Determination of the First-Crack
Strength and Flexural Toughness of
Steel Fiber-Reinforced Concrete
S. Mindess, L. Chen, and D.R. Morgan
Department of Civil Engineering, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia,
Canada, and HBT AGRA Limited, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada
The first-crack strength and flexural toughness of steel fiber-rein-
forced concrete specimens containing different volumes of steel fibers
(0 to 1.5%) were determined using the procedures outlined in
ASTM C1018, and the ASTM toughness indices were calculated. It
was found that the value of the first-crack strength depended upon
the sensitivity of the load versus deflection measurement system,
and upon how "first crack" was defined. In addition, the shapes of
the load versus deflection curves were strongly dependent on wheth-
er the deflection measuring system included or excluded the extra-
neous deformations (due to machine deformations and deformations
at the specimen supports). It was concluded that the toughness
indices depended both upon how the first-crack deflection was de-
termined, and upon how deflections were measured. This indicates
that the ASTM toughness indices are strongly influenced by the
particular test procedures and methods of analysis used. ADVANCED
CEMENT BASED MATERIALS 1994, 1,201-208
KEY WORDS: Fiber-reinforced concrete, First-crack strength,
Steel fibers, Test methods, Toughness index
) lain concrete is a brittle material, with low ten-
sile strength and strain capacities. To improve
these mechanical properties, there has been a
steady increase in the use of fiber-reinforced concrete
(FRC) over the past 25 years. Discrete, discontinuous
fibers are not normally added to increase the strength
of concrete, though small increases in strength may
result from their use. Rather, fibers are added to con-
trol the cracking of FRC, and to alter the postcracking
behavior of the composite, that is, its strain capacity
and its energy absorption capacity, or toughness. It is
thus particularly important to be able to measure and
interpret the load-deflection curves in the postcracking
zone, in order to provide an indication of the quality of
the FRC.
Various attempts have been made to quantify the
Address correspondenceto: Sidney Mindess, Department of Civil Engineering,
University of British Columbia, 2324 Main Mall, Vancouver, British Columbia,
V6T 1Z4 Canada.
© ElsevierScience Inc.
ISSN 1065-7355/94/$7.00
load-deflection curves of FRC in terms of some param-
eter that could provide a useful comparison of the util-
ity of different fibers or fiber contents, and for specifi-
cations and quality control purposes. A number of the
proposed methods have been described in detail by
Kasperkiewicz and Skarendahl [1]. Basically, they can
be divided into two types: (1) Absolute value descrip-
tions involve the total energy involved in fracturing a
specimen of arbitrary size, or in loading it to a partic-
ular end-point deflection. Such tests include those pro-
posed by RILEM [2] for thin sheet specimens up to 25
m m thick, and by the Japanese Society of Civil Engi-
neers [3]. (2) Relative value descriptions normalize the
energy absorbed up to a specified deflection by the
energy absorbed up to approximately the elastic limit
of the material, or the energy absorbed in fracturing
the unreinforced matrix. Such tests include those in
ASTM C1018 [4] and by the American Concrete Insti-
tute [5]. These methods are compared schematically in
Figures 1 and 2.
In North America, by far the most common method
of characterizing FRC is that proposed in ASTM C1018
[4]. Toughness index values are used for both specifi-
cation and quality control purposes, as well as for as-
sessing the usefulness of different types and addition
rates of fibers. Hence, the remainder of this discussion
will focus primarily on this test method.
All of the above methods depend upon an accurate
measurement of the area under the load versus deflec-
tion (P-8) curves. It is by now well known [1,6-8] that
the flexural toughness and the point of first crack de-
pend upon exactly how they are determined experi-
mentally. The factors to be considered include test con-
figuration, type of testing machine, specimen geome-
try, and the way in which specimen deflections are
determined. These factors affect primarily the initial
portions of the P-8 curves, approximately out to the
first peak in the P-8 curve. Thus, absolute value de-
scriptions of flexural toughness [2,3] are relatively in-
sensitive to errors in determining the initial part of the
P-8 curve. However, relative value descriptions of flex-
Received September 14, 1993
Accepted December 22, 1993
202 s. Mindess et al. Advn Cem Bas Mat
] 994; 1:201-208

is = Area0ABCI 12o= Area0ABEG

Area 0AJ Area 0AJ
'~ B = _ Area 0ABDH P~ = First Crack Load
/ /"~ C u 0 - ~
p LAJ ~ ~ = First Crack Deflection
"o
O
,..I
(a)

X
O
LL 0.4N o
I I I I I

'J '1 'H 'G F~

0 6 38 5.58 10.56 Zero
Span Load
Midpoint Deflection 10 Midpoint Deflection Capacity

A B
(b)
"O
m O
O ,..J
,_1 Toughness:
TjscE = A r e a 0 A E F 0 I ~
X Toughnes: Factor: ._ 2 ]
_.e
IJ.
]F =
Wtb=L/150
Midpoint Deflection
FIGURE 1. Absolute value descriptions of the toughness of
FRC: (a) RILEM [2], in which the area is measured either to
the point at which the load drops to 40% of the peak load, or
to a deflection of span/10, whichever comes first; (b) JSCE [3],
in which the area is measured out to a deflection of span/150.
ural toughness [4,5], and in particular ASTM C1018 [4],
which are strongly influenced by the initial portion of
the P-8 curve, may be very sensitive to h o w the P-8
curve is determined. In the present study, two major
factors in measuring the shape of the P-8 curve, and
their effects u p o n the ASTM C1018 toughness indices,
are examined: (1) inclusion or exclusion of the extra-
neous deformations in the flexural test (due to machine
deformations and deformations at the specimen sup-
ports); and (2) definition and location of first crack.
Experimental Procedures
Specimens
Specimens conforming to the dimensions recom-
mended in ASTM C1018 [4], 100 x 100 x 350 mm,
'1o _ Area 0ABF
t~
x
_¢
LL
i
Midpoint Deflection Load
Capacity
FIGURE 2. Relative value descriptions of the toughness of
FRC: (a) ASTM C1018 [4] toughness indices; (b) ACI Com-
mittee 544 [5] recommendation.
were cast in brass molds, and were then moist cured
until the time of testing, at an age of about 190 days.
Seven groups of specimens were cast, with fiber con-
tents (by volume) of 0, 0.5, 0.75, 1.0, and 1.5%; at the
0.75% fiber content, three different w:c ratios were
used, 0.35, 0.50, and 0.55. For these mixes, the super-
plasticizer dosage was varied somewhat in order to
maintain comparable workabilities. The mix propor-
tions and certain other parameters for these mixes are
given in Table 1. The fibers used were hooked-end
fibers 30 mm long and 0.5 mm in diameter. It should be
noted that the mixes shown in Table I are probably not
optimal FRC mixes, since the sand content is a bit low.
This may account for some of the lower than expected
toughness values, particularly at the high fiber con-
tents.
ToughnessDetermination
Three specimens of each type were tested, using a 150
kN capacity servo-controlled testing machine, oper-
Advn Cem Bas Mat Determination of First-Crack Strength 203
1994;1:201-208

TABLE1. Mix proportions and fresh concrete properties

Fiber Content Mix Proportions* Superplasticizer Slump Unit Weight
(% by Volume) (By Mass) (L/m3) (mm) (kg/m3)
0.00 0.50 : 1.0 : 2.2 : 3.3 1.410 80 2437
0.50 0.50 : 1.0 : 2.2 • 3.3 2.489 120 2503
0.75 0.55 : 1.0 : 2.2 : 3.3 1.199 150 2443
0.75 0.50 : 1.0 : 2.2 : 3.3 3.219 150 2517
0.75 0.35 : 1.0 : 2.2 : 3.3 7.405 30 2537
1.00 0.50 • 1.0 • 2.2 - 3.3 4.315 70 2563
1.50 0.50 : 1.0 : 2.2 : 3.3 4.305 80 2597
*Water: cement: fineaggregate: coarseaggregate.

ated under deflection control. A so-called "Japanese
yoke" [3] was used, so that accurate measurements of
the mid-span deflection u n d e r third-point loading
could be carried out, excluding extraneous deforma-
tions due to machine deformations and deformations
at the specimen supports. This is shown schematically
in Figure 3. In these tests, the net mid-span deflection
was measured from the neutral axis of the specimen to
its top surface. In addition, mid-span deflections in-
cluding the extraneous deformations were measured
simultaneously, for comparison purposes, as shown
schematically in Figure 4.
It should be noted that the current edition of ASTM
C1018 [4] appears to be ambiguous about the need to
exclude extraneous deformations, or at least is open to
misinterpretation in this regard. Revisions to this stan-
dard are, however, proposed which should completely
remove this ambiguity Uohnston, C.D., personal com-
munication]. Nonetheless, even though the impor-
tance of extraneous deformations has been long under-
stood, it remained possible for some investigators test-
ing to the ASTM C1018 standard [4] to ignore this
problem. For instance, in the study on which ref 6 is
based [9], the results from the six laboratories involved
had to be divided into two groups, one in which ex-
traneous deformations were included, and one in
which extraneous deformations were excluded.
In the present study, to record the load versus de-
flection data directly, an X-Y plotter was used. In ad-
dition, the output signals from the testing machine and
the LVDTs were acquired by a computer-based data
acquisition system at a sampling rate of 15 points per
second. This is fast enough so that the entire load ver-
sus deflection curve could be captured accurately, even
during the very rapid unloading that often accompa-
nies the first major crack. A computer program was
subsequently used to produce the load versus deflec-
tion curves, and to calculate the various toughness pa-
rameters: Is, I1o, and I20. For these calculations, first
crack was defined as the point from which a series of
20 consecutive data points (over a total deformation of
0.01 mm or more) had a slope at least 5% less than the
average slope of the curve between 45 and 70% of the
peak load.
Experimental Results
In Figures 5 to 11, typical load versus deflection curves
are s h o w n for the seven mixes described in Table 1. For
each mix, two curves are shown, one i n c l u d i n g extra-

Stee~b~VDTho,;i~s~~ Steel bar~ LVDTholdingscrew

~,~"~ F /r~-o -~ Specimen Specimen ~ __Specimen

°

Base of Testing Machine Base of Testing Machine

Side elevation End elevation

Side elevation End elevation
FIGURE 3. Schematic sketch of the test arrangement for flex-
ural toughness measurement, using a Japanese yoke; net FIGURE 4. Schematic sketch of the method used to measure
mid-span deflections exclude extraneous deformations. mid-span deflection, including extraneous deformations.
204 s. M i n d e s s e t al. A d v n C e m Bas M a t
1994;1:201-208

20

... Excluding Extraneous Deformation Including Extraneous

....... Deflection 20 Excluding Ext ...... s Deformation Including Extraneous Deflect,on

.:... ,... , . . . . . . . .
Z
P ..... : ; * i w,c:o ol
First Crack ;/ First Crack
0 . .[_.:... :. . . . . : .._: .... :. . . . . . . . . . : . .
--J 10 - - / W/C = 0.55
__ 1 : :
'/ , '-// . . . . . . . Fibre Content - 0.75 °/c
-- --:I-
X / : x
: / : .......
u--, . 5 . -I:- _.... " ..:... ~ -. : . . - : : . ,-r ..._tK...: . 15 = 4.9 15 4.7
1' 5
I1o = 9 . 6 Ilo 8.5
t . . . . . . . . . : .... : . . . . . . . ~ : " 12o = 1 9 . 0 12o = 13.7
/ / ;/' ;: . . . . . !-1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0 " I ; I ; I ; i ; 0 ; I , I J , I ,
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Midpoint Deflection (mm) Midpoint Deflection (mm)

F I G U R E 5. Load versus deflection curves for plain concrete,
with and without extraneous deformations.
n e o u s deformations, a n d one excluding e x t r a n e o u s de-
formations. Typically, the deflections at a p p a r e n t first
crack for the curves including e x t r a n e o u s deformation
were a b o u t 4 to 10 times as great as those for the curves
excluding the e x t r a n e o u s d e f o r m a t i o n s ( d e p e n d i n g on
w h e r e first crack was defined). In Table 2, the first-
crack deflection (defined as described above), Wlst, a n d
the first-crack load, fist, are given, as well as the ulti-
mate load, fult, a n d the t o u g h n e s s indices Is, I10, and
I20. (The effect of the choice of location of first crack is
described below.) All are average values for the three
specimens tested. The p a r a m e t e r s listed are given b o t h
including a n d excluding the e x t r a n e o u s deformations.
For comparison, theoretically calculated first-crack de-
flections are also given. This calculation is based on the
formula
23 p£3
1296 EI
=
flexural c o m p o n e n t
FIGURE 7. Load versus deflection curves for 0.75% fiber con-
tent, w/c = 0.55 concrete, with and without extraneous de-
formations.
w h e r e d = mid-span deflection; p = load at first crack
(defined as described above); f = span length; E =
m o d u l u s of elasticity (assumed to be 35,000 MPa); ~ =
Poisson's ratio (assumed to be 0.2); I = m o m e n t of
inertia; and d = b e a m depth.
It m a y be seen from Table 2 that the theoretical first-
crack deflections are in g o o d a g r e e m e n t with the first-
crack deflections d e t e r m i n e d experimentally, w h e n ex-
traneous deformations are excluded. In general, the
theoretical values are slightly lower than the m e a s u r e d
values. It should, h o w e v e r , be n o t e d that the influence
of the steel fibers on the value of E was not taken into
account.
In Figure 12, the initial portions of the load ver-
sus deflection curves (excluding e x t r a n e o u s deforma-
1 + 216d2(a(~3+ I~)] tions) s h o w n in Figures 5 to 11 are given at a greatly
x 115 e x p a n d e d scale, m a g n i f i e d b y a factor of a l m o s t
50. It m a y be seen that these curves are highly nonlin-
shear c o m p o n e n t ear.
(1)

20 30

t Excluding Extraneous Deformation Including Extraneous Deflection - Excluding Extraneous Deformation Including Extr_aneo=us Deflection I
/
25
: : ! : : :[ ...... ~ 1
. . . . . . Fibre Coment = 0 7 5 %

l--~X':--- ,'~¢~itst.Crack~,,~.,,
................
- - : [ .... ~
....'[ I
"~ First Crack j ~ ' "'":" ..... ---- : : : I
~1 15 F=rst Crack _/. - First Crack . . . . . . . . . . . . .

-- ' s/: : ' ' : : ' ' 1 /: . . . . . . .

:3 .... ,._
'/ t_. __:__.[-
' } ............. ~ ..................
" .......... /]--i ' ...... i' ......
| x~lo ---,- : I -, .... i :
x 7 : s = 5.3 15 = 4.0 : : :/ : . 15 = 5.0 15 = 5.0
n- 5 ---;q ...... :-|110 = 10.5 I10 = 7.1 /~ ..... : ] E -"/Z . . . . :' 11o = 1 0 . 2 11o = 8.9
~/:-i . . . . . ! - - I 120 = 19.0 120 = 12.4 l..i .... i-- t 5 --~"~: ...... :' ~l 120 = 2 0 . 6 12o = 14.1 1-iii " :
7/.._: ...... .... ..... ....
0 ; I ; I ; I ; I ; / o ; i ; I ; i ; ~ ;
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0,8
Midpoint Deflection (ram) Midpoint Deflection (mm}

FIGURE 6. Load versus deflection curves for 0.5% fiber con- FIGURE 8. Load versus deflection curves for 0.75% fiber con-
tent, w/c = 0.5 concrete, with and without extraneous de- tent, w/c = 0.5 concrete, with and without extraneous de-
formations. formations.
A d v n Cem 8as M a t Determination of First-Crack Strength 205
1994;1:201-208

30
25 "" Excluding Extraneous Deformation Including Extr..a.~o..u.s Deflection ] - - -
25
...: .~ . . . . . ,. . . . . . ~. . . . ~. ~ ~ . . ~ '-. . . . . .: . . . . . . :. . . . . .
~ 2o
~--: . . . . . . :. . . . . . : , , ~ ~ _ _ ! ~ , ,

--I
0 15 First Crack - -~,/',= . . . . . ,- -
i .. _ ~ . . . . . . : . / . . . . '~ . . . . . ', _ Fibre Content = 1.50%]. _
v'
~ lO
ii ..... ;--~-: ...... ; 15 = 5.0 15 = 4.0 . . . . ,6 :
5 :/" : : I~o 9.9 11o = 6.1 5 ---";i'''--"----" I10 : 11.5 ItO = 7.6
...,./.~. . . . . . ::. . . . . . 12o 18.5 12o = NIL 120 = 23.2 120 = NIL
o : t ; i ; I ; o / i i ; I ; I ; I ;
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Midpoint Deflection (mm) Midpoint Deflection (mm)

FIGURE 9. Load versus deflection curves for 0.75% fiber con- FIGURE 11. Load versus deflection curves for 1.5% fiber con-
tent, w/c = 0.35 concrete, with and without extraneous de- tent, w/c = 0.5 concrete, with and without extraneous de-
formations. formations.

Discussion some instances the use of insufficiently stiff testing

machines was probably also a contributing factor.
Measurement o f Deformation
It is clear from Figures 5 to 11 that the load-deflection Definition of First Crack
curves induding the extraneous deformations are sim- It is, at least in principle, easy enough to measure net
ply incorrect characterizations of the material behavior. deflections accurately. However, defining first crack is
The first-crack deflection one would expect (based on a much more difficult problem conceptually. In ASTM
eq 1) is of the order of 0.03 to 0.05 ram. Here, however, C1018 [4], first crack is defined as "the point on the
the first-crack deflections including the extraneous de- load-deflection curve at which the form of the curve
formations (Table 2) are very much greater than this. first becomes nonlinear." Implicit in this definition is
Interestingly, this large error is not fully reflected in the assumption that the FRC is a linearly elastic mate-
the calculated toughness indices (Table 2), but the dif- rial up to first crack. However, it has long been known
ferences are nonetheless significant in practice. As that, when looked at in detail, the cr-e curve for con-
stated earlier, the importance of correctly measuring crete is everywhere nonlinear, though it is often ap-
net deflections has been recognized for some time proximated as being linear up to about 50% of the ul-
[10,11], but commercial practice has lagged far behind timate stress. In fact, even before it is loaded, concrete
this recognition. There is a great deal of anecdotal in- contains microcracks, and some of these begin to grow
formation that even today different testing laboratories as soon as the concrete is loaded. Thus, the phrase
come up with very different values of the ASTM first-crack deflection has no fundamental meaning.
toughness indices, and this may be attributed largely
to the deflection measurement technique, although in
~_ t FC=0,00 FC=O.50 FC=0.75 FC=0,75 FC=0,75 "FC~I.00 FC=I.50 t
25 - - W/C=0.50 W/C=0.50 W/C=0.55 W/C=0.$O W/C-0.35 W/C=0,$0 W/C=0.~O - " "
3O
_ Excluding Extraneous Deformation Including Extraneous Deflection t - : : : : : : : : -4-'-._
..~ . . . . . . . . . . ~,- . . . . . ; . . . . . . . . _-;~ ,.~ . . . . ; ..... ;, . . . . . . : . . . .J . 20 .......... : ..... i ...... ::............
25 ' ~ FirlltCrllck""~ "(~" ~ ' ~ ~- i , .

..... ..... .... ...... .... --j: .... ......

] " First Crack "'~" . . . . ! . . . . . ! ......
'
:. . . . . . : . . . . . ~.. . . . . . :. . . . . .
-J : I : .:.., j , ,,.I ..2:
15 .............. ;/s .............. W/C = 0.50 t ..... :. . . . . .
:: '. ~ /-
~, :; ";: . . . . : I F i b r e C o_ n_ t e n t =. l . 0 0 % ~ , - . . . .
~-, :: . . . . . .

10 ---; .... /-,- . . . . . "--- [ . --: . . . .

u. ..... : l .... ~,. . . . . . . . :-i - --
m - - ~ / ' /. ". . . :'. . . . . . : - - - / ' 15 = 5.2 16 = 4.6 --:' . . . .
5 ..... , /' . . . . . .= . .
': .
/~ . . .
' r/ ' / ' / ' '' /' . . . . .
i" . . . . . . . . . .
'
. .

5 ..,~, . . . . . . : . . . . . . :. . . . Ilo = 11.1 Ilo = 7.9 __: . . . .

~o : ...... "" : .~.' / : '. •l : ' . ~ . Telting M I I c h i rl e: I N S T R O N J
/ " ~: ...... :...... : - . . -[ 20 = 21 7 120 = NIL - .::. . . .
.I
. .

• " : ,
; I ; I , , I i 0 '°° t I,,'" IJ L.," iS l/ " I I I
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1
Midpoint Deflection (mm) Midpoint Deflection (ram)

FIGURE 10. Load versus deflection curves for 1.0% fiber con- FIGURE 12. The initial portions of the curves (without extra-
tent, w/c = 0.5 concrete, with and without extraneous de- neous deformations) shown in Figures 5 to 11, at a greatly
formations. expanded horizontal scale.
206 s. Mindess et al. Advn Cem Bas Ma~
1994; 1 : 2 0 1 - 2 0 8

TABLE 2. Fracture toughness parameters

Excluding Extraneous Including Extraneous
Deformations Deformations Theoretical
Fiber Content 1st Crack
(% by Volume fl~t f=lt Wl~t W1,t Deflection
and w/c Ratio) (MPa) (MPa) (ram) 15 Ilo I2o (ram) Is Ilo I2o (mm)

(0.0%) 4.4 4.5 0.036 -- -- - - 0.266 - - - - - - 0.030

w/c = 0.50
(0.50%) 4.6 4.6 0.033 5.2 9.2 17.4 0.265 4.0 7.4 13.1 0.032
w/c = 0.50
(0.75%) 5.0 5.6 0.037 5.1 10.4 21.0 0.367 5.0 9.4 15.5 0.035
w/c = 0.55
(0.75%) 5.4 6.2 0.039 5.4 11.1 23.1 0.321 5.0 8.6 13.0 0.037
w/c = 0.50
(0.75%) 6.6 7.0 0.049 5.4 10.4 19.6 0.537 4.1 6.3 * 0.046
w/c = 0.35
(1.0%) 5.8 6.9 0.039 5.3 11.3 22.6 0.462 4.5 7.7 12.5 0.041
w/c = 0.50
(1.5%) 6.1 7.3 0.048 5.4 11.4 22.2 0.570 4.2 6.7 * 0.042
w/c = 0.50
*First crack deflection too great to permit calculation of I2o.

i ...... ! ..... i ...... i...... i...... i ..... i ...... i...... ..... ....

Z First Crack , : : ,I w/c= o.so I

1" ~ ~ ',. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . qFilteContent=O,75%}Fibte
Content = 0 , 7 5 % - -
] , ' : : : :1 J,p.n.s. Yoke'

--I

×"~ 15F = 5.0 15B = 6 . 0 15C = 5.4 -'

® 5 1 1 ~ ~ ~ = 9.3 hoc= 8.4 . . . .
E 5 I10F 10.2 IIOB = 1 2 . 6 I10c = 11.2 :
~- ~' . . . . . . ,2OF= 1,.0 ,20B= 16.8 I ,20C= 15.2 .... : 120F = 20.6 120B = 26.1 120C = 22.9

ol ;, I ~ I :, I i i o i i i I : : ~ :
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0,4 0,5 0 O.t 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Midpoint Deflection (mm) Midpoint Deflection (mm)

FIGURE 13. To u g h n e s s indices calculated for different defi- FIGURE 15. Toughness indices calculated for different defi-
nitions of first crack for 0.50% fiber content, w/c = 0.50 con- nitions of first crack for 0.75% fiber content, w/c = 0.5 con-
crete. crete.

25

c' ----i-- : ...... ! - : ---:-- ~-~ ~c~o.35 1

_~o -Ix-: ..... ~' . . . . . . ~ o - r ~o'~ r .... !

_3'5 ! i i

01 10 O i : i
"- --i i.... : :..... ! !. . . . : i
~1 .... i ISF = 4.9 15s = 5.6 15c = 4.8 i 'to -! 15F = 5.0 15B = 5.9 15C = 4,8 i......
4}
[J i '1OF = 9.6 hOB= 11.2 '10C = 9.5 : X
~D .... ! IIOF = 9.9 IIOB = 12.0 I10c--- 9.6 '--
U.-- 5 --- ' 12OF= 18.5 120B= 24.1 120C= 17.6 : ..... :

..... : ._ -, ..... • --,--- , --.- . .. _ ,. . . . r ...

0 o i : I i ; I ;
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Midpoint Deflection (mm) Midpoint Deflection (mm)

FIGURE 14. To u g h n e s s indices calculated for different defi- FIGURE 16. Toughness indices calculated for different deft-
nitions of first crack for 0.75% fiber content, w/c = 0.55 con- nitions of first crack for 0.75% fiber content, w/c = 0.35 con-
crete. crete.
Advn Cem Bas Mat Determination of First-Crack Strength 207
1994;1:201-208

25 25
i ' ' i i i i i
Z~
2°_ ~ . . . ". . . . c. . :: ..... ~...... ,...... ,...... o 20
--;~ ............ ! .... ! 12b,. . . . . . . . . .. . .. . .. . . . . . . . ,,_..
i-
. . . . ~..__- .............. • .... • .... :. . . . _

o) 15 ..... '- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " ..................

_J -
© : I10
10
" ! ) 15F = 5.2 Iss = 5.7 ISC = 5.5-i .... i !i..~i:':i"::": ........ :.:::..!:::.-: (
...::!,,::. I

~ .... ;~ IIOF = 11.1 II05 = 12.5 10C = 107 ....... I ._ ........................ 15

"~ 5 .... i. 12OF----21.7 1208= 25.7 120C=21.0 -: ...... ~; ~ ¢: : ..... = ...... >
•--)-- ii!iiii!iiii!iii£ii
I.- w
' ~ r , _ -=,n ~on, 5 0w / c l _:: : ..
o ', ; i ; i ; i i i I (/)
<~
. . . . '~ . . . .
.
; . . . .
.
~ T _ _ _ _ - :
_ _ . _ - - _ . _ . .
E X T R A N ~. Q U S D E F O.R M A T I O N S E X G L U I ~ D
I " - - ~
:
- - - - ~
:
- - "

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0

0.4 06 08 1 1.2 1,4 1.6
Midpoint Deflection (ram)
Fibre Content (% by Volume)
FIGURE 17. Toughness indices calculated for different defi-
nitions of first crack for 1.0% fiber content, w/c = 0.5 con- FIGURE 19. Effect of fiber content on the toughness indices.
crete.

curve, three points were chosen. The one marked F

This is seen clearly in the curves of Figure 12, which
are everywhere highly nonlinear.
According to the current version of ASTM C1018 [4],
the load-deflection curves should be drawn to a scale
such that on the load scale, 25 mm corresponds to a
flexural stress of about I MPa, while on the deflection
scale, 25 m m corresponds to a deflection of about 0.1
mm, or even less. For such scales, as shown in Figure
5, there is indeed an apparent first crack. However,
when magnified, there is no obvious point on these
curves (Figure 12) at which a first crack occurs. Logi-
cally, a definition of first crack that depends on the
scale to which the load-deflection curve is drawn has
little validity.
Now, what difference does this make in practice?
For the six FRC mixes described in Tables 1 and 2, the
toughness indices Is, I10, and I20 were calculated for
different definitions of first crack. In Figures 13 to 18,
such calculations are shown for fiber contents ranging
from 0.5 to 1.5% by volume. The points for which the
various calculations are made are marked. On each
2, ..... ! i : i ...... ! ......
z~ 2o
corresponds to the definition of first crack described
earlier in this article. The points marked B and 'C cor-
respond either to the peak load, or to sharp breaks in
the P-8 curve. Note that, for clarity, the curves were
originally drawn to a horizontal scale about twice that
recommended in ASTM C1018 [4]. Any of the marked
points could plausibly be chosen as defining first crack.
It may be seen that, at the lower fiber contents, the
differences in toughness indices are of the order of 10
to 20%; at higher fiber contents, they range up to about
35%. In all cases, the differences are higher for I20 than
for 15, suggesting that the differences increase for
greater values of the end-point deflection. These dif-
ferences are not enormous; however, they are great
enough to cast doubt on the validity of the current
ASTM C1018 [4] procedures.
From the data of Table 2, it may also be seen that the
toughness indices are quite insensitive to the fiber vol-
ume ratio. As shown in Figure 19, for example, the
toughness indices 15 and I10 are almost completely in-
dependent of fiber volume in the range studied here,
and even I20 remains essentially constant in the range
of fiber volumes from 0.75 to 1.5%. This suggests that
the test may not always be useful in distinguishing
i...... i ..... i ............
between different fiber contents, particularly at higher
fiber volume ratios.

Conclusions

1. When calculating ASTM toughness indices, it is

important to ensure that the load versus deflec-
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 tion curves are determined such that extraneous
M i d p o i n t D e f l e c t i o n (ram) deformations are excluded.
FIGURE 18. Toughness indices calculated for different defi- 2. The ASTM toughness indices are d e p e n d e n t
nitions of first crack for 1.5% fiber content, w/c = 0.5 con- upon the way in which first crack is defined.
crete. 3. If the load-deflection curves are determined ac-
208 S. Mindess et al.
curately, and plotted to a larger scale than that
recommended in ASTM C1018 [4], it becomes
clear that there is no unique definition of first-
crack; the curves are everywhere nonlinear.
4. These observations cast in doubt the reliability of
the current ASTM C1018 [4] procedures for cal-
culating toughness indices.
Acknowledgment
This work was supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering
Research Councilof Canada, through its support for the Network of
Centres of Excellenceon High-PerformanceConcrete.
References
1. Kasperkiewicz, J.; Skarendahl, A. Toughness Estimation in
FRC Composites, CBI Report 4:90; Swedish Cement and
Concrete Research Institute: Stockholm, 1990; pp 1-52.
2. RILEM Technical Committee 49 TFR. Testing Method for
Fibre Reinforced Cement-Based Composites, Materiaux et Con-
structions, No. 102; 1984; pp 441-456.
Advn Cem Bas Mat
1994;1:201-208
3. JSCE-SF4. Concrete Library of JSCE (Japan Society of Civil
Engineers). 1984, 3, 58-61.
4. ASTM C1018-89. Standard Test Method for Flexural Tough-
hess and First Crack Strength of Fiber Reinforced Concrete
(Using Beam with Third-Point Loading), Book of ASTM Stan-
dards, Part 04.02, ASTM: Philadelphia, 1991; pp 507-513.
5. ACI Committee 544. ACI Materials Journal 1988, 85, 583--
593.
6. Gopalaratnam, V.S.; Shah, S.P.; Batson, G.B.; Criswell,
M.E.; Ramakrishnan, V.; Wecharatana, M. ACI Materials
Journal 1991, 88, 339-353.
7. Johnston, C.D.; and reply by authors. Gopalaratnam,
V.S.; Shas, S.P.; Batson, G.B.; Criswell, M.E.; Ra-
makrishnan, V.; Wecharatana, M. ACI Materials Journal
1992, 89, 304--309.
8. Lim, T.Y.; Paramasivam, P.; Lee, S.L. ACI Structural Jour-
nal 1987, 84, 524-536.
9. Gopalaratnam, V.S.; Shah, S.P.; Baston, G.B.; Criswell,
M.; Ramakrishnan, V.; Wecharatana, M. In Report, Task
Group on CMRC/NSF Research/ACI Committee 544; Univer-
sity of Missouri: Columbia, 1989; pp 1-70.
10. Kobayashi, K.; Umeyama, K. Report, Department of Build-
ing and Civil Engineering, Institute of Industrial Science; Uni-
versity of Tokyo: Tokyo, 1980.
11. Johnston, C.D. In Steel Fibre Concrete; Elsevier Applied
Science Publishers: New York, 1986; pp 333-360.