Technical Paper
Marco di Prisco*
Matteo Colombo
Daniele Dozio
Fibre-reinforced concrete in fib Model Code 2010:
principles, models and test validation
In the fib Model Code for Concrete Structures 2010, fibre-rein-
forced concrete (FRC) is recognized as a new material for struc-
tures. This introduction will favour forthcoming structural appli-
cations because the need of adopting new design concepts and
the lack of international building codes have significantly limited
its use up to now. In the code, considerable effort has been de-
voted to introducing a material classification to standardize per-
formance-based production and stimulate an open market for
every kind of fibre, favouring the rise of a new technological play-
er: the composite producer.
Starting from standard classification, the simple constitutive
models introduced allow the designer to identify effective consti-
tutive laws for design, trying to take into account the major con-
tribution in terms of performance and providing good orientation
for structural uses. Basic new concepts such as structural char-
acteristic length and new factors related to fibre distribution and
structural redistribution benefits are taken into account. A few
examples of structural design starting from the constitutive laws
identified are briefly shown.
FRC can be regarded as a special concrete characterized by a
certain toughness after cracking. For this reason, the most impor-
tant constitutive law introduced is the stress-crack opening re-
sponse in uniaxial tension. A wide discussion of the constitutive
models introduced to describe this behaviour, which controls all
the main contributions of fibres for a prevailing mode I crack
propagation, is proposed. The validity of the models is discussed
with reference to ordinary cross-sections as well as thin-walled
elements by adopting plane section or finite element models.
Keywords: fibre-reinforced concrete, constitutive equations, identification,
modelling, structural characteristic length, structural behaviour, redundancy,
structural design
1 Introduction
Fibre-reinforced concrete (FRC) is a composite material
that is characterized by an enhanced post-cracking resid-
ual tensile strength due to the capacity of the fibres to
bridge the crack faces.
During the last two decades, a wide range of research
has been performed on FRC material properties, in both
the fresh and hardened states [1–9]. The investigations
* Corresponding author: marco.diprisco@polimi.it
Submitted for review: 8 April 2013
Revised: 3 August 2013
Accepted for publication: 8 September 2013
342 © 2013 Ernst & Sohn Verlag für Architektur und technische Wissenschaften GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin · Structural Concrete 14 (2013), No. 4
DOI: 10.1002/suco.201300021
started in the USA, driven by research into closely spaced
wires and random metallic fibres [10–18]. This research
was the basis for a patent on steel fibre-reinforced con-
crete (SFRC) based on fibre spacing in 1969 and in 1970
[19]. The Portland Cement Association (PCA) started in-
vestigating fibre reinforcement in the late 1950s. The prin-
ciples of composite materials were applied to analyse
FRC. The addition of fibres was shown to significantly in-
crease toughness after the onset of the first cracking. An-
other patent based on bond and the aspect ratio of the fi-
bres was granted in 1972 [19]. Since the time of these
original fibres, many new steel fibres have been produced.
The usefulness of SFRC was aided by other new develop-
ments in the concrete field. High-range water-reducing ad-
mixtures able to improve the workability of some harsh
SFRC mixtures were formulated and break through the
suppliers’ and contractors’ reservations regarding the use
of SFRC. Although many experimental campaigns have
been developed since the 1960s, research on the structur-
al response of FRC elements mainly developed over the
last 15 years. As a consequence, there is still a lack of in-
ternational building codes for the structural design of FRC
elements, even though a number of design guidelines were
recently drawn up. This may explain the limited use of
FRC among practitioners, who hardly accept the adoption
of voluntary guidelines or, even worse, research results
available in scientific papers.
FRC now appears in the fib Model Code 2010 after a
huge amount of research and a historical development
spanning more than 50 years. Two main reasons justify
the long time needed: a theoretical aspect that forces de-
signers to consider fracture mechanics concepts to de-
scribe the post-cracking residual strength in tension due to
fibre bridging, and the technological aspects mainly relat-
ed to workability and fibre alignment, which has asked
concrete chemistry for new products to favour the intro-
duction of increasingly large fibre contents in cement-
based composites.
Early design considerations were produced by
ACI 544 [20], and even in ACI 318 [21] some new rules
were just introduced with reference to minimum shear re-
inforcement, while RILEM TC162-TDF produced design
guidelines for typical structural elements [22, 23]. After-
wards, recommendations were produced by other coun-
tries, e.g. France [24], Sweden [25], Germany [26], Austria
[27], Italy [28], Japan [29] and Spain [30].

P P
crack formation crack formation
P P
Pcr Pcr
a) δ b)
Fig. 1. Typical load P vs. deformation δ curve for FRC: softening (a) and
hardening (b) [fib MC2010, Fig. 5.6.2].
Owing to better knowledge of FRC and the recent
worldwide developments in guidelines for structural de-
sign, fib Special Activity Group 5 (SAG 5), which prepared
the new fib Model Code, decided to introduce some
sections on new materials [31] and in particular on FRC
structure design [32]. The fib Working Groups TG 8.3
(“Fibre-reinforced concrete”) and TG 8.6 (“Ultra-high-per-
formance fibre-reinforced concrete”) prepared these sec-
tions of the fib Model Code 2010 concerning FRC design
rules to provide guidance to engineers for the proper and
safe design of FRC structural elements at both serviceabil-
ity and ultimate limit states, based on state-of-the-art
knowledge.
In fib Model Code 2010, FRC is introduced in two
sections: 5.6 and 7.7 – the former focusing on material be-
haviour, the latter on structural behaviour. The basic prin-
ciples introduced in these two sections are mainly ob-
tained from research on SFRC, but fib Model Code 2010 is
open to every kind of fibre, following a performance-based
design approach [33]. Nevertheless, several warnings are
introduced regarding the long-term behaviour of some fi-
bres, especially those characterized by a low Young’s mod-
ulus value.
This paper aims to present some basic principles gov-
erning the structural design of FRC elements made of reg-
ular concrete which were mainly introduced by fib TG 8.3.
The main concepts were derived from some national
guidelines for FRC structural design [24, 28] and from the
guidelines proposed by RILEM TC162-TDF [22, 23]. The
principles discussed here are mainly related to SFRC hav-
ing a softening post-cracking behaviour in uniaxial tension
(Fig. 1a), even though they can be extended to hardening
materials (Fig. 1b). Since hardening behaviour in one di-
rection is sometimes related to a softening behaviour in
the orthogonal direction [34] for the known materials with
aligned fibres, the two fib committees active on softening
FRC materials (TG 8.3) and hardening UHPFRC materials
(TG 8.6) are cooperating in the writing of two bulletins in
relation to the design rules in order to favour a unified ap-
proach.
2 FRC classification
Classification is an important requirement for structural
materials. When referring to ordinary concrete, designers
choose the compressive strength, workability or exposi-
tion classes that have to be provided by the concrete pro-
ducer.
M. di Prisco/M. Colombo/D. Dozio · Fibre-reinforced concrete in fib Model Code 2010: principles, models and test validation
crack
localization
δ
Fig. 2. Different response of structures made of FRC having a softening or
hardening behaviour under uniaxial tension or bending loads [fib MC2010,
Fig. 5.6.1]
It is well known that fibres reduce the workability of
fresh concrete, but workability classes for plain concrete
can be adopted for FRC as well [35]. Some studies are still
needed for exposition classes since fibres may reduce the
crack opening [36–38]. Therefore, for the exposition class-
es described in EN 206 (2006), different rules may be
adopted for FRC structures (i.e. smaller concrete covers,
etc.). When using FRC, compressive strength is not partic-
ularly influenced by the presence of fibres up to a content
of 1 % by vol., so the classification for plain concrete can
be used. As fibre content grows, the post-peak progressive-
ly increases its toughness, becoming ductile for very high
fibre contents [39–41].
The mechanical property that is mainly influenced
by fibres is the residual post-cracking tensile strength, and
that represents an important design parameter for FRC
structures. Owing to the well-known difficulties in per-
forming uniaxial tensile tests, standard methods are gener-
ally based on bending tests on small notched beams. Since
bending behaviour is markedly different from uniaxial ten-
sion behaviour, it may happen that softening materials in
tension exhibit a hardening behaviour in bending ([42],
Fig. 2). In fact, in bending tests, cracks arise before the
peak load is reached and it may happen that softening ma-
terials in uniaxial tension exhibit stable crack propagation
with increasing load (hardening behaviour in bending or
flexure hardening).
The large number of parameters affecting the fibre
pull-out mechanism, and consequently residual strengths,
does not allow reliable prediction of FRC response in uni-
axial tension based on matrix, fibre mechanical character-
istics and fibre content. Experimental evidence suggests
treating this cement-based material as a unique composite
whose characteristics depend on fibre dispersion. The un-
known fibre location and post-cracking residual strength
represent the most interesting concepts for this material. If
its constitutive relationships are examined assuming a
simple homogeneous material, some links between the
material and the related structure arise and cannot be ig-
nored if we require reliable design predictions.
Structural Concrete 14 (2013), No. 4 343
M. di Prisco/M. Colombo/D. Dozio · Fibre-reinforced concrete in fib Model Code 2010: principles, models and test validation
Material classification for FRC is based on the nomi-
nal properties of the composite material, referring to post-
cracking tensile strength, determined from bending tests
on notched prisms according to EN  14651 (2004 [43],
Fig. 3); the diagram of the applied load F vs. the deforma-
tion should be produced (Fig. 4). Deformation is ex-
pressed in terms of crack mouth opening displacement
(CMOD) or mid-span deflection. In order to normalize the
load F, the nominal tensile stress σN in bending is consid-
ered, i.e. the bending moment F * L/4 divided by the elas-
Fig. 3. Setup for a three-point bending test [EN 14651, 2004]
Fig. 4. Typical load F vs. CMOD curve for plain concrete and FRC [fib MC2010, Fig. 5.6-6]
Fig. 5. Example of σN-CMOD curve with proposed classification rules
344 Structural Concrete 14 (2013), No. 4
tic modulus in bending, corresponding to that of the criti-
cal notched section (Wel = bhsp2/6 and L = 500 mm).
The classification is based on two post-cracking
residual strengths at certain CMODs, which characterize
the material behaviour at the serviceability limit state
(SLS; CMOD1 = 0.5  mm; fR1k) and at the ultimate limit
state (ULS; CMOD3 = 2.5 mm; fR3k). The latter is not in-
troduced directly, but the fR3k/fR1k ratio is explicitly indi-
cated (Fig. 5). With these assumptions, an FRC material
can be classified by using a couple of parameters: the first
one is a number denoting the fR1k class, the second is a let-
ter denoting the ratio fR3k/fR1k. The fR1k strength values
indicating the classes are as follows:
1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 4.0, 5.0, 6.0, 7.0, 8.0 [MPa]
whereas the fR3k/fR1k ratio is denoted by the letters a, b, c,
d, e corresponding to
a if 0.5 < fR3k/fR1k ≤ 0.7
b if 0.7 < fR3k/fR1k ≤ 0.9
c if 0.9 < fR3k/fR1k ≤ 1.1
d if 1.1 < fR3k/fR1k ≤ 1.3
e if 1.3 < fR3k/fR1k
The residual flexural tensile strength fRj is defined as
3 Fj l
fR, j  2
(1)
2 b hsp
 M. di Prisco/M. Colombo/D. Dozio · Fibre-reinforced concrete in fib Model Code 2010: principles, models and test validation
Since brittleness must be prevented in structural mem-
bers, fibre reinforcement can only substitute (even partial-
ly) rebars or welded mesh at ULS if the following relation-
ships are fulfilled:
fR1k/fLk ≥ 0.4
fR3k/fR1k ≥ 0.5
where fLk is the characteristic value of the nominal
strength, corresponding to the peak strength in bending
(or the highest nominal stress value in the interval
0–0.05 mm of CMOD), determined in a notched beam test
(Figs. 3 and 4).
Long-term behaviour of cracked FRC under tension
has to be properly taken into account for those materials
whose long-term performance is affected by creep and/or
creep failure. The creep effects have not been studied
enough up to now, even though some research is now in
progress at several universities.
3 Constitutive laws in uniaxial tension
The stress-crack opening relationship in uniaxial tension
can be regarded as the main reference material property
in the post-cracking range. Two simplified stress-crack
opening constitutive laws may be deduced from the bend-
ing test results: a rigid-plastic model or a linear post-crack-
ing model (hardening or softening), as shown schematical-
ly in Fig. 6, where:
wu crack opening corresponding to ULS
fFts serviceability residual strength, defined as the post-
cracking strength for a crack opening significant for
SLS
fFtu residual strength significant for ULS
Both fFts and fFtu are calculated using the residual flexural
strengths fR1 and fR3 identified in bending.
Fig. 7. Examples of characteristic lengths
3.1 Kinematic model, structural characteristic length
and ultimate crack opening
When considering softening materials, the definition of a
stress-strain law in uniaxial tension requires the introduc-
(2) tion of a structural characteristic length lcs for the struc-
tural element. This basic concept represents a “bridge”
(3) (Fig. 7) to connect continuous mechanics, governed by
stress-strain (σ-ε) constitutive relationships, and fracture
mechanics, governed by a stress-crack opening (σ-w) law,
initially proposed by Hillerborg (1976, [44]). The structural
characteristic length is equal to the crack spacing when
multiple cracking takes place and can be considered as
equal to the beam depth when a plane section approach is
used in the analysis.
When a finite element (FE) model is used, several ap-
proaches related to an internal length defined in relation
to physical parameters, such as maximum aggregate size
for non-local approaches, or element size for local ap-
proaches, can be used in order to prevent a mesh depen-
dency of the results [45–47].
The introduction of the characteristic length allows
the designer to define the strain as
Fig. 6. Simplified constitutive laws: stress-crack opening (solid and dashed
lines refer to softening and hardening materials respectively) [fib MC2010,
Fig. 5.6-7]
Structural Concrete 14 (2013), No. 4 345
M. di Prisco/M. Colombo/D. Dozio · Fibre-reinforced concrete in fib Model Code 2010: principles, models and test validation

ε = w/lcs (4)

It is interesting to note that Eq. (4) implies that when a

plane section model is taken into account and the crack
distribution is not homogeneous in the cross-section (ow-
ing to an inhomogeneous distribution of the reinforce-
ment in the cross-section), the same FRC material (de-
fined by a unique σ-w response in uniaxial tension) has to
be described in the different portions of the cross-section
according to different σ-ε values because of the different
crack spacings, which correspond to different lcs values
(see examples in Fig. 7).
The ultimate crack width wu can be defined on the
basis of a ductility requirement and therefore as
Fig. 8. Simplified model adopted to compute the ultimate residual tensile
strength in uniaxial tension fFtu by means of the residual nominal bending
wu = lcs · εFu (5)
strength fR3 [fib MC2010, Fig. 5.6-8]

by assuming εFu equal to 2 % for a neutral axis crossing

the cross-section and 1 % for a neutral axis external to the
cross-section. Moreover, a limited value strictly correlated
2
fR3bhsp 2
fFtubhsp
to the fibre length should also be considered. In relation
Mu, ext    Mu,int (7)
to the actual market availability and practical considera- 6 2
tions regarding RC crack opening observed at ULS, a val-
ue of 2.5 mm is assumed. Eq. (5) can be rewritten as fFtu = fR3/3 (8)

wu = min (lcsεFu; 2.5 mm) (6) The linear model identifies two reference values: fFts and
fFtu. They can be defined by residual values of flexural
Multiple cracking occurs in hardening materials. There- strengths by using the following equations:
fore, the identification of crack openings is not necessary
because a conventional stress-strain law may be directly fFts = 0.45fR1 (9)
determined by a uniaxial tension test, typically unnotched
(like a dog-bone specimen), by dividing the relative dis- wu
fFtu  fFts  ( f  0.5fR3  0.2fR1)  0 (10)
placement by the gauge length. It is interesting to note CMOD3 Fts
that sometimes the same self-compacting concrete can ex-
hibit a softening and a hardening behaviour depending on where wu is the maximum crack opening accepted in
the stretching direction with reference to fibre alignment structural design.
[34]. This is one of the main reasons why standards have The two equations are introduced according to dif-
to model FRC material behaviour following a similar ap- ferent assumptions valid at SLS and ULS respectively and
proach for both hardening and softening materials. More- briefly summarized in Fig. 9. At SLS the constitutive rela-
over, every time fibres are aligned, the material cannot be tionship for FRC is assumed to be elastoplastic in uniaxial
considered isotropic, and suitable anisotropic constitutive tension and elastic in uniaxial compression. Two equa-
laws should be introduced. tions can be written to impose longitudinal and rotational
equilibrium. According to the notation used in Fig. 9, and
3.2 The σ-w curve identified from bending tests assuming

Accepting the Hillerborg idea of a cohesive approach to ws

 E x; ws  0.5 mm; y  hsp  x; lcs  hsp
describe the uniaxial tension behaviour of FRC [44, 48], ylcs
two possible simplified models can be introduced to de-
scribe FRC response after cracking. This is done by em-
phasizing that the most significant effect induced by fibres
is related to the pull-out mechanism: the rigid-plastic and
the linear elastic-softening models.
The rigid-plastic model requires the identification of
only one parameter: fFtu. It can be easily identified by rota-
tional equilibrium at ULS by assuming that the compressive
stress distribution is concentrated at the top fibre, whereas a
tensile post-cracking residual stress distribution is uniform-
ly applied to the overall critical cross-section (Fig. 8).
By equating the internal moment of resistance Mu,int
(a) (b) (c)
to the external applied moment Mu,ext, it is possible to
write the following equation, which corresponds to the ro- Fig. 9. Stress distributions assumed for determining the residual tensile
tational equilibrium of the cross-section: strength fFts (b) and fFtu (c) for the linear model [fib MC2010, Fig. 5.6-9]

346 Structural Concrete 14 (2013), No. 4

 M. di Prisco/M. Colombo/D. Dozio · Fibre-reinforced concrete in fib Model Code 2010: principles, models and test validation

then the result is

2
bhsp 2
bhsp 2
bhsp
  bx f 2 bx   fFt,2.5  (kb fR1  fFt,2.5)  fR3 (14)
f 2 3 6
  Fts  fFtsb  y  Fts x  0 (11)
 2 2   
 By solving Eq. (14), it is possible to compute the unknown

 f by   2 x  y   fFtsbx 2 x  1 fFts
2  fR1bhsp
2
x  (12) fFt,2.5 as
 Fts  3 2  2  3 3   6

kb
fFt,2.5  0.5fR3  f (15)
The resolution of the non-linear system of Eqs. (11) and 2 R1
(12) gives a correlation between fFts and fR1 that depends
on Young’s modulus E and on the choice of the structural Now, taking into account that the linear model also has to
characteristic length lcs: fit for the point (wi1 = 0.5 mm, σ = 0.37fR1), it is possible to
express kb as follows:
fFts = ka (E, lcs)fR1 (13)
fR3
kb  0.529  0.143 (16)
By assuming a structural characteristic length lcs equal to fR1
the critical cross-section hsp, the factor ka changes with
Young’s modulus E, as shown in Fig. 10. The ka value If fR3 is considered to be equal to 0.5fR1, then that repre-
ranges between 0.362 and 0.378 and therefore an average sents the constraint introduced to define the composite
value of 0.37 could be considered. FRC as a structural composite; kb becomes equal to 0.45
Let us consider the ULS. In this case the compres- and Eq. (15) can be rewritten as
sive stress distribution is concentrated on a very small
portion of the cross-section and therefore, once again, it is fFt,2.5 = 0.5fR3 – 0.225fR1 ≅ 0.5fR3 – 0.2fR1 (17)
assumed that a concentrated compressive force acts at the
upper fibre. If at the underside a crack opening of 2.5 mm Taking into account the definition of the ultimate crack
is considered, a linear softening model involves a linear opening wu previously introduced, and in particular that
distribution of stresses that is characterized by a value introduced for thin-walled elements, a reduced crack
kbfR1 for w = 0, kafR1 for wi1 = 0.5  mm and fFt,2.5 for opening value can be considered and Eqs. (9) and (10) de-
wi2 = 2.5 mm. The rotational equilibrium becomes duced. It is important to note that the shifting of the fFts

a) b)

Fig. 10. a) Definition of ka and kb coefficients, b) ka values vs. E values for the linear–softening model and lcs = h

a) b)

Fig. 11. Spurious results obtained with fFts associated with a crack opening of w = 0.5 mm and not w = 0

Structural Concrete 14 (2013), No. 4 347

M. di Prisco/M. Colombo/D. Dozio · Fibre-reinforced concrete in fib Model Code 2010: principles, models and test validation

value at w = 0 prevents some spurious situations where a
class reduction (i.e. FRC composite changes from class b
to a, or c to b) could involve a better performance in bend-
ing (see Fig. 11) for thin-walled elements where wu is close
to 0.5 mm.
Finally, it is worth noting that a CMOD value of
2.5 mm does not correspond to a CTOD value of 2.5 mm
(see Eq. (18)), but rather to a CTOD close to 2.1 mm ac-
cording to a rigid-body assumption. Nevertheless, the idea
to arrest the cohesive stress at wu is in this way partially
compensated by the crack opening translation.
3.3 Three- vs. four-point bending test
In the literature, the three-point bending test is not the on-
ly notched test proposed. The debate on the best test for
identifying the uniaxial tension constitutive law σ-w has
involved many researchers and is still in progress [49, 50].
It is interesting to observe that the difference between the
two tests is not so large when a careful non-linear compu-
tation is carried out. According to Ferrara and di Prisco
[51], for plain concrete, the main differences between the
two tests are related to the peak strength and the first post-
peak slope of the load vs. crack opening displacement
(COD), whose behaviour is dominated by matrix response.
A three-point bending test exhibits a weak higher peak
strength and a more brittle first post-peak slope. Of
course, there is also a significant difference in the queue
value for a large COD, but this is due to the confinement
in compression obtained in three-point bending tests just
below the central load knife. However, this significant ef-
fect becomes negligible when a fibre pull-out mechanism
takes place. Several SFRC materials denoted according to
a unified system (Tables 1 and 2) have been compared by
investigating their bending behaviour according to UNI
11039 [52] and EN 14651 [43]. The designation is ex-
pressed by Mn-Fn-Vf, where Mn indicates a certain matrix
(n ranges between 1 and 8, Table 1), Fn indicates a certain
steel fibre (n ranges between 1 and 8, Table 2) and Vf indi-
cates the fibre volume percentage used in the composite.
The experimental comparison highlights what was already
predicted in [51], showing very similar pull-out strengths,
with the tendency to have something more in three-point
bending test (Fig. 12). It is important to emphasize that
the measurement of the crack opening is not the same for
the two tests. In fact, whereas for a three-point bending
test the measured parameter is CMOD, for the four-point
bending test the measured parameter is CTOD. If a linear

Table 1. Mix designs of the different materials considered

M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8

Fck [MPa] 50 60 75 65 40 30 55 75

400 400 450 350 300 340 480 380

Cement [kg/m3] CEM I CEM I CEM I CEM I CEM II CEM II CEM I CEM I
52.5R 52.5R 52.5R 52.5R 42.5R 42.5R 52.5R 52.5R

511 569 620 120 1450 559 620 120

Agg. 1 [kg/m3]
< 20mm < 12mm 0–3mm 0–3mm < 12mm 11–22mm 0–3mm 0–3mm

789 403 440 970 420 93 440 970

Agg. 2 [kg/m3]
< 10mm < 8mm 0–12mm 0–12mm 3–6mm 4–10mm 0–12mm 0–12mm

375 676 710 815 – 1201 710 815

Agg. 3 [kg/m3]
< 4mm < 4mm 8–15mm 8–15mm < 5mm 8–15mm 8–15mm

98 96 30 60 80 – – 60
Filler [kg/m3]
(calc.) (calc.) (calc.) (fly-ash) (fly-ash) (fly-ash)

Plasticizer/cement 0.8 % 2.2 % 1.2 % 0.9 % 2.0 % 0.8 % 0.8 % 0.9 %

Water /binder 0.40 0.39 0.41 0.34 0.46 0.50 0.4 0.34

Table 2. Properties of the different steel fibres considered

F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8

Df [mm] 0.375 0.62 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.73 1.2 1.0

Lf [mm] 30 30 30 60 30 30 44 60

Aspect ratio 80 48 50 75 50 41 36 60

Tensile strength [MPa] 2300 1250 1192 1192 1100 390 390 390

Type h.e. h.e. h.e. h.e. h.e. c. c. c.

h.e. = hooked end; c. = crimped

348 Structural Concrete 14 (2013), No. 4

 M. di Prisco/M. Colombo/D. Dozio · Fibre-reinforced concrete in fib Model Code 2010: principles, models and test validation

Fig. 12. Three- vs. four-point bending tests: experimental responses for several materials

Structural Concrete 14 (2013), No. 4 349

M. di Prisco/M. Colombo/D. Dozio · Fibre-reinforced concrete in fib Model Code 2010: principles, models and test validation
Fig. 13. Simplified relationship suggested for SLS analysis taking matrix
peak strength contribution into account [fib MC2010, Fig. 5.6-10]
opening of the crack edges is assumed, then that is usually
accepted for large crack openings, a rough upper-bound
linear relation between the two COD measures can be in-
troduced as
150
CMOD  CTOD  1.2  CTOD
125
3.4 Refined constitutive relationships
Once the linear stress-crack opening relationship has been
identified, the stress-strain relationship can be deduced by
introducing the suitable structural characteristic length lcs
with reference to softening materials (Fig. 7, [53]).
At SLS, a more refined curve able to fit the peak
strength of the matrix can be proposed and it is particular-
ly suggested for FE analyses. The same constitutive rela-
tionship adopted for plain concrete in uniaxial tension
can be used up to peak strength fct, while in the post-crack-
ing stage, a bilinear relation applies (Fig. 13). The residual
strength due to the pull-out mechanism (final branch),
which represents the main fibre contribution, is defined by
two points corresponding to (εSLS, fFts = kafR1) and (εULS,
fFtU). This simplification, which is easily understood be-
cause it takes into account only the most significant fibre
contribution, the pull-out effect, may cause the same prob-
lem previously discussed in Fig. 11. For this reason, espe-
a)
Fig. 14. σ-w curves in uniaxial tension; comparison of constitutive law deduced according to linear–softening model (Eqs.(9) and (10)) and fixed-end direct
tensile test carried out on cylindrical specimens (b) directly core-drilled by the notched beam used to characterize the FRC composite (a) [43]
350 Structural Concrete 14 (2013), No. 4
cially when the mechanical behaviour is strongly affected
by small crack openings as for statically redundant struc-
tures, the first point, corresponding to SLS, can be shifted
on the first softening branch conserving a value equal to
kafR1.
When the identification procedure is carried out
starting from a four-point bending notched test, coefficient
ka (Eq. (13)) can be set equal to a different value depend-
ing on the specific crack opening range adopted in the
standard. If UNI 11039 is considered, a value of 0.39 can
be adopted to take into account that the SLS value covers
a range between 0 and 0.6 mm of crack tip opening dis-
placement (CTOD), which corresponds to an average
value of 0.3 mm instead of roughly 0.41 mm as occurs in
EN 14651, where the CMOD value is 0.5 mm. In this case,
in Eqs. (9) and (10) the residual strengths fRi are substitut-
ed by feqi because they are computed as average values in
certain CTOD ranges: 0–0.6 mm for SLS and 0.6–3.0 mm
for SLU.
In fib Model Code 2010, the constitutive relation-
ships for softening materials (Fig. 13) are presented to-
gether with those suggested for hardening materials,
(18)
where, progressively, the matrix contribution cannot be
distinguished from the fibre one. Only the softening case
is discussed in the following. Further details on hardening
material responses will be discussed in an fib bulletin cur-
rently in preparation.
Note that by introducing the peak strength of the
matrix it is possible to better induce localization when an
FE model is adopted, thus preventing spurious dissipation
due to uncontrolled growths of the cracked band [54].
Finally, the introduction of the fracture energy corre-
sponding to the matrix peak strength contribution is not
considered in the equilibrium equations used to identify
Eqs. (9) and (10), but its addition is not generally signifi-
cant for typical structures.
3.5 The σ-w curve identification: theoretical
vs. experimental results
A broad experimental campaign was planned in order to
ascertain whether the constitutive model σ-w identified
from notched bending tests is reliable. A comparison was
b)
 M. di Prisco/M. Colombo/D. Dozio · Fibre-reinforced concrete in fib Model Code 2010: principles, models and test validation
Fig. 15. Uniaxial tensile constitutive law identified from bending tests: bilinear hardening (bh); bilinear softening (bs) [51]
Fig. 16. FE meshes adopted for simulating the uniaxial tensile test
first carried out by casting three specimens made with the
same FRC, belonging to the same batch, and carrying out
three four-point bending tests according to Italian stan-
dard UNI 11039 [52]. Three cylindrical specimens were
then core-drilled from one undamaged end (Fig. 14a) and
tested in uniaxial tension by means of a closed-loop press
able to impose a fixed-end condition [55]. The comparison
is shown in Fig. 14, and is really encouraging. In fact, the
a) b)
Fig. 17. FE simulation of uniaxial tension tests in fixed-end condition: a) global response, b) zoom at small COD
scattering of the results was very much reduced, not only
between the LVDTs at 120° in the same test [55], but also
in the three different tests (see small shadow in Fig. 14b).
The dashed line shown is computed as the average be-
tween the three average responses, computed as the mean
curve of the three transducers in each test. Other tests
were performed after thermal cycles at different tempera-
tures (T = 200, 400 and 600 °C). Similar comparisons were
also carried out on prismatic specimens in order to com-
pare bending tests on notched and unnotched specimens
with uniaxial tension tests with fixed and rotating ends
made from the same materials [61].
The uniaxial tension test was also simulated by
means of Diana Finite Element code, introducing as the
constitutive relationship the σ-w response identified from
bending (Fig. 15) using Eqs. (9) and (10). The axisymmet-
ric mesh (Fig. 16) adopts regular triangular elements [54]
and the COD was computed, as in the experimental tests,
as the relative displacement between two points at a dis-
tance of 50 mm astride the notch. The structural charac-
teristic length in this case is a localization limiter with
lcs = 兹苵苵
2A [56]. The results (Fig. 17) are obtained by chang-
ing the size of the elements (lcs = 1.163, 2.327 mm). The
higher curve is the constitutive response identified and
used as an input for FE modelling, whereas the two FE
structural responses of the modelled specimens are practi-
cally coincident and a little closer to the average experi-
mental curve measured with the LVDTs at 120°. The main
difference is shown in the post-peak response, where a
smaller dissipation should be related to the modelling as-
Structural Concrete 14 (2013), No. 4 351
M. di Prisco/M. Colombo/D. Dozio · Fibre-reinforced concrete in fib Model Code 2010: principles, models and test validation

Fig. 18. FE meshes adopted for simulating four bending tests on notched beams

sumption of neglecting defects, which characterize the

real specimen.
Using the same constitutive relationship, it is also
possible to model the original notched beam specimen
tested in a four-point bending setup. Two meshes were in-
troduced: they consider a plane stress approach and
quadrilateral elements (mesh 1, Fig. 18, [54]) or triangular
elements (mesh 2; Fig. 18, [54]). Even if the same constitu-
tive relationship σ-w considered in the uniaxial tension
tests was assumed and a proper localization limiter was
applied as suggested by Rots [56] for both meshes, differ-
ent post-cracking responses were obtained. In Fig. 19 the
FE results are compared in terms of nominal strength σN
vs. CTOD with experimental values from the four-point
bending tests. It should be noted that triangular elements
Fig. 19. FE simulation results for notched four-point bending tests
introduce a non-negligible increase in toughness.

a) b)

Fig. 20. FE simulation of bending test: a) trilinear constitutive law adopted, b) model reliability with reference to a notched four-point bending test

a) b)

Fig. 21. Notched four-point bending test simulation: multi-linear constitutive law adopted (a) and numerical results (b)

352 Structural Concrete 14 (2013), No. 4

 M. di Prisco/M. Colombo/D. Dozio · Fibre-reinforced concrete in fib Model Code 2010: principles, models and test validation
Fig. 22. Plane section and FE validation of the linear model proposed in fib MC2010 for several materials defined in Table 1
Fig. 23. Influence of kinematic and constitutive model
The simplified models introduced can sometimes be
substituted by more complex models identified by means
of back-analysis [57]. With reference to mesh 1 (Fig. 18,
[54]), a trilateral softening curve can be introduced as
shown in Fig. 20a to reproduce the uniaxial tension test
better. The improvement involves a more careful fitting of
the bending response (Fig. 20b). Incidentally, a progres-
sive improvement in the identification process is not al-
ways associated with the best response if the back-analysis
is carried out with reference to a different kinematic mod-
el. In Fig. 21a, a multi-linear σ-w curve identified by means
of a plane section model can allow the designer to fit per-
fectly the response with a plane section approach
(Fig. 21b), but the result of the FE analysis with the same
constitutive law could be far from the ideal fitting
(Fig. 21b).
Moving to the use of a plane section model, which is
much more efficient for the structural design of bent ele-
ments, a series of beam specimens made of different ma-
terials as defined in Tables 1 and 2 was made to check the
reliability of the proposed linear model (le/ls: linear elas-
tic pre-peak/linear softening). The same constitutive
models were adopted in the FE analysis with the proper
structural characteristic length by using the two meshes
shown in Fig. 18. The results (Fig. 22) confirm good relia-
bility for a plane section model and FE mesh 1, whereas
FE mesh 2 always gives an over-resistant response. Of
course, the fitting is reasonable, it often overestimates the
peak strength and the stiffness before the peak. A com-
parison between linear and bilinear relationships at pre-
and post-peak is also shown (Fig. 23) with reference to
the plane section and FE models. The main difference for
both the kinematic models appears in the peak region
as expected: linear relationships exhibit lower peak
strengths due to the lack of matrix contribution and the
same pull-out strength.
A final investigation in terms of good fitting can be
performed by considering the choice of the structural
Structural Concrete 14 (2013), No. 4 353
M. di Prisco/M. Colombo/D. Dozio · Fibre-reinforced concrete in fib Model Code 2010: principles, models and test validation

a) b)

c) d)

Fig. 24. Plane section model: the role of the structural characteristic length for two different materials with bilinear softening model: a), c) structural
characteristic length influence for M2-F4-0.62 and M3-F2-0.62 materials respectively; b), d) related zooms

a) b)

Fig. 25. Notched standard tests and unnotched structural specimen tests (h = 60 mm; average curves of at least 3 specimens); bending response with the
same materials: tests according to UNI 11039 [49] and UNI 11188 [58]; A and B in (b) refer to specimens tested as cast (A) or turning the specimens upside
down (B) [56]

characteristic length. In fact, this variable is not only relat-
ed to the ideal condition of the plane section kinematic
constraint, but also plays a role in predicting pre-peak be-
haviour and peak strength. By examining different choices
of lcs and two different materials with a linear elastic mod-
el in pre-peak and a bilinear softening model (le/bs) in
post-peak, it is possible to highlight the role played by the
structural characteristic length. Fig. 24 clearly highlights
the value of lcs = h suggested in fib Model Code 2010 as a
reasonable choice.
4 The “structural” specimen
The identification of the uniaxial tension constitutive law
in the post-cracking regime is severely affected by fibre dis-
tribution and other parameters as observed by many re-
searchers [58]. FRC is a cementitious composite and there-
fore, to be regarded as a homogeneous material, the
specimens used to characterize its behaviour should have
a volume that can be representative of the FRC hetero-
geneity grade. Changing casting and handling procedures

354 Structural Concrete 14 (2013), No. 4

 M. di Prisco/M. Colombo/D. Dozio · Fibre-reinforced concrete in fib Model Code 2010: principles, models and test validation

as well as the mixer, as necessitated by larger cast volumes,

can drastically change mechanical characteristics in bend-
ing [58]. In thin-walled elements the use of fibre reinforce-
ment is quite appropriate but, in general, FRC should
present a hardening response in bending. The representa-
tiveness of standard notched beam specimens, with a
cross-section of 150 × 150 mm, for characterizing the be-
haviour of this type of element is questionable. At the
same time, fibre dispersion and orientation are seriously
affected by a casting procedure that, in thin elements, is
different from that adopted in standard specimens. Fur-
thermore, standard specimens are notched and it is diffi-
cult to guarantee the hardening behaviour of the material
(in statistical terms) by their response. In fact, the notch
favours stable crack propagation and significantly modi-
fies the first cracking process, especially if the fibre con- Fig. 26. Geometry and test setup for full-scale beam test
tent is not high enough to change the mechanical behav-
iour at peak [59–61]. For all these reasons, an unnotched
prismatic specimen cast using the same procedure as for
the structure and with the same thickness is preferred. 5 Reliability of structural behaviour prediction
The specimen can be tested by means of a four-point bend-
ing setup that favours a crack propagation starting from The constitutive models introduced to describe uniaxial
the weakest cross-section between the load points. A trans- tension can also be used to check the behaviour of beams
ducer attached between two points on the underside of with a conventional cross-section. To this end, three
the specimen measures the relative displacement between beams 3 m long with a 300 × 300 mm square cross-section
these points (COD). This type of thin specimen can be were tested in a four-point bending test setup to check the
very representative of the behaviour of thin FRC struc- reliability of the approach proposed in fib Model Code
tures; therefore, it can be named “structural” specimen as 2010. No conventional reinforcement was introduced [63,
first suggested in the French guidelines on ultra-high-per- 64, 54]. The beam geometry and the setup adopted are
formance fibre-reinforced concrete AFGC-SETRA [24] shown in Fig. 26. The material is M2-F4-0.62, as specified
and in the Italian guidelines on SFRC [62]. In Fig. 25 a set in Tables 1 and 2.
of five different material tests highlights as the structural According to the measurements indicated in the setup
specimen usually gives a weaker response in relation to (Fig. 29), both the load vs. vertical displacement and the
the standard notched tests used for classifying the materi- bending moment vs. measured central curvature are pro-
al, even if a higher performance could be expected for the posed in Figs. 27a,b. Careful measurement of the fibre num-
most favourable fibre distribution. For this reason, when bers in the critical cross-sections was also carried out and is
thin-walled elements have to be designed safely, a careful indicated in Fig. 28. Fig. 29 also shows the final crack pat-
identification of the mechanical response by means of terns. The numerical prediction carried out using the plane
structural specimens is strongly suggested. This choice section approach fits quite well with the mechanical re-
could allow a partial reduction in the safety factors as sug- sponse measured experimentally. It is important to empha-
gested in [28, 58]. size that the comparison is performed by considering the av-

a) b)

Fig. 27. Full-scale bending test, numerical and experimental results: a) bending moment vs. curvature diagram, b) load vs. displacement curve

Structural Concrete 14 (2013), No. 4 355

M. di Prisco/M. Colombo/D. Dozio · Fibre-reinforced concrete in fib Model Code 2010: principles, models and test validation
Fig. 28. Fibre distribution in the critical cross-section of the full-scale beams tested
Fig. 29. Crack patterns at failure for the full-scale beams tested
a) b)
Fig. 30. Size effect introduced with the structural characteristic length: a) bilinear softening model, b) linear softening model
erage curves in the identification process of the uniaxial ten-
sion law and not the characteristic ones. The smaller stiff-
ness of the global curve (Fig. 27b) is due to the lack of local-
ization and to a softening zone assumed to be spread
homogeneously over the overall zone with the same maxi-
mum bending moment. FE analyses were also performed us-
ing the same constitutive relationship and quadrilateral ele-
ments. In this case average and characteristic curves fit the
structural behaviour quite well, even if the pre-peak response
simulated by the FE analysis is not able to take into account
the defect distributions adequately as well as inhomoge-
neous shrinkage effects in the cross section, thus exhibiting a
stiffer behaviour. In order to favour the localization in the
critical section detected experimentally, an initial geometric
defect was introduced by assigning a local width reduction
< 10 % in the proximity of the main crack propagation.
To conclude the modelling of unreinforced concrete
structures, an example of the role played by the structural
356 Structural Concrete 14 (2013), No. 4
characteristic length is shown in Fig. 30, where the same
uniaxial tension constitutive law is assumed and different
depths are considered [50]. The structural characteristic
length is therefore able to reproduce a significant size ef-
fect without the need for any special coefficient as pro-
posed by Rilem TC 162 TDF [23].
The same constitutive relationships were also used to
model the bending behaviour of prefabricated FRC roof
elements, where only prestressed longitudinal reinforce-
ment remained – all the transverse reinforcement was sub-
stituted by different types of steel fibre. Further details for
these cases can be found in [65, 66].
Several research projects are in progress to check the
global behaviour of R/C structures where an FRC compos-
ite is adopted. In section 7.7, the models discussed to re-
produce the uniaxial tension behaviour are used coupled
with conventional reinforcement. The bending moment
resistance at ULS with longitudinal reinforcement, which
 M. di Prisco/M. Colombo/D. Dozio · Fibre-reinforced concrete in fib Model Code 2010: principles, models and test validation
Fig. 31. ULS for bending moment and axial force: use of simplified stress-strain relationship [fib MC2010, Fig. 7.7-3]
represents the usual case, can be investigated by means of
the addition of a fibre contribution as clearly shown in
Fig. 31. The bending failure stage is supposed to be
reached when one of the following conditions applies:
– attainment of the ultimate compressive strain in the
FRC, εcu
– attainment of the ultimate tensile strain in the steel (if
present), εsu
– attainment of the ultimate tensile strain in the FRC, εFu
It is important to emphasize that in this case the structur-
al characteristic length usually depends on the crack dis-
tance and therefore on the reinforcement ratio and bar
diameters used. Furthermore, fibres help to increase the
ductility of the plastic hinge by increasing the passive con-
finement in the compression zone, but this effect is not
taken into account.
Several investigations are in progress to check the ef-
fectiveness of fibres in reducing crack distance and open-
ings as suggested in fib Model Code 2010, with suitable re-
lationships in agreement with conventional reinforced
concrete [36, 37, 38].
6 Partial safety factors and redundancy coefficients
For ultimate limit states, recommended values of partial
safety factors γF are shown in Table 3. For serviceability
limit states, the partial factors should be taken as 1.0.
However, some special observations have to be made.
FRC is scantly homogeneous and isotropic because fibres
location is random and mainly depends on casting proce-
dure, formwork geometry and mix consistency affected by
flowability, viscosity and filling ability. Therefore, the scat-
tering of its response mainly depends on numbers of fibres
in the cracked section, their location and their orientation.
On the basis of the previous considerations, the choice of
the safety factors should take into account the following:
Table 3. Partial safety factors for FRC
Material γF
FRC in compression as for plain concrete
FRC in tension (limit of linearity) as for plain concrete
FRC in tension (residual strength) 1.5
– the representativeness of the specimens used to charac-
terize the mechanical response of the material, in rela-
tion to the structure considered
– the number of specimens for mechanical characteriza-
tion
– the stress redistribution capacity of the structure under
consideration
– the fracture volume involved in the failure mechanism
Besides the safety factor indicated in Table 3, suitable co-
efficients K, which take into account the representative-
ness of the specimen used for the identification in relation
to the structure and the casting procedure adopted, are al-
so introduced. In general, an isotropic fibre distribution is
assumed so that the fibre orientation factor K is equal to 1.
For favourable effects, an orientation factor K < 1.0 may be
applied if verified experimentally. For unfavourable ef-
fects, an orientation factor K > 1.0 must be verified experi-
mentally and applied. The values fFtsd and fFtud should
then be modified to
fFtsd,mod = fFtsd/K (19)
fFtud,mod = fFtud/K (20)
A careful analysis of the role played by the safety factor
when a non-linear mechanical analysis is carried out ac-
cording to fib Model Code 2010 is described by Cervenka
et al. [67].
7 Basic aspects for design
Fibre reinforcement is suitable for structures where dif-
fused stresses are present. In structures with both local-
ized and diffused stresses, which is the usual case, it is bet-
ter to base the reinforcement on a combination of rebars
and fibre reinforcement.
In structural elements where fibres aim to replace
conventional reinforcement (even partially), some restric-
tions on the minimum residual strength are applied (Eqs.
(2) and (3)). This residual strength becomes significant in
structures characterized by a high degree of redundancy,
where a remarkable stress redistribution occurs. For this
reason, in structures without rebars, where fibres com-
pletely replace conventional reinforcement, a minimum
redundancy level is required for the structural member.
Structural Concrete 14 (2013), No. 4 357
M. di Prisco/M. Colombo/D. Dozio · Fibre-reinforced concrete in fib Model Code 2010: principles, models and test validation

Table 4. Experimental results of four-point bending tests

Material Specimen No. fIf,av (std %) [MPa] feq1,av (std %) [MPa] feq2,av (std %) [MPa]

M1-F1-0.62 3 4.9 (12.1 %) 7.43 (19.6 %) 8.11 (23.7 %)

M1-F2-0.62 3 5.15 (4.9 %) 7.02 (19.6 %) 6.16 (5.2 %)

M1-F3-0.32-F4-0.32 3 5.15 (3.6 %) 6.92 (4.68 %) 5.89 (16.5 %)

M2-F4-0.62 9 5.94 (10.1 %) 8.39 (6.3 %) 4.87 (15.6 %)

M3-F2-0.62 3 5.79 (1.1 %) 5.34 (8.5 %) 3.91 (15.8 %)

M4-F2-0.62 7 5.02 (7.9 %) 6.44 (18.0 %) 6.27 (17.0 %)

M5-F5-0.45 8 3.54 (10.7 %) 2.91 (20.6 %) 2.69 (36.6 %)

M6-F6-0.45 6 3.13 (11.4 %) 1.47 (31.2 %) 0.73 (54.5 %)

M6-F6-0.83 6 3.36 (11.6 %) 2.10 (10.1 %) 1.33 (13.2 %)

M6-F7-0.45 6 2.84 (10.8 %) 1.88 (21.4 %) 1.26 (37.6 %)

M6-F7-0.83 6 3.70 (11.0 %) 3.52 (27.1 %) 3.18 (39.0 %)

M6-F8-0.45 6 2.49 (19.8 %) 1.81 (42.0 %) 1.53 (63.9 %)

M6-F8-0.83 6 2.90 (19.8 %) 2.46 (18.0 %) 2.51 (18.8 %)

M7-F2-0.62 8 4.01 (10.3 %) 3.19 (22.2 %) 2.03 (32.5 %)

M8-F2-0.62 6 6.84 (5.8 %) 8.45 (19.5 %) 3.87 (28.4 %)

M8-F1-0.62 6 6.76 (7.1 %) 9.80 (12.2 %) 9.22 (14.8 %)

Table 5. Experimental results of three-point bending tests

Material Specimen No. fctfl,av (std %) [MPa] fR1,av (std %) [MPa] fR3,av (std %) [MPa]

M6-F6-0.45 6 3.54 (9.6 %) 1.30 (23.0 %) 0.68 (42.6 %)

M6-F6-0.83 6 4.12 (4.35 %) 2.07 (16.8 %) 1.41 (20.8 %)

M6-F7-0.45 6 3.41 (14.3 %) 1.42 (15.5 %) 1.21 (11.4 %)

M6-F7-0.83 6 3.95 (20.7 %) 2.54 (38.5 %) 2.31 (40.9 %)

M6-F8-0.45 6 3.20 (7.5 %) 1.92 (27.1 %) 1.97 (38.9 %)

M6-F8-0.83 6 4.15 (10.2 %) 2.90 (28.5 %) 3.21 (30.2 %)

M7-F2-0.62 9 5.06 (13.8 %) 2.53 (30.6 %) 1.86 (35.1 %)

On the contrary, in structures with rebars, where fibres
constitute additional reinforcement, ductility is generally
provided by conventional reinforcement that makes a ma-
jor contribution to the tensile strength. For hardening
FRCs (in uniaxial tension), fibres can be used as the only
reinforcement (without rebars), also in statically determi-
nate structural elements. The heterogeneity of the me-
chanical behaviour in the post-cracking regime is often
significantly penalized due to the high scattering mainly
related to fibre distribution and orientation. When a sig-
nificant redundancy is guaranteed for the structure by its
geometry and its boundary conditions, and a large volume
of the structure is involved in the failure process, the ex-
perimental investigation has highlighted that the average
mechanical behaviour – rather than the characteristic one
– takes place. For this reason, a suitable coefficient KRd,
aimed at increasing the load bearing capacity of the struc-
ture, is introduced [54].
Section 7.7, after a rough classification, also intro-
duces semi-empirical equations for designing FRC struc-
tural elements when subjected to shear according to the
multi-level approach [68], punching [69] and torsion.
There are even suitable equations for slabs and walls as
well as specific equations to compute crack distance and
crack opening taking into account fibre contribution,
which thus allows us to design new FRC structures ac-
cording to these principles.
8 Concluding remarks
The implementation of fibre reinforced concrete (FRC) in
the fib Model Code 2010 is a very important milestone. In

358 Structural Concrete 14 (2013), No. 4

 M. di Prisco/M. Colombo/D. Dozio · Fibre-reinforced concrete in fib Model Code 2010: principles, models and test validation
the near future it will probably lead to the development of
structural rules for FRC elements in Eurocodes and na-
tional codes.
This paper has carefully discussed the simplified
models suggested for the composite and presented them in
the material section to evaluate the uniaxial tension resid-
ual strength, mainly given by fibre pull-out. Their reliabili-
ty as well as their limitations are indicated with reference
to several FRC materials, characterized by different ma-
trixes, different steel fibres and different fibre contents.
The design rules are derived from a unified classification
of FRC composite based on a three-point bending test, al-
ready accepted as a European standard.
The identification of the constitutive law is also
discussed with reference to the structural characteristic
length concept and two different kinematic models
that can be adopted: plane section and finite element
approaches. In all the cases discussed, the procedure
fits the experimental tests reasonably well, thus showing
an appreciable robustness of the whole design ap-
proach.
For thin-walled elements, the need for a “structural”
specimen to identify the material properties better, taking
into account the real casting procedure, is also highlighted
with reference to various FRC composites. This require-
ment becomes essential in the case of self-compacting ma-
terials too. Suitable coefficients to take into account inho-
mogeneous fibre alignments are also introduced. Due to
the high scatter of FRC responses, a new coefficient able
to consider the beneficial effect of redundancy is also in-
troduced.
It is worth noting that although the level of knowl-
edge of FRC has increased tremendously over the last 15
years, further research is needed to verify and optimize
the proposed design rules, to investigate the long-term be-
haviour of different FRCs and other open issues such as
the anisotropic behaviour of FRC, fatigue and multi-axial
mechanical behaviour. A new generation of FRCs will
soon enter the market. They are based on a “cocktail” of
different fibre types (material and/or geometry) to en-
hance different structural performance aspects and fib
Model Code 2010 should be ready to open up the way for
their usage.
Acknowledgements
A special vote of thanks goes to professors L. Vandewalle
and G. Plizzari for the excellent cooperation to Prof. J.
Walraven for the fruitful discussions and to Prof. H.
Falkner, who shared with us his considerable design
experience. The authors are also indebted to all the mem-
bers of fib Task Groups TG 8.3 and TG 8.6 for the
constructive discussions during the several meetings,
where many ideas presented in this paper took a definitive
shape.
References
1. Reinhardt, H. W., Naaman, A. E. (eds.): High Performance
Fiber Reinforced Cement Composites – HPFRCC 3. RILEM
Proc. PRO6. RILEM Publications S.A.R.L., Cachan, France,
1999.
2. Naaman, A. E., Reinhardt, H. W. (eds.): High performance
Fiber Reinforced Cement Composites – HPFRCC4, RILEM
Proc. PRO30, RILEM Publications S.A.R.L., Bagneaux,
France, 2003.
3. Reinhardt, H. W., Naaman, A. E. (eds.): High Performance
Fiber Cement Composites – HPFRCC5, PRO53, RILEM
Publications S.A.R.L., 2007.
4. Parra-Montesinos, G. J., Reinhardt, H. W., Naaman, A. E.:
High Performance Fiber Reinforced Cement Composites 6,
RILEM book series, vol. 2, 2012.
5. Rossi, P., Chanvillard, G. (eds.): 5th RILEM Symp. on Fiber
Reinforced Concretes. BEFIB 2000, RILEM Proc. PRO15,
RILEM Publications S.A.R.L., Cachan, France, 2000.
6. di Prisco, M., Felicetti, R., Plizzari, G. (eds.): Fiber-Rein-
forced Concrete. BEFIB RILEM Proc. PRO39, RILEM Pub-
lications S.A.R.L.. Bagneux, France, 2004.
7. Gettu, R. (ed.): Fibre Reinforced Concrete: Design and Ap-
plications. BEFIB 2008, RILEM Proc. PRO60, RILEM Pub-
lications S.A.R.L., Bagneux, France, 2008.
8. Barros, J. A. O.: Fibre Reinforced Concrete – Challenges and
Opportunities. BEFIB 2012, RILEM International Symp.,
Proc., Guimarães, Portugal, 2012.
9. di Prisco, M. (ed.): FRC structural applications and stan-
dards. Materials and Structures, special issue, 42(9), 2009,
pp. 1169–1311.
10. Romualdi, J. P., Batson, G. B.: Mechanics of Crack Arrest in
Concrete. Proc., ASCE, vol. 89, EM3, 1963, pp. 147–168.
11. Romualdi, J. P., Mandel, J. A.: Tensile Strength of Concrete
Affected by Uniformly Distributed Closely Spaced Short
Lengths of Wire Reinforcement. ACI Journal, Proc., 61(6),
1964, pp. 657–671.
12. Shah, S. P., Rangan, B. V.: Effects of reinforcements on duc-
tility of concrete. ASCE Journal of the Structural Division,
96 ST6, 1970, pp. 1167–1184.
13. Shah, S. P., Rangan, B. V.: Ductility of Concrete Reinforced
with Stirrups, Fibers and Compression Reinforcement. Jour-
nal, Structural Division, ASCE, vol. 96, No. ST6, 1970, pp.
1167–1184.
14. Shah, S. P., Rangan, B. V.: Fiber Reinforced Concrete Prop-
erties. ACI Journal, Proc., 68(2), 1971, pp. 126–135.
15. Johnston, C. D.: Steel Fibre Reinforced Mortar and Concrete
– A Review of Mechanical Properties. Fiber Reinforced Con-
crete, SP-44, ACI, Detroit, 1974, pp. 127–142.
16. Naaman, A. E., Shah, S. P.: Bond Studies of Oriented and
Aligned Fibers. Proc., RILEM Symposium on Fiber Rein-
forced Concrete, London, 1975, pp. 171–178.
17. Naaman, A. E., Shah, S. P.: Pullout Mechanism in Steel
Fiber Reinforced Concrete. ASCE Journal, Structural Divi-
sion, vol. 102, No. ST8, 1976, pp. 1537–1548.
18. Shah, S. P., Naaman, A. E.: Mechanical Properties of Steel
and Glass Fiber Reinforced Concrete. ACI Journal, Proc.,
vol. 73, No. 1, 1976, pp. 50–53.
19. Patent Nos. 3,429,094 (1969) & 3,500,728 (1970), Battelle
Memorial Institute, Columbus, Ohio; Patent No. 3,650,785
(1972), U.S. Steel Corporation, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania,
United States Patent Office, Washington, D.C.
20. ACI Committee 544: Design considerations for steel Fiber
Reinforced Concrete, ACI 544.4R-88. American Concrete In-
stitute, ACI Farmington Hills, MI, 1996.
21. ACI Committee 318: Building code and commentary, Re-
port ACI 318-08/318R-08. American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, MI, 2008.
22. Vandewalle, L. et al.: Recommendation of Rilem TC162-
TDF, 2002. Test and design methods for steel fibre reinforced
concrete: Design of steel fibre reinforced concrete using the
s-w method: principles and applications. Materials and
Structures, vol. 35, pp. 262–278.
Structural Concrete 14 (2013), No. 4 359
M. di Prisco/M. Colombo/D. Dozio · Fibre-reinforced concrete in fib Model Code 2010: principles, models and test validation
23. Vandewalle, L. et al.: Recommendation of Rilem TC162-
TDF, 2003. Test and design methods for steel fibre reinforced
concrete: s-e-design method (final recommendation). Materi-
als and Structures, vol. 36, pp. 560–567.
24. AFGC-SETRA: Ultra High Performance Fibre-Reinforced
Concretes, Interim Recommendations, AFGC Publication,
France, 2002.
25. Stälfiberbetong, rekommendationer för konstruction, utfö-
rande och provning Betongrapport n. 4 – Svenska Betong-
föreningen, 1995.
26. Deutscher Ausschuss für Stahlbeton (DAfStb): Guidelines
for steel fiber reinforced concrete – 23rd draft – richtlinie
Stahlfaserbeton – DIN 1045 annex, parts 1–4, 2007.
27. Richtlinie Faserbeton, Osterreichische Vereinigung für
Beton- und Bautechnik, 2002.
28. CNR-DT 204, Guidelines for design, construction and pro-
duction control of fiber reinforced concrete structures. Na-
tional Research Council of Italy, 2006.
29. JSCE: Recommendations for Design and Construction of
High Performance Fiber Reinforced Cement Composites
with Multiple Fine Cracks (HPFRCC), Rokugo, K. (ed.),
Concrete Engng. Series, 82, 2008.
30. AENOR. UNE 83515. Hormigones con fibras. Determin-
ción de la resistencia a fisuración, tenacidad y resistencia re-
sidual a tracción. Metodo Barcelona. Asociación Española
de Normalización y Certificación, Madrid, 2010.
31. Triantafillou, T., Matthys, S.: Fibre Reinforced Polymer Rein-
forcement Enters fib Model Code 2010. Structural Concrete,
14, 2013, doi: 10.1002/suco.201300016.
32. Walraven, J.: fib Model Code for Concrete Structures 2010:
mastering challenges and encountering new ones. Structural
Concrete, 14, 2013, pp. 3–9, doi: 10.1002/suco.201200062.
33. Bigaj, A., Vrouwenvelder, T.: Reliability in the performance-
based concept of the fib Model Code 2010, Structural Con-
crete, 14, 2013, doi: suco.201300053.
34. Ferrara, L., Ozyurt, N., di Prisco, M.: High mechanical per-
formance of fibre reinforced cementitious composites: the
role of “casting flow-induced” fibre orientation. Materials
and Structures, 44(1), 2011, pp. 109–128.
35. UNI EN 206-1, 2006. Concrete – Part 1: Specification, per-
formance, production and conformity.
36. Vandewalle, L.: Cracking behaviour of concrete beams rein-
forced with a combination of ordinary reinforcement and
steel fibers. Materials and Structures, 33 (227), 2000, pp.
164–170.
37. Minelli, F., Tiberti, G., Plizzari, G.: Crack control in RC ele-
ments with fiber reinforcement. American Concrete Insti-
tute, ACI, 280 SP, 2011, pp. 76–93.
38. Leutbecher, T., Fehling, E.: Design for serviceability of ultra
high performance concrete structures, RILEM book series,
vol. 2, 2012, pp. 445–452.
39. Taerwe, L., Van Gysel, A.: Influence of steel fibers on design
stress-strain curve for high-strength concrete. Journal of En-
gineering Mechanics, 122(8), 1996, pp. 695–704.
40. Campione, G., Fossetti, M., Papia, M.: Behavior of fiber-rein-
forced concrete columns under axially and eccentrically
compressive loads. ACI Structural Journal, vol. 107, No. 3,
2010, pp. 272–281.
41. Bencardino, F., Rizzuti, L., Spadea, G., Swamy, R. N.: Stress-
strain behavior of steel fiber-reinforced concrete in compres-
sion. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, vol. 20, No. 3,
2008, pp. 255–263.
42. di Prisco, M., Colombo, M.: FRC thin-walled structures: op-
portunities and threats, Fibre Reinforced Concrete – Chal-
lenges and Opportunities. BEFIB 2012, RILEM Internation-
al Symp., Proc., Guimarães, Portugal, 2012.
360 Structural Concrete 14 (2013), No. 4
43. EN 14651, 2004: Test method for metallic fiber concrete –
Measuring the flexural tensile strength (limit of proportion-
ality, residual).
44. Hillerborg, A., Modeer, M., Peterson, P. E.: Analysis of crack
formation and crack growth by means of fracture mechanics
and finite elements. Cement and Concrete Research, 6, 1976,
pp. 773–782.
45. Bazant, Z. P., Cedolin, L.: Finite element modeling of crack
band propagation. Journal of Structural Engineering 109(1),
1983, pp. 69–92.
46. Ferrara, L., di Prisco, M.: Mode I fracture behavior in con-
crete: non-local damage modelling. ASCE, Journal of Engi-
neering Mechanics, 127(7), 2001, pp. 678–692.
47. di Prisco, M., Felicetti, R., Gambarova, P. G.: On the evalua-
tion of the characteristic length in high strength concrete.
High Strength Concrete, Azizinamini, A., Darwin, D.,
French, C. (eds.), ASCE, 1999, pp. 377–390.
48. Hillerborg, A.: Analysis of fracture by means of the fictitious
crack model, particularly for fibre reinforced concrete. Int. J.
Cem. Comp. 2(4), 1980, pp. 177–184.
49. Barr, B. I. G., Lee, M. K., De Place Hansen, E. J., Dupont, D.,
Erdem, E., Schaerlaekens, S., Schnütgen, B., Stang, H., Van-
dewalle, L.: Round-robin analysis of the RILEM TC 162-TDF
beam-bending test: Part 1 – Test method evaluation, 2003.
50. Taylor, M., Lydon, F. D., Barr, B. I. G.: Toughness measure-
ments on steel fibre-reinforced high strength concrete. Ce-
ment and Concrete Composites, vol. 19(4), 1997, pp.
329–340.
51. Ferrara, L., di Prisco, M.: Three- vs. four-point bending test
for the characterization of plain concrete: a numerical inves-
tigation, studies and research. Graduate School in Concrete
Structures, Politecnico di Milano, Italy, 22, 2001, pp. 73–119.
52. UNI 11039, 2003. Concrete reinforced with steel fibres. Part
II: test method for the determination of first cracking
strength and ductility indexes.
53. di Prisco, M., Felicetti, R., Iorio, F., Gettu, R.: On the identifi-
cation of SFRC tensile constitutive behaviour; in: Fracture
mechanics of Concrete structures, de Borst, R., Mazars, J.,
Pijaudier-Cabot, G., van Mier, J. G. M. (eds.), vol.1, A. A.
Balkema Publishers, 2001, pp. 541–548.
54. Dozio, D.: SFRC structures: identification of the uniaxial
tension characteristic constitutive law. PhD thesis, Dept. of
Structural Engineering, Politecnico di Milano, Starrylink
(ed.), 2008, ISBN 978-88-96225-14-1.
55. Colombo, M., di Prisco, M., Felicetti, R.: Mechanical proper-
ties of Steel Fibre Reinforced Concrete exposed at high tem-
peratures. Materials and Structures, 43(4), 2010, pp.
475–491.
56. Rots, J. G.: Computational modelling of concrete fracture.
PhD thesis, Delft University of Technology, 1988.
57. Löfgren, I. , Stang, H., Olesen, J. F.: Fracture properties of
FRC determined through inverse analysis of wedge splitting
and three-point bending tests. Journal of Advanced Concrete
Technology, 3(3), 2005, pp. 423–434.
58. di Prisco, M., Plizzari, G., Vandewalle, L.: Fibre reinforced
concrete: new design perspectives. Materials and Structures,
42(9), 2009, pp. 1261–1281.
59. di Prisco, M., Felicetti, R., Iorio, F.: Il comportamento fles-
sionale di elementi sottili in HPC; in: La meccanica della
frattura nel calcestruzzo ad alte prestazioni, di Prisco, M.,
Plizzari, G. (eds.), Starrylink, Brescia, 2003,pp. 157–182.
60. di Prisco, M., Ferrara, L., Colombo, M., Mauri, M.: On the
identification of SFRC constitutive law in uniaxial tension –
in Fiber reinforced concrete, di Prisco, M. et al. (eds.), Proc.
of 6th Rilem Symp. BEFIB 04, Varenna (Italy), PRO 39,
Rilem Publications S.A.R.L., Bagneaux, France, 2004, pp.
827–836.
 M. di Prisco/M. Colombo/D. Dozio · Fibre-reinforced concrete in fib Model Code 2010: principles, models and test validation

61. di Prisco, M., Felicetti, R., Lamperti M., Menotti, G.: On size 69. Muttoni, A., Fernández Ruiz, M., Bentz, E., Foster, S., Sigrist,
effect in tension of SFRC thin plates; in: Fracture Mechanics V.: Background to the fib Model Code 2010 Shear Provisions
of Concrete Structures, Li, V. C., Leung, C. K. Y., Willam, K. – Part II Punching Shear. Structural Concrete, 14, 2013, doi:
J., Billington, S. L. (eds.), 2, Schmick B. L., Pollington, A. D., 10.1002/suco.201200064.
USA, 2004, pp. 1075–1082.
62. UNI 11188, 2004. Design, Production and Control of Steel
Marco di Prisco, Ph.D.
Fibre Reinforced Structural Elements. Italian Board of Stan- Full Professor
dardization. Politecnico di Milano
63. di Prisco, M., Dozio, D.: Post-tensioned SFRC beams in Fibre Department of Civil and Environmental
Reinforced Concrete: design and applications, Proc. of 7th Engineering
Rilem Int. Conf. BEFIB 08, ISBN 978-2-35158-064-6, Rilem Piazza Leonardo da Vinci, 32
Publications S.A.R.L., Bagneux, France, PRO 60, 2008, pp. 20133 Milan, Italy
899–910. marco.diprisco@polimi.it
64. di Prisco M., Dozio D., Galli A., Lapolla, S.: Assessment and Tel: +390223998794, Fax: +390223998377
control of a SFRC retaining structure: Mechanical issues.
Matteo Colombo, Ph. D.
European Journal of Environmental and Civil Engineering, Assistant Professor
14 (10), 2010, pp. 1259–1296. Politecnico di Milano
65. di Prisco, M., Iorio, F., Plizzari, G.: HPSFRC prestressed roof Department of Civil and Environmental
elements; in: Test and design methods for steel fibre rein- Engineering
forced concrete – Background and experiences, Schnütgen, Piazza Leonardo da Vinci, 32
B., Vandewalle, L. (eds.), PRO 31, RILEM, 2003, pp. 20133 Milan, Italy
161–188. matteo.colombo@polimi.it
66. di Prisco, M., Dozio, D., Belletti, B.: On the fracture behav- Tel: +390223998789, Fax: +390223998377
iour of thin-walled SFRC roof elements. Materials and Struc-
tures, 46(5), 2013, pp. 803–829.
67. Cervenka, V.: Reliability-based non-linear analysis according Daniele Dozio, Ph.D.
to fib Model Code 2010. Structural Concrete, 14, 2013, pp. Senior Structural Engineer
19–28, doi: 10.1002/suco.201200022. Arup
68. Sigrist, V., Bentz, E., Fernández Ruiz, M., Foster, S., Muttoni, Corso Italia, 13
A.: Background to the fib Model Code 2010 Shear Provi- 20122 Milan, Italy
sions – Part I: Beams and Slabs. Structural Concrete, 14, daniele.dozio@arup.com
2013, doi: 10.1002/suco.201200066. Tel: +390285979381, Fax: +39028053984

Structural Concrete 14 (2013), No. 4 361