Evaluating the Properties and Functionality of Steel Fiber Reinforced Concrete

by

Yousif M. Alharmoosh-Alqenai

B.S., Dalhousie University, 2013

A REPORT

submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Civil Engineering

College of Engineering

KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY

Manhattan, Kansas

2018

Approved by:

Major Professor
Dr. Asad Esmaeily
 Copyright

© Yousif Alharmoosh-Alqenai 2018.

 Abstract

This report is contingent upon research and literature reviews, targeting steel fiber

reinforced concrete (SFRC). It will explore all aspects involved, detailing both properties and

functionality. Historical development of the modern application mix and design procedures will

be discussed. A critical investigation based on laboratory testing is examined and a comparative

discussion is provided. This report will also highlight the structural uses, benefits, applications

and deficiencies acquired by SFRC.

 Table of Contents

List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. v

List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. vi
Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................... vii
Study Method ................................................................................................................................ vii
1 - Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 - History ............................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 - Fiber Reinforced Concrete .............................................................................................. 2
1.3 - Types of Steel Fibers ....................................................................................................... 3
1.4 - Developments .................................................................................................................. 4
2 - Material ...................................................................................................................................... 5
2.1 - Composition/Properties ................................................................................................... 5
3 - Testing ....................................................................................................................................... 8
3.1 - Laboratory Experiments .................................................................................................. 8
3.2 - Experimental Methodolgy ............................................................................................... 9
3.3 - Results ........................................................................................................................... 13
3.4 - Comparison ................................................................................................................... 17
4 - Structural Integrity................................................................................................................... 19
5 - Structural Uses/Construction ................................................................................................... 20
6 - Advancement ........................................................................................................................... 21
7 - Advantages/Disadvantages ...................................................................................................... 21
8 - Theoretical and Methodological Contribution ........................................................................ 22
9 - Conclution/Recommendation .................................................................................................. 23
References ..................................................................................................................................... 24

iv
 List of Figures

Figure 1 - European Oceanographic Park in Valencia.................................................................... 4

Figure 2 - European Oceanographic Park in Valencia.................................................................... 4
Figure 3 - Different forms of steel fibers ........................................................................................ 5
Figure 4 - Testing of Compressive Strength Test Specimen ........................................................ 10
Figure 5 - Testing of Flexural Strength Test Specimen ................................................................ 11
Figure 6 - Testing for Split Tensile Strength Test Specimen........................................................ 11
Figure 7 - Testing for Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity Test .................................................................. 12
Figure 8 - Compressive Strength Test Analysis ........................................................................... 14
Figure 9 - Split Tensile Strength Analysis .................................................................................... 15
Figure 10 - Flexural Strength Test Analysis ................................................................................. 16
Figure 11 - Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity Test Analysis .................................................................... 17

v
 List of Tables

Table 1 - Equivalent Steel Fiber Dosage Rate ................................................................................ 6

Table 2 - Mix proportions and description of concrete mixtures.................................................... 9
Table 3 - Slump and Unit Weight of Concrete ............................................................................... 9
Table 4 - Mechanical Properties of Concrete Mixtures ................................................................ 13

vi
 Acknowledgements

I would like to take this momentous opportunity to express my deepest sense of gratitude to
Dr. Asad Esmaeily, Professor of Civil Engineering, Kansas State University, for his generous
guidance, help and useful suggestions. I would also like to express sincere appreciation for my
loving wife for her continuous support and encouragement. I wish to extend my thanks to
Dr. Reem M. Alqenai, Professor of English, KLAW University, for taking the time to proof read
and edit this paper.

I perceive this opportunity as a big milestone in my career development. I will strive to use
the gained knowledge in the best possible mean, and will continue to work on its improvement,
in order to attain desired career objectives.

vii
 Study Method

Research methods were conducted through various sources focusing primarily on Steel
Fiber Reinforced Concrete. Informative articles were a basic yet strong foundation for
comprehending the topic researched where a thorough perspective was obtained.

Published articles were used for dense analysis, experimental research, testing, and
results. This gave an insight to how steel fiber reinforcement contributed to conventional
concrete in various aspects.

Visual learning methods, such as animated videos and PowerPoint presentations, were of
great aid. This made it easier to envision how the properties and mechanical characteristics of the
researched topic functioned in real life applications.

viii
 1. Introduction

1.1 History

Fibers have been added to strengthen building materials, dating back to at least 3500 years
ago, when ancient Egyptians were the leaders of innovative construction. During these times
builders used various admixtures in their building materials. One of the most famous materials
amongst the aforementioned admixtures was straw, which was used to reinforce mud bricks. It
was also recorded that horse hair was used in mortar shortly after. Evidently, asbestos was
discovered by Porter, as an effective admixing fiber and was used to reinforce concrete in the
early 1900s. However, it was shortly discriminated by researchers during the 1950s due to the
discovery of its health risks in residential building. This discovery led to intensified research
within the field of reinforced concrete.

Engineers started focusing on other fibrous materials, which could also be successfully used
as reinforcements. In the past 30 to 40 years, researchers discovered numerous fibrous materials
that have been tested and proven to be effective, including steel, glass, natural, and synthetic
fibers. These discoveries have been a major breakthrough in the world of structural engineering,
and research in fiber reinforced concrete continues to this day.

1
1.2 Fiber Reinforced Concrete (FRC)

Concrete is naturally brittle and when comparing its tensile to compressive strength, it is
observed that, compressive strength is usually ten times greater than its tensile strength. Due to
this fact, concrete is therefore reinforced with steel bars, which comes in different applications,
but all serve the same purpose, increasing the overall strength. However, construction material
continues to evolve and with the demand for higher strength, crack, resistant and lighter
concrete, many techniques and improvements have been developed to try to significantly meet
these needs. A major outbreak to these demands was introducing fibers to reinforce concrete.
Adding these fibers to concrete plays a significant role in its structural properties, causing it to
gain higher strength, crack resistance and lighter concrete. The most effective contribution of
fiber reinforcement in concrete is not its flexural strength, but to the flexural toughness of the
material. It is not a substitute for conventional reinforcement when considering flexural strength,
but contributes towards reducing bleeding in fresh concrete, and renders concrete more
impermeable in the hardened stage.

Steel Fiber Reinforced Concrete (SFRC) is made using hydraulic cements that contain fine
and coarse aggregates along with discontinuous discrete steel fibers. (ACI 544.4R). The cutting
of drawn wires ends in the production of steel fibers. Fiber can be indented, crimped and shaped
up in an irregular form in order to provide better mechanical bonding. The aspects that decide the
distribution of steel fiber in an efficient matter include the steel fiber geometry, mixing
technique, content, size and the collective shape. Steel fibers are considered to be short in length.
Their length can vary, but has an aspect ratio (length/diameter) ranging between 20-100, as well
as a diameter span of 0.15 mm to 1 mm. In the process of adding the steel fibers to a concrete
mix, the fibers are spread out uniformly and randomly. This mixture is known as Steel Fiber
Reinforced Concrete. In comparison to the properties of plain concrete, SFRC has shown to mark
an increase in the following features: strength, toughness ductility, tensile toughness and flexural
strength properties. Two properties that are not affected by the addition of steel fiber include
creep and shrinkage. SFRC is very effective in controlling the progress of cracks into becoming
visible ones. Also, it improves both impact and abrasion resistance. SFRC is commonly found in

2
refractory linings, blast resistance structures, tunnel linings, pavements and precast concrete
units. However, an arising problem with the use of these fibers are balling or clumping when
used in high percentages of concrete, as well as in dimensions with aspect ratios greater than
100. The properties and qualities SFRC offers will be further examined and discussed throughout
the report.

1.3 Types of Steel Fibers

There are many different types of steel fibers in the market, as a result of the intensive
research performed in this field. The ASTM A820 defines five general types used as a source of
the steel fiber material. These types are:

Type 1: Cold drawn wire

Type 2: Cut sheet steel
Type 3: Melt extract
Type 4: Mill cut
Type 5: Modified Cold-drawn wire – (shaved into fibers)

The type that contains the highest tensile strength ranging from 145,000–445,000 psi, is
Type 1. The reason for this is due to the fiber’s shape and composition. The most effective shape
from Type 1 steel fibers is the end hooked steel fiber, which is made by the use of high quality
low carbon steel wire. The bent ends attribute to better anchorage improving the fiber-matrix
bond characteristics. This specific type has high tensile strength, good toughness and is
abundantly available at a low cost. As for the remaining steel fiber types, their tensile strength is
much lower averaging 50,000-psi. Apart from their low tensile strength they are still widely
used. This is because of the specific use of the concrete mix needed and five main parameters
that usually define the choice of a specific steel fiber other than its tensile strength. The five
parameters include the dosage, type, length of the fiber, effective diameter or aspect ratio, and
deformation. They are all set depending on the structural use and the design mix of concrete.
This will be further discussed in the composition and properties section.

3
1.4 Developments

Steel fiber reinforced concrete has been significantly focused on in the past 30 years due to
its valuable properties. Research has been intensified in this field, due to its evident functionality
and prosperous results. The idea of using such fibers to reinforce concrete has been widely
accepted among construction companies. This is because of the continuous development of
complex architectural designs and the endless demand for enhanced building material. An
example of this application is witnessed in the shells constructed in the European Oceanographic
Park in Valencia (Figure 1, 2). The thin shell structure covered building could not have been
built without the aid of steel fiber concrete to keep the thin concrete application from cracking or
chipping off (9).

Figure 1: European Oceanographic Park in Valencia Figure 2: European Oceanographic Park in ValenciaValencia

Recent developments have also lead to the use of steel fiber reinforcement in columns as a
result of its ductility improvements (14). This is highly effective in structures designed to work
in seismic areas. During an earthquake, reinforced columns usually lose concrete covering the
rebar, however the aid of steel fiber reinforcement has caused an increase in the concretes
toughness allowing it to resist the seismic vibrations and adding more ductility and stiffness to
columns (14).
Other research has shown the benefits of using steel fibers in other structural components
like beams and roofs. However, verified advancements have been seen for its use in slab on grad
(3). In rough environments, like industrial slabs or even bridges, steel fibers have been used as a
substitute for conventional rebar, and had shown exceptional results.

4
 2. Material

2.1 Composition/Properties

Steel Fibers come in different shapes and sizes depending on their physical properties and
the required final render of concrete. The common geometric forms used are straight, hooked,
paddled, deformed, crimped, irregular etc. Examples of these steel fibers are shown in Figure 1.

Figure 3: Different forms of steel fibers

They also come in different lengths and diameters (effective length and aspect ratio
{length/diameter}, depending on requirement) according to the designed specimen and the
concretes structural use (7). Steel fibers are usually glued together when manufactured and
separated during mixing to ensure uniform distribution and avoid steel fiber clumps or balls.
Uniform distribution is critical to ensure the steel fibers mechanical effect is evenly dispersed
across all the concrete. Many techniques have been integrated to perfect the distribution of steel
fibers, however there is no specific method that guaranties this process. The different techniques
include, using a conveyer belt on-site, which slowly adds the steel fibers in the concrete mix to
allow the fibers to distribute evenly throughout the mix (7). Another technique is through the use
of a machine to evenly blow the steel fibers into the mix. On the other hand, if precast concrete is
an option, having it done at a ready-mix plant off-site will surely be a better option than both due
to the controlled environment aspect (7).

5
 As an engineer is designing a concrete mix for any specified structural use, there are
requirements for selecting the appropriate steel fiber. These include:

Fiber dosage, which is the quantity of steel fiber added to the concrete mix, is measured
by mass of fibers per unit volume of concrete (kg/𝑚3 or lb/cy) (10). However, some engineers
will provide the steel fiber volume as a percentage of the concretes volume, making it easier to
visualize, and stay constant across all the measurement systems. Table 1 shows an example of
the equivalents between these measurements. The steel fiber dosages generally range from 12-to
42-kg/𝑚3 (20 to 70 lb/cy). Dosages above that range are extremely rare and any dosage below
that range is usually used for replacing light-gauge wire mesh (10).

Pounds per cubic yard Kilograms per cubic meter Volume

20 12 0.15%
25 15 0.19$
30 18 0.23%
33 20 0.25%
35 21 0.26%
40 24 0.30%
50 30 0.38%
60 36 0.45%
66 39 0.50%
70 42 0.53%
132 78 1.00%
Table 1: Equivalent Steel Fiber Dosage Rate

The American Concrete Institute (ACI) sets guidelines for the steel fiber dosage that must
be met. In accordance with the ACI’s guide to design of slabs-on-ground for example, the
guidelines specify that in ground support the fiber dosage for ground slabs should never be less
than 20kg/𝑚3 (33 lb/cy) (10). Nonetheless, when steel fiber is needed to allow for wider joint
spacing, the ACI recommends using a minimum of 36-kg/𝑚3 (60 lb/cy) (10). Due to the infinite
shapes and material composition of the steel fibers, the designer can alter these guidelines to
meet the requirements needed for the concrete mix.

6
 The designer must also consider the type of steel fiber needed for a mix, based on how
they are manufactured (7). The different types of steel fibers have been discussed earlier and
their tensile strengths have been indicated, but all of them have specific characteristics that serve
different needs. Manufacturers have been struggling to find which type of steel fiber works best
and from a designers point-of-view, the main issue is certain properties may not be available in
all the mentioned types. This makes it tougher for a designer to select the most efficient fiber
type available in the market.

Another characteristic that must be considered is the steel fibers length (10). Although it
is agreed upon that the length of the steel fiber is an important matter, nevertheless, there is no
agreement as to which specified length is best. This is also a matter that is usually left for the
designer to figure out, and is dependent on the structural use of the concrete mix. It has been
proven through lab testing that in order to limit the widening of cracks in cured concrete and
increase its flexural toughness, it is recommended that longer fibers be used (10). As for visible
cracking on the surface of concrete, it is preferred that shorter steel fibers with a higher fiber
count with less distance between fibers be used to remedy the issue (10).

The effective diameter or aspect ratio is also considered when designing steel fiber
reinforced concrete (7). The effective diameter is measured for circular steel fiber cross-section
and the aspect ratio is any fiber cross-sections that are not circular. The aspect ratio gives a better
understanding of the bonding potentials. Steel fibers possessing aspect ratio greater than 2”
usually have a higher potential of balling (10).

7
 3. Testing

3.1 Laboratory Experiment

Theoretical research, analytic model developments and testings have been conducted
throughout history to check for quality and mechanical properties of SFRC. Each of those have
been rendered to have unique techniques for measuring efficiency. The test discussed in this
report is based on the laboratory testing’s performed by Ege University (12). These testings will
examine the compressive strength, split tensile strength, flexural strength and ultrasonic pulse
velocity that steel fibers have on conventional concrete. This will be performed by the use of
different aspect ratios and different steel fiber volumes-𝑉𝑓 (%) to check which specific steel fiber
reinforced concrete design governs in efficiency (12).
The engineers performing the tests decided to use Type 1 steel fibers with hooked ends to
maximize anchorage and better the fiber matrix bond. Three different aspect ratios were used for
the hooked-end fibers including 45, 65 and 80 respectively. At each aspect ratio, three different
fiber volumes were added to the concrete mixes at 0.5%, 1.0% and 1.5% 𝑉𝑓 . A total of ten
different concrete mixes were produced. Nine concrete mixes were produced with the different
fiber volumes specified and one plain concrete mix for comparison. An average compressive
strength of 40 MPa was designed for the concrete and a 28-day standard curing time was
performed to perfect the tests and reduce margin of error as much as possible (12).
Concrete cube samples were used to test for compressive strength, split tensile strength
and ultrasonic pulse velocity. As for the flexural strength test prismatic specimens were
produced. A total of 120 concrete cubes were casted at a size of 150mm, and 60 prismatic
specimens were casted at a size 100x100x600 mm. The concrete mix contained, CEM I 42.R
type cement with specific gravity of 3.13 and specific surface of 3670 𝑐𝑚2 /g, super plasticizer at
2.5% by weight of cement, crushed limestone aggregate with a maximum size of 15mm and
divided into three different size fractions AI, AII, AIII (Table 2). The water to cement ratio is
0.3-0.45 and the fineness modulus of the mixture is 3.64.The aggregates used in the concrete mix
were in saturated-surface dry (SSD) conditions. The proportioning and description of the
concrete mixture according to the ten different samples produced is summarized in Table 2 (12).

8
Table 2: Mix proportions and description of concrete mixtures

A slump test was also performed on the samples to verify whether the mix has been
properly mixed, and to check the workability of the freshly made concrete. This test was also
conducted to measure the effect steel fibers had on the efficiency and shape of the fresh concrete
once it was mixed and ready. The results are shown in Table 3. A unit weight test was also
performed to measure the effect steel fibers had on the sample produced. This is also indicated
on Table 3 (12).

Table 3: Slump and Unit Weight of Concrete Mixture

3.2 Experimental methodology

The concrete specimens were mixed, placed into the molds, then vibrated by a table
vibrator to release air bubbles and make sure the concrete take its cubical and prismatic shape.
Once this was done the top surface of the specimen was leveled and finished. The concrete
samples were then demolded and transferred to a curing tank, where they were cured for 28 days.
The concrete specimens were cured and then tested. A digital compression-testing machine

9
(Figure 2) was used to bring each cube to its failure (3). The failure loads were noted and the
compressive strength was calculated through the derived formula (12):

Compressive strength (MPa) = Failure load / cross sectional area

Figure 4: Testing of Compressive Strength Test Specimen

Prismatic specimens (Beams) were used for the flexural strength test. The cured
specimens were tested under two point loads over an effective span. The flexural-testing machine
(Figure 3) applied load up to failure and the corresponding deflection was noted. The flexural
strength was then calculated through the derived formula (12):
Flexural strength (MPa) = (P x L)/(b x d^2)

P=Failure load, L=Effective span (center-to-center), b=Width of specimen, d=Depth of specimen

10
Figure 5: Testing of Flexural Strength Test Specimen

The split tensile strength test was performed on the second half of the cured cubical
specimens. The specimens were placed under a tensile-testing machine (Figure 4) and were
loaded until splitting occurred. The loads were noted and the splitting tensile strength was
calculated through the derived formula (12):

Split Tensile strength (MPa) = Failure Load / cross sectional area

Figure 6: Testing for Split Tensile Strength Test Specimen

11
 An ultrasonic pulse velocity test (Figure 5) was conducted for all the cubic specimens
after the 28-day curing time. The test was performed by transmitting an ultrasonic pulse through
the specimen to check for any concrete cavities, cracks and defects. This will reveal any voids,
honeycombing or discontinuities steel fiber might have caused. The digital receiver display will
indicate the time ultrasonic pulse took, to travel between the specimens. This is then converted to
velocity according to the diameter of the specimen (12). A final comparison is then made for the
ultrasonic pulse velocity of the controlling concrete and the specimens tested.

Figure 7: Testing for Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity Test

12
3.3 Results

The tests were conducted after the 28-day curing time and listed in Table 4. The table
illustrates the results of all specimens examined at a reported value of the average of six
specimens. Graphs are also available to help better visualize the significant effect the different
steel fiber used had when added to the concrete mix.

Table 4: Mechanical Properties of Concrete Mixtures

The result for the compressive strengths (𝑓𝑐 ) computed for control concrete (CC) was
49.1 MPa. For the specimens with aspect ratio of 45 (including SFRC 1-3), the average
compressive strength ranged from 50.8-57.7 MPa, indicating that the SFRC specimen with a
𝑉𝑓 (%) of 1.5% showed the highest result. The average compressive strength for specimens with
aspect ratios of 65 (including SFRC 4-6) ranged from 53.5- 58.3 MPa. At this aspect ratio the
𝑉𝑓 (%) conducting the highest average compressive strength is 1.0%. Finally, the specimens with
aspect ratios of 80 (including SFRC 7-9) present comparative results for the average compressive
strength, ranging from 52.1-58.3 MPa. The highest result for compressive strength with an aspect
ratio of 80 was achieved by the SFRC specimen with 𝑉𝑓 (%) of 1.0%.

13
 Compressive Strength Vs Aspect Ratio
60
Compressive Strength (MPa)

59
58
57
56
55 0.50%
54 1.00%
53
52 1.50%
51
50
0 20 40 60 80 100
Aspect Ration

Figure 8: Compressive Strength Test Analysis

Split tensile strength (𝑓𝑠𝑡 ) for control concrete was computed as 4.06 MPa. The
specimens with aspect ratio of 45 (including SFRC 1-3) obtained an average split tensile strength
ranging from 4.5-5.69 MPa. The highest result was achieved by using a 𝑉𝑓 (%) of 1.5%. For
specimens with aspect ratio of 65 (including SFRC 4-6), the average split tensile strength range
obtained was 4.51-6.26 MPa. The 𝑉𝑓 (%) resulting in highest split tensile strength was achieved
using 1.5% specimen. As for the specimens with aspect ratio of 80 (including SFRC 7-9), they
produced a split tensile strength ranging 4.58-5.9 MPa. Indicating that the highest split tensile
strength was achieved using SFRC specimen with 𝑉𝑓 (%) of 1.5%.

14
 Split Tensile Strength Vs Aspect Ratio
7
Split Tensile Strength (MPa)

6
5
4
0.50%
3
1.00%
2
1.50%
1
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Aspect Ratio

Figure 9: Split Tensile Strength Analysis

Flexural strength (𝑓𝑓 ) computed for control concrete was noted at 5.94 MPa. Specimens
with aspect ratio of 45 (including SFRC 1-3) achieved an average flexural strength ranging from
6.14-7.75 MPa. The SFRC specimen responsible for the highest result had a 𝑉𝑓 (%) of 1.5%. For
specimens with aspect ratio of 65 (including 4-6) their flexural strength results noted a range
from 6.24-8.08 MPa. The 𝑉𝑓 (%) responsible for the highest flexural strength was 1.5%. Lastly,
specimens with aspect ratio of 80 (including 7-9), their flexural results ranged from 6.42-10.76
MPa. Similarly, the results indicate that indicate that the highest flexural strength was also
conceived by the specimen with 𝑉𝑓 (%) of 1.5%.

15
 Flexural Strength Vs Aspect Ratio
12
Flexural Strength (MPa)

10

6 0.50%

4 1.00%
1.50%
2

0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Aspect Ration

Figure 10: Flexural Strength Test Analysis

Ultrasonic pulse velocity (UPV) test was only performed on the cubical specimens and
the noted test result for control concrete was 4523 m/s. Specimens with an aspect ratio of 45
(including 1-3) achieved a range 4336-4466 m/s, with the highest value conceived by the
specimen with 𝑉𝑓 (%) of 0.5% and the lowest by 1.5%. Results for specimens with aspect ratio of
65 (including SFRC 4-6) ranged from 4348-4488 m/s and had the same effect of 𝑉𝑓 (%) as those
of aspect ratio 45, leading with a maximum ultrasonic pulse velocity at 0.5% 𝑉𝑓 (%) and a
minimum at 1.5%. As for the final results computed, specimens with an aspect ratio of 80
(including 7-9) had a ultrasonic pulse velocity range of 4112-4320 m/s with the same distribution
of 𝑉𝑓 (%) producing the highest result at 0.5% and lowest at 1.5%, respectively.

16
 Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity Vs Aspect Ration
4550
Ultrsonic Pulse Velocity (m/s)

4500
4450
4400
4350
4300 0.50%
4250 1.00%
4200
4150 1.50%
4100
4050
0 20 40 60 80 100
Aspect Ratio

Figure 11: Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity Test Analysis

3.4 Comparison

Experimental research has proven that the SFRC specimens under going tension,
compression and flexural tests showed more toughness and ductility behavior than that of plain
concrete.

Compressive strength for the SFRC specimens with aspect ratio of 45 showed linear
increase as the 𝑉𝑓 (%) increased. The increase in compressive strength was 19% when compared
to the controlling concrete. Specimens with an aspect ratio of 65 showed unsystematic increases
in strength, noting that SFRC with 1.0% 𝑉𝑓 governed and produced the highest result. The
compressive strength computed for this specimen showed an increase by 18.7% in compression
to the control mix. The final test for specimens with aspect ratio 80 (including SFRC 7-9)
showed the same unsystematic increase in compressive strength as that of specimens with aspect
ratio 60. The highest result produced by these specimens was also at the same dosage of 𝑉𝑓 1.0%.
This indicates that a 1.0% 𝑉𝑓 dosage at an aspect ratio of either 65 or 80 will provide the ultimate
compressive strength. On the contrary, this is not a significant increase that suggests replacing
rebar reinforcement, as conventional rebar will surely give healthier results.

17
 On the other hand, tensile strength showed more prosperous results. For the first tested
batch with aspect ratio of 45 (SFRC 1-3) a gradual increase was noted, and a significant increase
of 40.2% was produced when comparing the highest result achieved with the control concrete
specimen. This significant increase was observed at a dosage of 1.5% 𝑉𝑓 . The second batch
showed the highest results in comparison, an increase by 54.2% at a 𝑉𝑓 of 1.5%. This substantial
increase proves that SFRC is effective in resisting tensile strength.

Flexural strength tests had the highest results noted in all the experiments conducted.
SFRC specimen with aspect ratio 45, showed a linear increase in strength as the 𝑉𝑓 (%) increased.
A 30% increase was observed at 1.5% 𝑉𝑓 . The second batch showed better results; at an aspect
ratio of 65 and 1.5% 𝑉𝑓 , the increase was 57.1% in comparison to the controlling mix. However,
the final specimens tested showed the best results, at as aspect ratio of 80 and 1.5% 𝑉𝑓 the
flexural strength increased by 81.2%. This is significant evidence that steel fiber is highly
effective and an excellent mechanism to resist flexural strength. In fact, further studies have
shown that an increase in both aspect ratio and 𝑉𝑓 (%) could increase the flexural strength
resistance by up to 150%.

Ultrasonic pulse velocity tests were not as successful as the strength test conducted. The
results indicated a gradual decrease range of 1-9% in all specimens. As the 𝑉𝑓 (%), aspect ratio
and unit weight of concrete increased the ultrasonic pulse velocity decreased. In conventional
concrete, there exists a relationship between unit weight and ultrasonic pulse velocity. The
decreases in unit weight of concrete the higher the ultrasonic pulse velocity. Therefore, adding
SFRC will surely increase the unit weight of the mix and cause higher porosity due to
compacting difficulties, which evidently will decrease the ultrasonic pulse velocity.

18
 4. Structural Integrity

Steel fibers have been shown to increase the structural integrity of construction. In many
applications the structural integrity of a structure depends on the steel fiber reinforcement. Test
results in this report confirm the ability of steel fiber reinforcement to increase strength, resisting
greater compressive, tensile and flexural loads in concrete. Applications of its use as substitute
reinforcement have been witnessed in real life scenarios. An example of this can be seen in
Toyota container stacking yard in India, where a reoccurring problem of slab cracking occurred
due to the movement and stacking of heavy stock (4). The solution was to replace the existing
floor 17200𝑚2 with a SFRC jointless floor. The new floor prevented heat cracking and resulted
in higher resistance against impact and dynamic loads. The floor was monitored for 3 years after
installation and showed great results indicating a prosperous life cycle. Other examples of SFRC
constructions have observed to live a healthy life cycle with minor maintenance.

Research has shown how that SFRC structures hold together under loads, including the
structures own weight, resisting breakage or bending. It has been proven to aid against collapsing
structures constructed in seismic areas. It has also been noted that it performs its designed
function efficiently for as long as the designed life of the structure (2). Therefore, concrete
structures constructed with SFRC are considered having efficient structural integrity.

19
 5. Structural Uses/Construction

SFRC can generally be used in modern structural and non-structural applications. New
advancements in steel fiber research allows for a broader opportunity for different uses. Steel
fiber technology as an admixture, has proven its reliability and is found highly useful when
considered as a reinforcement. SFRC can be found in hydraulic structures including stilling
basins, dams, and sluiceways as new or replacement slabs. Its characteristics resist cavitation
damage and can also be used to repair cracks through the use of steel fiber reinforced polymer
sheets. Airport, aprons, highway paving and overlay are another place where SFRC is used.
These applications require thinner than normal slab hence, the use of steel fibers to enhance their
toughness and functionality. SFRC can be widely found in industrial floors, this is due to its
resistances to high impact and thermal shock. SFRC used in bridge decks has shown high
efficiency. However, it is only used as an overlay or topping to prevent concrete cracking from
vibrations produced by passing cars and trucks. The primary structural support is conventional
reinforced concrete. Shotcrete tunnel linings is another place were SFRC is frequently found.
When excavation inside a tunnel takes place, the surrounding rock mass needs support to prevent
collapsing. SFRC has been proven to be the optimum solution for stabilizing the deformation of
the tunnels ground lining. Shotcrete covering also uses steel fibers as reinforcement in certain
applications. It is used in highway and railway cuts to stabilize the rocks on the sides. Another
similar application that uses shotcrete covering for the same reason is embankments. SFRC can
also be found in modern thin architectural structures like foam domes. Future uses for SFRC will
be developed for seismic resistant structures constructed in high seismic areas.

Further applications that use SFRC are precast panels, repairs and re-habitation of marine
structures, highway construction and repair, railroad ties, machine bases and frames, thin sheets,
shingles, roof tiles, pipes, prefabricated shapes, panels, curtain walls, precast elements, vaults,
safes, impact resisting structures etc. The list of applications that use SFRC is extensive
indicating its excellent properties and evident benefits.

20
 6. Advancement

The higher the demand for SFRC use as reinforcement, the more pertinacious scientists are to
develop this technology to its furthest capability. The new advancements include using SFRC
with other applications of reinforcement to enhance its strength and reinforcing capabilities. A
leading company in fiber reinforcement technology (FiberMesh Co.) engineered a blend of steel
and micro fibers for reinforcement of concrete. This blend proved to provide optimum
combination of plastic shrinkage and long-term reinforcement within the concrete. The result of
this blend increased crack resistance, ductility, and energy absorption. The blend also improved
impact resistance, fatigue endurance, and shear strength of concrete. Further applications are
currently under investigation and there are plenty of opportunities for further advancement.

7. Advantages/Disadvantages

SFRC, like all materials contain advantages and disadvantage. However, its advantages
tip the scale. These include faster installation in construction than conventional steel-rebar
reinforcement. There’s no need for intensified labor work, as steel fibers can be added to the
concrete in the mixing phase (13, 15). SFRC does not require minimum cover. This can also be
viewed as a disadvantage when the SFRC is exposed to rainfall. Rainfall damaging slabs allows
aggregates and steel fibers to become exposed, giving it poor aesthetics. Steer fiber
reinforcement can be made into thin sheets or irregular shapes making it useful in complex
applications (15). It can be used to reduce section thickness throughout the concrete. SFRC can
also be used for maintenance purposes (Steel Fiber Reinforced Polymer sheets). Moreover, the
steel fibers can be manufactured from recycled steel making it more sustainable. SFRC contains
high modulus of elasticity, making it effective for long-term reinforcement, even in hardened
concrete. Ideal design and use of aspect ratio can makes it ideal for early age performance, like
counter acting cracking in freshly casted concrete (15). The mechanical characteristics of SFRC
are by far its main advantages as proven in earlier tests. Its increase in tensile strength has shown
many uses in daily applications. The ability to retain greater toughness in conventional concrete

21
mixes is another useful benefit. SFRC capability of resisting higher flexural strength has made it
considerably a better alternative than conventional concrete. SFRC also possesses enough
plasticity to undergo large deformation once the peak load has been reached (7, 13, 15).

On the contrary, SFRC has a few disadvantages that must be considered before
incorporating it into a design. Steel fibers are relatively expensive. Although market competition
has lowered its cost, it is still relatively high (13). SFRC contains minor defects when used in
onsite construction. The steel fibers tend to clump or ball when an unreliable distribution
technique is used. The steel fibers will not float close to the surface or may not be properly
oriented if not dispersed well. As for the final outcome efficiency, the SFRC has been noticed to
reduce workability (7). It also cannot withstand high compressive strength making it useless in
compressive strength reinforced structures. Although SFRC has a few disadvantages, its
advantages have made it worth of using in construction.

8. Theoretical and Methodological Contribution

Distribution determines the materials load bearing capacity. However, there is no definite way of
telling whether the steel fibers have been uniformly distributed along the concrete. This has been
one of the main elements of risk construction companies avoid using SFRC. Nevertheless, there
are new developing software’s that evaluate the fiber matrix by taking samples from finished
concrete components and examining their steel fiber distribution (16, 17). Developers will take a
specimen from the cured concrete and analyze it through an X-ray at the lab. The software’s
results reveal the finest micrometer sized structures within the material and generates a high-
resolution 3D data set for the concrete sample. The software is based on probability calculations
depending on the sample taken and does have limitations in terms of accuracy, but scientists are
still working on developing this method and currently have reached prototypes which can
analyze samples as big as beer crates which produce more accurate analysis for bigger scale
developments (16, 17).

22
 9. Conclusion and Recommendation

The conducted tests exhibited the functionality of using steel fibers as reinforcement. When
applied as a compressive strength resistance, their contributions were minimal, and in a
corresponding research rebar reinforcement was proven to be a superior alternative. However,
this was not the case for tensile and flexural strength. The steel fibers had a significant impact
and were shown to increase both aspects of resistance. They increased tensile resistance by 54%
and flexural resistance by 81%. Due to these test results, it can be conclude that steel fiber is a
reliable source of reinforcement for both tensile and flexural strength. Unit weight must also be
ominously considered; this factor alone can have a dramatic effect on the design of the concrete
mix.

Steel fibers can be used in numerous applications, due to its beneficial characteristics. It is
manufactured in different shapes, aspect ratio and mechanical properties. It can be used solely as
reinforcement or embedded with steel rebar to enhance the necessary application required.
Overall, I highly recommend the development and use of steel fibers in advance concrete
construction as it facilitates in the design aesthetics, construction and finalized development
phase.

23
 Reference

1. Vairagade S. Vikrant, & Kene S. K. (2012). Introduction to Steel Fiber Reinforced

Concrete on Engineering Performance of Concrete. International Journal of Scientific &
Technology Research, Volume 1.
2. Elsaigh W.A.(2001). Steel Fiber Reinforced Concrete. University of Pretoria.
3. Shende A.M. & Pande A.M. & Gulfam M. P. (2012). Experimental Study on Steel Fiber
Reinforced Concrete for M-40 Grade. International Refereed Journal of Engineering and
Science, Volume 1.
4. Prasadh A. D. & Kumar S. N. (2005). Experimental Study on the Behavior of Steel Fiber
Reinforced Concrete. Anna University.
5. Shahidan S. (2009). Behavior of Steel Fiber Reinforced Concrete Slab Due to Volume
Fraction of Fiber. University Putra Malaysia.
6. Chanh V. N. (2004). Steel Fiber Reinforced Concrete. Faculty of Civil Engineering, Ho
Chi Min City, University of Technology, 108-16.
7. Nasvik J. (2012). How to use Steel Fibers in Concrete. Senior at Residential Concrete
Co.
8. Olivito R.S. & Zuccarello F.A. (2009). An Experimental Study on the Tensile Strength of
Steel Fiber Reinforced Concrete. Department of Structural Engineering, University of
Calabria.
9. Blaszczynski T. & Przybylska-Falek M. (2015). Steel Fiber Reinforced Concrete as a
Structural Material. Poznan University of Technology, Poland.
10. Garber G. (2014). Specifying Steel Fibers for Concrete Floors. Construction Specifier
Institute.
11. Nasvik J. (2012). How to Use Steel Fibers in Concrete. Concrete Construction Inc.
12. Yazici S. & Inan G. Tabak V. (2006). Effect of Aspect Ratio and Volume Fraction of
Steel Fiber on the Mechanical Properties of SFRC. Ege University, Turkey.
13. Choo C. C.& Peiris A. H. & Issam E. (2013). Repair using Steel Fiber Reinforced
Polymer on US150 Bridges. College of engineering, University of Kentucky, USA.

24
14. Nibasumba P. & Liu L. X. (2001). Recent Developments in Fiber Reinforced Concrete
and their Effect on Concrete Columns Analysis. Tsinghua University, China.
15. Ghaffar A. & Chavhan S. A. & Dr. Tatwawadi R. S. (2014). Steel Fiber Reinforced
Concrete. Jawaharlal Darda Institute of Engineering and Technology, Yavatmal.
16. Herrmann H. & Pastorelli E. & Kallonen A. & Suuronen J. P. (2016). Methods for Fiber
Orientation Analysis of X-ray Tomography Images of Steel Fiber Reinforced Concrete.
Journal of Materials Science.
17. Eik Marika Orientation of Short Steel Fibers in Concrete. (2014). Measuring and
Modelling Department of Civil and Structural Engineering, Aalto University.

25