Transportation Research Record 1740 ■
Paper No. 00 - 0943
Responses of Plain and Steel
Fiber–Reinforced Concrete Beams to
Temperature and Mechanical Loads
Experimental Study
Ali Alavizadeh-Farhang and Johan Silfwerbrand
To study the structural responses of plain and steel fiber–reinforced
concrete pavements under combined mechanical and thermal loads, two
test series have been conducted with plain and steel fiber–reinforced
concrete beams. The magnitude and duration of the differences in the
induced stresses caused by traffic load and a positive nonlinear temper-
ature gradient (the top surface was warmer than the bottom surface
during the day) may lead to some relaxation of thermal stresses and sub-
sequently increase the load-carrying capacity. Considering the loss of
support contact in the interior part of the concrete pavement, the exper-
imental study of combined loading with restrained concrete beams may
provide some insight and an indication of whether the superposition of
stresses is a proper approach. The beams were subjected to solely ther-
mal, solely mechanical, and combined thermal and mechanical loads
while the rotation of the beam at supports was prevented. The results of
tests conducted with both plain and steel fiber–reinforced beams showed
that the superposition of stresses under combined loading before crack-
ing gave a satisfactory estimation of the load-carrying capacities. The
results also showed that the effect of relaxation of stresses due to short-
term thermal loads was not noticeable in the load-carrying capacity
achieved in tests with combined thermal and mechanical loads. On the
contrary, a tendency for reduction of the load-carrying capacity was
observed at higher thermal gradients. In addition, the overall structural
responses of steel fiber–reinforced concrete beams under mechanical
load and a nonlinear temperature gradient combined were similar to the
responses of plain concrete beams up to the cracking stage. However,
the release of thermal stresses due to cracking and the considerable
residual load-carrying capacity after cracking were the most important
observations for steel fiber–reinforced concrete beams.
Concrete pavements are generally subjected to two types of loads
with dissimilar properties. The first group of loads may be defined
as mechanical loads (static and dynamic loads), to which concrete
pavements are frequently exposed. In addition to mechanical loads,
restrained loads are another essential category of loads and are caused
by restrained movements such as the expansion, contraction, and
curvature of concrete pavements. Restrained loads usually occur as
a result of blocked thermal movement, prevented shrinkage, and
unwanted sinking of supports. A great deal of experimental research
studying the behavior of concrete pavements subjected solely to
either mechanical or restrained loads has successfully been con-
ducted. On the contrary, only a small percentage of the experimen-
tal effort has been dedicated to obtaining an understanding of the
Department of Structural Engineering, Royal Institute of Technology, SE-100 44
Stockholm, Sweden.
25
behavior of concrete pavements subjected to a mechanical load and
a nonlinear temperature gradient combined.
Two types of stresses are usually considered in pavement design:
(a) those produced by applied mechanical loads (e.g., traffic loads)
and (b) those produced by restrained loads such as thermal and shrink-
age loads. In the case of thermal loads, the temperature gradient is
often assumed to be linear across the depth. These stresses are usually
computed separately, and the results are subsequently added. Because
concrete pavements are usually exposed simultaneously to combina-
tions of loads that may have different magnitudes and durations, struc-
tural responses could be different. Consequently, the stresses that
develop in a concrete road because of combined loads may be differ-
ent from those determined by the traditional computation approach.
Several factors could influence the stresses. (a) The nonlinearity of
thermal gradients leads to internal restraining in the concrete sec-
tion. This leads to self-equilibrating stresses, which in many cases
reduce the magnitudes of tensile stresses and reform the stress distri-
bution across the concrete pavement depth. (b) The duration of diur-
nal thermal gradients and subsequent thermal stresses is some hours,
whereas the duration of a traffic load is parts of a second. The short
time creep for thermal stresses is a function of the stress-strength ratio,
time, and temperature. Relaxation of the thermal stresses may lead to
some increase in the load-carrying capacity of the structure. (c) In steel
fiber–reinforced concrete (SFRC) pavements, the thermal stresses
may cause cracking and a subsequent reduction of stiffness. How-
ever, the load-carrying capacity of the pavement under mechanical
load may remain the same as the load-carrying capacity of uncracked
pavement because of the action of the fibers. This reduction of stiff-
ness leads to a reduction of the external moment caused by restrained
thermal deflection, and subsequently, a lower thermal stress level
will be achieved.
These effects mean that calculation of stresses by use of super-
position is likely to be an approximate method that could overestimate
or underestimate the stresses acquired in the concrete pavement. The
aim of the project described here is mainly to expand the existing
knowledge of the real behavior of plain and steel fiber–reinforced con-
crete beams due to combined mechanical and restrained loads and,
finally, to improve the design rules for concrete pavements in Sweden.
BEAM DETAILS AND TESTING PROCEDURE
The experimental plan developed for the present study involved two
test series that included 10 and 14 beam tests, respectively. To exam-
ine the test setup and the practicality of the experiments, a number of
26 Paper No. 00 - 0943
pretests were carried out. Furthermore, the first test series of tests was
conducted with plain concrete beams subjected to combined thermal
and mechanical loads, whereas the second series of tests was carried
out with steel fiber–reinforced concrete beams subjected to the same
type of combination of loads.
Prevention of the rotation of the beam at the support provided
restraint load. Thermal loading induced nonlinear thermal gradients,
which caused curling of the beam. The nonlinear thermal gradient was
introduced by heating the top surface, and the mechanical load was
introduced with a hydraulic jack, resulting in a point load at midspan.
Plain Concrete Beams
The first test series, which comprised 10 beams, was conducted with
plain concrete beams (PCBs). One beam was instrumented with
24 thermocouples to study the induced temperature gradients along
the length, width, and height of the beam. Three beams were subjected
solely to ultimate mechanical load. One beam was simply supported,
and the rest of the beams were externally restrained. Three beams (two
externally restrained beams and one simply supported beam) were
subjected solely to ultimate thermal load. Three externally restrained
beams were subjected to different combinations of mechanical and
thermal loads. The thermal loads were intended to be 20, 40, and
60 percent of the restrained ultimate thermal load, respectively.
Ten beams with rectangular cross sections were tested. The nom-
inal length l, height h, and width b of the beam were 3600, 300, and
150 mm, respectively. The material strength tests were conducted
according to Swedish standards (1). The concrete had a compressive
strength ( fcc) between 38.6 and 42.6 MPa and a splitting tensile
strength between 3.4 and 3.8 MPa. The flexural tensile strength ( fct)
varied between 4.8 and 5.2 MPa. The modulus of elasticity (E) was
estimated to be between 27 000 and 30 000 MPa.
The beams were shear reinforced over the supports to avoid a shear
failure. The beams were cast with ready-mixed concrete, which was
delivered on two different dates; therefore, the mechanical properties
were slightly different.
Beam PCBT0 was subjected to a thermal load to study the distri-
bution of temperature along the length, width, and height of the beam
and to find a proper thermal load step for the thermal testing. Beams
PCBP1, PCBP2, and PCBP3 were mechanically loaded up to failure;
PCBP1 and PCBP3 were externally restrained, and PCBP2 was sim-
ply supported. Beams PCBT1, PCBT2, and PCBT3 were exposed
solely to a thermal load. Beams PCBT1 and PCBT3 were externally
restrained and were thermally loaded to failure. Beam PCBT2 was
simply supported and was thermally loaded up to a certain level of
temperature difference. Beams PCBPT1, PCBPT2, and PCBPT3
were restrained and were subjected to different combinations of ther-
mal and mechanical loads. The thermal loads were intended to be 20,
40, and 60 percent of the maximum ultimate thermal load.
Steel Fiber–Reinforced Concrete Beams
The second test series consisted of 14 beams and concerned the
behavior of steel fiber–reinforced concrete beams under combined
loads. The test specimens were named steel fiber–reinforced concrete
beams. Among the beams in this group, four beams were subjected
to mechanical loads. Two beams were externally restrained and two
were simply supported. Three externally restrained beams were ex-
posed to thermal loading. Six externally restrained beams were sub-
Transportation Research Record 1740
jected to combined thermal and mechanical loads with various ratios
of load combinations.
All the beams had dimensions of 3600 × 250 × 150 mm. The beam
height was reduced from 300 mm in the plain concrete test series to
250 mm in the steel fiber–reinforced concrete beams to reduce the
moment of inertia (I) and subsequently increase the degree of restrain-
ing. As for the tests with plain concrete beams, fcc was measured with
standard cubes and had values between 54 and 59 MPa, whereas the
tensile splitting strength ( fcsp; also obtained by cube tests) had val-
ues between 4.0 and 4.2 MPa. The flexural first-crack strength ( fflcr)
and flexural ultimate strength ( fflu) were equal and varied from 4.5 to
5.1 MPa. The residual tensile strength [ fflres(10, 30)] was calculated to be
3.0 MPa. The flexural tensile tests with standard beams were con-
ducted by standard test procedures designed for steel fiber–
reinforced flexural beams (2, 3) (ASTM C1018). The modulus of
elasticity (E) was approximated to values between 30 000 and 32 000
MPa. In addition to the flexural tensile test, all material strength tests
were conducted according to the Swedish standard (1).
Beam SFRCT0 was used to determine if the steel fiber reinforce-
ment could influence the thermal gradients and to find a proper ther-
mal load step for SFRC beams. Beams SFRCP1, SFRCP2, SFRCP3,
and SFRCP4 were mechanically loaded. SFRCP1 and SFRCP3
were simply supported and SFRCP2 and SFRCP4 were externally
restrained at supports. Beams SFRCT1, SFRCT2, SFRCT3, and
SFRCT4 were exposed to thermal loads. Beams SFRCT1, SFRCT2,
and SFRCT3 were restrained and thermally loaded to failure, where-
as beam SFRCT4 was simply supported and was thermally loaded
up to a certain thermal load level that did not cause any risk of ther-
mal cracking of the beam. Six beams, beams SFRCPT1 to SFR-
CPT6, were subjected to different combinations of thermal and
point loads in which the maximum thermal load achieved at fail-
ure was intended to increase gradually in each of the tests with
combined loads.
EXPERIMENTAL SETUP
To study the behaviors of concrete beams due to simultaneous load-
ing, a special experimental setup was developed. The experimental
setup introduced restraint moments at the supports as a result of
restrained curling of the test beams because of induced temperature
differences. The restraining of the test beam at each support was pro-
vided by use of steel rods, which were placed two by two at each side
of the beam and were anchored to a counterbeam. Roller supports
were placed between the test beam and the counterbeam to avoid
axial forces. Figure 1 shows the test setup.
INSTRUMENTATION
Concrete strains were measured with temperature-compensated elec-
trical resistance strain gauges glued to the concrete surface in four
sections along the test beams (4). The temperature was recorded
through the depth of each beam at the same four sections by means of
thermocouples cast into the plain and steel fiber–reinforced concrete
beams (4).
In both test series, the deflections of the beams were measured
with linear variable-displacement transducers (LVDTs). The verti-
cal displacement of the plain concrete beams was measured with
LVDTs along the beam span (4). The axial expansion or contraction
caused by thermal loading was also measured by use of two LVDTs,
Alavizadeh-Farhang and Silfwerbrand
FIGURE 1 Longitudinal section of experimental setup. 1, spreader beam;
2, roller support; 3, test beam; 4, counterbeam; 5, tie rod.
which were placed above the supports. The mechanical load was
measured with a load cell with a maximum measuring capacity of
50 kN. The induced forces in the tie rods were measured with strain
gauges attached to the steel bars and with load cells with a maximum
measuring capacity of 50 kN.
TEST RESULTS AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
The analysis of the test results consists of overall comparisons of
measured deflection, concrete strain, and ultimate loads in tests with
different combined loads (4). In addition, a comparison of strain dis-
tributions based on linear and nonlinear temperature differences is
presented here. Finally, the load-carrying capacities obtained in the
experiments were compared with the load-carrying capacities that
can be obtained from the superposition principle. The analysis of
the test results points to several important observations, which will
be discussed below.
Plain Concrete Beams
Thermally loaded beam PCBT0 showed that thermal heating on
the upper side of the beam induced a nonlinear thermal gradient in the
vertical direction, whereas only negligible thermal gradients were
observed in the longitudinal and lateral directions.
The tests with mechanical loads show great variations in load-
carrying capacities. This is because of the wide variation in the flex-
ural bending strength of the plain concrete. However, the same vari-
ation was observed in thermally loaded tests with a lower observed
ultimate tensile strain. Two factors may affect the flexural tensile
strength of plain concrete in the tests with thermal loads. One factor
may be the reduction of the tensile strength of the plain concrete due
to an increase in temperature, and a second factor may be the influ-
ence of the shape of the stress distribution on the tensile strength at
the failure section.
In both tests with mechanical loads and tests with thermal loads,
the failure occurred as a result of flexural bending at the midspans
of the beams, where the maximum moment due to either mechani-
cal or thermal loads occurred. The failure appears in the form of one
through crack that divides the test beam into two separate parts.
The stress distribution varies because of different types of load-
ing. For thermal loads, the distribution of the temperature difference
across the section also affects the stress distribution. In tests with these
loads, the induced thermal gradient is nonlinear. The nonlinearity of
the thermal gradient leads to self-equilibrating stresses, which reduce
Paper No. 00 - 0943 27
the magnitude of the maximum tensile stress across the beam height.
In Sweden and many other European countries, the design of a con-
crete pavement follows a mechanistic approach, which is based on the
fatigue criteria for concrete slabs subjected to combined thermal and
mechanical loads (5–7). The magnitudes of the minimum tensile
stresses (thermal stresses) and the maximum tensile stresses (the sum
of the thermal and mechanical stresses) are essential to the fatigue
behaviors of concrete pavements. Therefore, the nonlinear thermal
gradient that causes a reduction of the maximum and minimum ten-
sile stresses has a positive impact on the fatigue behaviors of concrete
pavements subjected to combined loads (4). Figure 2 illustrates the
presence of self-equilibrating stresses in the form of the strain distri-
bution across simply supported beam PCBT2 due to a nonlinear tem-
perature difference of 65.5°C. The nonlinearity of the thermal gradi-
ent causes an internal restraining that leads to compressive stresses
near both edges and tensile stresses in the middle part of the beam. In
the externally restrained beams, the magnitude of the induced tensile
stresses near the bottom edge decreases as a result of the presence of
the self-equilibrating stresses. The magnitude of reduced tensile
stresses depends on the degree of restraining.
A comparison of the measured deflections from tests with re-
strained and simply supported beams indicates the presence of a
degree of restraining at the support of approximately 55 percent. This
means that the tie rods will provide 55 percent of the induced support
moments due to any deflection of a theoretically fully restrained
beam. With knowledge of the degree of restraining, the strain distri-
bution across the most critical section, the midsection, can be calcu-
lated. In addition, a simple modeling of the restraint supports as elas-
tic springs that partially constrain the rotation of the beam at supports
leads to the very same degree of restraining (4).
Figure 3 shows the measured and calculated strain distributions
for externally restrained test beam PCBT3 at ultimate thermal load.
The linear temperature distribution with a magnitude of 67°C gives
an essentially greater tensile stress and strain than the nonlinear
temperature distribution. However, the measured and calculated
strain distributions based on a nonlinear temperature distribution
are almost identical in form and magnitude. This shows that by
knowing the distribution of the induced thermal gradient and the
present degree of restraining, it is possible to determine the real
stress distribution across the cross section of any concrete structure.
As seen in Figure 3, the magnitude of the maximum tensile strain
caused by a linear thermal gradient is almost twice the corresponding
value due to a nonlinear thermal gradient. As mentioned previously,
the stress magnitude difference affects the mechanical load-carrying
capacities (fatigue capacities) of concrete structures subjected to
repeated combined loads (5–7 ).
28 Paper No. 00 - 0943 Transportation Research Record 1740

FIGURE 2 Self-equilibrating strain distribution (with temperature

compensation) in a simply supported plain concrete beam.

Table 1 shows the ultimate loads for solely mechanical, solely
thermal, and combined mechanical and thermal load tests with plain
concrete beams.
No load-carrying capacity was left after cracking of the concrete.
The single failure crack was initiated from the tensile strain side and
passed through the whole cross section.
The variation in the load-carrying capacities due to the combined
loading is illustrated in Figure 4. The measured ultimate loads due to
combined loading are grouped around the superposition line and show
that superposition of loads can be a fairly good estimation for load-
carrying capacity in combined loading. As proof, it can be seen in Fig-
ure 4 that the linear trend line, which is based on the least-squares
method, is very close to the superposition line, which is based on the
linear proportioning of the load-carrying capacity. In the three com-
bined loading tests with PCBPT1 to PCBPT3, the maximum thermal
loads were 27, 42.5, and 57 percent, respectively, of the ultimate ther-
mal load, whereas the maximum mechanical loads were 75, 52, and
32 percent, respectively, of the ultimate mechanical load. The sums
of the load ratios in the tests are 102, 94.5, and 89 percent, respec-
tively. This indicates a decrease in the load-carrying capacity due to
the increased thermal gradient.
However, a tendency was observed regarding high thermal loads.
The tensile strength and, consequently, the load-carrying capacity
are reduced when the beam is exposed to a combination of a higher
thermal gradient and a lower mechanical load (Figure 4). The ulti-
mate thermal and mechanical loads are measured to be 100°C and
34.5 kN, respectively, with a maximum ultimate strain value of
110 microstrains for thermal load tests and 200 microstrains for
mechanical load tests.
The previous interaction diagram for measured load ratios can be
compared with a diagram of the interaction between the applied stress
and material strength to clarify this reduction of material strength due
to higher thermal loads (Figure 5). On the basis of the measured ulti-
mate mechanical and thermal loads and the measured flexural tensile
strength, the stress-strength ratios for solely mechanical loads, solely
thermal loads, and combinations of mechanical and thermal loads
were calculated. The derived formulas for the beam model on spring
supports [see Chapter 4 in the book by Alavizadeh-Farhang (4)] were
used to calculate the applied mechanical and thermal stresses. Then,
the stress-strength ratios were calculated (Figure 5). As can be seen in
the interaction diagram, the deviation of stress-strength ratios from the
superposition line increases with an increase in the share of thermal

FIGURE 3 Strain distribution across Beam PCBT3.

Alavizadeh-Farhang and Silfwerbrand
TABLE 1 Observed Ultimate Loads for Plain Concrete Beams
stresses. In Figure 5 the stress-strength ratios are grouped around the
linear trend line in the same manner as the load ratios are grouped
around the superposition line in Figure 4.
There are two possible reasons for a reduction of the load-carrying
capacity due to combined loading: (a) the effect of elevated tempera-
ture on the tensile strength and (b) the effect of stress distribution
on the tensile strength. The first reason concerns a possible reduction
of the flexural tensile strength of the concrete because of the elevated
temperature in the concrete. It is known that an increase in the tem-
perature in the concrete could decrease the compressive strength of
concrete by 20 percent (8). However, the effect of short-term ther-
mal loading on flexural tensile strength is not given (8). An investi-
gation regarding the influence of temperature and stress level on
concrete properties such as short-term creep, relaxation, and flexural
tensile strength is progressing by the authors at the Royal Institute
of Technology in Sweden.
The second reason considers a reduction in the tensile strength due
to the stress distribution that developed because of the combined
effects of the thermally induced stresses and the mechanically induced
stresses. The damage process or microcracking of concrete depends
FIGURE 4 Interaction of combined loading for plain
concrete beams (P, maximum measured mechanical point
load acting at midspans of test beams; P Ultimate , average
value of measured mechanical point loads at time of
failure for restrained beams under solely mechanical
load; ∆T, maximum measured temperature difference
between top and bottom surfaces of test beams;
∆T Ultimate , average value of measured temperature
differences at time of failure for restrained beams
under solely thermal load).
Paper No. 00 - 0943 29
strongly on the applied tensile stress, the magnitude of the tensile
stress, and the size of the area exposed to the tensile stress. The shape
of the strain distribution due to each type of loading is different.
The variation in the observed tensile strength between mechani-
cally and thermally loaded beams may be dependent on the way in
which microcracks develop and may contribute to different damage
processes. With higher levels of thermal gradients, the tensile area
is subjected to a relatively high constant tensile stress, which may
lead to a more pure tensile failure. The probability of failure under
constant tensile stress across the tensile area increases because of the
presence or the development of microcracks in the area with tensile
stress. On the contrary, in flexural bending the highest level of stress
appears at the bottom edge and the process of crack propagation and
unification through the microcracks inside the concrete would occur
in a different way.
Furthermore, it is noticeable that the variation in the load-carrying
capacity due to variation in the tensile strength between the limited
number of test beams does not allow positive detection of any increase
or decrease in the load-carrying capacity of the beam because of the
other parameters involved in the tests with combined loads.
FIGURE 5 Stress/strength ratio for plain concrete beam
test series [σ T , ultimate (maximum) tensile stress at
bottom surface of test beam at midspan due to thermal
load at time of failure (temperature difference across
height of beam); σ M , ultimate (maximum) mechanical
stress at bottom surface of test beam at midspan due
to mechanical load at time of failure; f fl , flexural tensile
strength at ultimate load].
30 Paper No. 00 - 0943
Steel Fiber–Reinforced Beams
Some modification had been done to increase the degree of restrain-
ing, such as increasing the diameters of the restraining tie rods and
decreasing the beam height from 300 to 250 mm. A higher degree of
restraining (75 percent) resulted in a decrease in ultimate temperature
differences, which are more realistic in structural design. The steel
fiber–reinforced beams had almost the same material strength as the
plain concrete beams and contained 0.75 percent (by volume) type
Dramix 30/0.5 mm steel fibers. To achieve a better distribution of steel
fibers, the maximum aggregate size in the matrix was chosen to be
12 mm, whereas in plain concrete the maximum aggregate size was
18 mm. The reduction of the maximum aggregate size also contributed
to the decrease in the variation of the tensile strength.
The overall behavior of steel fiber–reinforced concrete before
cracking is almost the same as that of plain concrete. Therefore, a
briefer report on ultimate loads is provided here.
After thermal loading of SFRCT0 it was clear that the presence of
steel fibers did not affect the temperature distribution in any direction
and that the only vital thermal gradient existed in the vertical direc-
tion. The data for the mechanically loaded beams, Beams SFRCP1 to
SFRCP4, point to the fact that the strains measured at the bottom
edges of the standard flexural beams rapidly increase when the mag-
nitude of the tensile strain at the bottom edge becomes greater than
125 microstrains. This strain value is locally below the maximum
strain given by the tensile strength of the material. However, rupture
of the material and the reduction of stiffness can be reached at higher
loads. In plain concrete beams, cracking leads to a rapid rupture of
the beam. In steel fiber–reinforced concrete beams, the load-carrying
capacity may increase even after the beginning of crack propagation.
The process of crack unification and propagation is ductile because
of the presence of the steel fibers embedded in the matrix. In addition,
the modulus of rupture ( fflu) is higher than the pure tensile strength
( fflcr) of the material. The strains observed and measured from the
mechanical tests indicate that the tensile strain related to the tensile
strength of concrete is between 100 and 120 microstrains. After this
strain level, the tensile strain at the bottom edge rapidly increases.
For the simply supported beams, it was observed that the load-
carrying capacity slightly increases after cracking and reaches an ulti-
mate load higher than the crack load. The steel fiber–reinforced con-
crete was shown to have a slightly strain-hardening behavior. The
load-carrying capacity decreased gradually after it reached the ulti-
mate load with increasing deformation. The cracked section func-
tioned as a plastic hinge where all the plastic rotation of the steel
fiber–reinforced concrete beam took place. In the externally restrained
beams, Beams SFRCP2 and SFRCP4, the increased load-carrying
capacity after the cracking was partially a result of the introduction
by the external supports of external moments that resisted the rota-
tions of the beam at the supports. The observed failure occurred in
a ductile manner. A clear flexural bending failure occurred for all
mechanically loaded beams.
Steel fiber–reinforced concrete is a highly heterogeneous material
consisting of cement paste, aggregates, fibers, voids, and microcracks.
When concrete is subjected to tensile loading, microcracks develop
locally at the weakest points. During further loading, these micro-
cracks join and the overall deformation localizes into a zone at the
weakest section, and subsequently, a fracture zone develops. After
reaching the crack load, a macroscopic crack across the beam appears
and the steel fibers begin to act solely and transfer tensile forces
through the cracked section. The reduction of the load-carrying capac-
ity is usually due to pullout failure of the fibers. The regions outside
Transportation Research Record 1740
the crack zone will unload and the stress will decrease. However, the
deformation along the beam is increasing during the unloading
phase. The concrete failure may be defined as the stage at which the
deformation and stiffness of the beam reach critical values.
The thermally loaded beams show that the self-equilibrating
stresses affect the strain distribution in the same way as they influence
the strain-stress distribution in plain concrete beams. In addition, an
overall reduction of the measured ultimate strain was observed in
comparison with the corresponding value for mechanically loaded
beams. In addition, the data for thermally loaded beams show that
even after cracking a great load-carrying capacity remains.
After cracking, a reduction of the stiffness results in the relaxation
of thermal stresses. The restrained moments at both supports were
reduced. However, the most important aspect of using steel
fiber–reinforced concrete in concrete structures is the ability of the
bearing load after cracking. The crack development stopped at a
distance 0.2 䡠 h from the top edge, where h is the beam height. Tests
with mechanical loads with simply supported cracked beams showed
that approximately 60 to 100 percent of the load-carrying capaci-
ties remained in the cracked beams. A reduction of the stiffness and
the ability to transfer stresses because of the actions of the fibers
made the cracked section work like a plastic hinge. This led to less
restraining moment but, at the same time, a larger deformation under
the beam. Use of the large load-carrying capacity after cracking
together with the good fatigue properties in a cracked steel fiber–
reinforced concrete pavement (reduced restraint loads because of
cracking) on a stiff subbase may be a way to decrease the thickness
of concrete pavements. The fact that the crack cannot reach the con-
crete surface as long as the surface concrete is in compression pro-
tects the concrete from the most common environmental deteriora-
tion processes. Table 2 illustrates the ultimate mechanical and
thermal loads for steel fiber–reinforced concrete beams.
Table 2 provides the mechanical and thermal loads achieved in tests
with steel fiber–reinforced concrete beams. In addition, the residual
loads for cracked beams and the corresponding deflection are given.
The beams were simply supported and were subjected to mechani-
cal loading. As can be seen, the deflection values vary from 0.67 to
2.5 mm, whereas in tests with uncracked simply supported beams the
maximum deflections at the crack load were measured to be between
0.5 and 0.7 mm. The beams were originally cracked because of solely
thermal loading or combined loading with a large share of thermal
loads. The deflection of cracked beams can be three to four times
greater than the deflection of uncracked beams. Figure 6 shows the
load-deflection curves for two simply supported, uncracked, steel
fiber–reinforced concrete beams (thicker lines) in relation to those for
eight cracked, steel fiber–reinforced concrete beams (thinner lines).
Figure 7 shows the interaction between mechanical and thermal
loads at the crack load stage for steel fiber–reinforced test beams. The
very close trend line and superposition line through the experimen-
tal values indicates that the superposition is a good method for esti-
mating the load-carrying capacity under combined loading. Again,
the deviation is located in the area with higher thermal loads. As can
be seen in the interaction diagram, the deviation of stress-strength
ratios from the superposition line increases with an increased share
of thermal stresses. In Figure 8, the stress-strength ratios are grouped
around the linear trend line in the same way as the load ratios are
grouped around the superposition line in Figure 7.
Figure 8 shows the stress-strength ratios just before cracking for
tests with steel fiber–reinforced concrete beams. A reduction in the
strengths of beams subjected to solely thermal loading can clearly
be seen.
 TABLE 2 Observed Ultimate and Residual Loads for Steel Fiber–Reinforced
Concrete Beams

FIGURE 6 Load-carrying capacities of cracked steel fiber–reinforced concrete

beams in relation to those of uncracked steel fiber–reinforced concrete beams
(* = cracked beams).

FIGURE 7 Interaction of combined loading at cracking FIGURE 8 Stress-strength ratio just before cracking
for steel fiber–reinforced concrete beams. for steel fiber–reinforced concrete beams.
32 Paper No. 00 - 0943
The same overall tendency observed for plain concrete beams was
observed for steel fiber–reinforced concrete beams. The superposi-
tion line seems to be a good approximation for estimation of the load-
carrying capacity up to cracking for combined loading. However, after
cracking, the load-carrying capacity depends on the properties of the
steel fibers, such as fiber content, aspect ratio, and fiber strength and
fiber distribution. The variations in the mechanical and thermal ulti-
mate loads for the steel fiber–reinforced concrete beams were less
than the variations in the corresponding values for the plain concrete
beams. However, a 5 to 15 percent variation in ultimate loads can be
observed.
The test result showed that the nature of the thermal response of
steel fiber–reinforced concrete structures is such that cracking actu-
ally relieves some of the restraining forces. The typical pattern in the
behavior of steel fiber–reinforced concrete structures is such that as
the temperature increases, the restraining forces increase until the con-
crete cracks and the restraint loads drop to a lower level. Then, with
the further increase in temperature, the restraining forces increase, but
at a much slower rate than they did before cracking. Therefore, the
maximum magnitude of these restraining forces due to very high tem-
perature differences can approximately equal the magnitude of the
restraining forces precisely after the time of cracking.
It is known that a pavement must be thick enough to accommodate
the flexural stress imposed by traffic and other loadings. However, a
cracked pavement with reduced stiffness leads to lower restraint
moments, and this may indicate a way in which a concrete pavement
with a reduced thickness can be designed. The most essential factor
in such a design is sufficient mechanical load-carrying capacity after
cracking. Since traffic-induced stresses are repetitive, a reasonable
residual stress capacity must be established to ensure performance
under repeated loading. In comparison with conventional concrete
pavement, a steel fiber–reinforced concrete pavement could be rela-
tively flexible because of its reduced thickness and stiffness. The mag-
nitude of the anticipated elastic deflections must be assessed, because
excessive elastic deflections increase the danger of pumping in the
subgrade beneath the slab. Stresses in the underlying layers are also
increased because of the reduced thickness, and these must be kept
low enough to prevent the introduction of permanent deformation in
supporting materials.
All of the observations mentioned above lead to the conclusion
that steel fiber–reinforced concrete pavements may be an attractive
alternative to plain concrete pavements. In addition, the possibility
of casting a longer and thinner slab with fewer joints may contribute
to a reduction of construction costs and compensate for the increase
in material costs due to the use of steel fibers in the concrete mix.
CONCLUSIONS
A versatile test setup has been developed to study concrete beams
subjected to combined mechanical and thermal loads. The test setup
worked well in the experiments conducted and fulfilled the desired
functions. On the basis of two series of tests with combined loading
of plain and steel fiber–reinforced concrete beams, the following
conclusions may be drawn:
• The nonlinearity of the temperature distribution creates a self-
equilibrating stress in concrete; this stress in turn leads to a reduction
Transportation Research Record 1740
of the maximum tensile stress across the beam height and changes
the form of the stress distribution. As a result, the load-carrying
capacity for traffic loads, which is a function of the stress variation
(from a minimum thermal stress to a maximum traffic stress), will be
beneficially affected.
• A comparison of thermally and mechanically loaded beams indi-
cates that the use of different tensile strengths for each type of load
may be valid. Different types of loading could lead to various types
of internal damage, which influences the extension of microcracks at
the interfacial zone between the aggregate and mortar. The influence
of the various load types on the tensile strength can be explained by
nonlinear elastic fracture mechanics.
• The results of the tests with combined loads do not point to an
increase in the load-carrying capacity due to the relaxation of stresses
and differences in the durations of the loads. On the contrary, the pre-
vious observation may be the reason that the results for both plain
and steel fiber–reinforced beams with a larger share of the thermal
load had a greater deviation from the superposition line.
• Consideration of the residual load-carrying capacity of steel
fiber–reinforced concrete, together with its good fatigue behavior,
can be a way to design more slender concrete pavements with longer
joint spacings. Use of steel fiber–reinforced concrete will also lead
to a more durable pavement.
• Because the tensile strength of plain concrete has an inherent
wide variation, distinguishing any reduction or increase in the load-
carrying capacity because of the effect of relaxation of the stresses
or elevated temperature on the strength of the material requires a test
series with a large number of specimens.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The first author would like to express his sincere gratitude to the lab-
oratory staff, who kindly helped him through the experiments. The
authors would like to acknowledge Swedish National Road Adminis-
tration, the Swedish Council for Building Research, and the Swedish
Concrete Research Foundation for financial support for this work.
REFERENCES
1. BST Byggstandardiseringen. Betongprovning med Svensk Standard (in
Swedish). BST Handbook 12, 5th ed. Grunditz & Forsberg Tryckeri AB,
Linköping, Sweden, 1987.
2. ACI Committee 54. Design Considerations for Steel Fiber Reinforced
Concrete. ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 85, No. 5, 1988, pp. 563–580.
3. Stålfiberbetong—Rekomendationer för Konstruktion, Utförande och
Provning (in Swedish). Concrete Report No. 4, 2nd ed. Swedish Concrete
Association, Stockholm, Sweden, 1997.
4. Alavizadeh-Farhang, A. Plain and Steel Fiber Reinforced Concrete
Beams Subjected to Combined Mechanical and Thermal Loading. Licen-
tiate thesis. Bulletin No. 38. Department of Structural Engineering, Royal
Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden, 1998.
5. Tepfers, R. Tensile Fatigue Strength of Plain Concrete. ACI Journal,
Proceedings, No. 8, Aug. 1979, pp. 919–933.
6. Palmgren, A. Die Lebensdauer von Kullagern (in German). Zeitschrift
des Vereines deutscher Ingenieure, Vol. 68, No. 14, 1924, pp. 339–341.
7. Miner, M. A. Cumulative Damage in Fatigue. Journal of Applied Mechan-
ics, Transactions of ASME, Vol. 12, No. 1, 1945, pp. A159–A164.
8. AB Svensk Byggtjänst och Cementa AB (in Swedish). Betonghandboken—
Material, 2nd ed. Svenskt Tryck AB, Stockholm, Sweden, 1994.
Publication of this paper sponsored by Committee on Concrete Bridges.