Structures 19 (2019) 203–211

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/structures

Investigation of Flexural Toughness for Steel-and-Synthetic-Fiber- T

Reinforced Concrete Pipes
⁎
S. Leea, Y. Parkb, , A. Abolmaalib
a
Land and Housing Institute, Korea Land and Housing Corporation, Daejeon, 34047, South Korea
b
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Texas at Arlington, TX, USA.

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Mechanical responses of steel-and-synthetic-fiber-reinforced pipes (FRCPs) are discussed in this paper. The en-
Energy absorption ergy absorption, post-cracking strength (PCS), and toughness were analyzed based on the results obtained from
Toughness the three-edge bearing (3EB) experimental tests conducted on the FRCPs in accordance with ASTM standard
Post-cracking strength (PCS) C497. A dry-mixed concrete material was used to manufacture the FRCPs, with variations in the fiber volume
Fiber reinforcement
fractions (Vf): steel - 0.15%, 0.20%, 0.30%, and 0.40%; and synthetic - 0.15%, 0.20%, 0.30%, and, 0.40%. A total
Fiber-reinforced concrete pipe
Three-edge bearing test
of 40 full-scaled tests were carried out on the synthetic FRCPs by incorporating different fiber volume fractions,
Ductility and a total of 22 steel FRCPs full-scaled tests were conducted with the referenced fiber volume fractions. Based
on the analyzed results from the 3EB tests, it was concluded that steel fiber reinforcement of concrete pipes
shows higher energy absorption than synthetic one, and the increase of the steel and synthetic fiber volume
fractions do not consistently improve the FRCP's load-carrying capacity. The ideal percentage of fiber for the
highest load-carrying capacity is between 0.15% and 0.20% for dry-mixed concrete; however, the increase of the
fiber volume fraction tends to increase the mechanical properties of toughness and PCS values. Based on 49.0%
and 46.0% higher toughness and PCS values, respectively, it is concluded that steel fibers absorb energy more
effectively than synthetic fibers when used as reinforcement. In addition, the steel-FRCP shows the higher
ductility rather than the synthetic-FRCP in terms of the toughness index in accordance with ASTM C1018.

1. Introduction
Traditional reinforced concrete pipes (RCPs) are fabricated by using
a dry-mixed concrete mixture and steel wire mesh reinforcement in
accordance with ASTM standard C76 [1]. Circumferential steel cages
are used to improve the flexural strength of the dry-mixed RCPs.
However, using the steel cages requires adhering to the American
Concrete Institute's (ACI) standard for sufficient wall thickness to pro-
tect the steel cage from rust and heat, thus increasing construction and
material costs. Furthermore, when more dead and live loads than the
load-carrying capacity are applied on the RCPs, the RCPs show the one
main crack failure because of its lower ductility and brittle governed
failure mechanism. Through these developed cracks, a sewage water
inside the RCP sometimes leak fluids into the surrounding soil and
ground water. Because the sewage water includes organic matter, in-
organic salts, heavy metals, bacteria, viruses, and nitrogen, the sur-
rounding soil and ground water are contaminated [2]. Due to those
drawbacks of traditional RCPs, many researchers have investigated new
materials for reinforcing concrete, such as a crushed rubber and fiber-
reinforced polymer (FRP). The FRPs are added in the concrete material
during mixing process, which is referred as a fiber-reinforced concrete
(FRC), shown in Fig. 1. The added fibers play a bridge role to control
crack development in concrete material due to plastic and drying
shrinkages, showing the enhanced tensile strength, toughness, and
ductility with carbon, glass, aramid, synthetic, and steel fibers [3–6].
This advantage in terms of the enhanced ductility leads to use those
reinforcement for the concrete material into manufacturing the RCP
instead of the circumferential steel cages. However, before adapting the
FRCs as the pipe material, fundamental mechanical properties of the
FRC needs to be investigated on basis of flexural strength. The flexural
strengths of the FRC are evaluated in accordance with the American
Society for Testing and Materials Standard (ASTM) C1609, Standard
Test Method for Flexural Performance of Fiber-Reinforced Concrete (Using
Beam with Third-point loading) [7].
Steel and synthetic fibers are among the many types of fiber re-
inforcements used for fiber-reinforced concrete pipe (FRCP), with steel
being the fiber of choice because of its ability to improve the me-
chanical properties of dry-mixed concrete [8]. The RCPs reinforced

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: ypark@uta.edu (Y. Park).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2018.12.010
Received 3 October 2018; Received in revised form 12 December 2018; Accepted 19 December 2018
Available online 04 January 2019
2352-0124/ © 2019 Institution of Structural Engineers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S. Lee et al.
Fig. 1. Dry-mixed concrete reinforced by synthetic fiber.
with steel and synthetic fibers are referred to as steel-FRCP and syn-
thetic-FRCP, respectively. As well as the fundamental tests for the FRC,
the FRCPs must satisfy the standard's performance requirements per-
taining to initial stiffness, flexural strength, ductility, and energy ab-
sorption. Full-scale tests of the FRCPs have been conducted by several
researchers [4,9–12].
Mohamed et al. in 2014 conducted three-edge bearing (3EB) tests to
investigate the effects of the steel fibers as reinforcement for RCPs, and
they concluded the steel fibers significantly increased the ultimate load
and post-cracking strength (PCS) [8]. In 2012, Abolmaali also employed
the 3EB tests to investigate the performance of steel-FRCP, and con-
cluded that it appreciably resisted lateral force and vertical deflection
without pipe collapsing, and that since the fiber anchorage resisted
pullout force on the crack, the stiffness and crack width tolerance of the
steel-FRCP were increased [9]. Wilson also employed the 3EB tests to
evaluate the structural performance of synthetic-fiber-reinforced con-
crete pipes. They presented that synthetic fibers provide a viable al-
ternative to the use of steel cages for reinforcement because of their
higher ductile capacity and their ability to prevent the cracks from
enlarging and impede collapse of the pipes [7]. Moreover, the synthetic
FRCP resists creep deformation, which is a deformation or deflection of
pipe according to elapsed time with sustained load [4].
One important consideration for the concrete mixture, having the
lower tensile strength, is that the use of fiber reinforcement in it reduces
the development of cracks and influences the behavior of a structure
after cracking. This is because the use of fibers improves the concrete's
performance against the pullout force between the embedded fibers and
the mother concrete [13]. Researchers have studied the energy ab-
sorption of the FRC, conducting tests in accordance with ASTM C1018
and the Japan Society for Civil Engineers (JSCE) standard JSCE SF-4
[14–16]. Banthia and Trottier measured true specimen deflections in
accordance with ASTM C1018 by utilizing an analysis method that
employed a post-crack strength (PCS) value, as shown in Eq. (1). As
shown in Fig. 2, since the load-deflection curve changed dramatically at
the deflection of the peak load (PPeak), they suggested measuring the
areas separately: before peak load (Epre) and after peak load (Epost, m).
Their division method yielded different results with the application of
ASTM C1018 and JSCE SF-4, which use the criterion of the first
cracking load and deflection. The ‘m’ value in Eq. (1) is used to denote
the boundary of the end deflection, which is different from the peak
load deflection, to calculate the PCSm value. Banthia and Trottier [15]
used ‘m’ values of 3000, 1500, 1000, 750, 600, 400, 300, 200, and 150.
(Epost , m ) L
PCSm =
( L
M )
− δpeak bh2
where,
Structures 19 (2019) 203–211
L
PCSm = Post crack strength by deflection
M
L
Epost , m = Region to deflection from δpeak
M
δpeak = Deflection of PPeak .
In addition, Mohamed, Soliman, and Nehdi presented that using
steel fibers for reinforcing concrete pipes enhanced the ultimate
strength and the PCS values of dry-cast RCP [8]. They applied Banthia
and Trottier's PCSm [15] analysis method for steel-FRCP to investigate
the energy absorption by using a modified post-cracking strength (PCS)
value, as shown in Eq. (2) [8]. The load-deflection curve was drawn by
conducting the 3EB tests with full scale steel-FRCP. Mohamed, Soliman,
and Nehdi modified the values of L, δ, b, h, and L in Banthia and
m
Trottier's PCSm: L is a half of a circumference length of pipe (πDi/2), b is
L
length of pipe, h is wall thickness of pipe, and is deflection of any
m
point to calculate the PCS.
(Epost , m ) L
Post − cracking Strength =
(δ − δpeak ) bh2 (2)
Limited research has been done on steel-FRCP energy absorption
with PCS values, and no research has been reported yet regarding the
investigation of an effect of the synthetic fibers in terms of the PSC
value and toughness on the FRCPs. Therefore, this study aims to in-
vestigate the toughness and the PCS values of FRCPs reinforced with
steel and synthetic fibers by analyses of the results from conducting the
full-scaled the 3EB pipe tests.
2. Experimental program
2.1. Material
2.1.1. Steel fibers
Galvanized RC-65/35-CN steel fibers were used, which satisfied the
ASTM A820 Standard. This is the same type of fiber used by Abolmaali
et al. [9].
2.1.2. Synthetic fibers
The synthetic fibers used were the macro-polypropylene fibers, with
hooked-shaped ends, produced by BASF in accordance with ASTM
C1116, Standard specification for fiber-reinforced concrete. The geome-
trical and mechanical properties of steel and synthetic fibers are given
in the Table 1.
2.2. Specimens
A total of 62 FRCP specimens with the steel and synthetic fibers
were produced. They had Class III compressive strength and type B wall
thickness, which required more than 65 kN/m/mm with a crack width
of 0.3 mm, and 96 kN/m/mm as the required ultimate load in ac-
cordance with the ASTM C76 Standard specification, Standard specifi-
cation for reinforced concrete culvert, storm drain, and sewer pipe, at the
concrete pipe plant without reinforcing with steel cage [1]. Table 2 shows
the concrete mixture.
Tables 3 and 4 show the production matrix of pipes with two types
of fiber reinforcements, various fiber volume fractions, and different
pipe diameters. The fiber volume fractions were ranged as basis of the
compressive strengths accordance with ASTM C96. With an increase of
fiber volume fraction from 0 to 1.04%, the maximum compressive
strength of the synthetic FRC showed 33.0 MPa at 0.52% of the syn-
thetic fiber volume fraction [27]. The fiber volume fraction is a relative
density of the fiber by the concrete mixture. 0.15% of the fiber volume
(1)
fraction is, for example, calculated by the mass of 14.97 kg per a cubic
meter of the concrete mixture. Twenty-two pipes, with diameters ran-
ging from 450 mm to 900 mm were manufactured with steel fiber
204
S. Lee et al. Structures 19 (2019) 203–211

Fig. 2. Proposed load-deflection curve [15].

Table 1 reinforcement. Fiber volume fractions were measured mass per volume,
Properties of steel and synthetic fibers. 0.15% (14.97 kg/m3), 0.2% (19.96 kg/m3), 0.3% (29.94 kg/m3), 0.4%
Steel fiber Synthetic fiber
(39.92 kg/m3).
Forty pipes were manufactured with synthetic fiber reinforcement,
Length, mm 35 54 with five different fiber volume fractions: 0.15% (1.81 kg/m3), 0.20%
Diameter, mm 0.538 0.82 (2.41 kg/m3), 0.30% (3.62 kg/m3), 0.40% (4.82 kg/m3), and 0.46%
Tensile strength, MPa 1550 585
(5.55 kg/m3).
Density of fiber, kg/m3 7847 910

2.3. Test method

Table 2
Concrete mixture proportions. The three-edge bearing (3EB) test method is a monotonic loading
Material Mass test for pipes, in accordance with ASTM C497, Standard test methods for
concrete pipe, manhole sections, or tile [17]. It has been used by many
Water-cement ratio 0.43
researchers to investigate the performance of pipes (Banthia et al.,
Cement-type II (kg/m3) 226
Fly ash-class C (kg/m3) 74 1995, [4,8–10,12,18–21]). The 3EB test method was used for this re-
Aggregate-max 30 mm (kg/m3) 990 search to investigate the crushing strength and behavior of pipes under
Sand (kg/m3) 1010 the external uniform load at the top surface of pipes.
Water (kg/m3) 129 Fig. 3 depicts the configuration of the 3EB test setup. Wood or hard
rubber stirrups were used to support the concrete pipe. The lower
stirrups had a height of 38.1 mm, the inside top surfaces had a radius
Table 3
curvature of 12.7 mm, and the gap between two strips should range
Steel-FRCP production matrix-number of pipes.
from 25.4 to 50.8 mm. The rigid base used for this project had a gap
Fibers Pipe diameter (mm) Fiber volume fraction (%) Total width of 150 mm [17]. Depending on the stiffness of the rubber, the
degree of hardness ranges from 45° to 60°, and the gap between the two
0.15 0.2 0.3 0.4
stirrups should range from 25.4 to 50.8 mm.
Steel fiber 450 – 1 – – 1 The loads obtained from the 3EB test were plotted against the
530 2 1 – – 3
600 3 3 – – 6
750 1 1 2 – 4
900 – 3 2 3 8
Total 6 9 4 3 22

Table 4
Synthetic-FRCP production matrix-number of pipes.
Fibers Pipe diameter (mm) Fiber fraction (%)

0.15 0.23 0.31 0.4 0.46 Total

Synthetic Fiber 375 – – – 1 – 1

450 1 – 4 1 – 6
530 1 2 2 2 1 8
600 – 1 2 5 2
750 – – 1 1 2 4
900 – – – 1 2 3
Total 40

Fig. 3. Setup of 3EB test.

205
S. Lee et al.
Fig. 4. Terminology of concrete pipe.
vertical deflection. The load-deflection response of the 3EB test results
included a specific load value, which is termed a D-load, and a dis-
placement of the pipe's inside diameter. According to ASTM C822, the
“D-load is the supporting strength of a pipe loaded under three-edge-
bearing test conditions, expressed in Newtons per linear meter per
millimeter of inside diameter or horizontal span” [22]. The D-load is
only used for the 3EB test, as shown in Eq. (3). Since the D-load includes
the geometrical factors of pipe, such as length and inside diameter, the
D-load is a representative structural property utilized to show the
strength of pipe.
Load
D − load =
L × Di (3)
where,
L = Plain pipe length (m)
Di = Plain Pipe inside diameter (mm).
The plain pipe length of Eq. (3) is a clear length of pipe without a
bell and spigot, shown in Fig. 4. Fig. 4 shows the terminology of pipe,
referred to as a crown (inside top), a springline (outside mid-height),
the bell (joint part), and spigot (joint part).
For the 3EB tests, the load data is collected by a load cell device,
which measures the external force by creating an electrical signal under
the external pressure. A vertical deflection of the inside pipe diameter is
measured by a cable displacement sensor (CDS), from the crown to
invert, which is aligned on the loading path from the actuators.
3. Test results and discussion
Energy absorption analysis can be performed in terms of toughness
and post-cracking strength (PCS) [14,16,23,24]. In this study, the
toughness and PCS were analyzed to show the ductility and the energy
absorption capability of FRCPs, based on the D-load vs. vertical de-
flection responses. The 3EB test results are given in Tables 5 and 6 for
steel fiber and synthetic fiber, respectively. Specimen names are spe-
cified, as shown in Fig. 5 below, and all data is denoted with the system
international (SI) unit.
Pipe diameter refers to inside diameter, and the fibers, either steel or
synthetic, were mixed with the dry-concrete mixture. The amount of
used fiber is calculated based on the volume fraction of concrete and
fiber reinforcement.
3.1. Toughness
In 1995, Banthia and Trottier investigated the toughness of the FRCs
in accordance with ASTM C1018, Standard test method for flexural
toughness and first-crack strength of fiber-reinforced concrete (using beam
with third-point loading) (Banthia et al., 1995). The standard was with-
drawn in 2006, however, Mohamed, Soliman, and Nehdi in 2014 stu-
died the toughness by dividing the pipe length by 6000 and 1500 mm
[8]. For this research, the toughness of the FRCP was evaluated by
206
Structures 19 (2019) 203–211
calculating the area under the D-load-deflection response. The area is
the accumulated D-load values from the vertical deflection corre-
sponding to the first peak load to one of the 2%ages of the pipe's inside
diameter, as shown in Eq. (4).
b
∫a D − load (4)
where,
a is a vertical deflection corresponding to the first peak load
b is a 2% of inside diameter of pipe.
Fig. 6 shows a schematic of the toughness calculations under D-load
vs. vertical deflection response. Fig. 7 is an example of the toughness of
the steel-900-0.3-1 specimen.
For the steel-900-0.3-1 specimen, the toughness was calculated
based on the D-load vs. deflection response. Fig. 7 shows the ultimate D-
load value of 126.02 N/m/m, which surpassed the required ultimate D-
load value of 96 N/m/m for class III [1]. The toughness was calculated
with the first deflection of 1.393 mm, which corresponded to the first
peak D-load value and the second deflection point of 18.00 mm was
measured up to the 2% of the inside diameter of the concrete pipe. The
accumulated area between the two specific deflections was shown to be
equal to 5008 N/mm.
Fig. 8 and Table 7 show the toughness values of steel FRCPs and
synthetic FRCPs. Comparisons of identical fiber volume fraction steel
and synthetic FRCPs (0.15% and 0.40%) revealed that the steel-FRCPs
showed averaged 58.7% and 65.2% higher toughness than the syn-
thetic-FRCPs, respectively. Furthermore, for 0.3% of the fiber volume
fraction, the steel-FRCP showed a 69.7% higher toughness than the
synthetic-SFRCP. These results could be explained in terms of the fiber
effect in the concrete mixture which is a resistance of a crack devel-
opment. The tensile strength of the steel fiber is about 2.6 times it of the
synthetic fiber, affecting the tensile strength of the fiber reinforced
concrete material. The steel fiber concrete resisted the crack develop-
ment rather than the synthetic fiber concrete, making the higher
toughness index of the steel fiber concrete mixture [25].
In contrast with the ultimate D-load values, the increase of the fiber
volume fraction consistently increases the toughness of the steel and
synthetic-FRCPs specimens, as shown in Fig. 9. In other words, in-
creasing the fiber volume fraction results in a higher energy-absorption
capacity. Increasing use of the steel fiber greatly improves the ductility
of the FRCPs, showing a much stiffer slope than the FRCPs reinforced by
synthetic fibers in Fig. 9. The toughness of steel and synthetic-FRCPs, as
depicted in Fig. 9, were 12,168 N/mm and 6253 N/mm, respectively,
showing that the steel-FRCP slope was 49% stiffer than the SYN-FRCP.
The energy-absorption capacities of the steel and synthetic FRCPs fol-
lows the trend of the toughness values of Fig. 9 because of the men-
tioned fiber effect of the steel and synthetic fibers.
S. Lee et al. Structures 19 (2019) 203–211

Table 5
Test results of steel-fiber-reinforced concrete pipes.
Specimen Pipe diameter (mm) Pipe length (mm) Wall thickness (mm) Ultimate load (kN) Toughness (N/mm) PCS (N/mm2)

Steel-450-0.10-1 450.0 717.8 63.5 105.5 803 5.52

Steel-450-0.15-1 450.0 717.8 63.5 99.5 856 5.88
Steel-450-0.15-2 450.0 717.8 63.5 92.8 1055 7.25
Steel-450-0.20-1 450.0 717.8 63.5 113.4 908 6.24
Steel-525-0.10-1 525.0 837.4 69.9 68.3 468 2.66
Steel-525-0.10-2 525.0 837.4 69.9 65.1 478 2.71
Steel-525-0.15-1 525.0 837.4 69.9 75.2 615 3.49
Steel-525-0.15-2 525.0 837.4 69.9 71.6 586 3.33
Steel-525-0.20-1 525.0 837.4 69.9 68.1 693 3.93
Steel-600-0.10-1 600.0 957.1 76.2 86.7 1107 5.28
Steel-600-0.10-2 600.0 957.1 76.2 89.8 872 4.16
Steel-600-0.15-1 600.0 957.1 76.2 110.7 1075 3.85
Steel-600-0.15-2 600.0 957.1 76.2 99.9 1343 6.41
Steel-600-0.15-3 600.0 957.1 76.2 114.6 1375 4.92
Steel-600-0.15-4 600.0 957.1 76.2 122.9 1111 3.97
Steel-600-0.20-1 600.0 957.1 76.2 119.6 2107 7.54
Steel-600-0.20-2 600.0 957.1 76.2 122.3 2064 7.39
Steel-600-0.20-3 600.0 957.1 76.2 131.9 2100 7.52
Steel-600-0.20-4 600.0 957.1 76.2 140.6 1521 5.44
Steel-750-0.15-1 750.0 1196.3 88.9 106.9 2054 7.20
Steel-750-0.20-1 750.0 1196.3 88.9 132.1 2653 9.30
Steel-750-0.30-1 750.0 1196.3 88.9 101.4 1873 6.56
Steel-750-0.30-2 750.0 1196.3 88.9 92.0 1703 5.97
Steel-900-0.20-1 900.0 1435.6 101.6 157.5 2427 4.89
Steel-900-0.20-2 900.0 1435.6 101.6 254.1 4202 8.46
Steel-900-0.20-3 900.0 1435.6 101.6 232.2 3602 7.25
Steel-900-0.30-1 900.0 1435.6 101.6 270.1 5008 10.08
Steel-900-0.30-2 900.0 1435.6 101.6 193.7 3471 6.99
Steel-900-0.40-1 900.0 1435.6 101.6 131.1 3182 8.54
Steel-900-0.40-2 900.0 1435.6 101.6 120.8 2985 8.01
Steel-900-0.40-3 900.0 1435.6 101.6 215.4 4516 9.09

3.2. Post-cracking strength
The PCS is used to investigate the energy absorption capacity. Eq.
(5) shows the PCS introduced by Mohamed et al. [8]. They calculated
the PCS value at 1 mm, 2 mm, 3 mm, 4 mm, and 5 mm of the deflection.
Different deflections determined different energy absorption amounts
after the first peak (Epost) and the end displacement of the targeted area
to calculate the PCS value. L is shown as a half of the pipe circumfer-
ential length (πDi/2), b is the pipe length, and h is the pipe wall
thickness.
(Epost ) L
Post − cracking Strength (PCS ) =
(δ − δpeak ) bh2
PCS = Post crack strength by δ
0.15% fiber fraction, the PCS for steel-FRCPs is about 69.9% higher
than for SYN-FRCPs. For 0.3 and 0.4% fiber fractions, the use of steel
fibers shows a higher reinforcing effect for tensile strength of the con-
crete material on PCS of approximately 58.8 and 70.2% than it of
synthetic fiber.
Fig. 11 depicts the averaged PCS value of each steel and synthetic
FRCPs. As shown in it, the steel-FRCPs show the higher PCS values
against to an increase of the fiber volume fraction, than the SYN-FRCPs.
A comparison of the slopes in Fig. 11, the slopes of the steel-FRCP and
SYN-FRCP are 19.26 and 10.49, respectively. The steel-FRCP slope is
46% stiffer than the SYN-FRCP slope. This might be closely related to
the tensile strength of the fibers. The higher tensile strength of the steel
(5) fiber generates the higher post-cracking residual tensile strength with a
large tensile strain, resulting in the improved ductility [25].

Epost = Region to δ deflection from δpeak 3.3. Toughness index from ASTM C1018
δpeak = Defletion of PPeak
In this paper, the ductility of the steel and synthetic-FRCPs was
δ = 1, 2, 3, 4, &5 mm. evaluated in terms of toughness indexes. The toughness indexes, I5, I10,
and I20, are computed by taking the ratios of the energy absorbed area
Eq. (6) was used to calculate the PCS value. The Epost region was
ratios, expressed by Eq. (7) in accordance with ASTM C1018-97 [26].
limited by the displacement of the sum of the first peak displacement
Subscript numbers of the above indexes mean the 4 specific deflections.
and two percent of the pipe diameter:
The first toughness index of I5 is an area of OAB to an area of OACD.
(Toughness2% ) L The area of OAB is up to the deflection at the first crack. The area of
PCS =
(Di2% ) bh2 (6) OACD is an accumulated area up to a deflection of 3 times the first-
crack deflection. The areas of OAEF and OAGH are also the accumu-
PCS = Post crack strength lated areas up to deflections of 5.5 times and 10.5 times the first-crack
Toughness2% = Toughness of 2%diameter regeon deflection, as shown in Fig. 12.
Area OACD
Di2% = Deflection of 2%pipe inside diameter . I5 =
Area OAB
Fig. 10 shows the PCS values of the steel-FRCP and SYN-FRCP with Area OAEF
I10 =
different fiber volume fractions. The averaged PCS value of each fiber Area OAB
fraction is given in Table 8. The Steel FRCPs have the higher PCS value Area OAGH
I20 =
than the synthetic-FRCPs for 0.15% to 0.4% fiber fractions. For the Area OAB (7)

207
S. Lee et al. Structures 19 (2019) 203–211

Table 6
Test results of synthetic-fiber-reinforced concrete pipes.
Specimen Pipe diameter (mm) Pipe length (mm) Wall thickness (mm) Ultimate load (kN) Toughness (N/mm) PCS (N/mm2)

SYN-375-0.40-1 375.0 1829 57.15 99.6 795.12 6.75

SYN-450-0.15-1 450.0 1829 63.5 84.6 528.03 3.63
SYN-450-0.31-1 450.0 1829 63.5 96.9 731.71 5.03
SYN-450-0.31-2 450.0 1829 63.5 83.9 771.68 5.30
SYN-450-0.31-3 450.0 1829 63.5 54.4 526.88 3.62
SYN-450-0.31-4 450.0 1829 63.5 78.8 784.26 5.39
SYN-450-0.40-1 450.0 1829 63.5 82.6 789.77 5.43
SYN-530-0.15-1 530.0 1829 69.85 59.3 468.77 2.66
SYN-530-0.23-1 530.0 1829 69.85 67.7 625.23 3.55
SYN-530-0.23-2 530.0 1829 69.85 72.3 659.46 3.74
SYN-530-0.31-1 530.0 1829 69.85 79.2 833.30 4.73
SYN-530-0.31-2 530.0 1829 69.85 86.3 847.57 4.81
SYN-530-0.40-1 530.0 1829 69.85 84.3 795.15 4.52
SYN-530-0.40-2 530.0 1829 69.85 70.6 928.91 5.28
SYN-530-0.46-1 530.0 1829 76.2 83.5 632.61 3.45
SYN-600-0.23-1 600.0 2438 76.2 144.1 1626.63 5.82
SYN-600-0.31-1 600.0 2438 76.2 159.2 1629.92 5.83
SYN-600-0.31-2 600.0 2438 76.2 138.5 1477.59 5.29
SYN-600-0.40-1 600.0 2438 76.2 129.6 1575.88 5.64
SYN-600-0.40-2 600.0 2438 76.2 171.8 1165.53 4.17
SYN-600-0.40-3 600.0 2438 76.2 128.6 1716.88 6.14
SYN-600-0.40-4 600.0 2438 76.2 171.9 2217.97 7.94
SYN-600-0.40-5 600.0 2438 76.2 129.3 1650.20 5.91
SYN-600-0.46-1 600.0 2438 76.2 137.3 1697.34 6.07
SYN-600-0.46-2 600.0 2438 76.2 142.5 2213.97 7.92
SYN-600-0.62-1 600.0 2438 76.2 143.3 2084.30 7.46
SYN-750-0.31-1 750.0 1829 88.9 85.1 1260.39 4.42
SYN-750-0.40-1 750.0 1829 88.9 90.8 1527.92 5.36
SYN-750-0.46-1 750.0 1829 88.9 88.0 1712.77 6.00
SYN-750-0.46-2 750.0 1829 88.9 88.9 1918.35 6.73
SYN-750-0.62-1 750.0 1829 88.9 75.1 1545.07 5.42
SYN-750-0.66-1 750.0 1829 88.9 66.8 1516.61 5.32
SYN-900-0.40-1 900.0 2438 101.6 206.9 1866.88 3.76
SYN-900-0.46-1 900.0 2438 101.6 206.9 4029.77 8.11
SYN-900-0.46-2 900.0 2438 101.6 217.5 4101.57 8.26
SYN-900-0.62-1 900.0 2438 101.6 220.7 5326.00 10.72
SYN-900-0.62-2 900.0 2438 101.6 224.2 5364.94 10.80
SYN-900-0.66-1 900.0 2438 101.6 220.0 5674.50 11.42
SYN-900-0.66-2 900.0 2438 101.6 220.0 5674.50 11.42
SYN-900-0.66-3 900.0 2438 101.6 216.4 5131.17 10.33

Fig. 5. Definition of specimen name.

The toughness indexes of the steel and synthetic FRCPs results are
given in Table 9.
Fig. 13 shows the toughness indexes of the synthetic-FRCPs. For
consideration of the toughness index of I5, there is no significant dif-
ference on range of 0.15% to 0.40% fiber volume fraction. This is be-
cause the synthetic fiber did not give an enhancement at the crack
occurred. These results are shown in the both FRCPs of 450 mm and
530 mm inside diameter. However, with regard to I10 and I20 of the
toughness indices, the toughness was increased with the increase of the
synthetic fiber volume fraction. An averaged 13.8% and 21.8% of I10
and I20 were increased with an increase of 0.1% of the synthetic fiber
volume fraction, respectively (Table 10). Fig. 6. Toughness of D-load and deflection response.
Fig. 14 shows the toughness indexes of the steel-FRCPs. For larger
diameters of the steel-FRCPs than 750 mm show similar results of the fraction, respectively.
toughness indexes of I5, I10, and I20. With regard to I10 and I20 of the As comparing the toughness indexes for the both fibers at the same
toughness indexes, the toughness was increased with the increase of the amount of the used fibers of 900 mm inside diameter of the FRCPs, the
steel fiber volume fraction. An averaged 4.86% and 10.8% of I10 and I20 steel-FRCPs seemed to be tougher than synthetic-FRCPs. This is because
were increased with an increase of 0.1% of the steel fiber volume the difference of the fiber tensile strength.

208
S. Lee et al. Structures 19 (2019) 203–211

6,000
Steel-FRCP
SYN-FRCP
5,000

Avg. toughness (Nmm)

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

0
0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50
Vf (%)
Fig. 7. Steel-900-0.3-1 specimen for toughness.
Fig. 9. Increasing toughness trend.
6,000
Steel-FRCP
15
SYN-FRCP Steel-FRCP
5,000 SYN-FRCP

12
4,000
Toughness (Nmm)

9
3,000

2,000 6

1,000
3

0
0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50
0
Vf (%) 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50

Fig. 8. Toughness values of different fiber volume fractions of steel and syn- Vf (%)
thetic FRCPs. Fig. 10. PCS of steel-FRCP and SYN-FRCP.

Table 7 Table 8
Averaged toughness values of steel and synthetic FRCPs. Averaged PCS values of steel and synthetic FRCPs.
Steel-FRCP SYN-FRCP Steel-FRCP SYN-FRCP

Fiber volume Average of Fiber volume Average of Fiber volume Average of PCS Fiber volume Average of PCS
fraction (%) toughness (N/mm) fraction (%) toughness (N/mm) fraction (%) (N/mm2) fraction (%) (N/mm2)

0.15 1206 0.15 498 0.15 5.3438 0.15 3.1452

0.20 2095 0.20 642 0.20 6.7670 0.20 3.6478
0.30 2800 0.30 849 0.30 7.0564 0.30 4.4436
0.40 4364 0.40 1518 0.40 9.8203 0.40 5.7706
– – 0.46 2246 – – 0.46 6.3228

4. Conclusions and suggestions
This study investigates the energy absorption of FRCPs which are
reinforced by steel and polypropylene (synthetic) fibers. The full-scale
3EB tests were conducted to calculate toughness and PCS values of the
steel and synthetic FRCPs. Additionally, the toughness and PCS were
computed for different fiber volume fractions and inside diameters of
pipes. The following conclusions can be drawn:
(1) In the case of steel-FRCPs, the average 49% higher toughness value
is shown as compared to the toughness value for the synthetic-FRCP
specimens. The embedded steel fiber reinforcement has greater
energy-absorption than the synthetic fiber reinforcement, based on
the relation between the higher energy-absorption and the higher
toughness. The higher tensile strength of the steel fibers might
contribute to the higher toughness value.
(2) In the PCS analysis, concrete pipes reinforced with steel fibers show
PCS values that are approximately 37.0% to 41.2% higher than
those reinforced with synthetic fibers, indicating that the steel-
FRCP is an average of 46% stiffer than the synthetic-FRCP.
(3) More than 2.0% fiber volume of both the steel fiber and synthetic
fiber reinforcements resulted in a significant reduction in the

209
S. Lee et al. Structures 19 (2019) 203–211

15 20
Steel-FRCP I5
SYN-FRCP 18 I10
12 I20
16

14

Toughness index
9
12

10
6
8

6
3
4

2
0
0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0
Vf (%)

5
.1

.2

.3

.4

.2

.3

.4

.4
-0

-0

-0

-0

-0

-0

-0

-0
50

50

50

50

30

30

30

30
Fig. 11. PCS increase trend against fiber volume fraction.

-4

-4

-4

-4

-5

-5

-5

-5
N

N
SY

SY

SY

SY

SY

SY

SY

SY
b 20
I5
18 I10
I20
16

14
Toughness index

12

10
Fig. 12. Important characteristics of the load-deflection curve for computing 8
toughness index [26].
6
Table 9
4
Toughness indexes of the synthetic-FRCP.
Specimen Fiber volume fraction (%) I5 I10 I20 2

SYN-450-0.15 0.15 4.09 6.27 9.27 0

SYN-450-0.20 0.20 4.42 7.49 11.80
0

0
.3

.4

.4

.3

.4

.4

.2

.3

.4
SYN-450-0.30 0.30 4.67 8.10 13.73
-0

-0

-0

-0

-0

-0

-0

-0

-0
00

00

00

50

50

50

00

00

00
SYN-450-0.40 0.40 4.27 7.59 14.48
-6

-6

-6

-7

-7

-7

-9

-9

-9
N

N
SYN-530-0.20 0.20 4.15 6.42 10.24
SY

SY

SY

SY

SY

SY

SY

SY

SY

SYN-530-0.30 0.30 4.64 8.24 12.81

SYN-530-0.40 0.40 4.33 7.49 13.80 Fig. 13. Toughness indexes of the synthetic-FRCPs.
SYN-530-0.45 0.45 4.81 9.19 17.10
SYN-600-0.30 0.30 4.14 6.79 11.81
SYN-600-0.40 0.40 4.45 7.95 14.53 Table 10
SYN-600-0.45 0.45 4.53 8.09 14.49 Toughness indexes of the steel-FRCP.
SYN-750-0.30 0.30 4.31 6.97 11.89
SYN-750-0.40 0.40 4.23 7.41 14.16 Specimen Fiber volume fraction (%) I5 I10 I20
SYN-750-0.45 0.45 4.36 7.96 15.37
SYN-900-0.20 0.20 4.23 7.48 13.84 Steel-450-0.15 0.15 4.53 7.63 10.89
SYN-900-0.30 0.30 4.52 8.43 17.02 Steel-450-0.20 0.20 4.75 8.91 13.57
SYN-900-0.40 0.40 4.57 8.81 18.44 Steel-450-0.30 0.30 4.94 9.29 15.58
Steel-600-0.15 0.15 4.86 9.28 13.72
Steel-600-0.20 0.20 4.77 8.98 15.29
Steel-600-0.30 0.30 4.83 9.15 16.54
strength of the concrete pipes. This may be related to the ratio of
Steel-600-0.40 0.40 4.75 9.13 17.64
the fiber to the concrete mixture since it is a substitute for the same Steel-750-0.30 0.30 4.59 8.25 14.69
percent of concrete mixture, which could result in reducing the Steel-750-0.40 0.40 4.56 8.33 15.48
concrete pipe's structural strength. Steel-800-0.30 0.30 4.82 9.35 18.43
(4) Although the use of steel fibers results in higher toughness and PCS Steel-800-0.40 0.40 4.98 9.92 19.80
Steel-900-0.20 0.20 4.79 8.69 14.05
values than synthetic fibers, additional research is required to Steel-900-0.30 0.30 4.88 9.31 17.40
consider the differences in the specific gravity and corrosion pro- Steel-900-0.40 0.40 4.97 9.80 18.54
cess between steel fibers, synthetic fibers, and hybrid-reinforced

210
S. Lee et al. Structures 19 (2019) 203–211

Pipe & Precast for manufacturing the fiber-reinforced concrete pipes for
20
I5 the experimental tests.
18 I10
I20 References
16
[1] American Society for Testing and Materials International. Standard specification for
14 reinforced concrete culvert, storm drain, and sewer pipe (ASTM C76-11). West
Toughness index

Conshohocken, PA: Author 2011. https://doi.org/10.1520/C0076-11.

12 [2] Pye VI, Patrick R. Ground water contamination in the United States. Science
1983;221(4612):713–8.
10 [3] Banthia N. Fiber reinforced concrete. ACI SP-142ACI Detroit, MI 1994. p. 91–119.
[4] Park Y, Abolmaali A, Mohammadagha M, Lee SH. Flexural characteristic of rub-
8 berized hybrid concrete reinforced with steel and synthetic fibers. Adv Civ Eng
Mater 2014;3(1):495–508.
[5] Shah SP, Rangan BV. Fiber reinforced concrete properties. J Proc 1971,
6 February;68(2):126–37.
[6] Song PS, Hwang S. Mechanical properties of high-strength steel fiber-reinforced
4 concrete. Construct Build Mater 2004;18(9):669–73.
[7] Wilson A, Abolmaali A. Comparison of material behavior of steel and synthetic fi-
2 bers in dry-cast application. Transp Res Rec J Transp Res Board 2013;2332:23–8.
[8] Mohamed N, Soliman AM, Nehdi ML. Full-scale pipes using dry-cast steel fibre-
0 reinforced concrete. Construct Build Mater 2014;72:411–22.
[9] Abolmaali A, Mikhaylova A, Wilson A, Lundy J. Performance of steel fiber-re-
15

20

30

15

20

30

40
inforced concrete pipes. Transp Res Rec J Transp Res Board 2012;2313:168–77.
0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.
-

-
[10] Park Y, Abolmaali A, Mohammadagha M, Lee S. Structural performance of dry-cast
50

50

50

00

00

00

00
l-4

l-4

l-4

l-6

l-6

l-6

l-6

rubberized concrete pipes with steel and synthetic fibers. Construct Build Mater
ee

ee

ee

ee

ee

ee

ee

2015;77:218–26.
St

St

St

St

St

St

St

[11] Riahi E, Yu X, Najafi M, Sever F. Evaluation of the structural performance of epoxy

linings for manhole rehabilitation using laboratory testing and FEM simulations.
Pipelines 2014: from underground to the forefront of innovation and sustainability.
2014. p. 1334–44.
20 [12] Wilson A, Abolmaali A. Performance of synthetic fiber-reinforced concrete pipes. J
I5 Pipeline Syst Eng Pract 2014;5(3):04014002.
18 I10 [13] de Alencar Monteiro VM, de Andrade Silva F. Mechanical behaviour of poly-
propylene and steel fiber self-consolidating concrete 2018. https://doi.org/10.
I20
16 21452/bccm4.2018.02.06.
[14] Banthia N, Soleimani SM. Flexural response of hybrid fiber-reinforced cementitious
14 composites. Mater J 2005;102(6):382–9.
[15] Banthia N, Trottier JF. Test methods for flexural toughness characterization of fiber
Toughness index

reinforced concrete: some concerns and a proposition. ACI Mater J 1995;92:48.

12 [16] Sukontasukkul P. Toughness evaluation of steel and polypropylene fibre reinforced
concrete beams under bending. Thammasat Int J Sci Technol 2004;9(3):35–41.
10 [17] American Society for Testing and Materials International. Standard test methods for
concrete pipe, manhole sections, or tile (ASTM C497-17). West Conshohocken, PA:
8 Author 2017. https://doi.org/10.1520/C0497-17.
[18] Li J, Sun MQ, Hu JH, Ruan RT, Wang YJ. Structural performance of reinforced
6 strain hardening cementitious composite pipes during monotonic loading.
Construct Build Mater 2016;114:794–804.
4 [19] Mohamed N, Soliman AM, Nehdi ML. Mechanical performance of full-scale precast
steel fibre-reinforced concrete pipes. Eng Struct 2015;84:287–99.
[20] Peyvandi A, Soroushian P. Structural performance of dry-cast concrete nano-
2
composite pipes. Mater Struct 2015;48(1–2):461–70.
[21] Peyvandi A, Soroushian P, Jahangirnejad S. Enhancement of the structural effi-
0 ciency and performance of concrete pipes through fiber reinforcement. Construct
Build Mater 2013;45:36–44.
0

0
.3

.4

.3

.4

.2

.3

.4

[22] American Society for Testing and Materials International. Standard terminology
-0

-0

-0

-0

-0

-0

-0
50

50

00

00

00

00

00

relating to concrete pipe and related products (ASTM C822-13). West

-7

l-7

l-8

-8

l-9

-9

l-9
el

el

Conshohocken, PA: Author 2013. https://doi.org/10.1520/C0822-13.

ee

ee

ee

ee

ee
e

e
St

St

St

St

St

St

St

[23] Banthia N, Sappakittipakorn M. Toughness enhancement in steel fiber reinforced

concrete through fiber hybridization. Cem Concr Res 2007;37(9):1366–72.
Fig. 14. Toughness indexes of the steel-FRCPs. [24] Yan L, Chouw N, Jayaraman K. On energy absorption capacity, flexural and dy-
namic properties of flax/epoxy composite tubes. Fibers Polym 2014;15(6):1270–7.
[25] Bencardino F. Mechanical parameters and post-cracking behaviour of HPFRC ac-
pipes with multiple fibers. cording to three-point and four-point bending test. Adv Civ Eng 2013;2013.
(5) PCS values are an important criterion since they contain informa- [26] American Society for Testing and Materials International. Standard test method for
tion pertaining to pipe shape, length, and inside diameter; as well as flexural toughness and first crack strength of fiber reinforced concrete (using beam
with third-point loading) (ASTM C1018-97, withdrawn 2006). West Conshohocken,
structural performance, such as deflection and the ability to resist PA: Author 1997. https://doi.org/10.1520/C1018-97.
loads. [27] Mostafazadeh M, Abolmaali A. Shear behavior of synthetic fiber reinforced con-
crete. Adv Civ Eng Mater 2016;5(1):371–86.

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to express their appreciation to the Forterra

211