See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/279610970

Test methods for flexural toughness characterization of fiber reinforced

concrete: Some concerns and proposition

Article  in  Aci Materials Journal · January 1995

CITATIONS READS

93 1,794

2 authors, including:

Nemkumar Banthia
University of British Columbia - Vancouver
317 PUBLICATIONS   5,049 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Shrinkage of concrete View project

High performance and sustainable composites based on alkali-activated materials (AAM) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Nemkumar Banthia on 29 February 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 ACI MATERIALS JOURNAL
Title no. 92-M06
Test Methods for Flexural Toughness Characterization
of Fiber Reinforced Concrete:
Some Concerns and a Proposition
by Nemkumar Banthia and Jean-François Trottier
The major advantage of fiber reinforced concrete over its unreinforced
counterpart is in the improved energy-absorption capability, or toughness.
The current methods of characterizing the toughness of fiber reinforced
concrete, however, have proven to be largely inadequate and have caused a
great deal of dissent and confusion. This paper discusses some of the major
difficulties with these standard methods and demonstrates their susceptibil-
ity to human judgment errors. The paper also proposes an alternate tech-
nique that addresses some of these concerns and is capable of
characterizing fiber reinforced concrete toughness in an objective manner.
Keywords: cracking (fracturing); fiber reinforced concretes; flexural
strength; flexural tests.
The usefulness of fiber reinforced concrete (FRC) in
various civil engineering applications is indisputable. Fiber
reinforced concrete has so far been successfully used in
slabs-on-grade, shotcrete, architectural concrete, precast
products, offshore structures, structures in seismic regions,
thin and thick repairs, crash barriers, footings, hydraulic
structures, and many other applications.
The enhanced performance of fiber reinforced concrete
over its unreinforced counterpart comes from its improved
capacity to absorb energy during fracture. While a plain
unreinforced matrix fails in a brittle manner at the occur-
rence of cracking stresses, the ductile fibers in fiber rein-
forced concrete continue to carry stresses beyond matrix
cracking, which helps maintain structural integrity and cohe-
siveness in the material. Further, if properly designed, fibers
undergo pullout processes, and the fractional work needed
for pullout leads to a significantly improved energy-absorp-
tion capability. Thus, fiber reinforced concrete exhibits
better performance not only under static and quasi-statically
applied loads but also under fatigue, impact, and impulsive
loadings.1 This energy-absorption attribute of FRC is often
termed “toughness.”
There is still considerable debate on how the toughness of
fiber reinforced concrete should be measured.2,3 The two
widely used standard test methods are based on determining
the energy required to deflect and fracture beam specimens
under four-point loading as discussed in the following
section.
48
TECHNICAL PAPER
ASTM C 1018, STANDARD TEST METHOD OF FRC
TOUGHNESS CHARACTERIZATION
The ASTM C 10184 standard method is based on deter-
mining the amount of energy required first to deflect and
crack an FRC beam loaded at its third points and then to
selected multiples of the first-crack deflection (Fig. 1).
Toughness indexes I5, I10, I20, I30, etc., are then calculated by
taking the ratios of the energy absorbed to a certain multiple
of first-crack deflection and the energy consumed up to the
occurrence of first crack. Expressed in general terms
Energy absorbed up to a certainmultiple of first crack deflection-
I N = ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Energy absorbed up to the first crack
The subscripts N in these indexes are based on the elasto-
plastic analogy such that, for a perfectly elasto-plastic mate-
rial, the index IN would have a value equal to N. The scheme,
thus, compares a given FRC with a conceptual material that
behaves in an ideally elasto-plastic manner. Implicitly, the
scheme also assumes that plain concrete is ideally brittle and,
hence, the various toughness indexes in its case assume a
constant value of 1. The strength remaining in the material is
characterized by the residual strength factors (R) derived
from the toughness indexes (Fig. 1). Expressed in general
terms RM,N, the residual strength factor between Indexes IM
and IN (N > M) is expressed as
RM,N = C{IN – IM}
where constant C = 100/(N – M) chosen such that for an
ideally elasto-plastic material the residual strength factors
assume a value equal to the stress at which the elastic-to-
plastic transition takes place. Plain concrete, with its ideally
ACI Materials Journal, V. 92, No. 1, January-February 1995.
Received May 5, 1993, and reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copyright
© 1995, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including the making of
copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent discus-
sion will be published in the November-December 1995 ACI Materials Journal if
received by Aug. 1, 1995.
ACI Materials Journal/January-February 1995

ACI member Nemkumar Banthia is an associate professor of civil engineering at the
University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. He is a member of ACI Committees
544, Fiber Reinforced Concrete; and 549, Ferrocement and Other Thin Reinforced
Products. His main research interests include instrumented impact testing, fracture
studies, low-temperature effects, and fiber reinforced concrete. He has authored or
coauthored more than 60 papers on concrete and fiber reinforced concrete.
ACI member Jean-François Trottier is an assistant professor at the Technical
University of Nova Scotia in Halifax, Canada. He received his PhD in civil
engineering from Laval University in Québec City. He is investigating static and
impact behavior of fiber reinforced cement-based materials.
brittle response, therefore, has residual strength factors equal
to zero.
Both toughness indexes and the residual strength factors
provide information on the shape of the load-deflection plot
and are presumably independent of the specimen size and
other testing variables. Notice that an accurate assessment of
the energy at first crack is of critical importance, since its use
is made later in the determination of all performance parame-
ters. Equally important is an exact determination of the beam
deflections both before and after the first crack.
JAPAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS (JSCE)
STANDARD SF-4 METHOD OF FRC TOUGHNESS
CHARACTERIZATION
In this technique, the area under the load-versus-deflection
plot up to a load point deflection of span/150 is obtained.5
Fig. 1—ASTM C 1018 and JSCE SF-4 techniques of fiber reinforced toughness characterization.
ACI Materials Journal/January-February 1995
From this measure of flexural toughness, a flexural tough-
ness factor (FT) is calculated as shown in Fig. 1. Note that
the flexural toughness factor (FT) has the units of stress such
that its value indicates, in a way, the post-matrix cracking
residual strength of the material when loaded to an arbitrary
deflection of span/150. Clearly, the flexural toughness factor is
dependent on specimen geometry and other testing variables.
The chosen deflection of span/150 for its calculation is purely
arbitrary and not based on serviceability considerations.
A large number of concerns have been raised about these
two standardized test methods. The purpose of this paper is
to highlight some of their limitations, to describe some of the
difficulties commonly encountered, and to caution against
some of the pitfalls. Commonly made errors in conducting
these tests and in analyzing the test results are also identified.
Finally, a simplified technique of analyzing the data from
these tests is proposed, which addresses some of these
concerns.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
Fiber reinforced concrete (FRC), on account of its superior
energy-absorption capability or “toughness,” is a material
suitable for numerous applications. There is, however, a
great deal of debate over how the toughness of FRC should
be characterized. The inadequacy of the currently available
test methods is widely recognized and need is felt to devise
49
a better characterization tool. This paper describes the defi-
ciencies of the current techniques and the difficulties
encountered during their use. The paper also proposes a
better characterization scheme.
CONCERNS WITH THE ASTM C 1018 TEST METHOD
Measuring true specimen deflections
Given that toughness characterization is based on energy
computations, an accurate measurement of deflections is
very important. In the language of the code, “...exercise care
to ensure that the measured deflections are the net values
exclusive of any extraneous effects due to seating or twisting
of the specimen on its supports or deformation of the support
system... .” Given this rigorous requirement, a great deal of
the data available in the literature based on inaccurate deflec-
tion measurements is worthless.
The error in the measured deflections due to twisting of the
specimen can be minimized by measuring displacements on
Fig. 2—Load-deflection curves obtained using three different deflection measurement
techniques (1 ksi = 6.895 MPa; 1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1 kip = 4.448 kN).
50
both sides of the specimen and averaging the measured
values. In a flexural specimen under a transverse load,
however, the bigger source of error is the settlement of the
specimen supports themselves, such that the measured
displacement of the load points comprises not only the true
displacement due to the response of the beam material to the
applied stress but also those arising from seating and the
downward movement of the beam as a rigid body. This is
particularly true at the instant of first crack, where deflec-
tions are small and the error can be relatively large. If not
properly considered, the settlement in the supports can lead
to a gross overestimation of the first-crack energy and,
hence, to erroneous indexes. This is illustrated in Fig. 2,
where load-versus-deflection plots obtained on a steel fiber
reinforced concrete beam with deflections measured in three
different ways are shown. Deflections were measured as the
movement of the loading cross-arm itself, by an LVDT in
ACI Materials Journal/January-February 1995
contact with the top of the specimen and, finally, by using a
device called the “Yoke” shown in Fig. 3. While the LVDT
and the cross-arm displacements include the settlement of
supports, in the case of the “Yoke,” the rigid body displace-
ments are automatically subtracted from the measured
deflections such that only the true deflections are recorded.
Note in Fig. 2 that the first-crack displacements measured
using the “Yoke” alone match the theoretical value6 of
0.038, and the cross-arm and top LVDT displacements are,
respectively, 60 and 28 times greater. Such an error in first-
crack displacement clearly leads to large errors in the calcu-
lations of the first-crack energy and, hence, in the toughness
index calculations, as shown in Fig. 2.
Fig. 3—Use of a Yoke to measure true specimen deflections.
Fig. 4—Load-deflection curves for plain and steel fiber reinforced concrete beams (1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1 kip = 4.448 kN; 1 lb =
0.4536 kg; 1 ft3 = 0.02832 m3).
ACI Materials Journal/January-February 1995
Locating the first crack
The calculations of toughness indexes require an accurate
assessment of the first-crack energy which constitutes the
denominator in the definition of the various indexes. Any
error in the first-crack energy will lead to a significant error
in the values of the various indexes. As demonstrated in the
following paragraphs, locating the point on the load-deflec-
tion curve where the first crack occurs is not so simple.
Fig. 4 compares the load-versus-deflection curves for
identical specimens of plain and steel fiber reinforced
concrete. The deflections in both cases were measured accu-
rately using a “Yoke,” and both load and deflection data were
acquired digitally at a frequency of 10 Hz. In Fig. 5, the initial
ascending parts of theses curves are magnified to locate the first
crack. Notice that both these curves have substantial nonlin-
earity even prior to attaining the peak load, making it almost
impossible to accurately locate the first crack.
According to ASTM C 1018, “... first crack is the point on
the load-deflection curve at which the form of the curve ‘first’
becomes nonlinear (approximately the onset of cracking in the
concrete matrix)... .” Based on this, the first crack may be
placed at Point A where the deflection is 0.0175 mm. On
comparing this deflection value with the range of deflections
suggested in the standard (for an identical specimen) of
between 0.038 to 0.064 mm, it is apparent that the chosen
deflection is 2.17 to 3.65 times smaller than the code-
suggested deflection. If one places the first crack at the point
of “significant” nonlinearity with a decrease in concrete stiff-
ness, as suggested recently by Johnston,7 one may place the
first crack at Point B corresponding to a deflection of 0.03
mm, which is still outside the suggested range.
51
 There are compelling arguments to locate the first crack at
Point C at a deflection of 0.04 mm in Fig. 5. First of all, if the
objective of the test method is to quantify what FRC can do
over and above plain concrete, Point C needs to be chosen as
the first crack. Besides, for low-fiber fraction FRC, the peak
load is logically the end of the matrix contribution and essen-
tially the commencement of fiber reinforcing action. Point C
is, therefore, justifiably the “real” first crack. This point also
lies in the suggested range of deflections.
In Table 1, the indexes are calculated based on the three
possible locations of the first crack at Points A, B, and C
corresponding to first-crack deflections of 0.0175, 0.03, and
0.04 mm, respectively. Notice that, based on where the first
crack is assumed to occur, extreme variations in the index
values may occur. Even if standardized equipment with high
precision is used as in this case, the placement of first crack
is highly subjective, which is bound to lead to large varia-
tions between operators and laboratories. Included in Table
1 are also the indexes for plain concrete. Notice that the I5 for
plain concrete is 1 only when the first crack is placed at Point
C; otherwise, it assumes values significantly greater than
unity and even as high as that for FRC!
The ascending parts of the load-deflection curves for
FRCs based on matrixes with different compressive
strengths (40, 55, and 85 MPa) are shown in Fig. 6. Curves
for specimens without fibers are also shown. These are identical
to those with fibers. Notice that, as the compressive strength
of the matrix is increased, the nonlinearity in the prepeak part
Fig. 5—Initial ascending parts of curves in Fig. 4 magnified (1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1 kip = 4.448 kN)
52
of the curve decreases, and the curves for a very high-
strength matrix become almost linear. Quantitatively, while
the nonlinear strains/deformations in the case of normal
strength concrete may be as high as 30 percent of the total,
those for the high-strength matrix may be as low as 2
percent. This is well expected since, in the case of a high-
strength matrix, less microcracking before the peak load
occurs, which reduces the apparent nonlinearity. This also
affirms that the prepeak nonlinearity observed with normal
strength matrixes (Fig. 5) is real and not merely an artifact of
the test apparatus.
Instability after peak load
Fig. 6 shows that the prepeak response for both plain and
FRC is nearly identical, and it is only after the occurrence of
the peak load that any real influence of fibers is observed.
The point of peak load occurrence, however, is also the point
of instability for the loading machine which, if not stiff
enough, will undergo sudden unloading and release large
amounts of energy. This sudden release of energy has major
effects on the load-deflection curve immediately following
the peak load, particularly for FRCs with low fiber contents
and with very high-strength matrixes.
The instability problem is illustrated in Fig. 7 where an
unstable curve for FRC-A with a lower fiber content of a less
efficient fiber is compared with a stable curve for FRC-B
with a higher fiber content of a relatively more efficient
fiber. In both cases, the machine releases the same amount of
ACI Materials Journal/January-February 1995
energy at Point A. In the case of FRC-B, the material, due to The problem of instability is exemplified in the case of a
its high fiber content, absorbs this energy and averts insta- high-strength matrix, where in some cases even I30 can be
bility. However, in the case of FRC-A with a low fiber measured in the unstable zone. A high-strength matrix can
content, the incoming energy causes instability, and the support a higher peak load, which inadvertently leads to a
curve jumps suddenly from Point A (deflection 0.037 mm) bigger energy release at the occurrence of peak load. The
to Point B (deflection 0.33 mm) in a matter of 1/10 sec (the failure can, therefore, transform from stable to unstable by
data-logger, even when running at a high-acquisition merely increasing the matrix strength, as shown in Fig. 8.
frequency, usually records no points in between). With Point
B being the true level of post-peak load-carrying capacity of Table 1—Toughness indexes as affected by first-
crack placement
the specimen, one may postulate that an energy equal to that
Toughness indexes
contained in the triangle ABC is the amount by which the
First crack at First crack at First crack at
performance has been overestimated. With the portion of the 0.0175 mm, 0.03 mm, 0.04 mm,
Material Point A Point B Point C
curve immediately following the peak load being of primal
I5 = 5.73 I5 = 3.82 I5 = 3.33
importance in index calculations, the indexes falling in this
I10 = 10.94 I10 = 7.08 I10 = 5.96
region will be incorrect. This is readily apparent in the values
of the toughness indexes, as shown in Fig. 7. FRC-A, even FRC 40 kg/m3 I20 = 21.27 I20 = 13.09 I20 = 11.15

with a lower fiber content, registered higher I5 and I10 I30 = 31.62 I30 = 19.24 I30 = 16.50
indexes (measured in the unstable zone) than FRC-B with a I60 = 61.42 I60 = 38.02 I60 = 32.85
higher fiber content! Plain concrete I5 = 4.57 I5 = 1.65 I5 = 1.00

Fig. 6—Prepeak load-deflection curves for plain and fiber reinforced concretes with low-,
medium, and high-strength matrixes (1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1 kip = 4.448 kN; 1 lb = 0.4536 kg;
1 ft3 = 0.02832 m3).

ACI Materials Journal/January-February 1995 53

Fig. 7—Stable and unstable failures in fiber reinforced concrete (1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1 kip = 4.448 kN).

Fig. 8—Change in nature of failure from stable to unstable with increase in compressive strength (1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1 kip =
4.448 kN)

54 ACI Materials Journal/January-February 1995

 The problem associated with instability can be remedied
by using a closed-loop servo-controlled test system. This
kind of sophisticated equipment, unfortunately, is rarely
used by the commercial laboratories.
CONCERNS WITH THE JSCE SF4 TEST METHOD
This method also relies on the measurement of energy
absorbed by the specimen and, as such, an accurate measure-
ment of specimen deflections is of importance. Note in Fig.
2 that the FT values when displacements are measured in
three different ways are also affected, but not as dramatically
as the toughness indexes. Identifying the correct location of
the first crack, which is crucial and one of the main problems
with the ASTM method (Fig. 5), is not a concern with the
JSCE method.
Unlike the ASTM method, the instability in the load-
deflection plot soon after the first crack is not of major
concern in the JSCE method, as shown in Fig. 7; the end-
point deflection of span/150 is too far out in the curve to be
affected by the instability in the initial portion.
The JSCE technique, however, is also not without limita-
tions and concerns. First of all, the flexural toughness factors
are specimen geometry-dependent, which makes an exact
correlation with the field performance of FRC rather diffi-
cult. Also, the end-point chosen on the curve at a deflection
of span/150 (Fig. 1) is often criticized for being much greater
than the acceptable deflection/serviceability limits. The
behavior immediately following the first crack, which may
be of importance in many applications, is not indicated in the
flexural toughness factor in any way. Finally, the technique
may be criticized for failing to distinguish between the
prepeak and the post-peak behaviors by adopting a smeared
approach of using the combined area under the curve to
calculate the flexural toughness factors.
Fig. 9—Proposed technique.
ACI Materials Journal/January-February 1995
PROPOSED TECHNIQUE
Rationale
1. The ascending part of the load-deflection curve up to the
occurrence of the peak load will always be nonlinear, and
locating the point where the matrix cracking first occurs will
always be subjected to human error. The technique, there-
fore, must not be sensitive to errors made in locating the first
crack like the current ASTM method.
2. The instability observed in the load-deflection curve at
matrix cracking in the case of FRC with either a low-fiber
volume or with a high-strength matrix will occur in all load-
controlled tests. This should be properly dealt with.
3. With the current design practice, the use of energy (or
toughness) as a material property in designs is somewhat
intangible. Until advanced design tools are developed to
design for toughness, the characterization of FRC with
residual strength values after matrix cracking, as done in the
JSCE method, appears to be more appropriate.
Based on these guidelines, analysis of the load-deflection
curves (obtained by testing flexural specimens under third-
point loading as in the other standard techniques) is proposed
as follows (see Fig. 9):
1. Obtain the load-versus-deflection curve (as in the case
of other methods) with accurate deflection measurements
using a “Yoke” or a similar device.
2. Locate the peak load and divide the curve into two
regions: the prepeak region before the occurrence of the peak
load and the post-peak region after the peak load. Note the
value of load at the peak and measure the area under the
curve up to the peak load. This measure of energy is termed
prepeak energy and denoted as Epre in Fig. 9. For some
composites with high fiber volume fractions, two load peaks
may occur: one at the end of the matrix contribution and the
other when the fibers reach their ultimate capacity. In such
55
Fig. 10—Characterizing FRC using proposed technique. Corresponding toughness indexes and Japanese flexural toughness
factors are also shown (1 ksi = 6.895 MPa; 1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1 kip = 4.448 kN).

cases, clearly, the first load peak, corresponding to the end of
the matrix/composite contribution, should be considered.
3. Locate points on the curve in the post-peak region with
specimen deflections equal to various fractions of the span L/m1,
L/m2, etc. The suggested fractions are between L/3000
and L/150. Measure the areas under the curve up to these
deflections denoted as Etotal,m (measured at a deflection of L/m).
4. Subtract the prepeak energy Epre from the various
values of Etotal,m to obtain the post-peak energy values to a
deflection of L/m, Epost,m.
5. Calculate post-crack strengths (PCSm) in the post-peak
region at the various deflections. The post-crack strength at
a deflection of L/m, PCSm, is defined as
( E post,m )L
PCS m = -------------------------------------
L
⎛ ----- – δ peak⎞ bh
2 using the best possible equipment, the ASTM C 1018 anal-
⎝M ⎠ ysis technique is not able to distinguish between these two
Notice that the PCSm values are calculated from the post-
peak energy (Epost,m) and not the total energy (Etotal,m), such
that the prepeak energy (Epre) has been omitted from the
calculations. The advantage over the ASTM C 1018 tech-
nique is that Epost,m is obtained by subtracting Epre from the
total energy Etotal,m (unlike the ASTM technique, where divi-
sion by the first-crack energy is involved) and as such the
resulting PCSm values are not sensitive to small errors made
in the calculation of the prepeak energy Epre. The value of m
can be chosen depending on the application, and it may even
coincide with the Japanese value of 150.
As expected, the instability problem will exist even in the
calculation of the proposed PCSm values. It is proposed that
the triangle ABC in Fig. 7 should not be considered in the
calculation of the PCSm, and the curve should be considered
to follow the path A-C-B. However, the test report must
identify the PCSm values that fall in the unstable zone CB.
EXAMPLE
Consider the curves for two different fiber reinforced
concretes (Beams A and B) as shown in Fig. 10. Note that
Beam A, in general, may perform superior to Beam B, with
the exception that in the beginning Beam B outperforms
Beam A. Notice from the table in Fig. 10 that, in spite of
very different composites. The JSCE technique identifies the
general superior performance of Beam A but fails to indicate
the initial superior performance of Beam B. This technique
also incorrectly combines the elastic and the post-elastic
parts of the curve to produce a coupled flexural toughness
factor at a very high deflection.
Figure 10 also reports the proposed PCSm values calcu-
lated at beam deflections equal to various fractions of the
span L/m. Notice that PCSm values readily recognize that
Beam B is better performing initially up to a deflection of

56 ACI Materials Journal/January-February 1995

 span/1500, after which Beam A takes over and outperforms
Beam B, as seen visually.
The important benefit of the proposed technique is that
there is no ambiguity in either identifying the peak load on
the curve or in calculating the prepeak energy absorbed. The
proposed PCSm values, therefore, are not susceptible to any
human judgmental error.
One apparent criticism of the proposed analysis technique,
as also with the Japanese technique, is the inability of the
PCSm values to distinguish clearly between low fiber volume
composites where only toughening occurs and high fiber
volume composites where both strengthening and tough-
ening take place. However, if strengthening takes place in
the composite after matrix cracking, the peak load will be
higher and located at a greater deflection, such that the
prepeak energy Epre will be higher. Any strengthening in the
system, if it occurs, will result in the higher values of Ppeak
and Epre.
The use of the proposed technique to analyze various fiber
reinforced concretes has indicated that the PCSm values are
sensitive not only to the characteristics and volume fraction
of the fiber but also to the strength and composition of the
concrete matrix.8
CONCLUSIONS
The use of the ASTM C 1018 and JSCE SF-4 techniques
of fiber reinforced concrete toughness characterization have
caused a great deal of confusion. This paper describes some
of the difficulties commonly experienced with these tech-
ACI Materials Journal/January-February 1995
View publication stats
niques and the prevalent concerns. The paper also proposes
an alternate method of analyzing the curves by calculating
post-crack strength values at various deflections. The
proposed technique leads to FRC attributes that are not
susceptible to human judgmental errors.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The continued financial support of the Natural Sciences and Engineering
Research Council of Canada is greatly appreciated.
REFERENCES
1. Banthia, N.; Mindess, S.; and Bentur, A., “Impact Resistance of
Concrete, Materials and Structures,” RILEM 20 (119), pp. 293-302.
2. Gopalaratnam, V. S., et al., “Fracture Toughness of Fiber Reinforced
Concrete,” ACI Materials Journal, V. 88, No. 4, July-Aug. 1991, pp. 339-353.
3. Johnston, C. D., Discussion of “Fracture Toughness of Fiber Reinforced
Concrete,” by Gopalaratnam, V. S., et al., ACI Materials Journal, V. 89,
No. 3, May-June 1992, pp. 304-309.
4. ASTM C 1018, “Standard Test Method for Flexural Toughness and
First Crack Strength of Fiber Reinforced Concrete (using Beam with
Third-Point Loading (4.02),” American Society of Testing and Materials,
Philadelphia, 1990, pp. 637-644.
5. Japan Society of Civil Engineers, “Method of Test for Flexural
Strength and Flexural Toughness of Fiber Reinforced Concrete,” Standard,
SF-4, 1984, pp. 58-66.
6. Banthia, N., and Trottier, J.-F., Discussion of “Fiber Type Effects on
the Performance of Steel Fiber Reinforced Concrete,” by Soroushian, P.,
and Bayasi, Z., ACI Materials Journal, V. 89, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 1992, pp.
106-107.
7. Johnston, C. D., Methods of Evaluating the Performance of Fiber
Reinforced Concrete, Materials Research Society Symposium Proceedings,
V. 211, S. Mindess and J. Skalny, eds., Boston, 1990, pp. 15-24.
8. 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.
57