Influence of Steel and Polypropylene Fibers on

Flexural Behavior of RC Beams

Dipti Ranjan Sahoo 1; Apekshit Solanki 2; and Abhimanyu Kumar 3
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru on 10/16/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: Seven full-scale concrete beam specimens are tested under gradually increasing monotonic loading to investigate their overall
flexural response due to the addition of both metallic and nonmetallic fibers to the concrete. Steel and polypropylene fibers of 0.5% and 1.0%
volume fraction are used in the fiber-reinforced concrete (FRC) beam specimens. No improvement is noticed in the compressive and splitting
tensile strengths of concrete due to the addition of polypropylene fibers only. However, an improvement of 25–100% in the concrete splitting
tensile strength is noticed when either steel or combined fibers are added to the concrete. Although an increase in fiber content in the com-
bined FRC improves various mechanical properties, its influence on the peak load-resisting capacity of the full-scale beam specimens is rather
limited. An increase of both steel and polypropylene fibers in excess of 0.5% volume fraction does not improve the ultimate flexural re-
sistance of beams due to the uneven distribution of similar sizes of fibers in the presence of reinforcing steel bars. However, displacement
ductility of the beam specimens is improved by 120% as compared with the RC specimen, when only polypropylene fibers of 1% volume
fraction are added to the concrete. A better postpeak residual strength response is noticed in case of all FRC beam specimens due to multiple
cracking associated with the fiber-bridging action. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0001193. © 2014 American Society of Civil
Engineers.

Introduction extensively used as the metallic and nonmetallic fibers, respec-

It is well-known that the addition of randomly oriented discon-
tinuous fibers to a concrete mix improves various mechanical
properties of concrete, such as strength, ductility, toughness, and
postcracking tensile resistance (Hannant 1978; Bentur and Mindess
1990; Rossi and Chanvillard 2000; di Prisco et al. 2004; di Prisco
2007; Gettu 2008). While plain concrete fails in a brittle manner at
the occurrence of cracking, the ductile fibers in fiber-reinforced
concrete (FRC) continue to carry stresses well beyond cracking,
thus maintaining the structural integrity. The pullout resistance of
fibers improves the energy-absorption capability of a RC member.
Usually, the workability of a concrete mix decreases if either a large
amount of fibers is added or fibers characterized by a high aspect
ratio are used. The addition of small-sized (micro) steel fibers in
concrete enhances the compressive and the splitting tensile
strengths. By contrast, the addition of large-sized (macro) fibers
in the concrete mix has the opposite mechanical effects, which
are further enhanced by a suitable optimization of the aspect ratio
(Qian and Stroeven 2000; Olivito and Zuccarello 2010; Soulioti
et al. 2011). Fibers of different material and geometric properties
used in structural concrete applications can be broadly divided into
two categories, namely, high modulus (metallic) and low modulus
(nonmetallic). Each category of fiber helps in enhancing some
specific properties of concrete. Steel and polypropylene are
1
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of
Technology Delhi, New Delhi 110016, India (corresponding author).
E-mail: drsahoo@civil.iitd.ac.in
2
Undergraduate Student, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of
Technology Delhi, New Delhi 110016, India.
3
Undergraduate Student, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of
Technology Delhi, New Delhi 110016, India.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on April 9, 2014; approved on
September 11, 2014; published online on October 17, 2014. Discussion
period open until March 17, 2015; separate discussions must be submitted
for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Materials in Civil
Engineering, © ASCE, ISSN 0899-1561/04014232(9)/$25.00.
tively, in the FRC applications (Yao et al. 2003). Usually, steel
fibers improve the flexural toughness and ductility of concrete,
whereas the addition of nonmetallic fibers enhances the fresh con-
crete properties and reduces the plastic-shrinkage cracking (Qi et al.
2003; Banthia and Gupta 2006). Because of the lower stiffness,
high aspect ratios, and increased number of fibers at a given volume
fraction, these fibers are particularly effective in controlling the
propagation of microcracks in concrete.
The effectiveness of FRC in improving various mechanical
properties of concrete largely depends on the fiber dosage, fiber
aspect ratio, percentage of longitudinal steel, tensile strength of
fibers, and concrete compressive strength. Yazici et al. (2007) have
shown that the splitting tensile strength of concrete is enhanced by
10–50% due to the addition of steel fibers to the concrete. Splitting
tensile strength of concrete increases with the increase in fiber
aspect ratio and volume fraction up to 1.5%. However, compressive
strength of concrete is less affected by the addition of steel fibers
(Yazici et al. 2007). Previous studies (Soroushian and Bayasi 1991;
Balaguru et al. 1992; Banthia and Trottier 1995; Thomas and
Ramaswamy 2007; Kim et al. 2008; Hameed et al. 2009;
Bencardino et al. 2010; Meda et al. 2012; Rizzuti and Bencardino
2014) have shown that the ultimate and residual flexural strengths,
ductility, flexural toughness, and fracture properties are also im-
proved due to the addition of steel fibers. For a given volume frac-
tion, steel fibers of larger aspect ratio have been shown to be more
efficient in improving the flexural resistance, toughness, and energy
absorption as compared with the smaller aspect ratio fibers. Studies
on large-scale RC specimens without transverse shear stirrups have
shown that the flexural resistance, shear strength, and ductility re-
sponse can be enhanced using adequate amount of steel fibers to
the concrete matrix (Kwak et al. 2002; Parra-Montesinos 2006;
de Montaignac et al. 2012; Sahoo and Sharma 2014). The contri-
bution of steel fibers in enhancing the shear strength of RC mem-
bers has been recognized in American Concrete Institute (ACI)
318-08 (ACI 2008) that recommends the use of a minimum volume

© ASCE 04014232-1 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2015, 27(8): 04014232

 fraction of 0.75% of deformed steel fibers as a partial replacement
to the shear stirrups in RC members.
Fibers reduce the crack propagation in concrete by bridging the
crack faces, thereby increasing the energy-absorption capacity of
the composite material. The main energy-dissipation mechanisms
in FRC, after cracking, are fiber–matrix interface debonding, fiber
fracture, fiber pullout, and fiber yielding. Several studies have been
conducted to investigate the effect of adding polypropylene fibers
on the tensile and compressive strength, flexural properties, tough-
ness, and fracture behavior of concrete (Alhozaimy et al. 1996;
Qian and Stroeven 2000; Yao et al. 2003; Sukontasukkul 2004;
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru on 10/16/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Song et al. 2005; Brandt 2008; Hsie et al. 2008; Meddah and
Bencheikh 2009; Payrow et al. 2011; Patel et al. 2012). The maxi-
mum increase in splitting tensile strength and compressive strength
of polypropylene FRC (PFRC) is limited to 20%. However, the
addition of fibers changes the collapse/failure mode of RC beams
from (brittle) concrete crushing to (ductile) steel rupture, which is
noticed by a more extended softening branch with better postpeak
residual strength in the load-deflection response of FRC flexural
members. As stated earlier, the addition of steel fibers of high vol-
ume fraction has potential disadvantages in terms of poor concrete
workability and increased cost. High stiffness of steel fibers may
also result in voids and honeycombs in concrete during placing be-
cause of improper consolidation at low workability levels. Good
fresh concrete properties (i.e., better workability and reduced early
age cracking) and good strength toughness of hardened concrete
can be obtained by adding two different types of fibers. The hybrid
combination of metallic and nonmetallic fibers can help in optimiz-
ing various mechanical properties and reducing the overall cost
(Yao et al. 2003; di Prisco et al. 2009). Both low- and high-modulus
fibers in concrete arrest the microcracks and macrocracks, respec-
tively. Previous studies (Alhozaimy et al. 1996; Sivakumar and
Santhanam 2007; Hsie et al. 2008; Soutsosa et al. 2012) have
shown that the addition of both steel and polypropylene fibers
to the concrete improved the flexural strength and toughness while
reducing the crack propagation as compared to that with the addi-
tion of single type of fiber. Wang et al. (2012) concluded that the
increase in splitting tensile and flexural strengths of concrete may
vary in the range of 45–50% along with a substantial (nearly seven
times) improvement in the impact resistance of hybrid FRC as com-
pared to the plain concrete.
Research Significance
Most of the previous studies on combined (hybrid) FRCs (CFRCs)
have focused on the evaluation of mechanical properties of concrete
through the testing of cubes, cylinders, and small-scale beam
specimens. In these studies, the maximum fiber content of poly-
propylene fibers is limited to 0.5%. The effect of high percentages
of polypropylene fibers on the mechanical properties of concrete
has not been explored in detail. Furthermore, it is not known
whether the addition of combined fibers to concrete in presence
Fig. 1. Reinforcement detailing and dimension of test specimens
© ASCE 04014232-2
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2015, 27(8): 04014232
of conventional longitudinal and transverse reinforcement has a
significant influence on the flexural response of RC beams. Hence,
there is a need to investigate the optimum fiber content for CFRC to
achieve a better flexural performance of RC members. In this study,
seven full-scale RC beam specimens were tested under monoton-
ically increasing loading. Both steel and polypropylene fibers of
0.5% or 1% volume fraction were added to the concrete matrix. The
main objectives of this study are as follows: (1) to investigate the
flexural strength, failure mechanism, and ductility of FRC beams
with combined fibers; (2) to evaluate the mechanical properties of
FRC with both steel and polypropylene fibers; and (3) to find out
whether there is an optimal fiber content for CFRC, in order to
achieve a better flexural response of RC beams.
Experimental Program
An experimental investigation has been conducted on seven full-
scale test specimens prepared using plain concrete as well as FRC.
Two types of fibers, namely, steel and polypropylene, with fiber
volume fraction of 0.5% or 1.0% were used in the test specimens.
Four-point bending tests were conducted on the full-scale beam
specimens. In addition, standard tests were carried out on concrete
cubes, cylinders, and small-scale beams to investigate the role of
fiber type and fiber content on the compressive, splitting tensile and
flexural strengths of concrete.
Test Specimens
The overall length of all test specimens was 2.0 m with an effective
span of 1.8 m. All specimens had a rectangular cross section of
150-mm width and 200-mm depth. Fig. 1 shows the geometry and
reinforcement detailing used in the specimens. The geometric ratio
of the tensile reinforcement in the specimens was 1.35% (three bars
of 12-mm diameter). Two additional bars of 12-mm diameter were
used in the compression zone to keep the stirrups at the right place.
Two-legged 8-mm-diameter bars were used as transverse stirrups at
a center-to-center spacing of 65 and 130 mm at the end and the
middle one-third spans of the specimens, respectively. To avoid
a premature shear failure, and thus, to focus on the flexural behav-
ior of the specimens, the shear strength of specimens in the support
areas was increased by reducing the stirrups’ spacing by 50% as
compared with that at the middle-third segment. Because the depth
of test specimens was relatively smaller than those used in the prac-
tice, a smaller value of clear concrete cover of 20 mm was provided
to the tension-reinforcing bars. Sufficient development and anchor-
age lengths of 100 mm (greater than 8 times the bar diameter) were
provided at both ends of the longitudinal bars. One control speci-
men without any fiber (RC), two steel FRC (SFRC) specimens
with 0.5 and 1.0% steel fibers, one PFRC specimen with 1.0%
polypropylene fibers, and three CFRC specimens with varying
percentage of steel and polypropylene fibers were tested. Table 1
summarizes the details of fiber content and fiber type used in the
specimens.
J. Mater. Civ. Eng.
 Table 1. Details of Fiber Content in Test Specimens
Specimen Steel fiber (%) Polypropylene fiber (%)
RC 0.0 0.0
SFRC1 0.5 0.0
SFRC2 1.0 0.0
PFRC 0.0 1.0
CFRC1 0.5 0.5
CFRC2 1.0 0.5
CFRC3 1.0 1.0
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru on 10/16/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Details of Materials
Ordinary portland cement conforming to IS-8112 [Indian Standards
(IS) 2003], crushed coarse aggregates, fine aggregates conforming
to IS-10262 (IS 2009), water, and superplasticizer were used in the
concrete for the preparation of test specimens. River sand of spe-
cific gravity 2.62 and fineness modulus 2.64 was used as the fine
aggregate. Crushed granite of specific gravity 2.82 was used as the
coarse aggregate. The maximum size of coarse aggregates was lim-
ited to 12.5 mm. Fig. 2 shows the geometry of steel and polypro-
pylene fibers used in this study. End-hooked steel fibers (60-mm
length with a 0.75-mm diameter; aspect ratio ¼ 8) were used in
FRC specimens. The specified values of tensile strength and modu-
lus of elasticity of steel fibers were 1,050 MPa and 210 GPa, re-
spectively. The length and diameter of polypropylene fibers were
40 and 0.5 mm, respectively. The specified tensile strength and
modulus of elasticity of polypropylene fibers were 460 MPa and
5 GPa, respectively. Steel bars with a specified yield strength of
500 MPa were used as both longitudinal reinforcement and shear
stirrups in the specimens. Standard cubes of size 150 mm and cyl-
inders of 100-mm diameter and 200-mm length were prepared to
measure the compressive and splitting tensile strengths of concrete.
Small-scale prismatic beams of 500-mm length and 100-mm square
cross section were also prepared to determine the flexural tensile
strength of FRC according to the IS-516 (IS 1959) provisions.
Mix Proportions and Specimen Preparation
Plain cement concrete used in this study was designed for a
specified characteristic compressive strength (fck ) of 25 MPa
Fig. 2. Geometry of steel and polypropylene fibers
© ASCE 04014232-3
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2015, 27(8): 04014232
(designated as M25 grade). The characteristic compressive strength
is the minimum statistical value of strength such that not more than
a percentage (approximately 5%) of test results is expected to
exhibit the lower strength than this characteristic value (IS
2000). Considering the variations in the test results, the target mean
strength of concrete (f m ) was calculated as the algebraic sum of the
fck and 1.65 times the value of standard deviation (s) according to
the IS-10262 (IS 2009) provisions. Using a value of s equal to 4, the
value of f m for M25-grade concrete was obtained as 31.6 MPa.
Table 2 summarizes the mix proportions used in the plain concrete.
A naphthalene sulfonate–based superplasticizer of 1.5% volume
was used in the mix to obtain the desired workability of fresh con-
crete. Because the volume of fibers used in the mixing was very
small compared with the volume of aggregates, no reduction in
the weight of aggregates was carried out in the FRC mix and hence,
the same mix proportions were used in both plain concrete and
FRC. Several batches of concrete were prepared using a rotating
drum-type concrete mixer of 60-L (0.06 m3 ) capacity. The mixing
procedure was carried out in several steps. First, the sand and coarse
aggregates were mixed together with half of the total water content
to achieve a saturated surface-dry condition. Then, the cement and
the remaining water were added to the mix. Superplasticizer was
later added and mixed thoroughly. In the case of FRC, the fibers
were gradually sprinkled into the mix to obtain a homogeneous
mixture of good workability. The formworks were then filled with
the concrete mix using several batches and compacted properly
through a needle vibrator. Samples of concrete from each batch
were used to prepare the standard cubes and cylinders. Small-scale
prismatic beams were prepared only in the case of the FRC mix.
Fig. 3 shows the concrete mix and the preparation of the test spec-
imens during and after casting. The top surfaces of specimens were
leveled and finished properly to get a smooth surface for the load
application. Extreme care was taken while mixing the FRC with
high fiber content so that a consistent and workable mix could
be achieved.
Test Setup and Instrumentation
Full-scale beams were tested in four-point bending where the
middle-third segment of the specimens was in a state of pure flex-
ure. This helped in eliminating the effect of shear strength (or fail-
ure) on the load-bearing capacity of the specimens. Fig. 4 shows the
set up used in the testing of full-scale specimens in this study. Both
ends of the specimens were supported by smooth pins with an edge
distance of 100 mm. Two loading pins were placed at the thirds of
the span. A hydraulic jack of 1,000 kN capacity was used to apply
the monotonic loading, which was equally distributed on the load-
ing pins through a spreader beam (Fig. 4). A load cell and a linear
variable differential transformer (LVDT) were used to measure the
applied load and the displacement at midspan, respectively. Several
resistive strain gauges (of 120-Ω resistance) were placed on the ten-
sion reinforcement as well as on the concrete surface to measure the
state of strain at different load magnitudes. All these sensors were
connected to an automatic data-acquisition system to record the
real-time data during the testing process. A gradually increasing
monotonic load was applied on the full-scale beam specimens at a
Table 2. Details of Concrete-Mix Design Used in This Study
Composition Water Cement Sand Aggregate Superplasticizer
Mass (kg=m3 ) 156.7 350.7 678.9 1,253.3 4.5
Ratio by mass of 0.45 1.00 1.93 3.57 0.0123
cement
J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru on 10/16/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 3. Fresh concrete mix and preparation of test specimens
Fig. 4. Test setup used in the testing of full-scale beam specimens;
LVDT = linear variable differential transformer
rate 10 kN=min until the peak load-carrying capacity of specimens
was reached and thereafter, a displacement-controlled loading at a
rate of 10 mm=min was applied to the specimens. The test was con-
tinued until a significant reduction in the load-carrying capacity
was noticed or instability in the test specimens was observed.
Mechanical Properties of FRC
Various mechanical properties of the concrete mix (both plain and
FRC) were determined from the testing of cubes, cylinders, and
small-scale prismatic beams. A universal testing machine of
© ASCE 04014232-4
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2015, 27(8): 04014232
Table 3. Mechanical Properties of Concrete Mixes
Compressive Splitting tensile Flexural tensile
Concrete mix strength (MPa) strength (MPa) strength (MPa)
Plain concrete 36.6 2.4 Not applicable
SFRC1 36.9 3.0 5.0
SFRC2 32.9 4.1 4.4
PFRC 31.8 2.5 3.2
CFRC1 35.2 3.1 5.0
CFRC2 35.5 3.8 4.8
CFRC3 39.4 4.8 7.6
2,000-kN capacity was used for this purpose. The results of
material tests are discussed in the following sections.
Compressive Strength
The uniaxial compression tests on standard cubes were carried ac-
cording to the IS-516 (IS 1959) provisions. Monotonically increas-
ing loading was applied to the standard cube specimens at a rate of
14 MPa=min. Six cubes were tested at 28 days of curing for each
type of concrete mix. Table 3 summarizes the mean values of com-
pressive strength of plain and FRC. Both plain concrete and FRC
mixes achieved the target compressive strength of 31.6 MPa. Re-
sults showed that the compressive strength did not increase signifi-
cantly due to the addition of fibers. In fact, in most cases, the
compressive strength of FRC was smaller than that of the plain con-
crete. However, the compression failure mode of concrete changed
from brittle to ductile due to the addition of fibers to the concrete as
shown in Fig. 5. Because of the bridging effect of the fibers, the
FRC cubes did not crush completely, but held their integrity up to
the end of the test. The PFRC cubes exhibited the lowest compres-
sive strength of 31.8 MPa, whereas the CFRC3 cubes had the high-
est compressive strength of 39.4 MPa, indicating a marginal
increase of 7.5% as compared with plain concrete.
Split Tensile Strength
The splitting tensile strength of both plain concrete and FRC was
determined by testing standard cylinders according to the IS-5816
(IS 1999) provisions. Gradually increased uniaxial compression
loading was applied to these cylinder specimens at a rate of
1.8 MPa=min. The splitting tensile strength was computed as
2P=πDL, where P is the failure load, D and L are the diameter
and height of the cylinders, respectively. Six cylinders for each
mix were tested after 28 days of curing. Table 3 summarizes the
average value of the splitting tensile strengths of plain concrete
and FRC. In contrast to the compressive strength, the splitting ten-
sile strength was largely influenced by the addition of fibers. All
FRC mixes had the higher splitting tensile strengths as compared
with the plain concrete. The SFRC2 mix with 1% steel fibers ex-
hibited an increase of 70% in the splitting tensile strength, whereas
the corresponding increase was 100% for the CFRC3 mix with 1%
volume fraction of both steel and polypropylene fibers. The ratio of
splitting tensile strength to the compressive strength for the plain
concrete was computed as 6.6%. The addition of either 0.5% of
steel fibers or 1% of polypropylene fibers resulted in a marginal
increase in the splitting tensile to compressive strengths ratio (value
increased to 8.8%). A higher value (greater than 10%) of the ratio of
splitting tensile to compressive strengths was noticed only when the
steel fibers of 1% volume fraction were added to the concrete. As
shown in Fig. 6, plain concrete cylinders showed a single longitu-
dinal crack that split them into two halves at their failure stage.
However, FRC cylinders did not split completely, thus maintaining
J. Mater. Civ. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru on 10/16/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 5. Compression failure of cubes: (a) plain concrete; (b) CFRC

their structural integrity until the end of the test. The CFRC cylin-
ders with both steel and polypropylene fibers exhibited multiple
cracking at the failure stage. This was primarily due to the effect
of fiber-bridging action that helped in the redistribution of stresses
along their cracked surfaces. The propagation of cracks along all
directions was noticed in case of FRC cylinders as shown in Fig. 6.
Because the PFRC cylinders showed a minor increase in the split-
Fig. 7. (a) Test setup; (b) failure of specimen in flexural strength test
ting tensile strength (Table 3), it was inferred that the steel fibers
were more effective in improving the splitting tensile behavior of
concrete as compared with the polypropylene fibers.
The flexural tensile strength of the CFRC3 specimen was nearly
2.5 times of that of the PFRC specimen. Further, nearly same value
Flexural Tensile Strength
of flexural tensile strength was noted for the SFRC1 and CFRC1
Three prismatic beams of 100-mm square cross section and 500- specimens, indicating that the contribution of polypropylene fibers
mm length prepared using FRC were tested under monotonic load- to the flexural tensile strength was negligible as compared with that
ing to determine their flexural tensile strengths according to the of the steel fibers. Fig. 7 also shows the typical failure mode of
ASTM C78/C78M (ASTM 2010) provisions. The rate of load ap- specimens and the fiber pullout behavior observed during the
plication was 1.0 MPa=min in this case. As shown in Fig. 7, a four- testing.
point bending setup was used, in which the loading span was one
third of the distance between the supports. The flexural tensile
strength was computed as PL=Bd2 , where P is the failure load, Flexural Response of Full-Scale Beams
L is the effective length of beam, B and d are the width and depth
of the beam, respectively. The mean values of flexural strengths of Full-scale test specimens prepared using both plain concrete and
both plain and FRC mixes are reported in Table 3. The addition of FRC were tested under four-point loading condition. The main
combined fibers improved the flexural strengths of concrete. parameters investigated were load-displacement response, ultimate

Fig. 6. Splitting tensile failure of cylinders

© ASCE 04014232-5 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2015, 27(8): 04014232

 resistance, ductility, strain in the main reinforcing bars, crack
propagation, and failure mechanism. All these parameters are dis-
cussed in detail in the following sections for each specimen.
Load-Displacement Response
The load carried by the specimens at different midspan displace-
ment levels was monitored continuously throughout the tests. Fig. 8
shows the flexural load-midspan displacement response of all spec-
imens. As expected, all specimens exhibited nearly the same initial
flexural stiffness. The load-displacement response of all specimens
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru on 10/16/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
was almost linear up to a midspan displacement of 10 mm. The RC
specimen exhibited a very limited nonlinear behavior until the peak
load at a midspan displacement of 22 mm followed by a steep
degradation of the postpeak (residual) resistance. Both the SFRC
specimens (i.e., SFRC1 and SFRC2) exhibited a larger residual re-
sistance represented by a minor reduction in the load-carrying
capacity beyond the yield point. A degradation of the load-carrying
capacity of the SFRC specimens was noticed beyond a midspan
displacement of 50 mm. The SFRC1 specimen exhibited a higher
flexural resistance, whereas the SFRC2 specimen showed a larger
midspan displacement as shown in Fig. 8(a). The PFRC specimen
exhibited a larger postpeak residual strength as compared with the
RC specimen. The slope of the postyield load-displacement re-
sponse of the PFRC specimen was nearly parallel to that of the
SFRC specimens. Fig. 8(b) shows the load-displacement response
of the CFRC specimens with combined fibers. All the CFRC
Fig. 8. Load-displacement response of specimens: (a) single fiber;
(b) combined fibers
© ASCE 04014232-6
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2015, 27(8): 04014232
specimens exhibited significant postpeak residual strength as com-
pared to the RC specimen. The load-displacement response of the
CFRC1 specimen was nearly similar to that of the SFRC2 speci-
men indicating that the flexural response of FRC beam specimens
did not change if the steel fibers of 0.5% volume fraction were re-
placed by an equal percentage of polypropylene fibers. Among all
CFRC beams, CFRC3 exhibited a better postyield strain-hardening
behavior before its failure. Hence, the postpeak resistance of the
FRC beams was improved by the addition of both steel and poly-
propylene fibers, with the contribution of steel fibers being higher
than the polypropylene fibers. Further, the addition of both types of
fibers of 1% volume fraction to the concrete resulted in a better
postyield strain-hardening behavior of flexural members.
Ultimate Resistance
The ultimate resistance was computed as the maximum load carried
by the specimens during the tests. Table 4 shows the ultimate re-
sistance of all specimens. The ultimate resistance of both SFRC
specimens was nearly equal or marginally (approximately 6%)
higher than that of the RC specimen. A reduction of approximately
7% in the peak load resistance was noticed in the PFRC specimen
as compared with the RC specimen. This minor reduction in the
peak resistance may be attributed to the smaller compressive
strength of the PFRC mix (Table 3). In the case of the CFRC spec-
imens, a higher ultimate flexural resistance was noted for the
CFRC1 specimen in which the fiber content of both steel and poly-
propylene fibers was 0.5%. However, both the CFRC2 and CFRC3
specimens had the smaller (approximately 6%) load-carrying
capacity as compared with the CFRC1 specimen. This showed that
as the percentage of polypropylene fibers in concrete was increased
beyond 0.5%, a reduction of the peak load resistance was observed.
Because both types of fibers used in this study had nearly the same
size, the distribution of fibers in the concrete matrix was probably
not uniform due to the presence of both longitudinal and transverse
reinforcements in the full-scale specimens. This could also be due
to the coalescence of polypropylene fibers with the cementitious
matrix resulting in low bonding between the concrete constituents.
Combined fibers of different configurations and sizes might help in
enhancing the peak resistance of the flexural members, something
that needs further research. Thus, the ultimate flexural resistance of
FRC beams was not significantly improved by the addition of either
steel or polypropylene fibers.
Displacement Ductility
Displacement ductility of a specimen was computed as the ratio of
the displacement at failure to the displacement where the specimen
ceased to exhibit its linear behavior. Table 4 summarizes the dis-
placement ductility values of all test specimens. All FRC specimens
exhibited better ductility response as compared with the RC speci-
men. The addition of 0.5 and 1% steel fibers to the concrete im-
proved the displacement ductility by 40 and 80%, respectively.
Table 4. Ultimate Resistance and Ductility Response of Specimens
Specimen Peak load (kN) Ductility
RC 104.0 3.1
SFRC1 110.0 4.4
SFRC2 105.0 5.5
PFRC 97.0 6.7
CFRC1 106.0 5.6
CFRC2 100.0 6.3
CFRC3 98.1 5.1
J. Mater. Civ. Eng.
 Although the PFRC specimen exhibited the smallest ultimate resis-
tance, a significant increase of 120% was noted in the displacement
ductility response as compared with the RC specimen, indicating
that the polypropylene fibers were more effective in improving the
ductility as compared with the steel fibers. The CFRC1 specimen,
in which both steel and polypropylene fibers of equal volume frac-
tion of 0.5% were added, exhibited a same level of displacement
ductility as the SFRC2 specimen with 1% volume fraction of steel
fibers. However, a reduction in the displacement ductility was
noted for the CFRC3 specimen in which both steel and polypro-
pylene fibers of 1% volume fraction were used in the concrete
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru on 10/16/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
mix. Thus, the addition of both steel and polypropylene fibers
in excess of 0.5% fiber content did not enhance the displacement
ductility response of flexural members.
Crack Propagation and Failure Mechanism
The first crack in the RC specimen was noticed in the midthird
segment at a flexural load of 30 kN. As the load level was in-
creased, additional flexural cracks were noticed along with the
propagation of initial cracks as shown in Fig. 9. The bold lines
in the figure show the cracks noticed at the failure stage. Failure
of the RC specimen was noticed due to the formation of a major
flexural crack at the center and the crushing of compression con-
crete. The depth of compression concrete wedge below the loading
point was found to be 50 mm at the failure stage of the RC speci-
men. The breakage of longitudinal reinforcing bars in addition to
some additional shear cracks near the support was noted at the
failure stage of the RC specimen. The crack propagation and
the failure mechanism of the SFRC specimens were nearly similar
to the RC specimen. The first crack was noticed at a load of 20 kN
in the SFRC specimens. At the failure stage, two major flexural
cracks were noticed at midspan along with concrete crushing.
Fig. 9. Test setup and failure of specimen in flexural strength test
© ASCE
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2015, 27(8): 04014232
As compared with the SFRC1 specimen, a large number of flexural
and shear cracks were noticed in the specimen SFRC2. At the fail-
ure of the SFRC2 specimen, the major flexural cracks and concrete
crushing were noted near one of the loading points instead of the
midspan region, as observed earlier. In the case of PFRC specimen,
the first crack was noted at the 20-kN load level. The load corre-
sponding to the first crack was delayed to 40 kN for the CFRC
specimens in which both steel and polypropylene fibers were added
to the concrete. The crack pattern at the failure stage of the PFRC
and CFRC specimens was nearly similar to that noticed in the
SFRC specimens. All specimens failed in flexure due to the forma-
tion of major flexural cracks and the crushing of compression
concrete.
State of Strain in Reinforcement Bars
The state of strain in the longitudinal tension bars of all specimens
was monitored using uniaxial strain gauges. The longitudinal bars
of all specimens reached their yielding strain before their failure,
which indicates that the failure of beams was due to flexure. The
reinforcing bars of the SFRC specimens reached the smaller strain
values as compared with those of the RC specimen as shown in
Fig. 10(a). By contrast, the longitudinal reinforcing bars of the
PFRC specimen experienced a higher strain level. Similarly, the
longitudinal bars of all CFRC specimens reached a higher strain
level as compared with those in the RC specimen for all load levels
as shown in Fig. 10(b). This showed that the high-modulus steel
fibers helped in resisting the tensile stress in concrete, resulting
Fig. 10. Load-tensile strain response of beam specimens: (a) single
type of fibers; (b) combined fibers
04014232-7 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.
 in a lower stress level in the longitudinal tension bars of SFRC
specimens to the RC specimen. By contrast, low-modulus polypro-
pylene fibers were not effective in sharing the tensile stresses in
concrete leading to a relatively high strain level in the longitudinal
bars of PFRC and CFRC beam specimens.
Summary and Conclusions
Seven geometrically similar full-scale RC specimens added with
steel and polypropylene fibers of 0.5% or 1.0% were tested under
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru on 10/16/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
gradually increasing monotonic loading. The main parameters
investigated were the ultimate resistance, load-displacement re-
sponse, displacement ductility response, state of strain in the
longitudinal reinforcing bars, crack propagation, and failure mech-
anisms. The mechanical properties of plain concrete and FRC were
also evaluated through the compression and flexure testing of stan-
dard cubes, cylinders, and small-scale beam specimens. This study
showed that the improvement of various mechanical properties of
concrete with the increasing fiber content may not necessarily result
in the enhancement of the flexural performance of full-scale beams
in which the combined fibers are added to the concrete in the pres-
ence of conventional reinforcing bars. When both the steel and
polypropylene fibers of nearly same sizes are added to the concrete,
there may be a reduction in the ultimate resistance and displace-
ment ductility (Fig. 8 and Table 4). This study also showed that
the addition of steel and polypropylene fibers (0.5% volume frac-
tion) improved the ultimate resistance, displacement ductility, and
residual strength of the flexural members as compared with other
fiber combinations. Thus, in the construction practice, a percentage
of costly steel fibers can be replaced by the least expensive poly-
propylene fibers to get a better flexural response of RC beams.
The major conclusions of this study are as follows:
• The mechanical properties of concrete are enhanced when only
steel fibers or both steel and polypropylene fibers are added to
the concrete mix. Whereas a marginal increase (less than 10%)
is noticed in the compressive strength of concrete, the splitting
tensile strength is increased in the range of 25–100% due to ad-
dition of steel and combined fibers. A higher value of splitting
tensile strength is observed when both steel and polypropylene
fibers are added in an equal fiber content of 1%. No significant
increase in the mechanical properties is noticed due to the
addition of 1% of polypropylene fibers only. However, the
addition of combined steel and polypropylene fibers helps in
maintaining the structural integrity of concrete members and
in redistributing the tensile stresses along the crack surfaces.
• The ultimate resistance of RC flexural members is unaffected by
the addition of either steel or polypropylene fibers. Instead, the
peak load resistance of RC beams is reduced if the fiber dosages
of combined steel and polypropylene fibers of nearly same size
exceed 0.5%. This may be due to the uneven distribution of
these fibers in concrete in the presence of both longitudinal
and transverse reinforcing bars of the flexural members. Hence,
in case of CFRC, different geometry and sizes of steel and poly-
propylene fibers should be added to the concrete to achieve the
higher ultimate flexural resistance.
• While the addition of steel fibers to the concrete improve the
load-resisting capacity, the addition of polypropylene fibers
significantly enhances the displacement ductility response of
flexural members. In this study, the value of displacement duc-
tility of PFRC specimen with 1% of polypropylene fibers was
found to be nearly 2.2 times the ductility of the RC specimen.
Further, the addition of single or combined fibers to the concrete
enhanced the postpeak residual strength response of the flexural
© ASCE 04014232-8
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2015, 27(8): 04014232
members. A better postyield strain-hardening response was
noted for the FRC specimens when both steel and polypropy-
lene fibers were added in an equal volume fraction of 1%.
• The failure mechanisms of the RC beams with a constant per-
centage of longitudinal reinforcing bars do not change with the
addition of the polypropylene and steel fibers up to 1% volume
fraction. The tension longitudinal reinforcing bars of the flexural
members are subjected to a relatively smaller flexural stress
level when steel fibers are added to the concrete because of the
better resistance provided by the high-modulus steel fibers to the
concrete tensile stresses as compared with the low-modulus
polypropylene fibers.
Acknowledgments
The authors are thankful to the Ministry of Human Resource
Development, Government of India for financially supporting this
research. The help and support extended by the staff of the
Structural Engineering Laboratory, Department of Civil Engineer-
ing, IIT Delhi is highly acknowledged.
References
Alhozaimy, A. M., Soroushian, P., and Mirza, F. (1996). “Mechanical prop-
erties of reinforced concrete and materials polypropylene fiber and the
effects of pozzolanic.” Cem. Concr. Compos., 18(2), 85–92.
American Concrete Institute (ACI). (2008). “Building code requirements
for structural concrete (ACI 318-08) and commentary (ACI 318R-08).”
ACI 318-08, Farmington Hills, MI.
ASTM. (2010). “Standard test method for flexural strength of concrete
(using simple beam with third-point loading).” C78/C78M, West
Conshohocken, PA.
Balaguru, P., Narahari, R., and Patel, M. (1992). “Flexural toughness of
steel fiber reinforced concrete.” ACI Mater. J., 89(6), 541–546.
Banthia, N., and Gupta, R. (2006). “Influence of polypropylene fiber geom-
etry on plastic shrinkage cracking in concrete.” Cem. Concr. Res., 36(7),
1263–1267.
Banthia, N., and Trottier, J. F. (1995). “Concrete reinforced with deformed
steel fibers: Part II—Toughness characterization.” ACI Mater. J., 92(3),
146–154.
Bencardino, F., Rizzuti, L., Spadea, G., and Swamy, R. N. (2010). “Exper-
imental evaluation of fiber reinforced concrete fracture properties.”
Composites, Part B, 41(1), 17–24.
Bentur, A., and Mindess, S. (1990). Fiber reinforced cementitious compo-
sites, Elsevier, London.
Brandt, A. M. (2008). “Fibre reinforced cement-based (FRC) composites
after over 40 years of development in building and civil engineering.”
Compos. Struct., 86(1–3), 3–9.
de Montaignac, R., Massicotte, B., and Charron, J. (2012). “Design of
SFRC structural elements: Flexural behavior prediction.” Mater.
Struct., 45(4), 623–636.
di Prisco, M. (2007). Fibre-reinforced concrete for strong, durable and
cost saving structures and infrastructures, Starrylink Editrice, Brescia,
Italy.
di Prisco, M., Felicetti, R., and Plizzari, G. (2004). “Fibre-reinforced con-
crete.” Proc., Fifth RILEM Symp. (BEFIB 2004), RILEM Publications
S.A.R.L., Bagneux, France.
di Prisco, M., Plizzari, G., and Vandewalle, L. (2009). “Fibre-reinforced
concrete-new design perspectives.” Mater. Struct., 42(9), 1261–1281.
Gettu, R. (2008). “Fibre reinforced concrete: Design and applications.” 7th
RILEM Int. Symp. on Fibre Reinforced Concrete 2008 (BEFIB 2008),
RILEM Publications S.A.R.L., Bagneux, France.
Hameed, R., Turatsinze, A., Duprat, F., and Sellier, A. (2009). “Metallic
fiber reinforced concrete: Effect of fiber aspect ratio on the flexural
properties.” J. Eng. App. Sci., 4(5), 67–72.
Hannant, D. J. (1978). Fibre cements and fibre concretes, Wiley-
Interscience, New York.
J. Mater. Civ. Eng.
 Hsie, M., Tu, C., and Song, P. S. (2008). “Mechanical properties of
polypropylene hybrid fiber reinforced concrete.” Mater. Sci. Eng. A,
494(1–2), 153–157.
Indian Standards (IS). (1959). “Indian standard methods of tests for
strength of concrete.” IS-516, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi,
India.
Indian Standards (IS). (1999). “Splitting tensile strength of concrete-
method of test.” IS-5816, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India.
Indian Standards (IS). (2000). “Indian standard plain and reinforced con-
crete-code of practice.” IS-456, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi,
India.
Indian Standards (IS). (2003). “Indian standard ordinary portland cement,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru on 10/16/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
43 grade–specification.” IS-8112 (2nd Revision), Bureau of Indian
Standards, New Delhi, India.
Indian Standards (IS). (2009). “Recommended guidelines for concrete mix
design.” IS-10262, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India.
Kim, D. J., Naaman, E. A., and El-Tawil, S. (2008). “Comparative flexural
behavior of four fiber reinforced cementitious composites.”
Cem. Concr. Compos., 30(10), 917–928.
Kwak, Y.-K., Eberhard, M. O., Kim, W.-S., and Kim, J. (2002). “Shear
strength of steel fiber-reinforced concrete beams without stirrups.”
ACI Struct. J., 99(4), 530–538.
Meda, A., Minelli, F., and Plizzari, G. A. (2012). “Flexural behaviour of
RC beams in fibre reinforced concrete.” Composites, Part B, 43(8),
2930–2937.
Meddah, M. S., and Bencheikh, M. (2009). “Properties of concrete rein-
forced with different kinds of industrial waste fibre materials.” Constr.
Build. Mater., 23(10), 3196–3205.
Olivito, R. S., and Zuccarello, F. A. (2010). “An experimental study on the
tensile strength of steel fiber reinforced concrete.” Composites, Part B,
41(3), 246–255.
Parra-Montesinos, G. J. (2006). “Shear strength of beams with deformed
steel fibers.” Concr. Int., 28(11), 57–66.
Patel, P. A., Desai, A. K., and Desai, J. A. (2012). “Evaluation of engineer-
ing properties for polypropylene fibre reinforced concrete.” Int. J. Adv.
Eng. Tech., 3(1), 42–45.
Payrow, P., Nokken, M. R., Banu, D., and Feldman, D. (2011). “Effect
of surface treatment on the post-peak residual strength and toughness
of polypropylene/polyethylene-blended fiber-reinforced concrete.”
J. Compos. Mater., 45(20), 2047–2054.
Qi, C., Weiss, J., and Olek, J. (2003). “Characterization of plastic shrinkage
cracking in fiber reinforced concrete using image analysis and a
modified Weibull function.” Mater. Struct., 36(260), 386–395.
© ASCE 04014232-9
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2015, 27(8): 04014232
Qian, C., and Stroeven, P. (2000). “Fracture properties of concrete rein-
forced with steel–polypropylene hybrid fibres.” Cem. Concr. Compos.,
22(5), 343–351.
Rizzuti, L., and Bencardino, F. (2014). “Effects of fibre volume fraction on
the compressive and flexural experimental behaviour of SFRC.”
Contemp. Eng. Sci., 7(8), 379–390.
Rossi, P., and Chanvillard, G. (2000). “Fibre-reinforced concretes.” Proc.,
5th RILEM Symp. (BEFIB 2000), RILEM Publications S.A.R.L.,
Bagneux, France.
Sahoo, D. R., and Sharma, A. (2014). “Effect of steel fiber content
on behavior of concrete beams with and without stirrups.”
ACI Struct. J., 111(5), 1157–1166.
Sivakumar, A., and Santhanam, M. (2007). “Mechanical properties of high
strength concrete reinforced with metallic and non-metallic fibres.”
Cem. Concr. Res., 29(8), 603–608.
Song, P. S., Hwang, S., and Sheu, B. C. (2005). “Strength properties of
nylon- and polypropylene fiber-reinforced concretes.” Cem. Concr.
Res., 35(8), 1546–1550.
Soroushian, P., and Bayasi, Z. (1991). “Fiber type effects on the perfor-
mance of steel fiber reinforced concrete.” ACI Mater. J., 88(2),
129–134.
Soulioti, D. V., Barkoula, N. M., Paipetis, A., and Matikas, T. E. (2011).
“Effects of fibre geometry and volume fraction on the flexural behav-
iour of steel-fibre reinforced concrete.” Strain, 47(s1), e535–e541.
Soutsosa, M. N., Leb, T. T., and Lampropoulosc, A. P. (2012). “Flexural
performance of fibre reinforced concrete made with steel and synthetic
fibres.” Constr. Build. Mater., 36(1), 707–710.
Sukontasukkul, P. (2004). “Toughness evaluation of steel and polypropyl-
ene fibre reinforced concrete beams under bending.” Thammasat Int.
J. Sci. Tech., 9(3), 35–41.
Thomas, J., and Ramaswamy, A. (2007). “Mechanical properties of
steel fiber-reinforced concrete.” J. Mater. Civil Eng., 10.1061/
(ASCE)0899-1561(2007)19:5(385), 385–392.
Wang, P., Huang, Z., Jiang, J., and Wu, Y. (2012). “Performance of
hybrid fiber reinforced concrete with steel fibers and polypropylene
fibers.” Proc., Int. Conf. Civil Engineering and Urban Planning (CEUP
2012), Yan Tai Univ., Chinese Culture Univ., Communication Univ. of
China, and Construction Institute of ASCE, Yantai, China.
Yao, W., Li, J., and Wu, K. (2003). “Mechanical properties of hybrid fiber-
reinforced concrete at low fiber volume fraction.” Cem. Concr. Res.,
33(1), 27–30.
Yazici, S., İnan, G., and Tabak, V. (2007). “Effect of aspect ratio and
volume fraction of steel fiber on the mechanical properties of SFRC.”
Constr. Build. Mater., 21(6), 1250–1253.
J. Mater. Civ. Eng.