www.modiriat-sakht.blogfa.
com
ACI MATERIALS JOURNAL
Title no. 109-M22
Long-Term Behavior of Cracked Steel Fiber-Reinforced
Concrete Beams under Sustained Loading
by Raúl L. Zerbino and Bryan E. Barragán
In many cases, fibers are incorporated into concrete to improve
the service life of structures by means of the three-dimensional
(3-D) crack control capacity of this type of reinforcement. In
this sense, the residual (postcracking) capacity and long-term
(creep) behavior of fiber-reinforced concrete is of paramount
importance. This paper presents an experimental study on the
behavior of steel fiber-reinforced concrete (SFRC) beams, cracked
and then subjected to long-term loading. Beams measuring
150 x 150 x 600 mm (6 x 6 x 24 in.) were cast with a 45 MPa
(6525 psi) compressive strength SFRC with self-consolidating
characteristics, having 40 kg/m3 (67 lb/yd3), 0.5% in volume,
of hooked-end steel fibers of 50 mm (2 in.) length and 1 mm
(0.04 in.) diameter. First, a group of four beams was tested
in flexure according to EN 14651 to establish a performance
reference. Subsequently, another 18 nominally identical beams
were loaded up to crack openings between 0.2 and 3.5 mm
(0.008 and 0.14 in.) using the same test configuration to generate
different damage levels. The cracked beams were then placed
in creep frames and subjected to different levels of load. The
crack opening under constant gravity load was electronically
measured over a period of approximately 21 months by means of
displacement transducers. The concept of the crack-opening rate
under long-term loading is introduced, and the conditions for a
long-term stable response are discussed.
Keywords: cracking; creep; fiber reinforcement; long-term behavior;
tensile properties.
INTRODUCTION
The mechanical behavior of steel fiber-reinforced concrete
(SFRC) has been widely studied over the past three decades.
Significant advances have been achieved regarding the
toughness and residual strength characterization of SFRC.
In this regard, EN 146511 includes postcracking param-
eters such as residual strengths at different crack openings.
Nevertheless, there is limited information on the long-term
behavior of cracked SFRC elements under load, with only a
few reports on the subject.
In many applications, fibers have been incorporated into
concrete not only to control cracking processes by intro-
ducing significant toughness or ductility but also to improve
the service life of structures by means of the three-dimen-
sional (3-D) reinforcement action. In this sense, creep char-
acterization of cracked fiber-reinforced concrete (FRC) and
the conditions required for a stable postcrack or residual
response represent key points of interest because service-
ability of the material will depend on its capacity to transfer
the sustained stresses through the fibers and the corre-
sponding stability of the cracks involved.
In terms of structural design, recommendations for SFRC
were proposed by RILEM TC 162-TDF,2 adding the fiber
contribution to the formulas of Eurocode 2.3 As an important
step forward, the method considers the possibility of struc-
tural cracking in service in a very practical fashion. It does
ACI Materials Journal/March-April 2012
TECHNICAL PAPER
not, however, take into account the long-term behavior under
cracked conditions and neither do ACI 360R-104 or the new
complete draft of fib Model Code 20105—only a recom-
mendation is included in the latter concerning the long-term
performance of concrete reinforced with fibers that could
be affected by creep. In this sense, Granju et al.6 previously
mentioned that design rules ignoring the effects of sustained
loading would be inadequate. In Granju et al.’s6 study, where
beams were loaded at 60% of the residual load corresponding
to a deflection of span/300, the authors observed that creep
is stabilized after the sixth month of sustained loading and
that creep might not affect the safety of structures because
no difference was found between the postcracking behavior
of samples subjected to creep loading and that of the control
specimens. In contrast, fatigue loading led other similar
beams to rupture. Both types of loading led to widening of
existing cracks. Even when fatigue did not lead to rupture, it
significantly increased the crack width.
When considering the possible combinations of steel bar
reinforcement and fibers, studies including conventionally
reinforced beams7,8 have shown that the addition of steel
fibers considerably reduces the time-dependent deflection and
crack widening of reinforced concrete—effects that become
more important with increased fiber content and time.
Regarding the effect of fiber type, an analytical
model9 developed to study the influence of fibers on creep
of fiber-reinforced cementitious composites shows that,
given the same fiber content and fiber geometry, the higher
the moduli ratio between the fiber and matrix, the smaller
the composite creep strain. High elastic modulus fibers are
more effective than those with a low elastic modulus as far
as composite creep deformation reduction is concerned. This
model, however, is valid only in the elastic range of fiber
and matrix loading; the influence of matrix microcracking
on creep was not taken into account.
The steel fiber filament does not show creep deformation
when subjected to tensile stresses under normal ambient
temperature. Fibers in concrete primarily start to carry stress
after microcracking of the matrix starts. In the postcracking
stage, fibers will bridge the cracks and control their propaga-
tion by the chemical and physical bond or anchorage that
develops during the fiber pullout or slip processes. These
mechanisms are not independent of the fiber type. For
example, in the case of deformed steel fibers, the anchorage
action associated with the fiber geometry is especially rele-
ACI Materials Journal, V. 109, No. 2, March-April 2012.
MS No. M-2010-406.R2 received May 23, 2011, and reviewed under Institute
publication policies. Copyright © 2012, American Concrete Institute. All rights
reserved, including the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the
copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion including author’s closure, if any, will be
published in the January-February 2013 ACI Materials Journal if the discussion is
received by October 1, 2012.
215
Raúl L. Zerbino is a Professor in the Department of Civil Engineering of the Faculty of
Engineering at the National University of La Plata (UNLP), Buenos Aires, Argentina.
He is a Researcher at the National Council of Scientific and Technological Research
(CONICET). He received his PhD from UNLP. His research interests include the
fracture and mechanical behavior of concrete and the technology of fiber-reinforced
and self-consolidating concretes.
Bryan E. Barragán is a Development Manager for Concrete Technology at BASF
Construction Chemicals Europe, Treviso, Italy. He received his PhD from the Technical
University of Catalonia (UPC), Barcelona, Spain. His research interests include fiber-
reinforced and self-consolidating concretes.
vant. A recent investigation into the mechanism of creep in
cracked strain-hardening cement-based composites rein-
forced with polyvinyl alcohol fibers loaded in direct tension
concludes that this type of fiber does not creep significantly
under sustained loading and that the dominant mechanism
causing the increased tensile creep was the formation of
new cracks and crack widening due to time-dependent fiber
pullout.10 In SFRC, the postcracking creep phenomena are
not caused by the creep deformation of the actual fibers, but
rather by the slow pullout of the fibers from the matrix. For
this reason, it is not possible to uncouple the behavior of the
concrete from that of the fibers and treat these as distinct
elements of a structural system, as done with conventionally
reinforced members.11 In the same work,11 investigating the
magnitude of time-dependent postcrack deflections in shot-
crete panels reinforced with steel and macrosynthetic fibers,
the author found that for narrow initial crack widths and
load ratios up to 50% of static residual capacity, steel fiber-
reinforced shotcrete panels exhibit a stable creep behavior.
A stable evolution of postcracking flexural creep of steel
and synthetic FRC beams statically loaded up to 60% of the
residual strength during more than 1 year was also found by
Mackay and Trottier.12 Recent studies13 have also shown low
creep coefficients for SFRC in the case of low load levels
and a clear influence of the type of steel fibers, load level,
and concrete class on the creep of cracked elements under
flexure. Arango Campo13 also makes clear that a low creep
coefficient does not necessarily mean a low total deforma-
tion and vice versa, because, for example, high loads also
involve high instantaneous deformations.
An experimental study of the creep behavior of SFRC
cracked beams submitted to long-term loading is presented
in this paper. Beams measuring 150 x 150 x 600 mm
(6 x 6 x 24 in.) were preloaded up to different crack openings
and then placed in creep frames, subjecting the elements to
tensile stress in bending and measuring the evolution of the
crack opening for 21 months. The results allow for the evalu-
ation of the influence of the residual stress level and initial
crack opening on the long-term performance of SFRC and,
among other issues, the concept of the crack-opening rate
under sustained load is analyzed.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
Important advances have been achieved over the past three
decades regarding the toughness and residual strength char-
acterization of FRC. This has been crucial to the develop-
ment of advanced structural design methods for this mate-
rial, which are under continued development. However,
because there is very limited information on the mechanical
long-term behavior of cracked FRC under load (that is, creep
in cracked conditions), published design methods do not
include formulas to take this creep deformation into account.
This could lead to mistaken suppositions when the fiber
216
Table 1—SFRC mixture proportions and fresh
properties
Mixture proportions, kg/m3 (lb/yd3)
CEM II/B-L 32.5 N 455 (765)
Water 160 (269)
Sand 940 (1580)
Gravel 775 (1302)
Steel fibers 40 (67)
High-range water-reducing admixture 7 (12)
Fresh concrete tests
Slump flow diameter Df, mm (in.) 608 (24)
T50, seconds 2.2
J-ring DJ, mm (in.) 540 (21)
contribution is taken into account in the serviceability limit
state—that is, when a certain extent of cracking is accepted.
Such infrequently evaluated performance, studied in this
work for SFRC, is of paramount importance to improve the
service life of the structures.
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
The material selected for this study was a self-consoli-
dating concrete incorporating 40 kg/m3 (67 lb/yd3), 0.5% in
volume, of steel fibers. The mixture proportions and fresh
properties are summarized in Table 1. A blended portland
cement—CEM II/B-L 32.5 N containing approximately
30% limestone filler—and crushed calcareous aggregates
were used. A polycarboxylic high-range water-reducing
admixture was also used. The hooked-end steel fibers
were 50 mm (2 in.) long and 1.0 mm (0.04 in.) in diam-
eter. This SFRC achieved an average compressive strength
of 45 MPa (6525 psi) at 28 days, which was measured
using 150 x 300 mm (6 x 12 in.) cylinders.
Twenty-two prisms (150 x 150 x 600 mm [6 x 6 x 24 in.]) were
cast from the same batch of concrete mixed in a ready mixed
concrete plant and demolded 24 hours later. After 28 days
of fog curing, the beams were kept for 6 months in a labo-
ratory environment to minimize any strength variations over
the duration of the study. Four specimens were first tested
according to EN 146511 (three-point bending with a 500 mm
[19.7 in.] span and 25 mm [0.98 in.] notch) in a closed-loop
servo-hydraulic system, using crack mouth opening displace-
ment (CMOD) as the control signal. In addition to the clip
gauge placed at 1 mm (0.04 in.) from the bottom of the beam,
the crack-opening displacement (COD) was monitored
through a linear variation differential transducer (LVDT)
fixed on a lateral side of the specimen 10 mm (0.4 in.) from
the bottom. The limit of proportionality or first peak stress fL
and the residual strengths fR1, fR2, fR3, and fR4 at 0.5, 1.5, 2.5,
and 3.5 mm (0.02, 0.06, 0.10, and 0.14 in.) CMOD, respec-
tively, were calculated from the load-CMOD curves, as indi-
cated in EN 14651.1
The rest of the beams (denoted A to R) were cracked
using the same EN 146511 test configuration, but the process
was interrupted at different CMOD levels (between 0.2 and
3.5 mm [0.008 and 0.14 in.]). Subsequently, the beams
were unloaded and placed in a creep frame (Fig. 1), varying
the flexure configuration from a 500 mm (19.7 in.) span
and three-point bending to a 450 mm (17.7 in.) span and
four-point bending. To ensure precise control of the crack
opening, the lateral LVDT used during the initial cracking
process always remained attached. The CMOD was calcu-
lated from the LVDT measurement (COD), as indicated in
ACI Materials Journal/March-April 2012
Fig. 1—Creep tests configuration indicating position of LVDT, load cell (LC), lever arm (LA), pivot axis (A), and steel bar for
load transfer (SB).

ACI Materials Journal/March-April 2012 217

Fig. 2—Bending tests: (a) complete EN 14651 test; (b) Beam I, test interrupted at 0.5 mm (0.02 in.); and (c) Beam M, test inter-
rupted at 1.0 mm (0.04 in.).
Eq. (1), considering the position of the LVDT and clip gauge
extensometer with respect to the top of the beam, where
dLVDT = 140 mm (5.51 in.) and dCMOD = 151 mm (5.94 in.),
respectively.
CMOD = COD × dCMOD/dLVDT (1)
With the aim of verifying the suitability of the adopted
methodology, only one beam was initially placed in each
frame. After 1 month of loading and considering the stability
of the responses, the specimens were unloaded and three
beams were placed in each frame to increase the number of
beams tested under long-term loading within the available
frames (refer to Fig. 1). Note that a load cell was positioned
on the top of each set of specimens.
The test setup is similar to the one used by Bast et al.14 and
basically identical to that used by Arango Campo.13 As can
be observed from Fig. 1, a constant gravity load was applied
through a lever arm (LA) that pivots on axis (A) and transfers
the load to the beams through two threaded steel bars (SBs).
The load was registered by a load cell (LC). The beams rest
on two steel roll supports, which were fixed in the bottom
beam and free in the case of the middle and upper elements.
The tracking of the COD is similar to that implemented by
Granju et al.6
Long-term creep tests were performed on the aforemen-
tioned beams over a period of 21 months and the COD was
continuously recorded. Different stress levels were applied
using a four-point loading configuration with a 450 mm
(17.7 in.) span. At the beginning of the creep tests, the
nominal stresses varied from 37 to 105% of those reached at
the end of the initial three-point bending test. Some beams
failed during long-term loading, but most beams presented
stable responses. After approximately 18 months, the load
was significantly increased on the beams that remained
loaded in the frames, achieving stresses up to 195% of those
reached at the end of the initial three-point bending test.
Additionally, an LVDT was placed on an unloaded refer-
ence beam to account for shrinkage deformations. A data
acquisition system was used to record the signals from all
LVDTs, load cells, and sensors tracking environmental
conditions (temperature and relative humidity).
218
TEST RESULTS
Flexural tests and initial cracking process
A typical load-CMOD curve is presented in Fig. 2(a);
records from the clip gauge and the LVDT corrected in
accordance with Eq. (1) were plotted, showing the coher-
ence of both measurements. Note that just after a slight drop
following the first peak, the SFRC under evaluation shows a
hardening-type post-peak behavior with significant residual
strengths. The fM/fL ratio is close to 1.6, and the maximum
residual stress corresponds to a CMOD of 1.5 mm (0.06 in.)
(fR2). Hence, a significant postcracking load-bearing capacity
is observed for this SFRC.
Figure 2(b) and (c) presents typical load-CMOD curves
obtained during the cracking process carried out prior to the
long-term testing (Beams I and M cracked up to a CMOD of
0.5 and 1.0 mm [0.02 and 0.04 in.], respectively).
Table 2 shows the mean values of the strength parameters
(fL, fR1, fR2, fR3, and fR4) obtained from the bending tests on
notched beams performed in accordance with EN 14651.1 In
addition to the results obtained from the reference beams,
Table 2 includes the same parameters calculated from the
rest of the beams tested: six beams up to a CMOD of 0.2 mm
(0.008 in.), three beams up to a CMOD of 0.5 mm (0.02 in.),
one beam up to a CMOD of 0.8 mm (0.03 in.), three beams
up to a CMOD of 1.0 mm (0.40 in.), three beams up to a
CMOD of 1.5 mm (0.06 in.), and two beams up to a CMOD
of 3.5 mm (0.14 in.). As expected, the mean value of fL and
the residual strengths are similar to those obtained in the
complete EN 146511 bending tests. It must be noted that the
variability of the residual parameters was higher for a CMOD
of 0.5 mm (0.02 in.) (fR1). In a few cases (refer to Beams K
and P), no increases in post-peak capacity were observed.
This level of post-peak variability is typical in SFRC; the
effect on the different long-term loading responses will be
discussed in the following.
Table 3 summarizes additional information obtained from
the initial cracking process of Beams A to R: the maximum
stress (fM, calculated from the maximum load obtained
throughout the entire test); the stress and crack opening
at the end of the initial cracking process (ffinal and CMOD-
final, respectively); and the residual CMOD after unloading
(CMODresidual). Note that, as a consequence of the post-peak
hardening behavior of this SFRC, in many cases, fmax = ffinal.
Table 3 also includes the value of the fL/ffinal ratio and the
ACI Materials Journal/March-April 2012
Table 2—Strength and toughness parameters of SFRC
fL fR1 fR2 fR3 fR4
Beam MPa (psi)
Beams tested in accordance with EN 14651
Mean value 4.7 (682) 6.5 (943) 7.1 (1030) 6.4 (928) 5.8 (841)
Standard deviation 0.29 (42) 1.15 (167) 0.66 (96) 0.75 (109) 0.64 (93)
Coefficient of variation, % 6 18 9 12 11
Tests stopped at different CMOD (initial cracking)
A 4.6 (667)
B 4.7 (682)
C 4.2 (609)
Up to 0.2 mm (0.008 in.) — — — —
D 4.9 (711)
E 5.3 (769)
F 4.2 (609)
G 4.3 (624) 5.3 (769)
H Up to 0.5 mm (0.02 in.) 4.9 (711) 5.5 (798) — — —
I 4.7 (682) 6.0 (870)
J Up to 0.8 mm (0.03 in.) 5.3 (769) 8.7 (1262) — — —
K 4.1 (595) 2.9 (421)
L Up to 1 mm (0.04 in.) 5.6 (812) 7.5 (1088) — — —
M 4.9 (711) 6.3 (914)
N 5.1 (740) 5.4 (783) 5.9 (856)
O Up to 1.5 mm (0.06 in.) 4.5 (653) 8.4 (1218) 7.6 (1102) — —
P 4.8 (696) 4.5 (653) 5.4 (783)
Q 5.0 (725) 6.8 (986) 6.5 (943) 5.6 (812) 5.3 (769)
Up to 3.5 mm (0.14 in.)
R 4.3 (624) 6.1 (885) 7.1 (1030) 6.8 (986) 5.7 (827)
Mean value 4.7 (624) 6.1 (885) 6.8 (986) 6.2 (899) 5.5 (798)
Standard deviation 0.43 (62) 1.61 (233) 0.43 (62) 0.81 (117) 0.30 (44)
Coefficient of variation, % 9 26 6 13 5

Table 3—Stress and CMOD after cracking process

fmax ffinal CMODfinal CMODresidual End of cracking process
Beam MPa (psi) mm (in. × 10–3) fL/ffinal Behavior
A 5.0 (725) 5.0 (725) 0.19 (7) 0.07 (3) >1 Hardening
B 4.7 (682) 4.5 (653) 0.20 (8) 0.09 (4) >1 Hardening
C 4.2 (609) 2.6 (377) 0.20 (8) 0.09 (4) <1 Softening
D 5.6 (812) 5.6 (812) 0.20 (8) 0.08 (3) >1 Hardening
E 6.5 (943) 6.5 (943) 0.22 (9) 0.09 (4) >1 Hardening
F 4.3 (624) 4.3 (624) 0.21 (8) 0.09 (4) >1 Hardening
G 5.3 (769) 5.3 (769) 0.49 (19) 0.25 (10) >1 Hardening
H 5.5 (798) 5.4 (783) 0.50 (20) 0.25 (10) >1 Hardening
I 6.0 (870) 6.0 (870) 0.50 (20) 0.27 (11) >1 Hardening
J 9.7 (1407) 7.4 (1073) 0.83 (33) 0.47 (19) >1 Hardening
K 4.1 (595) 3.4 (493) 1.00 (39) 0.63 (25) <1 Hardening
L 7.9 (1146) 7.6 (1102) 1.00 (39) 0.60 (24) >1 Softening
M 7.0 (1015) 6.7 (972) 1.00 (39) 0.62 (24) >1 Softening
N 5.9 (856) 5.9 (856) 1.26 (50) 0.90 (35) >1 Hardening
O 8.9 (1291) 7.6 (1102) 1.50 (59) 0.90 (35) >1 Softening
P 5.4 (783) 5.3 (769) 1.51 (59) 1.14 (45) >1 Hardening
Q 6.9 (1001) 5.1 (740) 3.52 (139) 3.10 (122) >1 Softening
R 7.3 (1059) 5.8 (841) 3.54 (139) 3.10 (122) >1 Softening

characteristic of the post-peak behavior at the end of the
cracking test (hardening or softening type).
Long-term behavior of cracked beams
Figure 3 shows the variation in environmental conditions
over the first 75 days. During this study, the ambient temper-
ature ranged between 16 and 23°C (60 and 73°F) and the
relative humidity ranged between 64 and 22%. Records from
an LVDT placed on a cracked and unloaded beam indicated
that the variations in ambient conditions did not significantly
affect the CMOD of the cracked beams (±4 mm [±0.02 ×
10–3 in.]).
Different stress levels were applied during the creep tests.
First, some beams were individually loaded in each frame
and then were unloaded to rearrange the configuration in sets
of three beams per frame. This procedure was repeated when

ACI Materials Journal/March-April 2012 219

Fig. 3—Environmental conditions throughout creep tests.

a beam failed. Finally, in many cases, a significant increase

of the applied load was introduced at later ages. Typical
COD-versus-time curves that correspond to cracked beams
subjected to long-term loading are presented in Fig. 4(a)
to (c), including the instantaneous displacement just after
loading. Figure 4(a) shows the specimens with fine cracks
near 0.20 mm (0.008 in.), Fig. 4(b) shows the beams with
intermediate crack openings, and Fig. 4(c) shows the beams
cracked up to 1.0 mm (0.04 in.) or more. The applied load
f is expressed relative to the final stress reached during the
initial cracking process f/ffinal of each beam. For example,
when introduced in the creep frame, Beam F was loaded at
53% of the stress reached during the initial cracking process
ffinal. After 18 months of such constant load, the stress level
of Beam F was increased to 1.49 times ffinal. The significant
increase of the COD when unloading-loading events took
place can be clearly observed.
The initial (that is, quasi-instantaneous) displacement
was subtracted from the curves presented in Fig. 5, showing
only the long-term displacements due to creep during the
first period of loading (1000 hours). The strain over time is
expressed as mm/MPa (10–6 in./psi); the level of applied load
in each case is also indicated as the ratio f/ffinal. Beams A,
B, C, L, N, and Q, for which unloading-loading events took
place during the first days, were not included.
Table 4 summarizes the experimental results obtained
during the creep tests. The loading time with some refer-
ence values of COD and the applied stress f are indicated for
each beam. The stress level is also expressed relative to the
first crack stress f/fL and relative to the final stress reached
in the preliminary bending test f/ffinal. In addition, the COD
rate (mm/h [in./h 10–4]) and the specific COD rate (mm/h.
MPa [in./h psi.10–9]) were calculated at the different loading
instances, with the purpose of evaluating the stability of the
response under long-term loading. As previously mentioned,
some beams were individually loaded during the first month,
and then the number of beams under loading was increased, Fig. 4—Evolution of crack openings (COD) during creep
incorporating three beams in each frame. For these cases, as tests: total displacements (including initial instantaneous
a reference, Table 4 also indicates the position of each beam displacements).
(upper, middle, or lower). No significant effects or trends of
the beams’ response related to the position of the specimens equal to those reached at the end of the cracking tests
were found. (Beams A, B, and C). When f/ffinal ratios less than 0.50 were
Considering Beams A to F, which initially cracked up to applied, there was almost no COD increase due to creep, just
a relatively small CMODfinal (0.2 mm [0.008 in.]), stable a small initial displacement that stabilized at a crack-opening
responses were obtained even when applying stress levels rate close to zero (refer to Fig. 5 [Beams D, E, and F]). In

220 ACI Materials Journal/March-April 2012

Table 4—Summary of loading conditions and creep test results
COD, mm Applied stress f Crack opening rate
Beam/CMODfinal/position Time, h Observations* (in. × 10–3) MPa (psi) f/fL f/ffinal mm/h (10–4 in./h) mm/h.MPa (10–9 in/h.psi)
0 a 0.11 (4) 5.1 (740) 1.10 1.01 — —
207 b, c 0.35 (14) 5.1 (740) 1.10 1.01 0.3 (110) 0.05 (14)
3100 — 0.64 (25) — — — 0.03 (12) 0.01 (3)
A/0.19 mm (0.007 in.)/middle
10,000 — 0.82 (32) — — — 0.01 (4) <0.01 (3)
13,000 d 1.74 (68) 5.7 (827) 1.24 1.14 0.01 (4) <0.01 (3)
15,060 e 2.13 (84) — — — — —
0 a 0.11 (4) 4.4 (638) 0.94 0.99 — —
305 b, c 0.36 (14) 4.5 (653) 0.95 1.00 0.19 (75) 0.04 (11)
3100 — 0.68 (27) — — — 0.05 (20) 0.01 (3)
B/0.20 mm (0.008 in.)/middle
10,000 — 0.82 (32) — — — <0.01 (4) <0.01 (3)
13,600 d 1.60 (63) 5.9 (856) 1.25 1.33 <0.01 (4) <0.01 (3)
15,060 e 1.62 (64) — — — — —
0 a 0.16 (6) 2.6 (377) 0.63 1.00 — —
306 b, c 0.52 (20) 2.7 (392) 0.66 1.05 0.21 (83) 0.08 (22)
C/0.20 mm (0.008 in.)/lower 3100 — 1.30 (51) — — — 0.05 (20) 0.02 (5)
10,000 — 1.47 (58) — — — 0.01 (4) <0.01 (3)
13,090 d, f Failure 5.1 (740) 1.22 1.95 — —
0 b 0.06 (2) 2.4 (348) 0.48 0.42 — —
3100 — 0.07 (3) — — — <0.01 (4) <0.01 (3)
D/0.20 mm (0.008 in.)/middle 10,800 — 0.11 (4) — — — <0.01 (4) <0.01 (3)
12,600 d 1.49 (59) 6.5 (943) 1.33 1.16 0.02 (8) <0.01 (3)
14,340 e 1.76 (69) — — — — —
0 b 0.05 (2) 2.4 (348) 0.46 0.37 — —
3100 — 0.06 (2) — — — <0.01 (4) <0.01 (3)
E/0.22 mm (0.009 in.)/lower 10,000 — 0.06 (2) — — — <0.01 (4) <0.01 (3)
13,000 d 0.33 (13) 6.4 (928) 1.21 0.99 0.01 (4) <0.01 (3)
14,400 e 0.42 (16) — — — — —
0 b 0.08 (3) 2.3 (334) 0.55 0.53 — —
3100 — 0.10 (4) — — — <0.01 (4) <0.01 (3)
F/0.21 mm (0.008 in.)/upper
10,000 — 0.11 (4) — — — <0.01 (4) <0.01 (3)
12,590 d, f Failure 6.5 (943) 1.56 1.49 — —
0 a 0.25 (10) 4.6 (667) 1.08 0.87 0.7 (283) 0.14 (38)
G/0.49 mm (0.02 in.) 100 — 0.38 (15) 5.1 (740) 1.20 0.96 1.3 (516) 0.26 (71)
166 c, f Failure — — — — —
0 b 0.29 (11) 5.2 (754) 1.08 0.96 — —
3000 — 1.06 (42) — — — 0.13 (51) 0.02 (5)
H/0.50 mm (0.02 in.)/lower 10,000 — 1.65 (65) — — — 0.01 (4) <0.01 (3)
13,100 d 1.80 (71) 5.9 (856) 1.22 1.08 — —
13,190 f Failure — — — — —
0 b 0.22 (9) 4.8 (696) 1.03 0.81 — —
3000 0.69 (27) — — — 0.04 (16) 0.01 (3)
I/0.50 mm (0.02 in.)/upper 10,000 0.86 (34) — — — 0.01 (4) <0.01 (3)
13,100 d 0.96 (38) 5.4 (783) 1.15 0.91 0.01 (4) <0.01 (3)
14,850 e — — — — — —
*
a is alone; b is three beams together; c is unloading and loading; d is increase in load; e is continue under loading; and f is failure.

addition, the initial COD of cracked Beams D, E, and F after
loading in the frames was close to the theoretically estimated
COD considering the elastic recovery after the cracking tests
(CMODfinal – CMODresidual) and the applied stresses, showing
the stability of these responses. The observed behavior can
be explained considering that most of the beams (with the
exception of Beam C) showed a hardening-type behavior at
the end of the cracking test. Thus, these specimens have a
significant residual capacity to support the long-term load
without the fibers slipping from the matrix.
At 18 months, the load level was increased in Beams A
to F (smaller initial crack openings) up to f/fL values greater
than 1.20. Consequently, beams where f/ffinal was finally
less than 1.3 continued to carry the applied load, whereas
Beams C and F, where f/ffinal was greater than 1.4, broke
suddenly. The performance of Beam C can be explained
because it showed the lowest post-peak residual capacity of
the group (refer to ffinal in Table 3). This beam failed when
5.1 MPa (740 psi) was applied, which is lower than the
average fR1 of this concrete. Hence, the intrinsic variability

ACI Materials Journal/March-April 2012 221

Table 4 (cont.)—Summary of loading conditions and creep tests results
COD, Applied stress f Crack opening rate
Beam/CMODfinal/position Time, h Observations* mm (in. × 10–3) MPa (psi) f/fL f/ffinal mm/h (10–4 in./h) mm/h.MPa (10–9 in./h.psi)
0 b 0.14 (6) 5.1 (740) 0.97 0.53 — —
3000 — 0.82 (32) — — — 0.06 (24) 0.01 (3)
J/0.83 mm (0.03 in.)/middle 10,000 — 1.02 (40) — — — 0.01 (4) <0.01 (3)
13,000 d 1.20 (47) 6.3 (914) 1.56 1.49 — —
13,100 f Failure — — — — —
0 b 0.35 (14) 2.6 (377) 0.64 0.78 — —
500 — 1.20 (47) — — — 0.6 (252) 0.24 (65)
K/1.00 mm (0.04 in.)/upper
1000 — 1.50 (59) — — — 1.4 (535) 0.5 (141)
1977 f Failure — — — — —
0 b, c 0.18 (7) 5.1 (740) 0.92 0.67 — —
3000 — 0.56 (22) — — — 0.03 (12) <0.01 (3)
L/1.00 mm (0.04 in.)/lower 10,000 — 0.67 (26) — — — 0.02 (8) <0.01 (3)
13,000 d 0.85 (33) 6.3 (914) 1.12 0.83 0.11 (43) 0.02 (5)
13,500 c, e 1.08 (42) — — — — —
0 b 0.28 (11) 4.4 (638) 0.89 0.66 — —
3000 — 0.75 (30) — — — 0.05 (20) 0.01 (3)
M/1.00 mm (0.04 in.)/upper 10,000 — 0.91 (36) — — — <0.01 (4) <0.01 (3)
12,800 d 1.15 (45) 5.9 (856) 1.20 0.88 5 (1965) 0.9 (231)
13,175 f Failure — — — — —
0 b, c 0.17 (7) 4.5 (653) 0.90 0.77 — —
3000 — 0.82 (32) — — — 0.07 (28) 0.02 (5)
N/1.26 mm (0.05 in.)/lower 10,000 — 1.05 (41) — — — <0.01 (4) <0.01 (3)
13,000 d 1.40 (55) 6.0 (870) 1.19 1.03 0.7 (291) 0.12 (33)
13,500 f Failure — — — — —
0 b 0.43 (17) 5.0 (725) 1.10 0.66 — —
3000 — 1.16 (46) — — — 0.08 (31) 0.02 (5)
O/1.50 mm (0.06 in.)/upper
10,000 — 1.39 (55) — — — 0.01 (4) <0.01 (3)
13,000 d, f Failure 6.1 (885) 1.35 0.81 — —
0 a — 4.8 (696) 1.00 0.90 — —
P/1.51 mm (0.06 in.)
f Failure — — — — —
0 a 0.07 (3) 2.9 (421) 0.57 0.56 — —
Q/3.52 mm (0.14 in.)
300 — 0.16 (6) — — — 0.10 (39) 0.03 (8)
0 b 0.15 (6) 2.6 (377) 0.61 0.45 — —
3000 — 0.63 (25) — — — 0.03 (12) 0.01 (3)
R/3.54 mm (0.14 in.)/middle 10,000 — 0.72 (28) — — — 0.01 (4) <0.01 (3)
13,100 d 2.02 (80) 4.8 (696) 1.12 0.83 0.09 (35) 0.02 (5)
13,360 f Failure — — — — —
*
a is alone; b is three beams together; c is unloading and loading; d is increase in load; e is continue under loading; and f is failure.

of the post-peak response of SFRC must be considered for
practical applications.
Considering specimens with intermediate crack openings,
a stable response can still be observed for a CMODfinal of
0.5 mm (0.02 in.), although for f/ffinal = 0.96, a relatively
high crack-opening rate appeared, indicating the possibility
of failure initiation (Beam H). This does not occur for lower
f/ffinal ratios (Beams I and J). In the case of Beam G, also
loaded at a high f/ffinal, where a relatively large crack-opening
rate was measured (refer to Table 4), the failure took place
during an unloading-loading event. In this group, when the
loads were increased at later ages, a quick failure occurred in
Beams H and J; on the contrary, Beam I continued to carry
load even though f/ffinal = 0.81.
When the creep test started on beams cracked up to a
CMODfinal of 1 mm (0.04 in.), which is close to the highest
residual strength fR2 of this SFRC, an f/ffinal of 0.78 led to a
creep failure at 83 days in the case of Beam K, showing a
three-stage creep response: primary, secondary, and tertiary.
The response of Beam K presented in Fig. 4 and 5 clearly
shows the rate increase indicated in Table 4. This beam
entered the third creep stage after 40 to 50 days with
a 1.36 mm/h (535 in./h 10–4) crack-opening rate and a
0.52 mm/h MPa (141 in./h psi10–9) relative crack-opening
rate. For the same initial crack opening of 1.0 mm (0.04 in.),
a relatively stable condition was achieved with this SFRC for
an f/ffinal close to 0.70 and f/fL near 0.90 (Beams L and M).
A similar behavior was also observed for larger values of
CMODfinal, as in the case of Beams N and O (CMODfinal of
1.5 mm [0.06 in.]) or even Beams Q and R (CMODfinal of
3.5 mm [0.14 in.]). For the latter specimens, f/ffinal = 0.50.
Nevertheless, an almost instantaneous failure occurred when
applying f/ffinal = 0.90 (Beam P). Similarly, Beams M, N,
O, and R failed when reloaded with an f/ffinal greater than
0.80. Comparing Beam M with Beams O and R, it can be
seen from Fig. 5 that whereas all these specimens showed

222 ACI Materials Journal/March-April 2012

Fig. 5—Evolution of crack openings during creep tests:
delayed CMOD during first 1000 hours (excluding initial
instantaneous displacement).
low crack-opening rates for f/ffinal within 0.66 to 0.77, the
COD was higher in Beams O and R (with a larger CMODfinal
during the initial cracking process).
In many cases and for the three levels of the initial crack
openings considered (Fig. 4(a) to (c)), a marked increase
in COD occurred when an unloading-loading event took
place (that is, when incorporating another beam in the same
frame or due to the failure of a companion beam). Yet, when
such an event generally did not influence the subsequent
crack-opening rate, the elements reached a larger initial
crack opening after reloading. In the case of Beam G, this
produced the failure of the specimen. This would suggest a
poor postcracking response in SFRC submitted to loading-
unloading cycles, except for low stress levels.
To consider the conditions for stable responses, the
rate of crack opening during the first days under long-
term loading was calculated. Some relationships between
the crack-opening rate (mm/h.MPa [in./h.psi × 10–9]) and
the relative stress applied are presented in Fig. 6, consid-
ering the first peak stress or limit of proportionality (f/fL)
in Fig. 6(a) and the final stress reached during the initial
cracking bending test (f/ffinal) in Fig. 6(b). The represented
values correspond to crack-opening rates determined up
to approximately 150 to 300 hours. In general terms, a
ACI Materials Journal/March-April 2012
Fig. 6—Crack opening rate as function of: (a) f/fL; and
(b) f/ffinal.
stable response was obtained for crack-opening rates below
0.20 mm/h.MPa (54 in./h.psi × 10–9). The crack-opening
rates tend to increase with the applied stress, as expected.
The separated uppercase in the 0.5 mm (0.02 in.) group
corresponds to Beam G, which failed during an unloading-
loading event. On the other hand, when the loads were
increased at later ages, some failures occurred after a few
days for crack-opening rates as low as 0.12 or 0.02 mm/h.MPa
(33 or 5 in./h.psi × 10–9), as in the case of Beams N and
R, respectively.
Finally, Fig. 7 presents the relationship between the
applied stresses and the crack openings reached during the
initial cracking test (prior to sustained loads), differentiating
those cases where failure occurred from those presenting
a stable response. The stress parameter corresponds to the
ratio between the sustained loading stress and the final stress
value achieved during the initial cracking process f/ffinal for
each beam. It can be observed that larger CMOD values
imply a reduction of the stress level that leads to stable
conditions. Also, for the hardening type of SFRC considered
in this study, at small crack openings, the material can still
carry higher stresses than the maximum applied during the
cracking process (the maximum postcracking strength takes
place at approximately 1.5 mm [0.06 in.], refer to Fig. 2). For
larger crack openings, a stable response is only clear below
0.6 to 0.7ffinal. Thus, keeping in mind the typical variability
223

Fig. 7—Effect of applied long-term stress level (with respect
to final stress of each beam during initial cracking process
f/ffinal) and crack openings reached during initial cracking
(prior to sustained loads) on creep response. (Note: 1 mm =
0.0394 in.)
in SFRC responses, long-term sustained stresses lower than
0.50fR4 (EN 146511 test) should be recommended. This last
criterion can be extended to SFRC with a softening-type
postcracking response.
CONCLUSIONS
The creep behavior of SFRC cracked beams subjected to
long-term loading was analyzed in this paper. The concrete
studied showed stress-hardening postcracking behavior, and
the beams were preloaded up to crack openings CMODfinal
between 0.2 and 3.5 mm (0.008 and 0.14 in.). The main
conclusions are presented as follows:
• For a small CMODfinal (0.2 mm [0.008 in.]), stable
responses were obtained during 18 months, even when
applying stress levels f equal to the final stress level
reached at the end of the initial cracking tests (ffinal). For
an f/ffinal less than 0.50, only a slight displacement was
observed that later stabilizes at a crack-opening rate
close to zero. Increasing the load at later ages, these
beams showed a stable response for f/ffinal ratios less
than 1.3. However, some beams where the f/ffinal ratio
was greater than 1.4 broke suddenly.
• A stable response could be observed for a CMODfinal of
0.5 mm (0.02 in.). However, for f/ffinal = 0.96, a relatively
high crack-opening rate appears, indicating the possi-
bility of the initiation of creep failure. When the loads
were increased, a quick failure was observed in these
cases. This does not occur for lower f/ffinal ratios (<0.80).
• A noticeable CMOD increase occurred when an
unloading-loading event took place. Yet, when such an
event generally does not influence the subsequent crack-
opening rate, the element reaches a larger initial crack-
opening after reloading. This even produced the failure
of some specimens. At the same time, such behavior
allows for anticipating a poor postcrack response in
cases of variable loads (that is, loading-unloading),
except for low stress levels.
• In general, stable responses correspond to crack-
opening rates less than 0.20 mm/h.MPa (54 in./h.psi ×
10–9) during the first months of long-term loading.
• When creep rupture took place, a three-stage creep
response was observed: primary, secondary, and tertiary.
In many cases, however, sudden failures were observed
224
when stresses close to ffinal were applied in beams with
COD corresponding to the softening branch of the post-
cracking response.
• Cracked SFRC beams with a hardening-type post-
cracking response (after a first peak) showed a stable
long-term behavior for stress levels lower than the
final stress reached during the initial cracking process
ffinal and when the final crack-opening displacement
CMODfinal was smaller than the CMOD corresponding
to the maximum postcracking load in the EN 146511
bending test. For larger crack openings, and keeping in
mind the variability of the SFRC postcracking response
under EN 14651,1 sustained stresses less than 0.50fR4
should be recommended.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was carried out in the Structural Technology Laboratory at
the Technical University of Catalonia (UPC), Barcelona, Spain, where the
second author was affiliated at the time of execution. The staff of this organi-
zation is greatly appreciated. The study was funded by the Spanish Ministry
of Education and Science through Grants BIA2006-15471-C02-01 and
“HABITAT 2030,” PSE 11-2005, PSE-380000-2006-4, and PSE-380000-
2007-1 (FEDER co-funding). The authors especially thank the important
contributions of M. C. Torrijos (CONICET LEMIT, Department of Engi-
neering, UNLP) and T. Garcia (UPC) throughout the entire study.
REFERENCES
1. EN 14651:2005, “Test Method for Metallic Fibered Concrete—
Measuring the Flexural Tensile Strength (Limit of Proportionality (LOP),
Residual),” European Committee for Standardization (CEN), Brussels,
Belgium, June 2005, pp. 1-17.
2. “RILEM TC 162-TDF, “Test and Design Methods for Steel Fiber-
Reinforced Concrete, s-e Design Method,” Materials and Structures, V. 36,
No. 262, Oct. 2003, pp. 560-567.
3. EN 1992-1-1, “Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures—
Part 1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings,” British Standards Institu-
tion, London, UK, 2004, 225 pp.
4. ACI Committee 360, “Guide to Design of Slabs-on-Ground (ACI 360R-
10),” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2010, 72 pp.
5. fib, “Model Code 2010, First Complete Draft,” International Federa-
tion of Structural Concrete, Mar. 2010.
6. Granju, J. L.; Rossi, P.; Chanvillard, G.; Mesureur, B.; Turatsinze, A.;
Farhat, H.; Boulay, C.; Serrano, J. J.; Fakhri, P.; Roque, O.; and Rivillon, P.,
“Delayed Behavior of Cracked SFRC Beams,” Fifth RILEM Symposium
on Fiber-Reinforced Concrete, RILEM PRO 15, Lyon, France, Sept. 2000,
pp. 511-520.
7. Tan, K. H.; Paramasivam, P.; and Tan, K. C., “Creep and Shrinkage
Deflections of RC Beams with Steel Fibers,” Journal of Materials in Civil
Engineering, ASCE, V. 6, No. 4, 1994, pp. 394-414.
8. Tan, K. H., and Saha, M. K., “Ten-Year Study on Steel Fiber-Rein-
forced Concrete Beams under Sustained Loads,” ACI Structural Journal,
V. 102, No. 3, May-June 2005, pp. 472-480.
9. Zhang, J., “Modeling of the Influence of Fibers on Creep of Fiber
Reinforced Cementitious Composite,” Composites Science and Technology,
V. 63, 2003, pp. 1877-1884.
10. Boshoff, W. P.; Mechtcherine, V.; and van Zijl, G. P. A. G., “Char-
acterising the Time-Dependent Behaviour on the Single Fibre Level of
SHCC: Part 1: Mechanism of Fibre Pull-Out Creep,” Cement and Concrete
Research, V. 39, 2009, pp. 779-786.
11. Bernard, E. S., “Influence of Fiber Type on Creep Deformation of
Cracked Fiber-Reinforced Shotcrete Panels,” ACI Materials Journal,
V. 107, No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 2010, pp. 474-480.
12. Mackay, J., and Trottier, J. F., “Post-Crack Behavior of Steel and
Synthetic FRC under Flexural Creep,” Second International Conference
on Engineering Developments in Shotcrete, Cairns, Australia, Oct. 2004,
pp. 183-192.
13. Arango Campo, S. E., “Flexural Creep of Steel Fiber Reinforced
Concrete in Cracked State,” doctoral thesis, Universitat Politècnica de
València, Valencia, Spain, 2010, 394 pp. (in Spanish)
14. Bast, T.; Eder, A.; and Kusterle, W., “Creep Tests of Plastic Macro
Fibre-Reinforced Concrete in Investigations into the Long-Term Behav-
iour of Fibre Stressing under Bending Tensile Stress—An Interim Report,”
Faserbeton (Fibre-Reinforced Concrete), 11th Vilser Building Material
Day, Reutte, Austria, Mar. 2007, pp. 32-35. (in German)
ACI Materials Journal/March-April 2012