCED CONCRETE 3
1.4 MANUFACTURING METHODS 4
1.5 FIBRE MECHANISM 5
1.6 FIBRE - MATRIX INTERACTION 5
1.7 BRIDGING ACTION 6
1.8 WORKABILITY 7
1.9 FEATURES AND BENEFITS OF SFRC 8
1.10 APPLICATIONS OF SFRC 9
1.11 USAGE OF SFRC IN INDIAN PROJECTS 9
1.12 ORGANISATION OF THESIS 10
3. LITERATURE REVIEW 12
3.1 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 12
3.2 INDIAN SCENARIO 13
3.3 TOUGHNESS 13
3.4 DURABILITY 15
3.5 SEISMIC RESISTANCE 16
8
3.6 SHEAR RESISTANCE 17
3.7 DYNAMIC RESISTANCE 18
3.8 BAR CONFINEMENT 20
3.9 BOND IMPROVEMENT 20
4. EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION 21
4.1 EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM 21
4.2 EXPERIMENTAL SETUP 23
4.2.1 CUBE COMPRESION TEST 23
4.2.2 SPLIT TENSILE TEST 23
4.2.3 FLEXURAL TEST 24
4.2.4 TOUGHNESS 26
4.2.5 STIFFNESS 26
4.2.6 EMPRICAL EQUATION 26
4.2.7 STATIC LOAD TEST 25
4.2.8 DUCTILITY INDEX 27
4.2.9 SECANT STIFFNESS 26
4.3 MATERIALS USED IN EXPERIMENT 30
4.3.1 CEMENT 30
4.3.2 FINE AGGREGATE 30
4.3.3 COARSE AGGREGATE 30
4.3.4 WATER 30
4.3.5 STEEL FIBRES 31
4.3.5.1 HOOKED END STEEL FIBRES 31
4.3.5.2 CORRUGATED STEEL FIBRES 31
4.3.6 CASTING OF SPECIMENS 32
4.4 CURING OF SPECIMENS 34
9
5.2.3 FLEXURE STRENGTH 58
5.2.4 TOUGHNESS INDICES 58
5.2.5 ENERGY ABSORPTION 59
5.2.6 DUCTILITY INDEX 60
5.2.7 SECANT STIFFNESS 61
7. REFERENCES 64
10
LIST OF TABLES
Title Page No
11
LIST OF FIGURES
Title Page No
Figure 5.10 Load Vs Deflection for beams (Both 1.0% & 0.5%) 49
12
Figure 5.11 Load Vs Deflection for 50mm panel (0.5%) 50
Figure 5.13 Load Vs Deflection for 50mm panel (Both 1.0% & 0.5%) 51
Figure 5.16 Load Vs Deflection for 100mm panel (Both 1.0% & 0.5%) 53
13
LIST OF SYMBOLS
Pf Failure load
b Breadth of beam
aggregate
µd Displacement ductility
δu Ultimate deflection
δy Yield deflection
14
LIST OF ABBREVIATONS
1 --- 0 B-a
2 --- 0 B-b
3 --- 0 B-c
15
DESIGNATION FOR PANEL
16
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
17
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 GENERAL
Concrete is one of the most versatile building materials. It can be
cast to fit any structural shape from a cylindrical water storage tank to a
rectangular beam or column in a high-rise building. 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. The major disadvantage is that
concrete develops micro cracks during curing. It is the rapid propagation
of these micro cracks under applied stress that is responsible for the low
tensile strength of the material. 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, improving fatigue performance is one of the primary
reasons for the extensive use of Steel Fibre Reinforced Concrete (SFRC)
in pavements, bridge decks, offshore structures and machine foundation,
where the composite is subjected to cyclically varying load during its
lifetime.
Today the space shuttle uses fibres in heat shield ties to control the
effects of thermal expansion and the human body’s strongest and most
flexible structures, muscles are made up of fibres. The fact is fibres of
almost any description improve the ability of substances to withstand
strain.
18
The main reasons for adding steel fibres to concrete matrix is to improve
the post-cracking response of the concrete, i.e., to improve its energy
absorption capacity and apparent ductility, and to provide crack resistance
and crack control. Also, it helps to maintain structural integrity and
cohesiveness in the material. The initial researches combined with the
large volume of follow up research have led to the development of a wide
variety of material formulations that fit the definition of Fibre Reinforced
Concrete. Steel fibre’s tensile strength, modulus of elasticity, stiffness
modulus and mechanical deformations provide an excellent means of
internal mechanical interlock. This provides a user friendly product with
increased ductility that can be used in applications of high impact and
fatigue loading without the fear of brittle concrete failure.
Thus, SFRC exhibits better performance not only under static and quasi-
statically applied loads but also under fatigue, impact, and impulsive
loading.
19
Steel bars, however, reinforce concrete against tension only locally.
Cracks in reinforced concrete members extend freely until encountering a
rebar. Thus need for multidirectional and closely spaced steel
reinforcement arises. That can’t be practically possible. Steel fibre
reinforcement gives the solution for this problem
20
Unlike resin and metal the fibre composites in which the fibres are
aligned and amount to 60 - 80 % of the composite volume, fibre
reinforced Cement or Concrete composites contain a less percentage of
fibres which are generally arranged in planar or random orientations.
Unidirectional fibres uniformly distributed throughout the volume
are the most efficient in uniaxial tension. While flexural strength may
depend on the unidirectional alignment of the fibres dispersed for away
from the neutral plane, flexural shear strength may call for a random
orientation. A proper shape and higher aspect ratio are also needed to
develop an adequate bond between the concrete and the fibre so that the
fracture of the fibres may be fully utilized.
21
1.5 FIBRE MECHANISM
Fibres work with concrete utilizing two mechanisms: the spacing
mechanism and the crack bridging mechanism. The spacing mechanism
requires a large number of fibres well distributed within the concrete
matrix to arrest any existing micro-crack that could potentially expand
and create a sound crack. For typical volume fractions of fibres, utilizing
small diameter fibres or micro fibres can ensure the required number of
fibres for micro crack arrest.
The second mechanism termed crack bridging requires larger straight
fibres with adequate bond to concrete. Steel fibres are considered a prime
example of this fibre type that is commonly referred to as large
diameter fibres or macro fibres. Benefits of using larger steel fibres
include impact resistance, flexural and tensile strengths, ductility, and
fracture toughness and this was proved by Bayasi et al (1989).
22
Figure 1.1 Fibre mechanism
23
Figure 1.2 Fibre Pull-out
1.8 WORKABILITY
A shortcoming of using steel fibres in concrete is reduction in
workability. Workability of SFRC is affected by fibre aspect ratio and
volume fraction as well the workability of plain concrete.
As fibre content increases, workability decreases. Most researchers limit
Vf to 2.0% and l/d to 100 to avoid unworkable mixes.
In addition, some researchers have limited the fibre reinforcement index
[V f×(l/d)] to 1.5 for the same reason. To overcome the workability
problems associated with SFRC, modification of concrete mix design is
recommended. Such modifications can include the use of additives.
24
1.9 FEATURES AND BENEFITS OF SFRC
i. Elimination of manufacturing, handling, storage and positioning of
reinforcement cages.
productivity.
v. Enhanced durability.
conventional reinforcement
ix. Excellent crack control, the fibres control and distribute the cracks.
shotcrete layer.
25
1.10 APPLICATIONS OF SFRC
Steel fibre reinforced concrete has gained widespread use in applications
such as the following:
Steel Fibre Reinforced Concrete has been used in various Indian projects
successfully namely,
26
1.12 ORGANISATION OF THESIS
The thesis is organized into five chapters. The first chapter gives an
introduction to the present study. The second chapter presents the
objective of this investigation. Literature survey is explained in the
chapter three. The experimental works done on the steel fibre reinforced
concrete are explained in chapter four. Chapter five gives the comparison
of test results and discussions. Chapter six gives the conclusion drawn
from this investigation and suggestions for future work.
27
CHAPTER 2
OBJECT IVE OF THE EXPERIMENT
28
CHAPTER 2
1) Compressive strength
3) Flexure strength
And these test results are compared with conventional concrete of M40
grade.
29
CHAPTER 3
LITERATURE REVIEW
30
CHAPTER 3
LITERATURE REVIEW
The World War II and later years saw G.Constatineso taking patents out
in England, 1943 and U.S.A., 1954. This was followed by numerous
patents, but the widespread use was hindered by high cost, poor testing
facilities and parallel rapid development of concrete reinforced with steel
bar and wire system. It was not until by James Romualdi in 1962 at the
Carnegie Institute of Technology that a clearer understanding of the
properties of SFRC emerged. Steel fibre reinforce shotcrete has been a
later extension of this understanding, with the first application being to
stabilise the rock slope of a tunnel portal, Idaho in 1972.
31
3.2 INDIAN SCENARIO
The Indian scenario offers the widest opportunities, but equally the
greatest challenge to the scientists, engineers and concrete technologists
in the use of fibre-cement composites in the construction industry.
Research and development work on FRC composites started in India in
early 1970s. A number of studies have been reported on the flexural
behaviour of Steel Fibre Reinforced Concrete (SFRC) beams and Slurry
Infiltrated Fibre reinforced Concrete (SIFCON) elements with particular
reference to improvements in cracking resistance, stiffness and ductility.
If there is a specific Indian standard code for steel fibre reinforced
concrete it will give positive impact on Indian infrastructure
development. Construction and maintenance provide an unlimited scope
for wide range of applications where the unique properties of FRC
materials can be used to the advantage of society, and to contribute to
better quality of living.
32
Countries like U.S.A, Japan and European countries like France,
Germany, Belgium, Austria, Spain and Netherlands etc have specific
standards in this respect.
In order to measure the influence of the fibres on the toughness,
(American Society for Testing and Materials) ASTM C-1018(U.S.A) and
(Japan concrete Institute) JCI SF4 (Japan) prescribe very similar bending
tests in which the load has been recorded according to an applied
deflection of the specimen.
33
3.4 DURABILITY
The corrosion resistance of Steel Fibre Reinforced Shotcrete (SFRS) is
governed by the same factors that influence the corrosion resistance of
conventionally reinforced concrete. As long as the matrix retains inherent
alkalinity and remains uncracked, deterioration of SFRC is not likely to
occur.
It has been found that good quality SFRC when exposed to atmospheric
pollution, chemicals or a marine environment, will only carbonate to a
depth of a couple of millimeters over a period of many years. Steel fibre
immediate layer of corrode to the depth of surface carbonation, causing
some rust colored surface staining. In a trafficked or abrasive exposure
environment such corroded surface fibres rapidly wear away and
disappear. The interior fibres beneath the immediate carbonated surface
layer, however, remain totally protected, provide the SFRC remains
uncracked.
34
3.5 SEISMIC RESISTANCE
By using SFRC in a beam-column joint, some of the difficulties
associated with joint construction can be overcome and a greater seismic
strength can be provided. Michael Gebman (2001) of San Diego State
University, U.S.A made two half-scale joints, constructed to reflect U.S
building code, two SFRC joints were constructed with a hoop spacing
increased by 50%, and two SFRC joints were constructed with a hoop
increased by 100%. Hooked-end steel fibres with a length of 1.2-in (31-
mm), a diameter of 0.020-in (0.50-mm) and an aspect ratio of 60 were
used at a volume fraction of 2%.
After simulating a quasi-static earthquake loading, the SFRC joints were
found to have dissipated more energy than the conventional joints. A 90%
increase in energy absorption was found for SFRC joints with hoop
spacing increased by 100%. A 173% increase in energy absorption was
found for SFRC joints with hoop spacing increased by 50%.
35
It was found that the steel fibre reinforced concrete joint had a higher
ultimate moment capacity, had better ductility, was stiffer, and was more
damage tolerant. Henager concluded that hoops, in the joint, could be
replaced with steel fibres. Henager also concluded that SFRC could
provide for a more cost effective joint.
36
Jindal and Hassan (1984) found that the shear resistance of SFRC joints
was greater than that of conventional joints. Steel fibres with a length of
1-in (25-mm), and an aspect ratio of 100 were used at a volume fraction
of 2%. It was observed that SFRC increased the shear and moment
capacities by 19% and 9.9% respectively. It was also observed that the
failure mode for SFRC specimens was ductile.
Kaushik et al (1987) found that a strength ratio of 1.67 can be achieved
with the addition of 1.5% volume fraction of steel fibres with aspect ratio
of 100 and the average maximum strain in fibre reinforced concrete
beams were of the order of 0.007 as compared to 0.0035 for plain
reinforced concrete beams.
37
Srinivasalu et al (1987) examined that the dynamic behaviour of
reinforced concrete beams with equal tension and compression reinforced
and varying percentages of steel fibres was studied at SERC. The test
beams were subjected to particular static loads those simulated different
levels of cracking before they were subjected successively to steady state
forced vibration tests. Dynamic flexural rigidity and damping were from
the data collected from the test.
Tests show that that the dynamic stiffness of SFRC beams in the
uncracked state was only marginally high (15% for a fibre volume
content of 1%) than for reinforced concrete beams.
However large increase in stiffness in the post cracking stage was
observed: but this was nearly the same for all the fibre volumes studies
(0.5% to 1%).
The damping values exhibited by SFRC beams showed significant
scatter. Researches concluded that the average in the uncracked state,
applicable to design of machine foundation is 1% critical. Equation are
also formulated from the test results to estimate the dynamic stiffness in
the beams in post cracking stage for use in the designs involving SFRC
elements in blast and earthquake resistant structures.
Tests concluded on SFRC specimens by Jacob et al at Institute of
Material and Structure Research, Yugoslavia also showed that the
inclusion of fibres improve the dynamic properties of concrete. It is also
found that resistance to blow fatigue are improved by the addition of
fibre. Resistance to blow was investigated using the Charpy stricking
pendulum an improvement in toughness was reported.
38
3.8 BAR CONFINEMENT
Confinement of the rebar in a structure is very important for the
performance of the joint in an earthquake. The bond between concrete
and rebar is affected by the amount of steel congestion in a joint. If there
are a lot of hoops overlapping with small spacing in a joint, then the bond
between concrete and rebar can be poor. Poor bond results when there is
not enough space between the bars to allow the concrete to pass through.
A joint with increased hoop spacing will have better bar confinement, as
there will be ample room for the concrete to flow around the bars and to
properly bond.
However, in a seismic beam-column joint it can be nearly impossible to
allow for an increased hoop spacing providing better confinement
because the high shearing forces present in a joint require numerous
hoops. To remedy this situation, steel fibre concrete can be used in place
of some hoops.
39
CHAPTER 4
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS
40
CHAPTER 4
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION
The first group is the control (Plain) concrete with 0% fibre (PCC)
The second group consisted of hooked end steel fibre of Vf 0.5%
(HSFRC 0.5)
The third group consisted of hooked end steel fibre of Vf 1.0%
(HSFRC 1.0)
The fourth group consisted of corrugated steel fibre of Vf 0.5%
(CSFRC 0.5)
The fifth group consisted of corrugated steel fibre of Vf 1.0%
(CSFRC 1.0)
41
EXPERIMENT
ON
SFRC
HOOKED, CORRUGATED,
DRAMMIX FIBRES STEWOLS FIBRES
(HSFRC) (CSFRC)
3 3 3 3 3 3
50MM PANELS 100MM PANELS 50MM PANELS 100MM PANELS 50MM PANELS 100MM PANELS
42
4.2 EXPERIMENTAL SETUP
43
testing machine and the cylinder specimen meets. The maximum load
was noted down. The results are tabulated in Table 5.2
The spilt tensile strength (Tsp) = 2P/пdl (MPa)
44
The load applying block was made into contact with the surface of the
specimen at the third point between the supports. The UTM was operated
at a rate of 0.1mm/min, load and displacement was recorded constantly.
The first crack load and the corresponding deflection were noted. The
loading was continued upto six times the first crack deflection. The
maximum load was measured. It took about 40 minutes to complete the
test on each specimen. The results are tabulated in Table 5.3
The modulus of rupture was calculated using the formula,
The modulus of rupture (fb) =Pl/bd²
45
4.2.4 TOUGHNESS
Toughness was calculated as the energy equivalent to the area under the
load deflection curve as per the procedure given in the American society
for testing and material’s ASTM C-1018.
Toughness index was calculated as the number obtained by dividing the
area upto a specified deflection by the area upto the first crack deflection.
The first crack is the point on the load deflection curve at which the curve
first becomes non linear (approximately the on set of cracking on the
matrix). Toughness indices I5 and I10 were calculated as area upto 3.0
times and 5.5 times the first crack deflection by the area upto a first crack
deflection respectively. Toughness indices are tabulated in Table 5.4.
4.2.5 STIFFNESS
Stiffness is an important property which determines the rigidity of the
material. Stiffness is the ability of the material to resist deformation under
the applied load.
Stiffness of the beam specimen was found as the slope of the load-
deflection curve upto the elastic region of the curve.
46
4.2.7 STATIC LOAD TEST
Static load test was performed on panels of dimension 500 mm×500
mm×50 mm and 500 mm×500 mm×100mm. The specimen was placed on
a simply supported condition on all four sides and a concentrated load
was applied over an area of 61sq.cm.
The actuator as operated at a rate of 1.5 mm/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). The testing
was continued till a deflection of 25mm or failure which ever occurred
earlier. The energy absorption upto the deflection of 25mm was
calculated as area under load deflection curve for that deflection, with an
increment of 2mm.
47
LVDT
48
4.2.8 DUCTILITY INDEX
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 drop. The ductility so
calculated is called the displacement ductility.
Ductility µd = δu / δy
The results are tabulated in the Table 5.8
49
4.3 MATERIALS USED IN EXPERIMENT
The materials used and their specifications are as follows:
4.3.1 CEMENT
Ordinary Portland cement was used and its specific gravity is 3.15 *.
The brand used was “UltraTech” with P53 grade.
The cement was confirming to IS 269-1976*.
4.3.4 WATER
As per IS 456-2000 recommendations, potable water was used for mixing
of concrete.
50
4.3.5 STEEL FIBRES
51
4.4 CASTING OF SPECIMENS
The materials were weighed accurately using a digital weighing
instrument. For plain concrete, fine aggregates, coarse aggregate, cement,
water were added to the mixture machine and mixed thoroughly for three
minutes. Steel fibres were mechanically sprinkled inside the mixture
machine after thorough mixing of the ingredients of concrete.
For preparing the specimen for compressive, tensile, and flexure strength
permanent steel moulds were used.
Wooden moulds were fabricated to cast the test specimens for panel
testing. Six wooden moulds were fabricated to facilitate simultaneous
casting of test panels. Two different thicknesses were adopted for the
panels; the panel sizes adopted were 500×500×50mm and
500×500×100mm.
Before mixing the concrete the moulds were kept ready. The sides and
the bottom of the all the mould were properly oiled for easy demoulding.
The panel was kept at an angle of 45° and then the concrete was splashed
over the panel from a distance of one metre. Then the top surface was
given a smooth finish.
52
Figure 4.8 Casting of panel
53
Figure 4.9 SFRC using corrugated fibre
54
CHAPTER 5
55
CHAPTER 5
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
5.1 RESULTS
Table 5.1 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
CSFRC
0.5
1.0
56
Table 5.2 TENSILE STRENGTH
CSFRC
0.5
HSFRC
1.0
1.0
57
Figure 5.1
BAR CHART FOR COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
70
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH N/mm2
60
PCC
50
HSFRC
40 0.5%
CSFRC
30 0.5%
20 HSFRC
1.0%
10
CSFRC
1.0%
0
3days 7days 28days
Figure 5.2
BAR CHART FOR SPLIT TENSILE STRENGTH
7
SPLIT TENSILE STRENGTH N/mm2
6 PCC
5
HSFRC
0.5%
4
CSFRC
3 0.5%
2 HSFRC
1.0%
1
CSFRC
1.0%
0
3days 7days 28days
58
TABLE 5.3 FLEXURAL STRENGTH
First
Specimen crack 28 days flexural Average flexural
Type load in In N/mm2 strength in
kN N/mm2
B-a 34.00 6.04
59
Figure 5.3
BAR CHART FOR FLEXURAL STRENGTH
6
PCC
4 HSFRC
FLEXURAL STRENGTH N/mm2
0.5%
CSFRC
0.5%
3
HSFRC
1.0%
CSFRC
2
1.0%
0
28 DAYS
60
Table 5.4 TOUGHNESS INDICES
Toughness index
Specimen ID
I5 I10
61
FOR I10 y = 3.68x + 1.9667 FOR I5 y = 0.7533x + 2.4
10
I5
8
Toughness Indices
I10
6
Expon.
(I5)
4
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 5.4 Empirical Equations for CSFRC
10
I5
8
Toughness Indices
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
62
Table 5.5 STIFFNESS FOR BEAMS
Specimen Load Deflection Stiffness Average Stiffness
ID in in in in
kN mm kN/mm kN/mm
63
Table 5.6 ENERGY ABSORBED BY CONTROL PANELS
64
Table 5.7 ENERGY ABSORBED BY SFRC PANELS
65
350
PCC
Energy absorption in Nm
300
250 HSFRC
0.5
200 CSFRC
0.5
150 HSFRC
1.0
100 CSFRC
1.0
50
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Deflection in mm
1200
Energy absorbtion in Nm
1000
PCC
800
HSFRC
600 0.5
CSFRC
0.5
400 HSFRC
1.0
200 CSFRC
1.0
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Deflection in mm
Figure 5.7 Energy absorption for 100mm panels
66
Table 5.8 DUCTILITY INDEX FOR PANELS
Deflection
Specimen ID First Crack upto 0.15% Ductility Average
Deflection in ultimate load Index Ductility
mm drop in mm Index
67
Table 5.9 SECANT STIFFNESS FOR PANEL SPECIMENS
Specimen ID
First crack Ultimate load 0.5% ultimate
load load drop
68
3,000
2,500 PCC
HSFRC
2,000
L o a d in kg f
CSFRC
1,500
1,000
500
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Deflection in mm
3,500
PCC
3,000
HSFRC
2,500
CSFRC
2,000
Load in kgf
1,500
1,000
500
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Deflection in mm
69
3,500
PCC
3,000
HSFRC 0.5
HSFRC 1.0
2,000
CSFRC 1.0
Load in kgf
1,500
1,000
500
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
De fle ction i n mm
Figure 5.10 Load Vs Deflection for beams (Both 1.0% & 0.5%)
70
Figure 5.11 Load Vs Deflection for 50mm panel (0.5%)
3500
3000
PCC
2500
HSFRC
L o a d in kg f
2000
CSFRC
1500
1000
500
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
Deflection in mm
71
3500
PCC
3000
HSFRC 0.5
2500 CSFRC 0.5
HSFRC 1.0
Load in kgf
2000
CSFRC 1.0
1500
1000
500
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Deflection in mm
Figure 5.13 Load Vs Deflection for 50mm panel (Both 1.0% & 0.5%)
72
9,000
8,000
PCC
7,000
HSFRC
6,000
CSFRC
L oa d in kg f
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Deflection in mm
Figure 5.14 Load Vs Deflection for 100mm panel (0.5%)
12000
PCC
10000
HSFRC
CSFRC
8000
L oad in kg f
6000
4000
2000
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
Deflection in mm
Figure 5.15 Load Vs Deflection for 100mm panel (1.0%)
73
12000
PCC
10000
HSFRC 1.0
CSFRC 1.0
8000
Load in kgf
HSFRC 0.5
6000 CSFRC 0.5
4000
2000
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Deflection in mm
Figure 5.16 Load Vs Deflection for 100mm panel (Both 1.0% & 0.5%)
74
Figure 5.17 Crack propagation of SFRC in beam
75
Figure 5.18 Panel failure in static load
76
PCC
CSFRC 0.5
CSFRC 1.0
77
5.2 DISCUSSIONS
78
5.2.3 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. When the ultimate load was reached the
concrete matrix failed, the first crack appeared on the beam. In all the
SFRC beams the failure was only by pullout of fibres at the maximum
deflection and not by tearing of fibres. In all the specimens (with and
without steel fibre) the failure was between the mid-third points. The
results are tabulated in table 5.3 and bar chart is plotted in Figure 5.3.
79
5.2.5 Stiffness
The stiffness for control beam was found as 28.46Nm. The stiffness for
0.5% volume fraction of HSFRC was reduced by 9% and for 1% volume
fraction of HSFRC; it was increased by 13.4%.
For CSFRC the stiffness was same for both 0.5% and 1% volume
fraction; it was reduced by 14%
The stiffness for 1.0% volume fraction HSFRC was 24% morethan that of
0.5% volume fraction of HSFRC. The stiffness values are tabulated in
Table 5.5
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.
80
100mm 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.
81
5.2.7 Secant stiffness
Secant stiffness for all panels was found at first crack load, ultimate load
and 0.5% ultimate load. Secant stiffness results are tabulated in
Table 5.9.
50mm panels:
Secant stiffness for 1% volume fraction of CSFRC was increased by 27%
when compared to control panel. For all other SFRC panels the stiffness
was decreased about 13%
100mm panels:
For 0.5% volume fraction of HSFRC, the secant stiffness was reduced by
1% and for1% volume fraction of HSFRC it was increased by 1%. For
0.5% and 1% volume fraction of CSFRC the secant stiffness was
increased by 35% and 42% respectively.
82
CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR
FUTURE WORK
83
CHAPTER 6
6.1 CONCLUSIONS
fraction of 1%.
decrease marginally.
whichever is required.
84
7. The ductility of steel fibre reinforced concrete was found to
volume fraction.
was clearly shown by the results of the static load test on panels.
with Hooked end steel fibre with volume fraction 0.5% for a
deflection of 20mm.
1. The aspect ratio and types of fibres can be varied and studied.
various proportions.
studied.
85
CHAPTER 7
REFERENCES
86
CHAPTER 7
REFERENCES
1. ASTM C-1018 (1997) “Standard Specification for flexural toughness and first
crack strength of fibre reinforced concrete & shotcrete” American society for
testing and materials
2. ASTM C1116 (1997) “Standard Specification for fibre reinforced concrete &
shotcrete” American society for testing and materials
4. ASTM A820-97 (1997) “Standard Specification for steel fibres for reinforced
concrete” American society for testing and materials
5. ACI 506.1R.84 (1984) “State of the art report on fibre reinforced shotcrete”
ACI committee report, American Concrete Institute
6. ACI Committee 544 (1984) "Guide For Specifying, Mixing, Placing, and
Finishing Steel Fibre Reinforced Concrete", American Concrete Institute.
8. I.S: 10262-1982 “Indian code for recommended guidelines for concrete mix
design”.
87
9. I.S 456-2000 “Indian code of practice for plain and reinforced concrete
(Fourth Revision)”.
10. I.S 516-1959 “Indian code for method of tests for concrete”.
12. Bayasi, Z. and Kaiser, H. (April 2001) "Steel Fibres as Crack Arrestors in
Concrete." The Indian Concrete Journal.
13. 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.
16. Henager, C.H. (1977) "Steel Fibrous, Ductile Concrete Joint for Seismic
Resistant Structures." Reinforced Concrete Structures in Seismic Zones, SP
53-14, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, pp. 371-386.
88
18. Johnston, C. (1994) "Fibre Reinforced Concrete." Significance of Tests and
Properties of Concrete and Concrete-Making Material, ASTM STP 169C,
pp. 547-561.
22. Marc vandevalle, N.V. and Ganesh, P. (March 2003) Fibres in Concrete
Indian Concrete Journal, pp 939-940
23. Marc vandevalle, N.V. (1998) “Tunnelling the world” Dramix reference
manual
89
26. Shetty, M.S. (2005), “Concrete Technology theory and practice”, (First
edition-1982) S.Chand and Company, New Delhi.
29. Swamy, R.N. (October 1996) “Fibre reinforced concrete: Prospect and
challenges, Indian Concrete Journal, pp 517-517
30. 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
90