Case Studies in Construction Materials 7 (2017) 280–293

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Case Studies in Construction Materials

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

Case study

Flexural behavior of lightweight concrete beams encompassing

T
various dosages of macro synthetic fibers and steel ratios
⁎
Mohammad Alhassan , Rajai Al-Rousan, Ayman Ababneh
Department of Civil Engineering, Jordan University of Science and Technology, Irbid, Jordan

AR TI CLE I NF O AB S T R A CT

Keywords: In this study, thirty-two lightweight concrete (LWC) beams were casted and tested as simply
Flexural behavior supported beams under four points’ loading. The investigated parameters were the volume
Lightweight concrete beams fraction (Vf) of discontinuous structural synthetic fiber (DSSF) and longitudinal steel reinforce-
Synthetic fibers ment ratio (ρ). The modulus of rupture of structural LWC is low due to the weak lightweight
DSSF
aggregates used. Therefore, the feasibility of compensating for this shortcoming and providing
post-cracking toughness characteristics using DSSF is of great interest. The behavior of each beam
was evaluated in terms of cracking, failure mode, flexural strength, ultimate deflection, stiffness,
toughness, and energy absorption. The results revealed measurable enhancements on majority of
the aforementioned performance characteristics of LWC beams can be achieved when adding
DSSF at Vf = 0.55% and 0.77%. The enhancements were attributed mainly to the effectiveness of
the used DSSF in providing internal confinement/cracks arresting mechanism and toughness
characteristics after cracking and even after reaching the peak strength. The experimental results
of this study compared very well with predicted values using the ACI 318-14 in terms of cracking
moment, service load deflection, and moment capacity.

1. Introduction

The use of fibers in concrete structures started in 1970s as a result of their ability to enhance the concrete mechanical properties.
Nowadays, extensive investigations were carried out on the use of steel, glass, ceramics, and synthetic fibers for improving the
mechanical properties of concrete structures. The fibers are typically added in an adequate amount to improve the ductility per-
formance by controlling the macro and micro cracking in the concrete matrix, enhancing the tensile strength, and decreasing the
concrete matrix brittle nature with very small enhancement of the compressive strength. In addition, the propagation and creation of
cracks due to early age shrinkage can be significantly reduced using fibers. The improvements in the concrete ductility and flexural
toughness depend on the type of fiber used, volume fraction, and aspect ratio [1,2].
Many studies investigated the effect of steel fibers on flexural performance of steel fibers reinforced concrete (SFRC) beams
[3–13]. Abdui-Ahad and Aziz [3] investigated the effect of various amounts of steel fibers on the behavior of T-shaped normal weight
reinforced concrete beams. They concluded that the ultimate load capacity of both over-reinforced and under-reinforced beams
increased as the steel fibers content increased. Their numerical and experimental results both confirmed that the steel fibers can
replace the steel reinforcement in the compression zone of over-reinforced concrete beams. Altun et al. [4] studied the behavior of
reinforced concrete beams with steel fibers in terms of the flexural cracks initiation, propagation, and size. Their results indicated a
major increase in flexural toughness and a minor increase in ultimate moment capacity as a result of the steel fibers. Campione and

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: maalhassan@just.edu.jo (M. Alhassan).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2017.09.004
Received 7 July 2017; Received in revised form 26 September 2017; Accepted 27 September 2017
Available online 28 September 2017
2214-5095/ © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/BY-NC-ND/4.0/).
M. Alhassan et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 7 (2017) 280–293

Mangiavillano [5] concluded that the presence of steel fibers enhanced the monotonic and cyclic behaviors of beams. Dancygier and
Savir [6] studied the behavior of concrete beams with minimum amount of steel reinforcement and with steel fibers. Based on
experimental results, the ductility of the tested beams was reduced due to the use of steel fibers. They proposed an equation for
predicting the flexural capacity of concrete beams with steel fibers to accomplish a sufficient level of ductility. Henager and Doherty
[7] reported that steel fibers enhance flexural performance by improving the post-cracking stiffness and ultimate load capacity and
decreasing the cracks spacing and width. Qian and Patnaikuni [8] reported that steel fibers can improve the flexural stiffness and
post-peak load resisting ability without any significant impact on the length and number of flexural cracks. Structural fibers are
usually added to structural members to improve the behavior especially in terms of fracture toughness, ductility, and crack-width
control. Toutanji et al. [14] utilized synthetic fibers to produce lightweight and high-performance concrete with improved ductility,
fracture toughness and impact resistance. Nahhas [15] conducted an experimental investigation on the behavior of reinforced
concrete beams made of LWC with different polypropylene fiber additions. It was found that the addition of polypropylene fiber
increases the ductility, toughness capacity and the bearing strength of the reinforced concrete beams. Altoubat et al. [16] performed
an experimental study on the flexural behavior of fiber-reinforced concrete slabs containing two steel fiber types and one synthetic
fiber type. Their results demonstrated that both fibers increase the flexural capacity compared to plain concrete slabs. There are some
other studies that evaluated other types of fibers in addition to steel fibers [17–21].
The center of attention of majority of previous studies was on the effect of steel fibers on the flexural behavior of normal weight
reinforced concrete beams with a given amount of longitudinal reinforcement. Discontinuous structural synthetic fibers (DSSF)
sometimes referred as macro synthetic fibers have good tensile, impact resistance, tensile strength, and flexural toughness. In ad-
dition, DSSF are not dangerous to workers, easily movable (low specific gravity), economically advantageous, no possibility of
corrosion, and have high chemical resistance. Therefore, synthetic fibers have the potential nowadays to replace steel fibers if
measurable benefits are achieved [19–28]. On the other hand, the influence of synthetic fibers on the behavior of LWC beams
received miniature consideration, which is the direct motivation for this study. The flexural tensile strength of structural LWC is low
compared with normal weight concrete as a result of the weak lightweight aggregates used. Evaluating the feasibility of compen-
sating for this shortcoming of LWC using DSSF as well as adding post-cracking toughness characteristics is a major goal of this study.

2. Experimental program

2.1. Parameters of investigation

Thirty-two LWC beams were casted and tested as simply supported beams under four points’ loading as shown in Fig. 1. The
beams were 900 mm long with cross-sectional dimensions of 100 × 150 mm. The investigated parameters in this study are the
volume fraction (Vf) of the discontinuous structural synthetic fiber (DSSF) and the longitudinal steel reinforcement ratio (ρ). The
specimens were divided into four groups based on ρ: 1.26% (2ϕ10), 1.81% (2ϕ12), 2.46% (2ϕ14), and 3.22% (2ϕ16). Each group
contains eight beams depending on the Vf: 0% (0 kg/m3), 0.33% (3 kg/m3), 0.55% (5 kg/m3), and 0.77% (7 kg/m3). Two identical
beams having same Vf were tested as indicated in Table 1.

2.2. Preparation of specimens

The used concrete mixture is considered a structural LWC mixture since it has a unit weight of about 1800 kg/m3, which meets the
ASTM C330-05 classification for structural LWC [26,29]. The mixture ingredients include: ordinary Type I Portland cement, light-
weight coarse aggregate of a maximum size of 9.5 mm and specific gravity of 1.05, and normal weight crushed limestone sand with a
specific gravity of 2.41. The absorptions of the lightweight aggregate and sand were 10% and 4%, respectively. The proportions by
weight of the mixture ingredients (water:cement:lightweight coarse aggregate:fine aggregate) were: 0.4:1.0:1.2:3.0. Superplasticizer
was used as needed to improve the workability targeting a slump of approximately 75 mm. Fig. 1 shows the slump test results for the
of plain and fibrous concrete mixtures. As shown in Fig. 1, the fibers were uniformly distributed within the mixture and the slump was
comparable for the various fibers contents, which was ensured by just slightly increasing the superplasticizer content as the fibers
content increases, and without additional water to avoid changing the strength properties. A tilting drum mixer with a capacity of

Fig. 1. Slump test for the plain and fibrous mixtures.

281
M. Alhassan et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 7 (2017) 280–293

Table 1
Investigated parameters and designation of specimens.

Beam # Group # Vf, % ρ Designation

1 1 0 0.0126 (2ϕ10) B1ρ1.26Vf0

2
3 0.33 B1ρ1.26Vf0.33
4
5 0.55 B1ρ1.26Vf0.55
6
7 0.77 B1ρ1.26Vf0.77
8

9 2 0 0.0181 (2ϕ12) B2ρ1.81Vf0

10
11 0.33 B2ρ1.81Vf0.33
12
13 0.55 B2ρ1.81Vf0.55
14
15 0.77 B2ρ1.81Vf0.77
16

17 3 0 0.0246 (2ϕ14) B3ρ2.46Vf0

18
19 0.33 B3ρ2.46Vf0.33
20
21 0.55 B3ρ2.46Vf0.55
22
23 0.77 B3ρ2.46Vf0.77
24

25 4 0 0.0322 (2ϕ16) B4ρ3.22Vf0

26
27 0.33 B4ρ3.22Vf0.33
28
29 0.55 B4ρ3.22Vf0.55
30
31 0.77 B4ρ3.22Vf0.77
32

Note: the 28-day compressive and splitting tensile strengths of the tested cylinders were (43.1 MPa, 2.97 MPa), (44.4 MPa, 3.23 MPa), (45.1 MPa, 3.42 MPa) and
(45.9 MPa, 3.63 MPa) for Vf = 0, 0.33%, 0.55% and 0.77%, respectively.

0.15 m3 was used for mixing the concrete with a batch volume of 0.07 m3 sufficient to cast four beams and three 100 × 200 mm
cylinders. The DSSF was the last ingredient to be added and it was distributed manually while the mixer is running. After introducing
the DSSF, the ingredients were mixed for about 5 min before pouring to ensure uniform DSSF distribution within the mixture.
Wooden molds were used to cast the specimens. The steel cages were placed in the molds and positioned with proper spacers
before pouring the concrete. The beams were casted in two layers, each compacted appropriately with an electrical vibrator. The
specimens were de-molded after 24 h and covered with wet burlap and plastic sheet for 28 days for curing. The specimens were then
stored in the open laboratory environment until testing. The 28-day compressive and splitting tensile strengths of the tested cylinders
were (43.1 MPa, 2.97 MPa), (44.4 MPa, 3.23 MPa), (45.1 MPa, 3.42 MPa), and (45.9 MPa, 3.63 MPa) for Vf = 0, 0.33%, 0.55% and
0.77%, respectively. Grade 60 (Fy = 420 MPa) deformed steel bars were used for the flexural steel and stirrups. Two bars of 10 mm
diameter were used in all beams as top reinforcement to hold the stirrups in place, and two bars depending on ρ were used as bottom
bars (Table 1). The stirrups used were 8 mm in diameter spaced at 30 mm to ensure ductile failure. The side, bottom, and top covers
to the center of the bars were 20 mm, 25 mm, and 25 mm, respectively, as shown in Fig. 2.
The added DSSF is 40 mm long with an aspect ratio of 90 (Fig. 3), and composed of polypropylene and polyethylene blend. It is a
macro synthetic fiber type with high strength, high modulus of elasticity, and high alkali, acid, and salt resistant. This fiber type is
designed to provide toughness and crack arresting capability within the concrete. The used DSSF has a specific gravity of 0.92, none
absorbent, corrosion free, elastic modulus of 9500 MPa, tensile strength of 620 MPa, melting point of 160 °C, and ignition point of
590 °C [27,30]. The DSSF is user friendly and safe to use without any risk of injuries commonly experienced with steel fibers or
welded wire fabrics.

2.3. Testing setup

Tests were conducted under four-point loading over a simply supported span of 850. The distance between the two points of
loading was 250 mm as illustrated in Fig. 2. The two supports were made of steel to sustain the applied load without any deformation
that may affect the results. The loading was applied using a hydraulic testing machine of a capacity of 200 kN and a loading rate of
50 N/s. Three linear variable displacement transducers (LVDT) were used; one placed at the bottom of the beam with a vertical

282
M. Alhassan et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 7 (2017) 280–293

Fig. 2. Beams layout and test setup.

Fig. 3. Sample of the used DSSF.

position to record the mid-span deflection. The other two LVDTs were placed in positions such that to record the crack opening as
shown in Fig. 2. The data were collected electronically by a data acquisition system and analyzed to obtain the load-deflection curves,
load-crack opening curves, and visually inspecting the cracks pattern and failure modes.

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Cracking and failure mode

Fig. 4 shows the cracks patterns developed during testing of all beams. In all specimens, the first crack appeared in the middle of
the constant moment region followed by formation of additional nearby flexural cracks. All cracks in this region propagated nearly
vertically upward as the loading increased. Inclined flexural-shear cracks appeared in the regions on both sides of the middle region,
these inclined cracks propagated upward as the loading increased. At ultimate the flexural shear cracks near the supports were
inclined approximately at 45°. Within the same group with similar ρ, the cracks patterns were comparable; slightly better distribution
as the Vf increases. Also, it can be noticed that in general, the number of cracks, their length, and distribution increase as ρ increased.
For 42 MPa concrete and Grade 60, the theoretical tension-controlled reinforcement ratio ρ0.005 = 0.0239, the maximum re-
inforcement ratio ρmax = 0.0273, the balanced reinforcement ratio ρbalance = 0.038 steel. This indicates that all of the tested beams
have reinforcement ratio less than ρbalance, which means that the tension steel yields before failure as confirmed by the obtained load-
deflection diagrams that will be discussed next. The failure mode was approximately similar within each group, but at a higher load
as the Vf increased. All Group 1 beams experienced flexural failure mode, whereas Groups 2, 3, and 4 experienced flexural-shear
failure modes, which is attributed to the difference in the steel ratio. The influence of the DSSF on the failure mode is obvious in Fig. 4
in which the size of the crushed zone at failure increased as the Vf increased indicating that the DSSF provided internal confinement
to the concrete.

283
M. Alhassan et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 7 (2017) 280–293

Fig. 4. Cracks patterns and failure modes of the tested beams.

3.2. Load-deflection curves

Fig. 5 shows the load-deflection curves for all beams. The curves are plotted in a way that allows for comparing the influence of Vf
within the same group specimens as well as the influence of ρ within the different groups. It is obvious that as the Vf increased, the
ultimate strength increase whereas the deflection at ultimate decreased. The load-deflection curves demonstrate clearly the behavior
of the beams as the loading increased up to failure, which show a pre-cracking portion nearly a straight line. After cracking, the slope
of the curve changes indicating a reduction in the stiffness of the beam until the tension steel yields. After yielding the beams
experienced slight increase in the strength followed by a nearly a flat top portion with a slight reduction in strength. It is imperative
to mention that, although the DSSF reduced the ultimate deflection, but the beams behaviors still considered ductile.
The influence of ρ on the cracking and ultimate load is typical, in which both increased as ρ increased. However, it is interesting to
observe that the ultimate deflection experienced by the beams with ρ = 0.0322 (exceeds ρmax = 0.0273) was large and the corre-
sponding ductility is as high as the companion specimens with lower ρ. It is important to state that the specimens are LWC beams, and
the steel reinforcements limits were devoloped mainly based on testing normal weight concrete beams. In addition, this might be
attributed the close stirrups spacing used, which provide strong confinement to the concrete.
Table 2 presents the major behavior characteristics of the tested beams. The presented results for each beam designation are the
average of the two identical specimens. The ultimate load of each specimen with DSSF was normalized with respect to the specimen
without fiber in its group and the results are demonstrated in a bar chart graph as shown in Fig. 6. The results show that the
effectiveness of the DSSF increased as the steel reinforcement ratio increased. This could be attributed to that as the reinforcement
ratio increases, the cracks widths and intensity will be less resulting in a better DSSF crack bridging and thus better efficiency of the

284
M. Alhassan et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 7 (2017) 280–293

Fig. 5. Load versus mid-span deflection curves.

DSSF. For DSSF Vf = 0.33% (3 kg/m3), the improvement in the ultimate strength was between 4.7–12.5% with an average of about
8%, which is slightly significant. For DSSF Vf = 0.55% (5 kg/m3), the improvement in the ultimate strength was between 8.7–19.4%
with an average of about 13%, which is nearly significant. For DSSF Vf = 0.77% (7 kg/m3), the improvement in the ultimate strength
was between 13.2–26.6% with an average of about 19%, which is a significant improvement. Fig. 7 shows the ultimate deflection of
each specimen with DSSF normalized with respect to the specimen without fiber. As the DSSF content increases, the ultimate de-
flection decreases. For DSSF Vf = 0.33% (3 kg/m3), the reduction in the ultimate deflection was between 5.6–9.3% with an average
of about 7%. For DSSF Vf = 0.55% (5 kg/m3), the reduction in the ultimate deflection was between 16.6–19% with an average of

285
M. Alhassan et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 7 (2017) 280–293

Table 2
Test results of all beams.

Specimen Pu, kN δu, mm Py, kN δy, mm Pcr, kN Vcr, kN wcr, mm Mode of Failure

B1ρ1.26Vf0 49.4 9.15 40.4 3.98 4.16 – – Flexural

B1ρ1.26Vf0.33 51.7 8.64 42.9 4.08 4.45 – – Flexural
B1ρ1.26Vf0.55 53.7 7.63 46.0 4.18 5.03 – – Flexural
B1ρ1.26Vf0.77 55.9 7.29 47.3 4.28 5.65 – – Flexural
B2ρ1.81Vf0 68.2 9.83 63.2 4.22 5.73 46 0.73 Flexural + Shear
B2ρ1.81Vf0.33 72.4 9.21 67.8 4.33 6.30 49 0.66 Flexural + Shear
B2ρ1.81Vf0.55 75.1 8.13 72.2 4.25 7.03 52 0.56 Flexural + Shear
B2ρ1.81Vf0.77 79.4 7.76 77.2 4.41 8.02 54 0.52 Flexural + Shear
B3ρ2.46Vf0 91.6 12.4 86.1 5.00 6.73 70 1.33 Flexural + Shear
B3ρ2.46Vf0.33 99.1 11.6 93.6 4.95 7.81 76 1.26 Flexural + Shear
B3ρ2.46Vf0.55 105 10.1 102.2 5.14 8.43 80 1.02 Flexural + Shear
B3ρ2.46Vf0.77 111 9.70 108.3 4.98 9.57 85 0.97 Flexural + Shear
B4ρ3.22Vf0 106 17.9 100.3 5.90 7.11 86 1.57 Flexural + Shear
B4ρ3.22Vf0.33 119 16.2 113.5 5.45 8.75 95 1.46 Flexural + Shear
B4ρ3.22Vf0.55 126 14.5 121.5 4.92 9.23 105 1.26 Flexural + Shear
B4ρ3.22Vf0.77 134 13.3 131.6 5.10 10.7 130 1.13 Flexural + Shear

Note: Pu and δu are ultimate load capacity and corresponding deflection, Py and δy are steel yielding load and corresponding deflection, Pcr is the first flexural crack
load, Vcr is the first diagonal shear crack load, and wcr is the crack opening width. Group 1 beams did not show any diagonal cracks.

Fig. 6. Normalized ultimate load capacity versus Vf and ρ.

about 18%, which is nearly significant. For DSSF Vf = 0.77% (7 kg/m3), the reduction in the ultimate deflection was between 20.3-
25.5% with an average of about 22%. The reduction in the ultimate deflection is considered significant for Vf = 0.55% and 0.77%,
however it should not be problematic since all specimens experienced ductile failure mode.

3.3. Stiffness

Table 3 presents the stiffness parameters calculated for each beam using the experimental load-deflection curves. Initial stiffness
represents the slope of the liner part of the load deflection curve before initiation of the first flexural crack. Service stiffness represents
the slope between two points corresponding to 50% and 80% of the ultimate load capacity on the ascending portion of the load-
deflection curve. Post-peak stiffness represents the slope between two points corresponding to 90% and 70% of the ultimate load
capacity on the ascending portion of the load-deflection curve. For comparison, the stiffness results of each specimen with DSSF was
normalized with respect to the specimen without fiber in its group and the results are demonstrated in a bar chart graph as shown in
Fig. 7. The results reveal that as the Vf increases, the initial, service, and post-cracking stiffness all increase. As shown in Fig. 8, the
improvement in the post-peak stiffness was between 8.2–16.5% with an average of about 12% for DSSF Vf = 0.33% (3 kg/m3),

286
M. Alhassan et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 7 (2017) 280–293

Fig. 7. Normalized ultimate deflection versus Vf and ρ.

Table 3
Stiffness, toughness, and ductility of all beams.

Specimen Initial stiffness, Service stiffness, Post-Peak stiffness, Flexural toughness, Displacement ductility, Energy absorption,
kN/mm kN/mm kN/mm kN mm mm/mm kN mm

B1ρ1.26Vf0 15.7 13.4 11.2 317 2.30 –

B1ρ1.26Vf0.33 16.2 14.2 12.2 309 2.12 –
B1ρ1.26Vf0.55 16.6 14.8 12.9 300 1.83 –
B1ρ1.26Vf0.77 17.4 15.7 14.0 289 1.70 –
B2ρ1.81Vf0 16.1 14.0 12.0 538 2.33 45.2
B2ρ1.81Vf0.33 16.8 15.0 13.1 522 2.13 43.2
B2ρ1.81Vf0.55 16.9 15.4 13.7 508 1.91 39.6
B2ρ1.81Vf0.77 18.2 16.8 15.3 491 1.76 38.7
B3ρ2.46Vf0 18.6 16.6 14.6 871 2.48 120
B3ρ2.46Vf0.33 20.0 18.3 16.5 836 2.34 117
B3ρ2.46Vf0.55 20.7 19.4 17.8 810 1.97 104
B3ρ2.46Vf0.77 23.3 23.1 22.3 791 1.95 104
B4ρ3.22Vf0 19.5 17.9 16.0 1598 3.03 170
B4ρ3.22Vf0.33 20.1 20.3 18.7 1457 2.97 166
B4ρ3.22Vf0.55 24.2 23.1 21.6 1358 2.94 157
B4ρ3.22Vf0.77 26.5 25.7 24.3 1186 2.61 151

14.5–34.6% with an average of about 21.5% for Vf = 0.55% (5 kg/m3), and 24.3–53.2% with an average of about 36.5% for
Vf = 0.77% (7 kg/m3). The improvement in the service stiffness was between 5.8–13.2% with an average of about 9% for DSSF
Vf = 0.33% (3 kg/m3), 9.9–29.3% with an average of about 16% for Vf = 0.55% (5 kg/m3), and 17.4–43.5% with an average of
about 30% for Vf = 0.77% (7 kg/m3). The improvement in the initial stiffness was between 3.4–10.7% with an average of about 7%
for DSSF Vf = 0.33% (3 kg/m3), 5.1–24.1% with an average of about 12% for Vf = 0.55% (5 kg/m3), and 10.8–35.8% with an
average of about 21% for Vf = 0.77% (7 kg/m3). In all beams, the influence of DSSF was more on the post-cracking stiffness, followed
by the service stiffness, and finally the initial stiffness. This is a favorable advantage provided by the DSSF in which they maintain the
integrity of the beam after cracking and after reaching its peak strength. One more important observation is that the enhancement in
the stiffness was more pronounced as ρ increased, which is also observed in the strength results and was attributed to the reduction in
cracks widths and intensity as ρ increases resulting in a better DSSF crack bridging and thus better efficiency of the DSSF.

3.4. Ductility and toughness

Table 3 lists the calculated values for displacement ductility and flexural toughness for each specimen. Ductility in general is a
very desirable structural property that reflects the ability of the structural member to undergo large deflections prior to failure. The

287
M. Alhassan et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 7 (2017) 280–293

Fig. 8. Normalized stiffness versus Vf and ρ.

listed displacement ductility values were the ratio between the ultimate deflection and the first yield deflection, and the flexural
toughness values represent the entire area under the load-deflection curve. As illustrated in Fig. 9, the displacement ductility results
clearly show that the ductility decrease as ρ increased for each Vf, which is expected. The results also show that the specimens without
fibers experienced higher ductility than the companion specimens with fibers. However, careful inspection of Fig. 9 reveals an
important observation in which, for a given ρ the ductility decreased as the Vf increased from zero to 0.33%, then increased as the Vf
increased from 0.33% to 0.5%, and increased again as the Vf increased from 0.5% to 0.77%. This is a very interesting result due to the
fact that it is a similar trend for all ρ. This could be attributed to that the 0.5% and 0.77% Vf were more effective than the 0.33% Vf in
arresting the flexural cracks and maintaining the integrity of the specimens since more individual fibers were distributed within the
beams. The displacement ductility decreased as the DSSF were added, but it is important to consider the significant improvement in
the strength of the beams resulting from the addition of DSSF. Therefore, the toughness and energy absorption results are more
reasonable to consider in evaluation the influence of the DSSF on the overall flexural behavior of the beams. The intent is to achieve a
measurable increase in the strength while maintain adequate ductility.
Fig. 10 shows the pre and post-peak toughness results for all beams. The results show that the pre-cracking toughness results were
very comparable for all beams within the same group indicating that the effect of the fiber on the pre-cracking toughness is minor.
This is anticipated due to the fact that the fibers action becomes pronounced after cracking. In terms of the post-cracking toughness,
except for the specimens with ρ = 3.22%, the reduction in the flexural toughness with respect to the reference specimens was slight
(less than 10%) for all used Vf. For ρ = 3.22%, the reduction in the flexural toughness was about 10% for Vf = 0.33%, 15% for

Fig. 9. Displacement ductility versus Vf and ρ.

288
M. Alhassan et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 7 (2017) 280–293

Fig. 10. Pre and post-peak toughness versus Vf and ρ.

Vf = 0.5%, and 25% for Vf = 0.77%. It is important to note that ρ = 3.22% is a high steel reinforcement ratio that exceeds the
maximum allowed ratio by the ACI 318 Code [28,31], which classifies such beams as compression-controlled. For a given Vf, both the
pre and post-cracking toughness increase as ρ increases.

3.5. Load-crack opening behavior

Two LVDTs were attached diagonally in the shear area near both ends of the beams as illustrated in Fig. 2 to record the crack
opening of the diagonal shear cracks. The obtained load-crack opening behavior of each beam is shown in Fig. 11. For ρ = 1.26%, all
the specimens in this group failed without formation of any web-shear diagonal cracks. The ultimate capacities of these specimens
were lower than the load necessary to generate diagonal web-shear cracks. For the other steel ratios, the influence of the DSSF was
pronounced, in which for a certain diagonal crack width, the load that initiated the crack was higher as the Vf increased. At failure,
the diagonal crack width was lower as Vf increased although the failure load was higher. These results are in good agreement with the
observed cracking behavior and failure modes indicating that the use of higher Vf resulted in a better distribution and smaller widths
of cracks. Fig. 11 also shows that for a given Vf, the specimens with higher ρ sustained higher diagonal crack widths prior to failure.
The energy absorption values shown in Fig. 12 were calculated as the area under the load-crack opening curve. The results show that
as the Vf increases, the energy absorption increases significantly. The specimens with Vf = 0.5% and 0.77% had energy absorptions
approximately 2.7 and 3.7 times the energy absorption experienced by the companion specimens with Vf = 0.33%. For a given Vf, the
energy absorption slightly decreased as ρ increased.

4. Comparisons and validation

In this section, the results of this study are compared with predicted values using the ACI 318-14 Code [28,31] in terms of
cracking moment, service load deflection, and moment capacity as shown in Figs. 13–15. It is important to state that the availably of
papers on constitutive modelling for DSSF LWC is scarce, which is an interesting subject beyond the scope of this study. The reported
results in this study and studied parameters are original and target an area that received little attention, and not explicitly considered
in most of the design codes.
The theoretical cracking moment Mcr(ACI) of the beam is determined using ACI 318-14 Code [28,31] Eq. 24.2.3.5b as follows:

λfr Ig
Mcr (ACI ) =
yt (1)

where Ig is the moment of inertia of gross coete section, yt is the distance from the extreme tension fiber to the neutral axis, λ is a
reduction factor equal to 0.85 for structural lightweight concretes, and modulus of rupture fr = 0.62 fc / based on ACI 318-14 Code
[28,31] Eq. 19.2.3.1. Fig. 13 shows about 95% agreement between the experimental and predicted cracking moments. Such excellent
agreement validates the testing procedure and results of this study, and indicates that the ACI 318-14 Code [28,31] equations and
recommended λ of 0.85 are adequate for predicting the cracking moment of structural LWC beams.
Fig. 14 Comparison shows the experimental versus theoretical deflections at service loads. Referring to the test setup in Fig. 2, the
maximum (mid-span) deflection (δs, ACI ) at service loads is calculated as:

289
M. Alhassan et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 7 (2017) 280–293

Fig. 11. Load versus crack opening curves.

Ma
δs (ACI ) = (3L2 − 4a2)
24Ec I (2)

where Ma is the maximum service loads moment, L is the beam span, a is the shear span, Ec is the modulus of elasticity of LWC as
specified in ACI 318-14 Code [28,31] Section 19.2.2.1.a; Ec = wc1.50.043 fc/ and the moment of inertia I is calculated using ACI 318-14
Code [28,31] Eq. 24.2.3.5a for effective moment of inertia Ie as:

290
M. Alhassan et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 7 (2017) 280–293

Fig. 12. Energy absorption (EA) versus Vf and ρ.

Fig. 13. Experimental versus theoretical cracking moments.

3
M
Ie = Icr + (Ig − Icr ) ⎛ cr ⎞ ≤ Ig
⎜ ⎟

⎝ Ma ⎠ (3)

In which Ig and Icr are the moments of inertia of gross and cracked sections, respectively. The results show more than 90%
agreement between the experimental and predicted deflection, which also validates the results of this study and indicates that the ACI
318-14 Code [24,31] equations for predicting the maximum deflection at service loads are adequate. It is important to point out that
it is necessary to use Ec = wc1.50.043 fc/ that takes into consideration the unit weight of concrete; otherwise the results would deviate
noticeably.
Fig. 15 shows the experimental and predicted nominal moment capacities. The nominal moment strength (Mn) is determined
using sectional analysis as singly reinforced section (Fig. 2) and ignoring the compression steel. As observed for the cracking moment
and service load deflections, the experimental and theoretical moment results also show a strong agreement with less than 10%
deviations. The moment capacity results indicate that the ACI 318-14 Code [28,31] treatment of the structural LWC beams similarly
as normal weight concrete beams for in calculating the moment capacity of a beam cross-section is adequate without a need for
modification.

291
M. Alhassan et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 7 (2017) 280–293

Fig. 14. Experimental versus theoretical service load deflections.

Fig. 15. Experimental versus theoretical moment capacity.

5. Conclusions

The following conclusions are drawn based on the findings of this study:

(1) Cracking and failure mode: the use of higher Vf resulted in a better distribution and smaller widths of cracks. The influence of the
DSSF on the failure mode was evident since the size of the crushed zone at failure increased as the Vf increased indicating that the
DSSF provides internal confinement to the concrete.
(2) Flexural strength: adding DSSF at Vf = 0.33%, 0.55%, and 0.77% (3 kg/m3, 5 kg/m3, and 7 kg/m3) results in an approximately
8%, 13%, and 20% increase in the flexural strength of beams, respectively. The effectiveness of the DSSF increases as ρ increases.
Although the DSSF reduced the ultimate deflection, but the beams behaviors remained ductile.
(3) Stiffness: as the Vf increases, the initial, service, and post-cracking stiffness all increase. The influence of DSSF was more on the
post-cracking stiffness, followed by the service stiffness, and then the initial stiffness revealing that the DSSF helps in maintaining
the integrity of the beam after cracking and peak strength. The enhancement in the stiffness was more pronounced as ρ increased.
(4) Displacement ductility: for a given ρ, addition of DSSF at Vf = 0.5% and 0.77% results in higher ductility than Vf = 0.33%.
(5) Toughness: the effect of DSSF on pre-cracking toughness was minor. The reduction in the post-cracking toughness compared with
the reference beams was slight for all Vf. For a given Vf, both the pre and post-cracking toughness increased as ρ increased.
(6) Energy Absorption: as the Vf increased, the energy absorption increased significantly. The specimens with Vf = 0.5% and 0.77%
had energy absorptions approximately 2.7 and 3.7 times the energy absorption of the companion beams with Vf = 0.33%.
(7) The ACI 318-14 Code [31] provisions for calculating the cracking moment, service load deflection, and nominal moment capacity

292
M. Alhassan et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 7 (2017) 280–293

for LWC beams showed about 90% agreement with the experimental results of this study. It is necessary to use the specified
λ = 0.85 for cracking moment calculations and Ec = wc1.50.043 fc/ for deflection calculations.

Acknowledgement

The authors acknowledge the technical support provided by the Jordan University of Science and Technology (JUST).

References

[1] ACI Committee 544, Report on Fiber Reinforced Concrete (ACI 544.1R-96- Reapproved 2009), American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1996, p. 66.
[2] E. Baran, T. Arsava, Flexural strength design criteria for concrete beams reinforced with high-strength steel strands, Adv. Struct. Eng. 15 (1) (2012) 1781–1792.
[3] R.B. Abdui-Ahad, O.Q. Aziz, Flexural strength of reinforced concrete T-beams with steel fibers, Cem. Concr. Compos. 21 (1) (1999) 263–268.
[4] F. Altun, T. Haktanir, K. Ari, Effects of steel fiber addition on mechanical properties of concrete and RC beams, Constr. Build. Mater. 21 (1) (2007) 654–661.
[5] G. Campione, M.L. Mangiavillano, Fibrous reinforced concrete beams in flexure: experimental investigation: analytical modeling and design considerations, Eng.
Struct. 30 (1) (2008) 2970–2980.
[6] A.N. Dancygier, Z. Savir, Flexural behavior of HSFRC with low reinforcement ratios, Eng. Struct. 28 (1) (2006) 1503–1512.
[7] C. llenager, T.J. Doheny, Analysis of reinforced fibrous concrete beams, J. Struct. Div. 1 (1) (1976) 177–188.
[8] C. Qian, I. Parnaikuni, Properties of high-strength steel fiber-reinforced concrete beams in bending, Cement Concr. Compos. 21 (1) (1999) 73–81.
[9] Mark Adom-Asamoah, Charles K. Kankam, Flexural behavior of one-way concrete slabs reinforced with steel bars milled from scrap metals, Mater. Des. 30 (5)
(2009) 1737–1742.
[10] Fatih Altun, Bekir Aktaş, Investigation of reinforced concrete beams behavior of steel fiber added lightweight concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 38 (1) (2013)
575–581.
[11] Kim Hung Mo, Ting Seng Chin, U. Johnson Alengaram, Mohd Zamin Jumaat, Material and structural properties of waste-oil palm shell concrete incorporating
ground granulated blast-furnace slag reinforced with low-volume steel fibres, J. Clean. Prod. 133 (1) (2016) 414–426.
[12] Mohamed K. Ismail, Assem A.A. Hassan, An experimental study on flexural behaviour of large-scale concrete beams incorporating crumb rubber and steel fibres,
Eng. Struct. 145 (1) (2017) 97–108.
[13] Soon Poh Yap, U. Johnson Alengaram, Kim Hung Mo, Mohd Zamin Jumaat, Ductility behaviours of oil palm shell steel fibre-reinforced concrete beams under
flexural loading, Euro. J. Environ. Civil Eng. (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19648189.2017.1320234 (In Press).
[14] H. Toutanji, B. Xu, J. Gilbert, T. Lavin, Properties of poly(vinyl alcohol) fiber reinforced high-performance organic aggregate cementitious material: converting
brittle to plastic, Constr. Build. Mater. 24 (1) (2010) 1–10.
[15] M.T. Nahhas, Flexural behavior and ductility of reinforced lightweight concrete beams with polypropylene fiber, J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 1 (1) (2013) 4–10.
[16] S.A. Altoubat, J.R. Roesler, D.A. Lange, K.A. Rieder, Simplified method for concrete pavement design with discrete structural fibers, Constr. Build. Mater. 22 (3)
(2008) 384–393.
[17] Jun-Mo Yang, Kyung-Hwan Min, Hyun-Oh Shin, Young-Soo Yoon, Effect of steel and synthetic fibers on flexural behavior of high-strength concrete beams
reinforced with FRP bars, Compos.: Part B 43 (2012) 1077–1086.
[18] R.B. Abdul-Ahad, O.Q. Aziz, Flexural strength of reinforced concrete T-beams with steel fibers, Cem. Concr. Compos. 21 (4) (1999) 263–268.
[19] R. Narayanan, I.Y.S. Darwish, Use of steel fibers as shear reinforcement, ACI Struct. J. 84 (3) (1987) 1125–1132.
[20] K. Komloš, B. Baba, T. Nürnbererova, Hybrid fibre-reinforced concrete under repeated loading, Nucl. Eng. Des. 1565 (1) (1995) 195–200.
[21] R.N. Swamy, S.A. Al-Taan, Deformation and ultimate strength in flexure of reinforced concrete beams made with steel fiber concrete, ACI J. Proc. 78 (5) (1981)
395–405.
[22] J. Jiabiao, Steven Loh, Toh Gasho, Synthetic structure fibers for toughness and crack control of concrete, Singapore, 29th Conference on Our World in
Concrete & Structures, 08 2004, pp. 25–26.
[23] M. Mahoney, Structural synthetic fibres for precast and slab-on-grade construction, Construction Canada; 2005.03, (2005).
[24] J.F. Trottier, M. Mahoney, D. Forgeron, Can synthetic fibers replace welded-wire fabric in slabs on ground, Concr. Int. (2002) 59–68.
[25] J.P. Won, D.H. Lim, C.G. Park, Bond behaviour and flexural performance of structural synthetic fibre-reinforced concrete, Mag. Concr. Res. 58 (6) (2006)
401–410.
[26] Z.D.F. Zhihong, Feldman Dorel, Synthetic fiber-reinforced concrete, Progr. Polym. Sci. 20 (1995) 185–210.
[27] Jeffery R. Roesler, Salah A. Altoubat, David A. Lange, Klaus-Alexander Rieder, R. Gregory, Effect of synthetic fibers on structural behavior of concrete slabs-on-
ground, Mater. J. 103 (1) (2006) 3–10.
[28] Ayman Ababneh, Rajai Al-Rousan, Mohammad Alhassan, Mohammed Alqadami, Influence of synthetic fibers on the shear behavior of lightweight concrete
beams, Adv. Struct. Eng. (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1369433217691773 (in press).
[29] ASTM Standards Construction: Concrete and Aggregates (V.04-05), American Society for Testing Materials, MI, USA, 2004.
[30] Grace Construction Products (2010), 62 Whittemore Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02140.
[31] ACI committee 318, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318M-14), American Concrete Institute, Michigan (USA), 2014.

293