Cement and Concrete Composites 84 (2017) 124e133

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Cement and Concrete Composites

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cemconcomp

Material characterisation of macro synthetic fibre reinforced concrete

Ali Amin a, *, Stephen J. Foster a, R. Ian Gilbert a, Walter Kaufmann b
a
Centre for Infrastructure Engineering and Safety, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The University of New South Wales, Australia
b
Institute of Structural Engineering, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH), Switzerland

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In this paper, the post cracking behaviour of macro synthetic polypropylene fibre reinforced concrete is
Received 14 January 2016 investigated through a series of matched tests that measure tension directly through uniaxial tension
Accepted 23 August 2017 tests and indirectly through prism bending and determinate round panel tests. An analytical model
Available online 31 August 2017
previously developed by the authors for the determination of the residual tensile strength provided by
steel fibres in prism bending tests is adapted for the round panel tests and is shown to correlate well with
Keywords:
the collected experimental data.
Macro synthetic fibres
© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Fibre reinforced concrete
Bending
Uniaxial tension
Round panel
Fracture

1. Introduction fibres have also been shown to significantly reduce cracking

A considerable growth in the use of fibre reinforced concrete
(FRC) in practice has occurred over the last two decades, or so.
Applications of the material are now common practice in the
Australian infrastructure sector for industrial pavements and
sprayed tunnel linings [1]. With the advent of ultra-high perfor-
mance concretes, the material has also been successfully used in
large scale bridge projects [2,3]. This progression has come as a
result of a significant body of research devoted to the under-
standing of the composite material to a wide range of loading
conditions. Fundamentally, when dealing with the design of
members manufactured with FRC, the most important property to
consider is its post cracking tensile strength [4e7]. In other words,
it is the residual tensile strength (or toughness) of concrete that is
significantly enhanced with the addition of fibres, after the matrix
has cracked, and quantifying this defines the material for design.
Only when reliable material constitutive relationships for FRC have
been developed can critical structural elements be designed using
FRC.
While most studies over the last five decades have focussed on
steel fibres, macro synthetic fibres have gained popularity in
practice, particularly in applications where susceptibility to corro-
sion and alkali attack are significant [8,9]. Synthetic polypropylene
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: Ali.Amin@unsw.edu.au (A. Amin).
induced by plastic shrinkage [10]. With reference to its perfor-
mance in uniaxial tension, the addition of polypropylene fibres (as
with macro steel fibres) to concrete does not significantly enhance
its tensile strength, i.e. the stress at which cracking occurs is not
significantly increased. After cracking, the force carried across the
crack by the fibres depends on the type and quantity of fibres, with
polypropylene fibres requiring a significantly larger strain to
develop the same stress as occurs in steel fibres. This phenomenon
was observed in the tests of Wang et al. [11] and Carnovale and
Vecchio [12] and is attributed to the low elastic modulus of poly-
propylene relative to steel. After crack stabilisation, polypropylene
fibre reinforced concrete (PPFRC) has been shown to resist an in-
crease in residual load, even at large crack widths [8,13,14].
The post cracking strength of FRC can most readily be explained
by the stress versus crack width (s-w) relationship. The s-w rela-
tionship for FRC can be directly obtained from a uniaxial tensile test
[15e17] or, alternatively, indirectly from a three- or four-point
bending test on prism specimens [7] or from determinant round
panel tests, combined with an inverse analysis [18e21]. This is
summarised in Fig. 1. To this end, the results of an experimental
campaign to obtain the post cracking behaviour of PPFRC through a
series of matched uniaxial tension, prism bending and round panel
tests is presented here. The inverse analysis model of Amin et al.
[24] developed for steel fibre reinforced concrete (SFRC) tested in
flexure is extended to PPFRC and is adapted to the round panel test.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2017.08.018
0958-9465/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 A. Amin et al. / Cement and Concrete Composites 84 (2017) 124e133
Fig. 1. Approaches to determine the tensile properties of PPFRC.
2. Standard testing of FRC
In principle, the uniaxial tension test is the ideal test for
measuring the post cracking tensile strength of FRC [22e24].
Despite this, the great majority of tests describing the post cracking
behaviour of FRC reported in the literature have been conducted on
flexural prism samples tested in three- or four point bending. These
specimens are easy to manufacture and the tests are easy to
perform [25]. Some researchers prefer notched specimens as this
allows for easy measurement of the opening of the crack during
testing. However, the presence of a notch can significantly influ-
ence the behaviour of prism bending specimens by forcing the
crack to form along a predefined plane that may not be the weakest
cross section of the specimen. As a result, a large scatter in results is
often associated with these tests [20,25,26]. This scatter at the
material level represents, and is a measure of, the variability of fibre
spacing and orientation within the matrix and may significantly
affect the characteristic values adopted in design practice which
can be a hurdle in promoting economical solutions using FRC.
The round determinant panel test has been shown to provide
more repeatable results with low scatter [18,27]. This is primarily
due to the formation of a number of distinct and long fracture lines,
as opposed to one failure plane that forms in the prism bending test
when testing strain softening FRC. While the large size of the ASTM
C1550 [28] round panel test (800 mm in diameter, 80 mm thick) is
closest to real structures, such that influences like concrete place-
ment are implicitly accounted for, the specimens are heavy (~90 kg)
and difficult to handle, which is a major drawback.
The residual tensile strength of round panel test specimens has
traditionally been expressed in Joules, represented by the area
under the load versus central displacement curve [28]. However,
over the last decade, or so, design methodologies have moved from
defining the post cracking strength of FRC from the area under the
load versus displacement curve to defining the toughness of FRC in
terms of the residual tensile strength resisted by specimens at
various stages of a material characterisation test [29e31]. Inverse
analysis techniques can then be deployed to infer these results. This
represents a significant step forward in physically quantifying the
residual tensile strength offered by FRC.
3. Experimental program
In this study an experimental program was conducted to
investigate the post cracking behaviour of two PPFRC mix designs
through a series of matched direct uniaxial tension tests and
125
tension obtained indirectly through prism bending and determi-
nant round panel tests. Six specimens were manufactured for each
test set up. The polypropylene fibres used in this study were the
Reoshore58 fibre, supplied by TEXO Australasia Pty Ltd. The fibres
were 58 mm long and had a measured cross sectional area of
0.64 mm2. Two fibre dosages were used in this study: 4 kg/m3
(FRC4) and 8 kg/m3 (FRC8), corresponding to fibre volumetric
dosages (rf) of 0.44% and 0.88%, respectively.
The specimens were cast in two separate pours from the same
concrete mix design obtained commercially from a local ready mix
supplier. The concrete had a prescribed characteristic compressive
strength of 50 MPa and the coarse aggregate used was basalt with a
maximum particle size of 10 mm. The workability of the fresh
PPFRC was measured by means of a slump test and was found to be
250 mm for the FRC4 batch and 200 mm for the FRC8 batch.
The uniaxial tension tests were conducted on hour glass shaped
“dogbone” specimens in accordance with AS5100.5 [31]. Details of
the specimens are illustrated in Fig. 2. The sample geometry, being
approximately 40% narrower in the midsection than at its ends,
permits for failure to occur within a reasonably well defined region.
Furthermore, no notches are required and thus the dominant crack
does not pass through a pre-determined plane. To measure strain
(and crack opening displacement), transducers (LVDT or LSCT) were
fixed to each of the four sides over a gauge length of 230 mm. Load
was applied to the specimen using ram displacement control,
initially at a rate of 0.12 mm/h until the formation of the dominant
crack. After cracking, the rate was increased to 0.2 mm/h until the
measured COD reached 2 mm, with additional increases in the rate
introduced as the test progressed.
The prism bending tests were conducted on samples 150 mm
square in cross-section and 600 mm long. The specimens were
notched 25 mm using a diamond blade saw at their mid-span and
tested in a three point arrangement spanning 500 mm, as per EN
14651 [32]. The specimens were tested under a closed loop test
system by fixing a clip gauge to the underside of the beam at the
notch to measure and control the crack mouth opening displace-
ment (CMOD) at the extreme tensile fibre. Testing was conducted
by increasing the CMOD at a rate of 0.05 mm/min until the CMOD
Fig. 2. Details of uniaxial tension test specimens.
126 A. Amin et al. / Cement and Concrete Composites 84 (2017) 124e133
reached 0.10 mm; this rate was then increased to 0.20 mm/min
until the CMOD reached 4 mm. Additional increases in the testing
rate were introduced until the CMOD reached 12 mm at which
point testing was concluded.
The determinate round panel test was conducted on 800 mm
diameter by 80 mm thick samples and tested to ASTM C1550 [28].
The panels were loaded at their centres and were supported on
three symmetrically arranged pivot points giving a loading radius, r
of 375 mm. An LSCT was placed beneath the loading point to
measure the central deflection. The samples were loaded via ram
displacement control initially at a rate of 0.3 mm/min, until the
formation of the three fracture lines and then increased to 3 mm/
min. Testing concluded at a central displacement of 50 mm and
60 mm for the FRC4 and FRC8 mixes, respectively. A photograph
and schematic of the round panel test is presented in Fig. 3.
4. Test results
The raw experimental results for the uniaxial tension test, three-
point notched prism bending specimens and the round panel tests
are presented in Figs. 4e6 and summarised in Table 1. The uniaxial
tension test results are expressed in terms of nominal stress (taken
at the most narrow cross-section of the specimen) versus crack
opening displacement, w (COD), with the point marked on the
vertical axis representing the matrix tensile strength, fct. The
average raw uniaxial post cracking strength f1.5 (taken at a COD of
1.50 mm), are presented in Table 1. It is noted that the results
presented in Fig. 4 and Table 1 have not been compensated for any
wall/boundary effects (see below). The prism bending results are
expressed in terms of load versus CMOD. The residual flexural
strength, fR,j, of the PPFRC is calculated at four key points, namely at
a CMOD of 0.50 mm, 1.50 mm, 2.50 mm and 3.50 mm; and the limit
f , represents the maximum stress attained in
of proportionality, fct;L
the test prior to a CMOD ¼ 0.05 mm. The round panel test results
are plotted in terms of load versus central deflection. The ASTM
C1550 [28] measure for this test (W) is defined as the area under the
force-deflection curve up to a central deflection of 40 mm, and
measured in Joules. Plotted too in Figs. 4e6 are the mean and 95th
Fig. 3. Round panel test: (a) specimen dimensions and failure mechanism; (b) photograph of test set up.
percentile characteristic responses associated with each test. The
characteristic values are determined assuming infinite samples and
a normal distribution.
The behaviour of the PPFRC specimens in uniaxial tension fol-
lowed a similar trend to that observed by others [12,33]. After the
peak load was reached, a sharp reduction in load and a significant
opening of the dominant crack occurred. Significant elastic strain
energy was stored in the testing frame and the specimen, and
hence no displacement data is available between matrix cracking
and stabilized cracking. Soon after crack stabilisation, the capacity
of the section increased with increased applied strain over crack
widths of interest (w2(0, 2.5)mm). For larger crack widths w2(2.5,
5.0)mm, it can be seen that the capacity of the direct tension
specimens remained relatively constant.
Following testing, the number of fibres crossing the failure plane
was recorded; these results are presented in Table 2. For fibres
randomly orientated in three dimensions [34], showed that the
number of fibres (Nf) crossing a plane of unit area is rf/2Af, where rf
is the volumetric ratio of fibres and Af is the cross sectional area of
an individual fibre. In the context of the specimens used in this
study where the wall effect can be pronounced (see below), the
expression of Aveston and Kelly for the total number of fibres
crossing a certain failure plane can be expressed as [35]:
rf Ac
Nf ¼ (1)
2kt Af
where Ac is the cross sectional area of the failure crack and kt is a
fibre orientation correction factor, described below.
The presence of a boundary restricts a fibre from being freely
orientated and influences the number of fibres that cross a failure
plane [36]. mathematically described the influence of the wall ef-
fect on the fibre orientation and its contribution to strength. Based
on the expression of Lee et al. [23,36] developed a simplified
approximate expression to adjust the results of the uniaxial tension
tests to an equivalent 3D fibre distribution free of influence from
the boundaries; this was further simplified by Amin et al. [24] for
square section specimens in tension to:
 A. Amin et al. / Cement and Concrete Composites 84 (2017) 124e133 127

Fig. 4. Raw uniaxial tension test results: (a) FRC4; (b) FRC8.

Fig. 5. Prism bending test results: (a) FRC4; (b) FRC8.

Fig. 6. Round panel test results: (a) FRC4; (b) FRC8.

Table 1
Average raw mechanical properties of PPFRC mixes.

Direct Tension Test [31] Notched 3 Point Bending Test [32] Round Panel Test [28]

Series fcm (MPa) fct (MPa) f1.5 (MPa) fR1 (MPa) fR2 (MPa) fR3 (MPa) fR4 (MPa) f (MPa)
fct;L W (Joules)

FRC4 66 4.15 0.63 1.96 2.46 2.74 2.85 5.37 701

FRC8 63 3.87 1.25 2.75 3.62 4.09 4.24 5.91 1075
128 A. Amin et al. / Cement and Concrete Composites 84 (2017) 124e133

Table 2
Number of Fibres crossing failure plane of uniaxial tests.

Specimen ID No. of fibres crossing fracture plane Specimen ID No. of fibres crossing fracture plane

FRC4-1 62 FRC8-1 104

FRC4-2 e FRC8-2 104
FRC4-3 49 FRC8-3 106
FRC4-4 51 FRC8-4 102
FRC4-5 61 FRC8-5 99
FRC4-6 67 FRC8-6 94

Mean (rfc) 58 Mean (rfc) 102

Theory (rf) 66 Theory (rf) 131
rfc 0.39 rfc 0.69
rfc/rf 0.88 rfc/rf 0.78

the greatest; however in testing significant deviation, g (refer to

1 Fig. 3), was recorded (see Fig. 7a). Plotted in Fig. 7b is a frequency
kt ¼ 0:5  . 1
0:94 þ 0:6lf b
where lf is the length of the fibres and b is the width of the cross-
section.
Presented alongside the number of fibres crossing the failure
plane of the dogbones in Table 2 are the theoretical fibre dosages
calculated from Equation (1), with Ac taken at the most narrow
cross section of the specimen. It is seen that the theoretical fibre
dosage crossing the failure crack (rfc) is consistently lower than the
average supplied fibre dosage (rf). It is apparent that the fibre
distribution influences the location of the failure plane and that the
numbers of fibres at the crack are statistically lower than the pre-
scribed mean value. This is similarly observed for steel fibre rein-
forced concrete [37,38].
On the behaviour of the PPFRC prisms, it was observed that after
cracking a significant drop in strength occurred for both series and
over increasing CMODs of interest (up to 4.0 mm) the capacity of
the specimens increased. In the round panel tests, three dominant
radial cracks formed in all specimens and this coincided with a
reduction in capacity of the panels. It was observed, however, that
the initial load after cracking had dropped well below that of the
peak residual strength of the PPFRC specimens. The long tail of the
curves represents the progressively smooth residual capacity of the
specimens.
Theoretically the cracks of the round panel specimens should
form midway between the supports where the applied moment is
(2) distribution of g for all panel specimens. It can be seen that the
majority of cracks developed within 12 degrees of the theoretical
failure plane. This deviation from theory is due to the variation of
concrete matrix strength within the specimen and the sensitivity of
the fracture processes to this variation (see Fig. 7).
5. Determining the s-w relationship of ppfrc from indirect
tension tests
Amin et al. [24] developed a sectional model based on a cracked
SFRC prism in bending. In this paper, that model is adapted to ac-
count for the behaviour and performance of macro synthetic fibres
in flexure and observed in the round panel tests.
Consider the cracked section at the notch in a prism specimen in
bending illustrated in Fig. 8a, where D is the total depth of the
prism, hsp is the depth minus the notch depth, dn is the depth from
the extreme compressive fibre to the neutral axis and b is the width
of the prism. From moment equilibrium, the average stress carried
by the fibres after cracking, fw, is [24]:
k1 k2 kb Fa
fw ¼ (3)
h2sp b
In Equation (3), kb is the boundary influence factor (see below), F
is the applied load, a is the shear span of the prism and k1 is a factor
that controls the steepness of the linear post cracking relationship
in tension. For macro-synthetic fibres, in the earlier stages of testing

Fig. 7. Deviation between theoretical failure plane and actual failure plane in round panel tests: (a) definition; (b) results.
 A. Amin et al. / Cement and Concrete Composites 84 (2017) 124e133
Fig. 8. s-w model for PPFRC prisms.
the stress in the tensile concrete at the crack increases with
increasing strain (as shown in Fig. 8c); after a critical crack opening
displacement, the stress decreases with strain. Assuming a rigid
plastic model for the concrete on the tensile side on the neutral
axis:
3
k1 ¼
½3:9  0:85bb
where b ¼ 1  dn =hsp . For PPFRC tested in flexure, given that the
neutral axis is high in the section for crack widths of practical in-
terest b may be taken as 0.95 and hence k1 ¼ 1.0. The coefficient k2
in Equation (3) accounts for the influence of the notch on defining
the critical crack path and the resulting influence on the measured
tensile strength. In Table 2, the ratio of the number of fibres crossing
the failure plane and the number of fibres supplied is presented and
shown to consistently be lower than unity. The parameter k2 ac-
counts for the average uniformity of fibre dispersion relative to
crack location. In research on SFRC by Foster et al. [37] and Amin
[38]; k2 was found to be 1.0 for a crack freely located. For a crack
where the location is forced (e.g. through provision of a significant
notch), k2 ¼ 0.82. For this study on PPFRC, it was observed in the
fibre counts across the failed sections in the uniaxial tension tests
specimens that, on average, the fibre dispersion factor was 0.88 for
the specimens with 4 kg/m3 of fibres and 0.78 for the specimens
with 8 kg/m3 of fibres (refer to Table 2), with an average of 0.83
taken across the two series. Thus the fibre dispersion factor may
also be taken as k2 ¼ 0.82 for a crack where the location is forced,
such as inclusion of a significant notch for PPFRC.
The COD (w) for the proposed s-w curve is obtained from the
measured crack mouth opening displacement (CMOD) by assuming
rigid body rotations about the crack tip and by assuming that failure
of the specimen occurs along a single dominant crack:
CMOD hsp  dn
w¼  (5)
2 D  dn
A similar approach is adopted for the determination of the s-w
relationship from round panel tests; before proceeding, a
misnomer in the literature needs correcting. Some researchers
[39,40] equate lines of fracture formed in the determinant round
panel test of strain softening FRC to that of yield lines in plasticity
and impart the view that yield line theory may be used to deter-
mine the moments of resistance. This implies that should fibre
orientations, dosages or other parameters be varied, other yield (or
fracture) line modes are possible e this is not the case.
In strain softening FRC, it is the post cracking response in tension
that is of interest. After cracking of the cementitious matrix, the
residual tension over the range of structural interest (0.5e2.5 mm)
may be reasonably approximated as rigid plastic. That is, the ma-
terial shows some “plastic like” behaviour after it has cracked and
the load reduced (see Fig. 4); however, to the point where the crack
is arrested by the presence of fibres, it remains a quasi-brittle
129
material. In the round panel test, the location of the cracks are
based on the rules of fracture mechanics (not plasticity) and can be
described as fracture lines e once these lines are established, work
equations are used to determine the internal moments for a given
applied load (in a similar way to that of yield line theory).
From the fracture line analysis, assuming that the angles be-
tween fracture lines are 120 and considering small rotations (q)
and hence displacements, the resisting moment per unit length is:
P r
m ¼ pffiffiffi, (6)
3 3 R
where r is the radius from the centre of the panel to the support, R is
the radius of the panel (see Fig. 3a) and P is the applied central load.
The distance between the neutral axis and the centroid of the
compressive stress block is between 0.60dn and 0.667dn [24] and
may be taken as 0.64dn without introducing any significant error.
From geometry, the distance between the neutral axis and the
centroid of the tensile stress block is evaluated as 0:5ðt  dn Þ. From
(4) sectional stress blocks (see Fig. 9) and noting dn ¼ ð1  bÞt, we
write:
m ¼ fw bð0:64  0:14bÞt 2 (7)
where t is the thickness of the panel and dn is the depth to the
neutral axis and b is the neutral axis depth parameter (b ¼ 1  dn/t).
Combining Equations (6) and (7) gives:
Kkb k3 P r
fw ¼ , (8)
t2 R
where kb is the boundary influence factor (see below), K is an
empirical coefficient to account for several limitations that occur
due to the testing arrangements and analysis and is discussed
below; and:
1
k3 ¼ (9)
bð3:3  0:73bÞ
Taking b ¼ 0.95, gives k3 ¼ 0.40.
The COD (w) for the proposed s-w curve derived from the round
panel test has previously been evaluated by Tran et al. [40] and
successfully deployed by Montaignac et al. [42]:
pffiffiffi ! pffiffiffi
3D 3
w ¼ tan1  ðt  dn Þy Dðt  dn Þ (10)
2r 2r
For the determination of the depth of the neutral axis, dn, as is
required to evaluate Equations (3)e(10), Amin et al. [24] and Amin
and Foster [41] showed that the location of dn had little influence
on the w/CMOD ratio. For this reason, we fix the depth of the
compressive stress block and take dn ¼ 0.1hsp and dn ¼ 0.1t for the
Fig. 9. s-w model for PPFRC round panels.
130 A. Amin et al. / Cement and Concrete Composites 84 (2017) 124e133
prisms and panels, respectively.
To determine the uniaxial strength of the composite for a given
COD (w), the contribution of the concrete (s(w) ¼ fw þ fc) must be
included. For plain concrete, the tensile softening stress can be
modelled using an exponentially decaying function as explained by
Foster et al. [43]:
fc ¼ fct ec1 w
In Equation (11), c1 is a function of the maximum aggregate size
and fibre dosage (rf):
. 
c1 ¼ 30 1 þ 100rf for mortar and concrete with dg  10 mm
.  0.07, 0.19 and 0.08, respectively.
c1 ¼ 20 1 þ 100rf for concrete with dg > 10mm
where dg is the maximum size of the aggregate particles.
6. Model validation
Before comparing the results from the inverse analysis of the
bending and panel tests, the test data needs to be compensated for
the boundary/wall effect [36,44]. In the case of the prism and panel
tests the wall effect can reasonably be approximated as a 2D
problem. For these tests, provided that the length of the fibre does
not exceed the shortest dimension of the specimen, the boundary
influence factor may be taken as:
p viations in gi (i ¼ 1, 2, 3) influence the internal work calculations
kb ¼ .  1
3:1 þ 0:6 lf b
The results of the inverse analysis are presented in Fig. 10. When
compensated for the boundary effect, the proposed model for the
prism bending test is in reasonable agreement with the data ob-
tained from the uniaxial tensile test data for the region of interest
(that is w2(0, 2.5) mm); however, independent data is needed to
validate the model. At a COD of w ¼ 1.5 mm the uniaxial tension test
gives f1.5 ¼ 0.52 MPa and f1.5 ¼ 1.16 MPa for mixes FRC4 and FRC8,
respectively. For the prism tests by the model proposed in Equation
(3), the predicted stresses at w ¼ 1.5 mm are 0.68 MPa and 1.15 MPa
for mixes FRC4 and FRC8, respectively and the test to predicted
Fig. 10. Comparison of predicted s-w curves obtained from inverse analysis of notched prisms and round panel tests: (a) FRC4 series; (b) FRC8 series.
ratios are 0.76 and 1.01, respectively. Similarly for the panel tests
with the model proposed in Equation (8), the predicted stress at
w ¼ 1.5 mm are 0.59 MPa and 1.14 MPa for mixes FRC4 and FRC8,
respectively and the test to predicted ratios are 0.88 and 1.02,
respectively.
From the plots of Figs. 4e6, it is seen that the panel test provides
the lowest scatter for the mix FRC4, compared to the prism bending
(11) and uniaxial tension tests. For mix FRC8, the uniaxial tension tests
displayed the lowest variation, followed by the round panel tests
and prism bending tests. The low relative overall scatter observed
in testing may be a function of the fibre material. At a crack opening
displacement of w ¼ 1.5 mm, the coefficient of variation (COV) for
the tests on FRC4 were 0.33, 0.22 and 0.06 for the uniaxial tension
(12a) test and the back calculated values determined for prism bending
and round panel tests, respectively; for mix FRC8, the COVs were
(12b)
On study of the round panel test, several limitations are evident
in back determining fundamental material laws. Besides the as-
sumptions of a rigid plastic s-w model to describe the post cracking
response of PPFRC and the assumed depth to the neutral axis,
described above, errors may occur due to: 1) assumption that lines
of fracture coincide with the 120 theoretical arrangement; 2)
tensile membrane actions that occur due to friction imposed by
supporting arrangements are ignored; 3) the influence on the
location of the centroid of the tensile force in the cross-section due
to the boundary (wall) effect; and 4) alignment of fibres that may
result from flow of the concrete during casting. These are discussed,
in-turn.
Bernard and Xu [45] concluded deviation of fracture lines from
theory (g1, g2, and g3 in Fig. 3a) leads to small errors only. De-
(13) and, as the internal work is a minimum on the 120 theoretical
pattern, the error leads to a non-conservative solution. The varia-
tion of angles gi for the 12 panels tested is shown in Fig. 7 and
presented in Table 3, together with the resulting sum of the internal
work (SWI) relative to theory. An accurate calculation for the work
(internal and external) based on the experimentally observed
fracture lines, is demonstrated in Fig. 11. The angles ai (i ¼ 1 … 6)
are dependent on the location of the origin (O0 ) and the deviation of
the fracture lines from their theoretical values. In these analyses,
the value of a are determined from the equations outlined in
Ref. [39] assuming that O0 coincides with O. An example is shown in
Fig. 11b. The results show a maximum error of 8%, with an average
 A. Amin et al. / Cement and Concrete Composites 84 (2017) 124e133 131

Table 3
Cracking angles, cracking centre and comparison of calculated internal and external work relative to theory by fracture line analysis.

Panel Cracking angles (Fig. 3) Coords. of crack junction SWI SWE Overall Error (%)
SWI:theory SWE:theory
(Fig. 3)

g1 g2 g3 x (mm) y (mm)
(deg.) (deg.) (deg.)

FRC4-1 0 0 8 11.5 8.8 1.003 0.962 5

FRC4-2 10 16 9 48.6 16.7 1.023 0.911 16
FRC4-3 6 13 4 19.1 0.0 1.012 0.956 8
FRC4-4 36 4 11 21.0 10.8 1.078 0.937 19
FRC4-5 1 11 15 64.9 0.4 1.021 0.851 22
FRC4-6 6 26 0 6.5 19.4 1.037 0.959 14
FRC8-1 8 16 0 1.1 0.8 1.017 0.996 4
FRC8-2 21 3 12 2.8 9.1 1.032 0.981 8
FRC8-3 2 0 4 19.3 2.4 1.001 0.952 5
FRC8-4 8 0 0 1.2 41.1 1.003 0.942 7
FRC8-5 6 12 12 27.7 42.1 1.018 0.880 18
FRC8-6 0 10 4 7.3 0.0 1.006 0.983 3

Fig. 11. (a) Definitions of fracture line pattern after the establishment of cracks in round panel; fracture lines for Panel FRC 4-1.

error of just 2%. This reinforces the conclusions of Bernard and Xu
that the variations of the crack angles from theory do not signifi-
cantly influence the derived results.
Missing from the above calculation in terms of work is errors in
the external work calculation due to the location of the crack
junction being away from the centre of the panel. The locations of
the crack junction (O0 in Fig. 3a) for the panels tested in this study
are presented in Table 3. The external work is WE ¼ P k D, where k
equals the length of a line drawn normal to the nearest axis of
rotation (Fig. 11a) divided by r ¼ 375 mm. The maximum error in
the external work assumption is 15%, with an average of 6%. When
the errors in the internal work are combined with those of the
external work, noting that the errors are multiplicative, the
maximum error in the determined moment for the panels tested
is þ22% and the average is þ10%.
The second source of error in determining fundamental mate-
rials laws from the round panel tests comes from tensile membrane
effects. This effect is described in Bernard [46]; with significant
panel deflections, friction in the support arrangements prevent the
segments from freely moving resulting in tensile membrane forces.
The error due to friction is quantified by Bernard as approximately
15e20%.
The third source of error is derived from the influence of the wall
effect on the lever arm (z in Fig. 9b); noting that the wall effect is
included in determining the tension T through Equation (13). At a
distance lf/2 from the panel soffit the fibres are assumed to be
randomly distributed in three-dimensions. At the boundary, the
fibre distribution is two dimensional. The fibre orientation factor, Kf
is determined by probability of the fibre crossing the fracture plane
and is affected by the shape of the domain over which it is
132 A. Amin et al. / Cement and Concrete Composites 84 (2017) 124e133
Fig. 12. Application of inverse analysis of SFRC panels to de Montaignac et al. [42] specimens: (a) F60e1.0; (b) F35e1.0.
influenced [23]. The fibre orientation factor for 2D distribution
Kf ¼ 2/p (z0.64); whereas, for a 3D distribution Kf ¼ 0.5. The in-
fluence of the wall effect on the lever arm diminishes as the ratio lf/t
reduces or when a notch is present, as for the case of the notched
prism test. For the panel tests in this study lf/t ¼ 0.73; the error
induced by ignoring the wall effect on the internal lever arm be-
tween the compressive and tensile forces is estimated to be 4%.
The fourth of the identifiable potential errors is effect of con-
crete flow in cast concrete panels from where the mix is placed in
the moulds. The more the concrete is moved through the casting
and vibration processes, the more likely the fibre distribution is
biased towards the flow direction [47]. It is hypothesised that this
effect is more significant in the round panel test than the flexural
prism or uniaxial tension tests due 1) to the size of the specimen
and the length that the concrete is moved from where it is placed in
the form and 2) that the fracture lines include regions distant from
the panel centre. No data is currently available to quantify this ef-
fect or assess its significance.
The modelling assumption of post cracking rigid-perfectly
plastic behaviour needs examination. In the case of PPFRC it was
noticed during the uniaxial testing at immediately after cracking
the load dropped substantively during crack stabilisation, the load
then increased until the peak residual was reached at a COD of
about 2.5 mm (see Fig. 4), after which the load reduced gradually.
This effect was significantly greater than that observed in the SFRC
tests of [24] where the peak was generally observed to be less than
0.5 mm, depending on fibre type and dosage. Thus, in the region of
interest for the strength limit state for structures
(w ¼ 0.5e2.5 mm), the assumption of rigidly-perfectly plastic re-
quires some assessment on its potential for error. The Australian
Bridge Standard for Concrete Structures AS5100.5 [31] adopts an
approach for conversion of results obtained from notched prism
bending tests to determine the s-w law with a calibration factor
that corresponds to a COD (w) of 1.5 mm. This is assessed by
considering the value of K in Equation (8) for increasing w; a near
constant value would affirm the reasonableness, or otherwise, of
the fundamental assumption. For mix FRC4, the back calculated
value was calculated and varies approximately linearly from 0.39 at
w ¼ 1.0 mm to 0.54 at w ¼ 2.5 mm; for mix FRC8, the value of K
varies from 0.58 at w ¼ 1.0 mm and to 0.69 at w ¼ 2.5 mm. It is seen
that K is not constant; this is attributed to the increasing error from
the assumption of rigid-perfect plastic behaviour as the crack width
at the slab soffit increases. Adopting the approach of AS5100.5 [31];
a value of K ¼ 0.5 is selected.
As independent data for PPFRC is currently unavailable, the
model is validated using SFRC test data of de Montaignac et al. [42];
who performed matched direct (uniaxial) tensile and indirect
(round panel) tensile tests. The uniaxial tension tests were con-
ducted on 6  85 mm diameter cored samples taken from cast
prisms and notched at mid-height for each mix. The round panel
tests were tested to ASTM C1550 [28]. As the uniaxial test speci-
mens were notched, an adjustment is needed to convert the results
to an equivalent unnotched condition. This is done by multiplying
the tensile stress by kn ¼ 0.82, as recommended in Foster et al. [37].
The tensile stress versus crack opening displacement predicted by
the model developed above for round panel tests is compared to
the direct tension data in Fig. 12. It can be seen that model proposed
reasonably captures the post cracking behaviour of the SFRC with
the predicted stresses given by Equation (8) giving 1.49 MPa and
1.88 MPa for Mixes F35e1.0 and F60e1.0, respectively. At
w ¼ 1.5 mm, the test to predicted ratios are 0.90 and 0.96,
respectively.
7. Conclusions
The post cracking behaviour and response of polypropylene
macro synthetic fibre reinforced concrete (PPFRC) has been inves-
tigated by conducting a series of matched direct (uniaxial) tension
tests and indirect tension (notched prism and determinate round
panel) tests on softening PPFRC.
A significant loss in capacity soon after cracking was observed in
the experiments for the fibres considered in this study. However,
over crack widths of interest, the stress resisted by the poly-
propylene fibres increased with increased displacement. Of the
three test methods, the round panel test displayed the lowest de-
gree of variability. From a design perspective, this should be given
some consideration, particularly when characteristic values are
adopted.
To analyse the results derived from indirect tension tests, in-
verse analysis techniques may be deployed to convert force-
displacement data to a generalised stress-crack width law. In this
paper, a model previously developed by the authors for the deter-
mination of the stress-crack opening displacement relationship for
SFRC based on prism bending tests has been adapted for PPFRC
tested in flexure and for determinate round panels tested to ASTM
C1550 [28]. The model has been shown to reasonably capture the
response of specimens tested in this study and by others.
Acknowledgements
The fibres used in this study were kindly supplied by TEXO
Australasia Pty Ltd. Their contribution to this study is
 A. Amin et al. / Cement and Concrete Composites 84 (2017) 124e133
acknowledged with thanks. The writers would also like to thank Mr
J. Gilbert for his technical assistance throughout the experimental
program.
References
[1] S.J. Foster, The application of steel-fibres as concrete reinforcement in
Australia: from material to structure, Mater. Struct. 42 (9) (2009) 1209e1220.
[2] F. Toutlemonde, J. Resplendino (Eds.), Designing and Building with UHPFRC,
John Wiley and Sons, 2011, ISBN 9781848212718.
[3] Y.L. Voo, S.J. Foster, C.C. Voo, Ultrahigh-performance concrete segmental
bridge technology: toward sustainable bridge construction, J. Bridge Eng. 20
(8) (2015).
[4] S.P. Shah, B.V. Rangan, Effects of reinforcement on ductility of concrete, ASCE J.
Struct. Div. 96 (ST6) (1970) 1167e1184.
[5] S.P. Shah, B.V. Rangan, Fibre reinforced concrete properties, Proc. ACI J. 68 (2)
(1971) 126e135.
[6] J.C. Walraven, High performance fiber reinforced concrete: progress in
knowledge and design codes, Mater. Struct. 42 (9) (2009) 1247e1260.
[7] M. di Prisco, M. Colombo, D. Dozio, Fibre-reinforced concrete in fib Model
Code 2010: principles, models and test validation, Struct. Concr. 14 (2013)
342e361.
[8] A. Bentur, S. Mindess, Fiber Reinforced Cementitious Composites, Elsevier
Applied Science, Essex, England, 1990.
[9] Z. Zheng, D. Feldman, Synthetic fibre reinforced concrete, Prog. Polym. Sci. 20
(2) (1995) 185e210.
[10] P. Soroushian, F. Mirza, A. Alhozaimy, Plastic shrinkage cracking of poly-
propylene fiber reinforced concrete, ACI Mater. J. 92 (1995) 553e560.
[11] Y. Wang, V.C. Li, S. Backer, Experimental determination of tensile behaviour of
fiber reinforced concrete, ACI Mater. J. 87 (5) (1990) 461e468.
[12] D. Carnovale, F.J. Vecchio, Effect of fiber material and loading history on shear
behaviour of fiber reinforced concrete, ACI Struct. J. 111 (5) (2014)
1235e1244.
[13] N. Buratti, C. Mazzotti, M. Savoia, Post-cracking behaviour of steel and macro-
synthetic fibre-reinforced concretes, Constr. Build. Mater. 25 (5) (2011)
2713e2722.
[14] A.M. Alani, D. Beckett, Mechanical properties of a large scale synthetic fibre
reinforced concrete ground slab, Constr. Build. Mater. 41 (2013) 335e344.
[15] I. Lӧfgren, Fibre-reinforced Concrete for Industrial Construction- a Fracture
Mechanics Approach to Material Testing and Structural Analysis, PhD
Dissertation, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Chalmers
University of Technology, Sweden, 2005.
[16] I. Markovic, High-performance Hybrid-fibre Concrete: Development and
Utilisation, PhD Dissertation, Department of Structural and Building Engi-
neering, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands, 2006.
[17] S.J. Foster, in: FRC Design According to the Draft Australian Bridge Code.
Proceedings FRC 2014 Joint ACI-fib International Workshop Fibre Reinforced
Concrete: from Design to Structural Applications. Montreal, Canada, July 24-
25, 2014, pp. 19e31.
[18] P. Marti, T. Pfyl, V. Sigrist, T. Ulaga, Harmonized test procedures for steel fiber-
reinforced concrete, ACI Mater. J. 96 (6) (1999) 676e686.
[19] J.C. Walraven, Fib model code for concrete structures 2010: mastering chal-
lenges and encountering new ones, Struct. Concr. 14 (1) (2013) 3e9.
[20] F. Minelli, G. Plizzari, Derivation of a simplified stress-crack width law for fiber
reinforced concrete through a revised round panel test, Cem. Concr. Compos.
58 (2015) 95e104.
[21] A. Nour, B. Massicotte, R. de Montaignac, J.P. Charron, Development of an
inverse analysis procedure for the characterisation of softening diagrams for
FRC beams and panels, Constr. Build. Mater. 94 (2015) 35e44.
[22] A.G. Kooiman, Modelling Steel Fibre Reinforced Concrete for Structural
Design, PhD Dissertation, Department of Structural and Building Engineering,
Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands, 2000.
[23] T.S. Ng, T.N.S. Htut, S.J. Foster, Fracture of Steel Fibre Reinforced Concrete - the
Unified Variable Engagement Model, UNICIV Report R-460, School of Civil and
133
Environmental Engineering, The University of New South Wales, Australia,
2012, 114 pp.
[24] A. Amin, S.J. Foster, A. Muttoni, Derivation of the s-w relationship for SFRC
from prism bending tests, Struct. Concr. 16 (1) (2015) 93e105.
[25] M. di Prisco, G. Plizzari, L. Vandewalle, Fibre reinforced concrete: new design
perspectives, Mater. Struct. 42 (2009) 1261e1281.
[26] D. Dupont, L. Vandewalle, Comparison between the round plate test and the
Rilem 3-point bending test, in: M. di Prisco, R. Felicett, G.A. Plizzari (Eds.), 6th
Rilem Symposium on Fibre Reinforced Concrete (FRC), 2004. Varenna, Italy,
20-22 Sept: 101-110.
[27] E.S. Bernard, Behaviour of round steel fiber reinforced concrete panels under
point loads, Mater. Struct. 33 (2000) 181e188.
[28] ASTM Standard C1550-12, Standard Test Method for Flexural Toughness of
Fiber Reinforced Concrete (Using Centrally Loaded Round Panel), ASTM In-
ternational, West Conshohocken (PA), 2012.
[29] RILEM TC 162-TDF, Test and design methods for steel fibre reinforced con-
crete: final recommendations, s-ε design method, Mater. Struct. 36 (2003)
560e567.
[30] fib Model Code, Model Code 2010, Fe
de

ration Internationale du Be
ton, 2013,
402 pp.
[31] AS5100.5, Australian Standard, Bridge Design Part 5: Concrete. Standards
Australia, 2017.
[32] EN 14651, Test Method for Metallic Fibre Concrete- Measuring the Flexural
Tensile Strength (Limit of Proportionality (LOP), Residual), European Com-
mittee for Standardization, 2007, 17 pp.
[33] D.J. Carnovale, Behaviour and Analysis of Steel and Macro-synthetic Fibre
Reinforced Concrete Subjected to Reversed Cyclic Loading: a Pilot Study, MASc
Dissertation, The University of Toronto, Canada, 2013.
[34] J. Aveston, A. Kelly, Theory of multiple fracture of fibrous composites, J. Mater.
Sci. 8 (3) (1973) 352e362.
[35] A. Amin, S.J. Foster, W. Kaufmann, Instantaneous deflection calculation for
steel fibre reinforced concrete one way members, Eng. Struct. 131 (2017)
438e445.
[36] S.C. Lee, J. Cho, F.J. Vecchio, Diverse embedment model for steel fibre rein-
forced concrete in tension: model development, ACI Mater. J. 108 (5) (2011)
516e525.
[37] S.J. Foster, T.N.S. Htut, T.S. Ng, in: High Performance Fibre Reinforced Con-
crete: Fundamental Behaviour and Modelling. Proceedings of the 8th Inter-
national Conference on Fracture Mechanics Concrete and Concrete Structures
(FraMCoS-8). Toledo, Spain, March 10-14, 2013, pp. 69e78.
[38] A. Amin, Post cracking Behaviour of Steel Fibre Reinforced Concrete: from
Material to Structure, PhD Dissertation, School of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, The University of New South Wales, Australia, 2015.
[39] V.N.G. Tran, PhD Thesis, Constitutive Modelling of Fibre Reinforced Concrete
and Shotcrete, University of Tasmania, 2003, 223 pp.
[40] V.N.G. Tran, E.S. Bernard, A.J. Beasley, Constitutive modelling of fibre rein-
forced shotcrete panels, J. Eng. Mech. 131 (5) (2005) 512e521.
[41] A. Amin, S.J. Foster, Predicting the flexural response of steel fibre reinforced
concrete prisms using a section model, Cem. Concr. Compos. 67 (2016) 1e11.
[42] R. de Montaignac, B. Massicotte, J.P. Charron, A. Nour, Design of SFRC struc-
tural elements: post-cracking tensile strength measurement, Mater. Struct. 45
(2012) 609e622.
[43] S.J. Foster, Y.L. Voo, K.T. Chong, Analysis of steel fiber reinforced Concrete
beams failing in shear: variable engagement model, ACI SP-237, in: L. Lowes,
F. Filippou (Eds.), Chapter 5, Finite Element Analysis of Reinforced Concrete
Structures, 2006, pp. 55e70 (CD-ROM).
[44] P. Stroeven, Stereological principles of spatial modelling applied to steel fibre
reinforced concrete in tension, ACI Mater. J. 106 (3) (2009) 213e222.
[45] E.S. Bernard, G.G. Xu, The effect of radial crack locations on load resistance in
C1550 panel tests, J. ASTM Int. 5 (No. 10) (2008), 14pp.
[46] E.S. Bernard, The role of friction in post-crack energy absorption of fiber
reinforced concrete in the round panel test, J. ASTM Int. 2 (No. 1) (2005), 12pp.
[47] P. St€
ahli, R. Custer, J.G.M. van Mier, On flow properties, fibre distribution, fibre
orientation and flexural behaviour of FRC, Mater. Struct. 41 (2008) 189e196.