Al Rikabi, Fouad Accepted Dissertation 7-16-20 Su 20

Experimental and Numerical Study on Synthetic Fiber-Reinforced Concrete Pipes
A dissertation presented to
the faculty of
the Russ College of Engineering and Technology of Ohio University
In partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree
Doctor of Philosophy
Fouad T. Al Rikabi
August 2020
© 2020 Fouad T.S. Al Rikabi. All Rights Reserved

2
This dissertation titled
Experimental and Numerical Study on Synthetic Fiber-Reinforced Concrete Pipes
by
FOUAD T. AL RIKABI
has been approved for
the Department of Civil Engineering
and the Russ College of Engineering and Technology by
Shad M. Sargand
Russ Professor of Civil Engineering
Mei Wei
Dean, Russ College of Engineering and Technology

3
ABSTRACT
AL RIKABI, FOUAD T., Ph.D., August 2020, Civil Engineering.
Experimental and Numerical Study on Fiber-Reinforced Concrete Pipes
Director of Dissertation: Shad M. Sargand
Synthetic fibers have been recently used in a concrete mixture in an attempt to
produce a new concrete pipe system, cheaper, lighter, and more flexible than
conventional steel reinforced concrete pipes. However, no structural design codes have
been introduced for synthetic fiber reinforced concrete pipes evaluation. Also, there is
little in the literature regarding synthetic fiber applications in the concrete pipes. The
effect of adding two types of synthetic fiber, polypropylene (PP) and polyvinyl alcohol
(PVA) fibers, on the mechanical properties of concrete, including CTE, dynamic modulus
of elasticity, and flexural strength, was investigated. Also, this study focused on the
evaluation of the synthetic fiber reinforced concrete pipes performance in terms of ASTM
requirements for strength, stiffness, and ductility, and developing design tables for
synthetic fiber reinforced concrete pipe similar to those proposed in ASTM C76 standard
using the numerical analysis. The performance of the synthetic fiber reinforced concrete
pipes were evaluated under short- and long-term loading in accordance with ASTM
protocols using different pipe diameters. Fiber dosages ranged from 4.75 to 18 kg/m3 (8
to 30 lb/yd3), and different areas of one steel cage layer were used to reinforce the
concrete pipes. The finite element model of the three-edge bearing test was calibrated and
validated using the experimental results. The linear and non-linear behavior of the
synthetic fiber reinforced concrete material was characterized using the concrete damage
4
plasticity (CDP) model. For input data representing the concrete material properties,
compression strength, tensile strength, and modulus of elasticity were determined for five
fiber dosages 0, 4.75, 6, 7, and 9 kg/m3 (0, 8, 10, 12, and 15 lb/yd3). The results showed
that adding fiber to concrete enhanced the flexural strength, increased flexibility,
decreased the dynamic modulus of elasticity, and increased the CTE. Specimens
reinforced with PP fiber showed more flexural strength and flexibility than those
reinforced with PVA fiber. Using synthetic fiber increased the cracking load (produces
0.3 mm crack width), ultimate load, stiffness, and ductility of concrete pipes. Also, using
synthetic fiber lowered the production cost as the reduction in the steel cage area ranged
from 51 to 100%. Based on the experimental results, a new modified compression model
was adopted to represent the compression behavior of fiber reinforced concrete in the
finite element models. The tension behavior was defined using a model proposed by past
research. A parametric study was conducted on four parameters: pipe diameter, pipe wall
thickness, fiber dosage, and steel cage area. The parametric study results were
summarized in tables that can be used as a reference for a new synthetic fiber reinforced
concrete pipe standard.
Moreover, in response to sustained load, the tested pipes initially exhibited a
linear response, followed by a stable response with a slight increase in deflection over
time. Fiber creep did not significantly increase the crack width or affect the time
dependence of the strain, indicating the fibers adequately transfer the stress in the pipe
wall and limit the crack width.

5
DEDICATION
I dedicate this work to my love and life:

Amina, my wife,
our daughter Layan, our son Rayan
6
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I want to thank my advisor Dr. Shad M. Sargand, for his guidance and support
during my research and study. Also, I would like to thank my dissertation committee
members: Dr. Eric P. Steinberg and Dr. Issam Khoury, for their perceptive comments and
support during my graduate study at Ohio University. Also, I would like to express my
sincere gratitude to my sponsor, Higher Committee for Educational Development in Iraq
(HCED), University of Wasit, Iraq.
In addition, I would like to express my gratitude to the Advanced Drainage
Systems staff who facilitated the experimental part of this research, specifically Mr. John
Kurdziel and Mr. Daniel Figola. Also, I would like to thank Foltz Concrete Pipe Co. for
providing the fiber reinforced concrete material and facilitating the concrete pipes short-
term testing, specifically Mr. Shawn Coombs. I would also like to thank Dr. Hussam H.
Hussein, Dr. Anwer K. Al-Jhayyish, and Dr. Waleed Hamid for their help and support
through my graduate study. Finally, I also would like to thank my family and friends for
their support.
7
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Abstract ...........................................................................................................................3
Dedication .......................................................................................................................5
Acknowledgments ...........................................................................................................6
List of Tables...................................................................................................................9
List of Figures ............................................................................................................... 11
Chapter 1: Introduction .................................................................................................. 19
1.1 Research Objectives .................................................................................... 23
Chapter 2 : Literature Review......................................................................................... 27
2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................ 27
2.2 Mechanical Properties of Fiber Reinforced Concrete Material ..................... 27
2.3 Fiber-reinforced Concrete Pipes .................................................................. 28
Chapter 3: Methodology ................................................................................................ 37
3.1 Material Properties of Synthetic Fiber Reinforced Concrete under Freeze-
Thaw Conditions ......................................................................................... 37
3.2 Evaluation of Synthetic Fiber Reinforced Concrete Pipe Performance Using
Three-Edge Bearing Test............................................................................. 47
3.3 Design Proposal for Synthetic Fiber Reinforced Concrete Pipes Using Finite
Element Analysis ........................................................................................ 52
3.4 Thin Walled Synthetic Fiber Reinforced Concrete Pipes ............................. 63
3.5 A New Test Method for Evaluating the Long-Term Performance of Fiber
Reinforced Concrete Pipes .......................................................................... 67
3.6 Long-term Performance of Synthetic Fiber Reinforced Concrete ................. 75
Chapter 4: Results and Discussions ................................................................................ 80
4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................ 80
4.2 Material Properties of Synthetic Fiber Reinforced Concrete under Freeze-
Material Properties ...................................................................................... 80
4.3 Effect of Freeze-thaw Cycles on the Mechanical Properties of Fiber
Reinforced Concrete.................................................................................... 91
8
4.4 Evaluation of Synthetic Fiber Reinforced Concrete Pipe Performance Using

Three-Edge Bearing Test........................................................................... 106
Element Analysis ...................................................................................... 125
4.6 Experimental Investigation of Thin-Wall Synthetic Fiber Reinforced
Concrete Pipes .......................................................................................... 153
4.7 Performance of Thin-wall Synthetic Fiber Reinforced Concrete Pipes Under
Short and Long-term Loading ................................................................... 173
Chapter 5: Conclusions, Summary, and Recommendation ........................................... 213
5.1 Conclusions .............................................................................................. 213
5.2 Performance of Thin-wall Synthetic Fiber Reinforced Concrete Pipes Under
Short and Long-term Loading ................................................................... 218
5.3 Recommendation ...................................................................................... 219
References ......................................................................................................... 220
Appendix I: List of Journal Papers ............................................................................... 236
Appendix II: List of Conference Papers ....................................................................... 239
9
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1. Physical Properties of the Fiber. ....................................................................... 38
Table 2. Mix Proportions of the Concrete. ..................................................................... 38
Table 3. Mix Proportions of the Concrete ...................................................................... 48
Table 4. Details of the Tested Fiber Reinforced Concrete Pipe Specimens. .................... 49
Table 5. ASTM C76 (2015) Pipe Class, Cracking Load, and Ultimate Load .................. 51
Table 6. Details of the Tested Specimens. ...................................................................... 53
Table 7. Physical and mechanical properties of the PP Fiber. ......................................... 54
Table 8. Mix proportions of the concrete used to make the fiber-reinforced pipes. ......... 55
Table 9. Testing results of wire reinforcing used for finite element models of the concrete
pipes. ............................................................................................................................. 63
Table 10. Physical Properties of the Synthetic Fiber....................................................... 64
Table 11. Mix Proportions of the Concrete Mixtures. ..................................................... 64
Table 12. Details of the Tested Specimens. .................................................................... 65
Table 13. ASTM C76 (2015) Class Criteria for Cracking Load and Ultimate Load ........ 66
Table 14. Physical Properties of the Synthetic Fiber....................................................... 76
Table 15. Mix Proportions of the Concrete Mixtures. ..................................................... 76
Table 16. Details of the Tested Pipe Specimens, each having length 1.2 m. ................... 77
Table 17. CTE Measured Using Ohio Method Before Applying Freeze-Thaw Cycles. ... 84
Table 18. CTE Results of Ohio CTE Device and AASHTO T60-00. .............................. 86
10
Table 19. Dynamic Modulus of Elasticity of Concrete Prisms with Different Fiber
Dosages. ........................................................................................................................ 87
Table 20 Flexural Strength of Fiber Reinforced Concrete. ............................................. 89
Table 21. Summary of the Crack and Ultimate Loads of Tested Pipes.......................... 119
Table 22. Stiffness Results at 2% Deflection Ratio. .................................................. 121
Table 23.The average compressive strength, tensile strength, modulus of elasticity and
Poisson’s ratio test results. ........................................................................................... 133
Table 24. FE and experimental results of ultimate strength of the calibrated pipes. ...... 142
Table 25. FE and Experimental Results of Ultimate Strength of the Validate Models. .. 145
Table 26. Design requirements for Class I synthetic fiber reinforced concrete pipes. .... 147
Table 27. Design requirements for class II synthetic fiber reinforced concrete pipes. ... 148
Table 28. Design requirements for class II synthetic fiber reinforced concrete pipes. ... 149
Table 29. Design requirements for Class IV synthetic fiber reinforced concrete pipes. . 150
Table 30. Design requirements for Class V synthetic fiber reinforced concrete pipes. .. 151
Table 31. ASTM C76 (2015) Class Criteria for Cracking Load and Ultimate Load ...... 169
Table 32. Summary of the Crack and Ultimate Loads of Tested Pipe ........................... 170
Table 33. Stiffness of Tested Pipes at deflection ratio of 5%. ....................................... 172
Table 34. Stiffness of Tested Pipes at Deflection Ratio of 3%. ..................................... 172
11
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1. Plot of Required Inside Reinforcing Area vs. Design Height of Earth Cover for
Typical Design with Surface Wheel Loads (ASCE15-98). ............................................. 21
Figure 2. a) Typical pipe cracking b); Internal stresses on free body A; c) Internal stresses
on element B. ................................................................................................................ 22
Figure 3. Ohio CTE specimen’s preparation. ................................................................. 39
Figure 4. Ohio CTE device: (a) schematic device details; and (b) specimen installed
inside the chamber. ........................................................................................................ 41
Figure 5. Temperature profile. ....................................................................................... 41
Figure 6. AASHTO-CTE test setup: (a) schematic a mearing setup; and (b) specimen
setup. ............................................................................................................................. 42
Figure 7. Temperature profile used for AASHTO TP60-00 CTE test method. ................ 43
Figure 8. Dynamic modulus of the elasticity test setup. .................................................. 44
Figure 9. Flexural test setup. .......................................................................................... 45
Figure 10. Freeze-thaw cabinet. ..................................................................................... 46
Figure 11. Pipe production: (a) steel cage reinforcement, (b) mixture, and (c) removal of
the jacket. ...................................................................................................................... 50
Figure 12. a) Specimen setup; b) schematic three-edge bearing test setup; c) crack width
indicator. ....................................................................................................................... 51
Figure 13. Polypropylene (PP) fiber used in this research............................................... 54

12
Figure 14. Test setup of (a) Compressive strength (b) Poisson’s ratio, and (c) splitting
tensile strength............................................................................................................... 55
Figure 15. Finite element modeling of the three-edge bearing test. (a) A-A cross-section;
(b) 3D model. ................................................................................................................ 57
Figure 16. Tensile stresses vs. crack mouth opening displacement for fibers, matrix, and
fiber-matrix composite................................................................................................... 59
Figure 17. Tensile stresses-crack mouth opening displacement plots for PP reinforced
concrete material used in the finite element models........................................................ 61
Figure 18. a) Specimen setup; b) schematic three-edge bearing test setup. ..................... 67
Figure 19. FE model of the long-term test setup ............................................................. 69
Figure 20. compressive stress-strain plots used in the FE models. .................................. 70
concrete material used in the finite element models........................................................ 71
Figure 22. Long-term test setup detail selected based on the FE analysis........................ 73
Figure 23 The damage in the concrete pipe due to the applied. ....................................... 73
Figure 24. The vertical displacement for (a) whole test setup (b) upper beam (c) bottom
beam. ............................................................................................................................. 75
Figure 25. (a) Photograph and (b) schematic diagram of the long-term test setup. .......... 79
Figure 26. Thermal strain-temperature of (a) PP and (b) PVA fiber reinforced specimens.
...................................................................................................................................... 82
Figure 27. Load versus deflection plots of (a) PP and (b) PVA fiber reinforced specimens.
(Note: 1 kN = 0.2248 kip; 1 mm = 0.0394 in). ............................................................... 90

13
Figure 28. The crack width of (a) PP and (b) PVA fiber reinforced specimens. (Note: 1
mm = 0.0394 in). ........................................................................................................... 91
Figure 29. CTE versus freeze-thaw cycles: (a) PVA and; (b) PP fiber reinforced concrete
specimens. (Note: Multiply 1/°C by 5/9 to obtain 1/°F.)................................................. 93
Figure 30. The damage in the meso-structure of PVA fiber reinforced specimen with fiber
dosage of 7 kg/m3 (12 lb/yd3)......................................................................................... 94
Figure 31. Mass of fiber reinforced concrete prisms as a function of freeze-thaw cycles:
(a) PP and (b) PVA fiber reinforcement. ........................................................................ 96
Figure 32. Dynamic modulus of elasticity versus freeze-thaw cycles: (a) PP and (b) PVA
fiber reinforced specimens. (Note: 1 MPa = 0.145 ksi) ................................................... 99
Figure 33. Flexural strength versus freeze-thaw cycles for concrete reinforced with (a)
PVA and (b) PP fiber. (Note: 1 MPa = 0.145 ksi) ........................................................ 102
Figure 34. Load versus deflection of prisms reinforced with PVA fiber with different
dosages before and after applying 300 freeze-thaw cycles: 6 kg/m3 (10 lb/yd3); (b) 7
kg/m3(12 lb/yd3); (c) 9 kg/m3 (15 lb/yd3). (Note: 1 kN = 0.2248 kip; 1 mm = 0.0394 in)
.................................................................................................................................... 104
Figure 35. Load versus deflection of prisms reinforced with PP fiber with different
kg/m3(12 lb/yd3); (c) 9 kg/m3 (15 lb/yd3). (Note: 1 kN = 0.2248 kip; 1 mm = 0.0394 in).
.................................................................................................................................... 105
14
Figure 36. Load deflection curves of 600 mm (24 in.) pipe diameter reinforced with: (a)
synthetic fiber only; (b) synthetic fiber with one steel cage layer. (Note: 1 kN = 0.2248
kip; 1 mm = 0.0394 in) ................................................................................................ 110
Figure 37. Load deflection curves of 1200 mm (48 in.) pipes diameter: (a) plain concrete
pipes; (b), pipes reinforced with fiber dosage of 4.75 and 9 kg/m3; (b, c, d, e, and f) pipes
reinforced with fiber dosage of 4.75, 9, 13.5, and 18 kg/m3, respectively, along with one
steel cage layer. (Note: 1 kN = 0.2248 kip; 1 mm = 0.0394 in)..................................... 113
Figure 38. Load deflection curves of 1500 mm pipe diameter reinforced with one steel
cage layer along with fiber dosage of: (a) 9 kg/m3 ;(b) 13.5 kg/m3 ;(c) 18 kg/m3. (Note: 1
kN = 0.2248 kip; 1 mm = 0.0394 in) ............................................................................ 115
Figure 39. Crack development of concrete pipes: 1200 mm (48 in.). ............................ 116
Figure 40. Summary of deflection ratio of fiber-reinforced concrete pipes. .................. 125
Figure 41. Load deflection curves of 600 mm (24 in.) diameter pipe reinforced with (a)
PP fiber only; (b) PP fiber with one steel cage layer. (Note: 1 kN = 0.2248 kip; 1 mm =
0.0394 in). ................................................................................................................... 127
Figure 42. Load deflection curves of 1200 mm (48 in.) diameter pipe: (a) plain concrete
pipes; (b), pipes reinforced with PP fiber dosage of 4.75 and 9 kg/m 3 (8 and 15 lb/yd3);
(c, d, e, and f) pipes reinforced with a steel cage layer and PP fiber dosage of 4.75, 9,
13.5, and 18 kg/m3 (8, 15, 22.5 and 30 lb/yd3), respectively. (Note: 1 kN = 0.2248 kip; 1
mm = 0.0394 in). ......................................................................................................... 130

15
Figure 43. Load deflection curves of 1500 mm (60 in.) diameter pipe reinforced with one
steel cage layer and PP fiber dosage of: (a) 9 kg/m3 (15 lb/yd3);(b) 13.5 kg/m3(22.5
lb/yd3) ;(c) 18 kg/m3 (30 lb/yd3). . (Note: 1 kN = 0.2248 kip; 1 mm = 0.0394 in).......... 132
Figure 44. Comparison of experimental stress-strain curves of concrete cylinders
reinforced PP with dosage of (a) 4.75 kg/m3 (b) 6 kg/m3; (c) 7 kg/m3; and (d) 9 kg/m3
with various models of compressive stress response from the literature........................ 135
Figure 45. compressive stress-strain plots used in the FE models. ................................ 136
Figure 46. Experimental versus calibrated FE load-deflection responses of 1200 mm (48
in.) diameter pipe reinforced with fiber dosage of (a) 9 kg/m3 (15 lb/yd3), (b) 9 kg/m3 (15
lb/yd3) with 510mm2/m (0.24 in2/ft) steel area (c) 13.5 kg/m3 (22.5 lb/yd3)with 510
mm2/m (15 lb/yd3) steel area (d) 18 kg/m3 (30 lb/yd3) with 510mm2/m (0.24 in2/ft) steel
area. . (Note: 1 kN = 0.2248 kip; 1 mm = 0.0394 in). ................................................... 139
Figure 47. Crack propagation (a) experimental results (b) Maximum principal strain
contour at crown and invert (c) Maximum principal strain contour at the crown, invert,
and springline (c,d, and e) cracks propagation. ............................................................. 141
Figure 48. Experimental versus FE load-deflection responses: a) 600 mm (24 in.)
diameter pipe reinforced with 9 kg/m3; (b), (c) and (d) 1500 mm diameter pipe reinforced
with steel area of 510 mm2/m and fiber dosage of 9,13.5 and 18 kg/m 3, respectively.
.(Note: 1 kN = 0.2248 kip; 1 mm = 0.0394 in). ............................................................ 144
Figure 49. Load-deflection responses of 1350 mm (54 in) (B wall) pipe diameter with
different fiber dosage and steel cage areas imposed on (a) 0.3 mm (0.01 in.) and (b)
16
ultimate loads specified in ASTM C76 for pipe strength classes. (Note: 1 kN = 0.2248
kip; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.) . ............................................................................................. 152
Figure 50. Load deflection curves of 1200 mm (48 in.) diameter pipes reinforced with PP
fiber dosage of 9 kg/m3 along with reinforcing steel area of: (a) 5.7 cm2/m (0.27 in2/ft);
(b) 10.2 cm2/m (0.48 in2/ft). (Note: 1 kN = 0.2248 kip; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.). ................ 157
(b) 8.9 cm2/m (0.42 in2/ft). (Note: 1 kN = 0.2248 kip; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.). .................. 158
Figure 52. Strain measurements of pipe with diameter of 1200 mm (48 in) reinforced
with PP fiber dosage of 9 kg/m3(15 lb/yd3) along with steel mesh at amounts indicated in
the legend: (a) inner crown (b) inner springline (c) inner invert (d) outer springline.
(Note: 1 kN = 0.2248 kip). ........................................................................................... 162
Figure 53. Strain measurements of pipe with diameter of 1500 (60 in.) mm reinforced
with PP fiber dosage of 9 kg/m3 (15 lb/yd3) along with steel mesh at amounts indicated in
(Note: 1 kN = 0.2248 kip). ........................................................................................... 164
Figure. 54. Crack development in 1200 mm (48 in.) concrete pipe diameter reinforced
with 9 kg/m3 (15 lb/yd3) PP fiber and 5.7 cm2/m (0.27 in2/ft) steel cage: (a) crown; (b)
invert; (c) springline. ................................................................................................... 167

17
Figure 57. Crack development in 1500 mm (60 in.) concrete pipe diameter reinforced
Figure 58. Load deflection curves of 1200 mm diameter pipes reinforced with PP fiber
dosage of 9 kg/m3 and reinforcing steel area of: (a) 5.7 cm2/m(0.27 in2/ft); (b) 10.2
cm2/m(0.48 in2/ft). (Note: 1 kN = 0.2248 kip; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.) ............................... 175
dosage of 9 kg/m3 and reinforcing steel area of: (a) 5.7 cm2/m (0.27 in2/ft); (b) 8.9 cm2/m
(0.42 in2/ft). (Note: 1 kN = 0.2248 kip; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.) ......................................... 176
Figure 60. Load vs. displacement plot of 1200 mm diameter concrete pipe reinforced
with steel area of 5.7 cm2/m (0.27 in2/ft) and PP fiber dosage of 9 kg/m3, (a) Stage 1
(40% ultimate load); (b) Stage 2 (50% ultimate load); (c) Stage 3 (70% ultimate load).
(Note: 1 kN = 0.2248 kip; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.). ............................................................ 179
Figure 61. Displacement vs. time plots of 1200 mm (48 in.) diameter concrete pipe
reinforced with steel area of 5.7 cm2/m (0.27 in2/ft) and PP fiber dosage of 9 kg/m3. (a)
Load Stage 1 (b) Load Stage 2 (c) Load Stage 3. (Note: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.). ............... 182
Figure 62. Crack width versus time plots of 1200 mm diameter concrete pipe reinforced
with steel area of 5.7 cm2/m and PP fiber dosage of 9 kg/m3(15 lb/yd3) during (a) Load
Stage 2 (b) Load Stage 3. (Note: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.) ................................................... 185

18
Figure. 63. LVDTs used to measure the crack width. ................................................... 186
Figure 64. Load-strain responses (a) invert and crown (b) springline (c) midway crown-
haunch. ........................................................................................................................ 189
Figure 65. Strain responses as a function of time at (a) springline (b) midway crown-
haunch. ........................................................................................................................ 191
Figure 66. Cracks formed during Load Stage 1 at (a) crown (b) springline (c) invert. ... 193
Figure 67. Crack propagated during Load Stage 2 at (a) crown (b) springline .............. 194
Figure 68. Cracks propagated during Load Stage 3 (a) crown (b) invert (c) springline. 195
Figure 69. Displacement vs. time plots of 1200 mm (48 in) diameter concrete pipe
reinforced with steel area of 5.7 cm2/m (0.27 in2/ft) and PP fiber dosage of 9
kg/m3(15lb/yd3). (a) Load Stage 1 (b) Load Stage 3. (Note:1 mm = 0.0394 in.)............ 198
with steel area of 5.7 cm2/m (0.27 in2/ft) and PP fiber dosage of 9 kg/m3(15lb/yd3). (a)
Load Stage 1 (b) Load Stage 3. (Note:1 mm = 0.0394 in.)............................................ 201
Figure 71. LVDTs used to measure the crack width. .................................................... 202
Figure 72. Creep coefficient (a) Load stage 1 (b) load stage 2 ...................................... 205
haunch. ........................................................................................................................ 208
Figure 74. Cracks formed during Load Stage 1 at (a) crown (b) springline (c) invert. ... 211
Figure 75. Cracks propagated during Load Stage 3 (a) crown (b) invert (c) springline. 212
19
CHAPTER 1 : INTRODUCTION
Storm sewer system pipes used in the United States are usually made of concrete
reinforced with a steel cage. The cage is located at least 25 mm (1 in.) from the outer face
of the concrete pipe to resist flexural stresses. However, when the pipe diameter exceeds
900 mm (36 in.), other failure mods start to evolve such as radial tension and diagonal
shear. Therefore, the steel cage alone is not sufficient to accommodate for these modes
and cracking of steel reinforced pipe becomes more likely. Additionally, thermal
cracking may also appear on the pipe surface in response to seasonal and daily
temperature fluctuations. Surface cracks admit water and dissolved chemicals into the
concrete pipe wall, resulting in corrosion of the steel reinforcement and deterioration of
the pipe structure. This could be addressed by either increase the steel reinforcement,
which is not a practical solution and difficult to implement, or by incorporating fibers
into concrete mix design. Synthetic fibers have been used to improve the mechanical
properties and performance of concrete pipes in more feasible and economical ways
(Peyvandi et al, 2014; Park et al, 2014 and 2015; Wilson and Abolmaali, 2014; de la
Fuente et al, 2013).
Pipes can be either flexible or rigid based on the relative stiffness of the pipe to
the surrounding soil and the deflection ratio. The most common materials used for
manufacturing flexible pipes around the world are plastic and metal, typically steel. In an
attempt to reduce the cost of flexible pipes and enhance their stiffness, a corrugated wall
profile has been adopted. Corrugated pipes tend to have less wall area compared to rigid
pipes. Also, plastic and metal pipes with corrugated walls have low stiffness. For
20
example, 1200 mm (48 in.) diameter plastic pipe has stiffness as low as 0.124 MPa (50
psi) with deflection up to 5% of their inside diameter, which is quite flexible (ASTM
F2648, 2013). Flexible pipes require special installation procedures, including precise
control of compaction, and backfill levels. When flexible pipes deflect during installation,
compressive stresses in the pipe wall will be generated. By their nature, flexible pipes are
more susceptible to local buckling within the corrugation profile, and to bending strain
from the backfill loads and installation forces. Such issues are not evident in a standard
manufactured concrete pipe, a rigid material.
However, concrete pipes are brittle and experience a small deflection when loaded
before it shows serious damage. rigid pipes such as concrete pipes primarily depend on
their wall strength to carry applied loads. Structural damage of these pipes appears at
vertical deflections of less than 2% of its inside diameter (Plastics Pipe Institute, 2011).
Therefore, design methods for concrete pipes do not take into consideration the ability of
the surrounding soil to carry a portion of the load. As pipe diameter and earth cover
increases, so does the need for increased reinforcing steel area, as additional failure
modes must be countered (flexural, crack, shear), as depicted in Figure 1.

21
Figure 1. Plot of Required Inside Reinforcing Area vs. Design Height of Earth Cover for
Typical Design with Surface Wheel Loads (ASCE15-98).
In some modes, such as shear and radial failures, cracks propagate in diagonal and
radial directions, respectively, so circumferential steel reinforcement is no longer
sufficient. Additionally, shear stirrups must be incorporated into the pipe’s manufacture.
This shear reinforcement is very expensive and difficult to implement within the pipe
wall. Figure 2 shows a typical pipe cracking and internal stresses that may generate due
to different load applications.

22
(a) (b) (c)
Figure 2. a) Typical pipe cracking b); Internal stresses on free body A; c) Internal stresses
on element B.
One approach to overcome these issues in concrete pipes is by adding synthetic
fibers to the concrete mixture (Peyvandi et al, 2014; Park et al, 2014; Wilson and
Abolmaali, 2014; de la Fuente et al, 2013). Synthetic fibers improve the concrete
mechanical properties such as tensile strength, shear strength, flexural strength, and
modulus of elasticity. This improvement is mainly influenced by the size, type,
geometry, dispersion and volume fraction of fibers (Altoubat et al.,2009; Balaguru and
Shah, 1992; Çavdar, 2012, 2013, and 2014; Mehta and Monteiro, 2006; Kuder and Shah,
2010).
Understanding the performance and structural behavior of synthetic fiber
reinforced concrete pipes is in its infancy; no design code has been provided by ASTM or
AASTHTO for these new synthetic fiber concrete pipes. There are few studies in the
literature regarding synthetic fiber reinforced concrete pipes. However, there is

23
uncertainty about the long-term behavior of fiber reinforced concrete pipes under
sustained load, as they could exhibit increased deformation over time due to the
viscoelastic properties of the synthetic fiber; past research has yielded conflicting results.
1.1 Research Objectives
The aim of this study is to improve the performance of the conventional concrete
pipes by incorporating synthetic fiber as a replacement for the conventional steel
reinforcement cage. This aim was met via the following six objectives of this research: 1.
Investigate the effect of temperature change on the mechanical properties of fiber
reinforced concrete, including CTE, dynamic modulus of elasticity, and flexural strength.
2. Evaluation of synthetic fiber reinforced concrete pipe performance using three-edge
bearing test, 3. Design proposal for synthetic fiber reinforced concrete pipes using finite
element analysis, 4. Experimental investigation of thin-wall synthetic fiber reinforced
concrete pipes, 5. A new test method for evaluating the long-term performance of fiber-
reinforced concrete pipes, and 6. Performance of thin-wall synthetic fiber reinforced
concrete pipes under short and long-term loading. A more detailed description of how
each of the above objectives was met follows:
1.1.1 Material Properties of Synthetic Fiber Reinforced Concrete under Freeze-Thaw
Conditions
The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of PVA and PP fiber
dosages on the CTE, dynamic modulus of elasticity, and flexural strength of fiber
reinforced concrete. Four different dosages of each fiber type, 0, 6, 7, and 9 kg/m 3 ( 0, 8,
10, 12, amd 15 lb/yd3) were evaluated. Test specimens were subjected to 300 freeze-thaw
24
cycles in accordance with ASTM C666/C666M-15 (2015a) to evaluate the fiber
reinforced concrete material performance under extreme weather conditions.
1.1.2 Evaluation of Synthetic Fiber Reinforced Concrete Pipe Performance Using
Three-Edge Bearing Test
The main objective of this study was to investigate the performance of synthetic
fiber reinforced concrete pipes under a three-edge bearing test in accordance with ASTM
C497 (2014). The performance of the concrete pipes was evaluated in terms of failure
mechanism, load carrying capacity, ductility, stiffness, and post-cracking behavior. Three
variables were considered in this research, which are pipe diameter, fiber dosage, and the
amount of steel reinforcement. The results of cracking and ultimate load were compared
with those specified by ASTM C76 (2015).
1.1.3 Design Proposal for Synthetic Fiber Reinforced Concrete Pipes Using Finite
Element Analysis
The objective of this study was to develop a three-dimensional finite element
model to simulate the three-edge bearing test of PP fiber reinforced concrete pipes. This
model was calibrated and validated in terms of the load carrying capacity and load-
deflection response obtained from experimental tests presented by Al Rikabi et al. (2018).
Different pipe wall thicknesses and diameters were used in the model to obtain the
optimum PP fiber dosage with and without steel cage reinforcement to fulfill the strength
requirements specified by ASTM C76 (2014). The results were presented in tables to
simplify the design process of PP fiber reinforced concrete pipe.

25
1.1.4 Experimental Investigation of Thin-wall Synthetic Fiber Reinforced Concrete
Pipes
The main objective of this study was to develop a new concrete pipe system, which
is lighter, cheaper, flexible, and less sensitive to installation type. The fiber-reinforced
concrete pipes evaluated had diameters of 1200 and 1500 mm (48 and 60 in.) with
respective wall thickness of 50 and 63 mm (2 and 2.5 in.), reduced to 50% of that specified
in ASTM C76 (2015) for wall A. They were instrumented with strain gauges and string
potentiometers then subjected to the three-edge bearing test in accordance to ASTM C497
(2015) to evaluate the new fiber-reinforced concrete pipe system in terms of mode of
failure, load carrying capacity, and flexibility. In order to assure that synthetic fiber will
significantly enhance the concrete pipe strength, fiber content of 9 kg/m3(15 lb/yd3) was
used along with different steel cage areas).
1.1.5 Performance of Thin-wall Synthetic Fiber Reinforced Concrete Pipes Under
Short and Long-term Loading
The main objective of this study was to evaluate the PP fiber reinforced concrete
pipe performance subjected to short and long-term loading. Concrete pipes with a
diameter of 1200 and 1500 mm (48 and 60 in.) with respective wall thickness of 50 and
63 mm (2 and 2.5 in.), reduced to 50% of that specified in ASTM C76 (2015) for wall A,
were tested under short and long-term load. To get a better understanding of the pipes’
behavior subjected to short and long-term loads, pipes were instrumented using high-
resolution strain gauges and string potentiometers. All pipes were reinforced using fiber
26
dosage of 9 kg/m3 (15 lb/yd3) along with different steel areas to assure significant
enhancement can be contributed by the synthetic fiber to the concrete pipe strength.
27
CHAPTER 2 : LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
This chapter presents a comprehensive literature review on experimental and
numerical analyses of fiber reinforced concrete material. This chapter is divided into two
sections covering the laboratory investigation on synthetic fiber reinforced concrete
material and incorporating synthetic fiber in concrete pipes mixture to minimize the
conventional cage area.
2.2 Mechanical Properties of Fiber Reinforced Concrete Material
For decades, synthetic fibers have been found to enhance the mechanical
properties of concrete, including flexural strength, tensile strength, shear strength,
ductility, shrinkage, and creep. The change in temperature between day and
night subjects concrete structures to daily cycles of stress. Freeze-thaw cycles occur when
the freezing point of water lies between the daily extremes, and the increased stress from
freezing enlarges surface cracks. Under existing applied loads, these cracks propagate
deeper inside the concrete structure and allow the water and chemical agents to migrate
inside the concrete (Gergely and Lutz, 1968). When chemical agents, such as those used
for highway de-icing, reach the steel reinforcement, the ensuing corrosion can lead to
concrete spalling and loss of strength. Richardson et al. (2012) performed an
experimental study on the durability of the air-entrained concrete and Type 1
polypropylene reinforced concrete. Three groups of air entrained concrete cubic
specimens of nominal dimension 150 mm (reinforced with 0.9 kg/m3 and 1.8 kg/m3 of
Type 1 polypropylene fiber, and plain concrete,) were tested. The researchers measured
28
mass loss, relative pulse velocity, and final compressive strength of the specimens after
applying 300 freeze-thaw cycles. The added fiber significantly improved the durability
and compressive strength over that of plain concrete. Yun et al. (2013) conducted an
experimental study to investigate the effect of freeze-thaw cycles on the flexural behavior
of fiber reinforced concrete. A 1.5% combination volume fraction of polypropylene and
polyvinyl alcohol fiber was used to reinforce the plain concrete. Results showed that
using this combination of synthetic fibers increased the durability of concrete undergoing
freeze-thaw cycles. Zhang and Li (2013) investigated the effect of adding polypropylene
fiber on the workability and durability of concrete composite containing fly ash and silica
fume. Low volume fractions of polypropylene fiber, 0.06%, 0.08%, 0.1%, and 0.12%,
were used. The researchers applied 300 freeze-thaw cycles on the specimens. The
durability of concrete composite improved with the addition of polypropylene fiber.
However, the volume fraction of PP is not recommended in other studies since it is
not sufficient to enhance the tensile behavior of the fiber reinforced
concrete. Çavdar (2014) evaluated the mechanical properties of fiber reinforced concrete
subjected to 100 freeze-thaw cycles using carbon, polypropylene, aramid, polyvinyl
alcohol, and glass fibers at volume fractions of 0.0%, 0.4%, 0.8%, and 1.2% for each
type. All fiber reinforced concrete specimens exhibited higher resistance to freeze-thaw
cycles than the plain concrete.
2.3 Fiber-reinforced Concrete Pipes
Understanding the performance and structural behavior of synthetic fiber
reinforced concrete pipes is in its infancy; no design code has been provided by ASTM or
29
AASTHTO for these new synthetic fiber concrete pipes. There are few studies in the
literature regarding synthetic fiber reinforced concrete pipes.
2.3.1 Design Proposal for Synthetic Fiber Reinforced Concrete Pipes
Recently, several researchers have tried to improve the performance of concrete
pipes by incorporating synthetic fibers to augment or replace steel cage reinforcement
(Park et al, 2016; Peyvandi et al., 2013 and 2014; Wilson and Abolmaali, 2014; de la
Fuente et al, 2013). Synthetic fibers contribute significantly in enhancing mechanical
properties of concrete, including flexural strength, shear strength, tensile strength, and
dynamic modulus of elasticity. The size of this enhancement is mainly proportional to
fiber type, dosage, geometry, and dispersion (Balaguru and Shah, 1992; Çavdar, 2014;
Mehta and Monteiro, 2006; Kuder and shah, 2010). Although synthetic fibers have been
used as alterative reinforcement for the steel cage in concrete pipes, no design standard
has been introduced. Past research has tried to determine the optimum fiber dosage to
meet strength requirements specified by the ASTM standards for specific pipe diameter
and wall thickness. Peyvandi et al. (2013 and 2014) performed an experimental study to
investigate the performance of polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) fiber reinforced concrete pipes.
The researchers tested two categories of concrete pipes with diameter of 675 mm (27 in.),
one reinforced with fiber only, and the second including one layer of steel cage. Findings
showed that using fiber at 0.5% to 0.75% by volume offered the desired balance between
economy and strength effects. De la Fuente. (2013) tested pipes diameter of 1000 mm
(39 in.) reinforced with polypropylene (PP) fiber using crushing test. The researchers
used three dosages of fiber, 3, 4.5, and 6 kg/m3 (5, 7.5, and 10 lb/yd3). Results were used
30
to validate a numerical model for mechanical analysis of pipes. Design tables for the PP
fiber reinforced concrete pipes with diameter ranging from 300 to 1000 mm (12 to 39 in.)
with two wall thicknesses were created. The designed pipes were reinforced only with
fiber at dosage ranging from 3 to 9 kg/m3 (5 to 15 lb/yd3). However, using fiber only as
sole reinforcement may not be enough to accommodate both flexural loads and other
failure modes such as radial and shear failure as pipe diameter and ASTM strength
requirement of higher classes increase. Also, the researchers assumed that the
compression strength of PP fiber dosage increases with fiber dosage increase. However,
past research showed that increasing fiber dosage had a negative impact on the
compressive strength (Zhang et al., 1999; Huang, 2001; Puertas et al., 2003; Choi and
Yuan, 2005; Çavdar, 2014). Wilson et al. (2014) investigated the performance of PP fiber
reinforced concrete pipes with diameter ranging from 375 mm to 900 mm (15 to 36 in.)
under three-edge bearing load. The researchers used fiber dosages of 2.3, 3.6, 4.7, 6, 7,
9.5, and 10.6 kg/m3(3.87, 6, 7.9, 10.1, 16, and 17.86 lb/yd3). The results indicated that
using PP fiber is a suitable replacement for the steel reinforcement cage. Also, the
researchers recommended further studying the effect of added fiber on the pipes with a
diameter larger than 900 mm (36 in.). Park et al. (2016) studied the effect of inclusion PP
fiber dosages ranging from 1.2 to 14.3 kg/m3 (2 to 24 lb/yd3) on the thin-walled concrete
pipes. The pipes with a diameter ranging from 760 to 3050 mm (30 to 122 in) were tested
using the three-edge bearing test. In addition to the PP fiber, pipes were reinforced with a
steel cage area reduced to 35% - 50% of the steel cage area specified by ASTM C76.
Certain fiber dosages were found to enhance the performance of the tested pipes.
31
2.3.2 Thin Walled Synthetic Fiber Reinforced Concrete Pipes
Understanding of the structural performance of synthetic fiber reinforced concrete
pipes is still in its infancy. No codes or standards have been introduced. The ASTM C76
standard includes synthetic fiber as a possible replacement for steel reinforcement cage
without presenting any design. Few studies have been conducted on concrete pipes
incorporating synthetic fibers. Peyvandi et al. (2013 and 2014) conducted an
experimental study on PVA fiber reinforced concrete pipes. Concrete pipes of diameter
of 675 mm (ASTM C76 (2012) Class IV, C-wall pipe) reinforced with different fiber
dosages into groups were tested under the three-edge bearing test. In the first test group,
the pipes were reinforced with fiber only; for the second group, pipes had additional steel
reinforcement. Investigators found that using fiber content of 0.5 to 0.75% enhanced the
load capacity and ductility of tested pipes. Also, they reported that this fiber dosage offers
a balance between strength and economy. Fuente et al. (2014) investigated the
performance of polypropylene (PP) fiber reinforced concrete pipe of diameter 1000 mm
(39 in.) with wall thickness of 80 mm (3 in.). The pipe was reinforced at fiber dosages of
3, 4.5, and 6 kg/m3 (5, 7.5, and 10 lb/yd3). Researchers concluded that using synthetic
fiber is a suitable replacement for the steel cage. They recommended further investigation
of the PP fiber reinforced concrete pipe performance.
Park et al. (2014) performed an experimental study to investigate the performance
of synthetic fiber reinforced concrete pipes using the three-edge bearing test. Concrete
pipes with a diameter of 600 and 900 mm (24 and 36 in. [Class III Wall-B]) were
reinforced using three fiber dosages of 3.5, 4.8, and 7 kg/m3 (5.9, 8, and 11.8 lb/yd3)
32
along with one steel cage layer. Their results showed pipes could fulfill the strength
requirement specified by ASTM C76 (2015) Class III with a fiber dosage of 4.8 and 7
kg/m3 (4.8 and 11.8 lb/yd3) for pipes of diameter 600 and 900 (24 and 36 in.),
respectively. Wilson et al. (2014) evaluated the structural performance of synthetic fiber
reinforced concrete pipes using three-edge bearing test. The pipes tested had diameters
ranging from 375 to 900 mm (15 to 36 in.) reinforced with fiber dosages of 2.3, 3.6, 4.7,
6, 7, 9.5, and 10.6 kg/m3 (3.87, 6, 7.9, 10.1, 16, and 17.86 lb/yd3). The pipes were
manufactured in two production sites using different manufacturing equipment. It was
concluded that each pipe diameter has an optimal fiber dosage satisfying the strength
requirements specified by ASTM C76 (2015). Also, the optimum fiber dosage depends
on cementitious material content, local aggregate, and manufacturing plant equipment.
The authors also recommended studying the effect of adding synthetic fiber to pipes with
diameters exceeding 900 mm (36 in.). Park et al., (2016) studied the structural
performance of thin-walled concrete pipe, including synthetic fiber using the three-edge
test. Fiber dosages ranging from 1.2 to 14.3 kg/m3 (2 to 24 lb/yd3) combined with steel
cage area reduced to 35 to 50% of conventional steel area required by ASTM C76 were
used in pipes of diameter 760 to 3050 mm (30 to 122 in). It was concluded that these
pipes had enhanced load carrying capacity and shear resistance compared to standard
pipes without fiber reinforcement. Also, the inclusion of fiber enhanced the ductility as
the most tested pipes withstood deflection between 3 to 5% of the inside diameter.
In the literature, there is a clear consensus that the addition of synthetic fibers
makes concrete pipes more flexible than traditional concrete, and the steel reinforcement
33
can be reduced or even eliminated. However, most researchers focused on using the same
wall thickness specified by ASTM C76 (2015). Decreasing the wall thickness of the
concrete pipe while adding an optimum fiber dosage may result in a significant
enhancement in the concrete pipe ductility, flexibility, and load transfer to the
surrounding soil while maintaining residual strength under deflection. Like flexible pipes,
fiber reinforced concrete pipes may be able to take advantage of interaction with the
surrounding soil to carry part of the applied load with less sensitivity to the installation
process. Compared to plastic and metal pipes, the fiber reinforced concrete pipes would
have more stiffness, have a simple design, be lightweight, be less sensitive to backfill
compaction and cost less to install. Moreover, fiber reinforced concrete pipes are very
strong in compression, which minimizes the possibility of thrust failure. However, most
researchers focused on using the same wall thickness specified by ASTM C76 (2015).
Decreasing the wall thickness of the concrete pipe along with adding an optimum fiber
dosage may result in a significant enhancement in the concrete pipe ductility, flexibility,
and load transfer between the pipe and surrounding soil, and maintain residual strength
under deflection.
2.3.3 Long-term Performance of Synthetic Fiber Reinforced Concrete
The problems associated with concrete pipe rigidity, shear failure, and radial
failure can be mitigated using synthetic fiber to supplement or replace the conventional
steel reinforcement (Park et al., 2016; Peyvandi et al., 2013 and 2014; Wilson and
Abolmaali, 2014; de la Fuente et al, 2013). For decades, synthetic fibers have been found
to enhance the mechanical properties of concrete, including flexural strength, tensile

34
strength, shear strength, ductility, shrinkage, and creep. The size of this improvement
depends on the dosage, geometry, dispersion, and size of fiber (Altoubat et al., 2009;
Balaguru and Shah, 1992; Çavdar, 2013 and 2014; Kuder and shah, 2010).
The understanding of the structural performance of synthetic fiber reinforced
concrete pipe is still in its infancy, and no design methodology currently exists to
correlate short-term tests with long-term field performance criteria for specific
engineering designs and manufacturing fiber dosage and distribution. In the literature,
there is a clear consensus that incorporating synthetic fiber enhances the short-term
structural performance of concrete pipes. However, there is uncertainty about the long-
term behavior of fiber reinforced concrete pipes under sustained load, as they could
exhibit increased deformation over time due to the viscoelastic properties of the synthetic
fiber; past research has yielded conflicting results. Park et al. (2014) performed an
experimental study to investigate the structural performance of synthetic fiber reinforced
concrete pipes under short-term and long-term loads. For the short-term test, concrete
pipes with a diameter of 600 and 900 mm (24 and 36 in. [lass III Wall-B]) were tested
under a three-edge bearing load. The pipes were reinforced with fiber dosages of 3.5, 4.8,
and 7 kg/m3 (5, 7.5, and 10 lb/yd3) plus one steel cage layer. Fiber dosages 4.8 and 7
kg/m3 along with one steel layer achieved the strength requirements specified by ASTM
Class III for 600- and 900-mm (24 and 36 in.) diameter pipe, respectively. The pipes
were then tested under sustained load by applying a cracking load, defined as a load
producing a crack 0.3 mm (0.01 in.) wide. The fibers hold the cracks from expanding and
prevented the pipe from collapsing. Pujadas et al. (2017) studied the long-term behavior
35
of pre-cracked concrete prisms reinforced with polypropylene (PP) fiber. Under sustained
load, the prisms exhibited large deformation and cracks in comparison with those
reinforced with steel fiber. The investigators recommend using steel reinforcement along
with PP fiber for concrete reinforcement as there is still uncertainty about the long-term
behavior of PP fiber reinforced concrete. Babafemi and Boshoff (2013, 2015, and 2016)
performed an experimental study to investigate the long-term performance of PP fiber
prisms under uniaxial tensile and flexural loading. Researchers reported that specimens
showed increases in the crack widths due to fiber creep. Also, they found that the
increase in the crack widths under flexural load was much less than that under uniaxial
tensile load. Bernard (2010) studied the post-crack creep characteristics of a shotcrete
panel reinforced with synthetic and steel fibers. The researchers found specimens
reinforced with synthetic fiber showed higher creep deformation than those reinforced
with steel fiber. Also, they reported that creep deformation of synthetic fiber reinforced
concrete specimens depends on many factors, including fiber content, fiber embossment
along their length, method of manufacture, and applied load value. Mackay and Trottier
(2004) conducted an experimental study to evaluate the post-crack creep behavior of
concrete prisms reinforced with synthetic and steel fibers and found there was not a big
difference in the creep deflection between synthetic and steel fiber reinforced concrete
prisms. They concluded that synthetic fiber could be used as a replacement for steel
reinforcement without adverse effect due to fiber creep. Boshoff et al (2009) performed
an experimental study to evaluate the behavior of the tensile creep of synthetic fiber
reinforced pre-cracked specimens, single fiber pull-out creep embedded in the concrete
36
matrix, and single fiber creep under different load levels. Researchers reported that
synthetic fiber did not contribute to the resistance to tensile creep of pre-cracked
specimens. Also, they concluded that the increase in the tensile creep is due to the
initiation of new cracks and the increase in crack widths caused by the fiber pull-out over
time.
37
CHAPTER 3 : METHODOLOGY
The laboratory tests of the fiber reinforced concrete material in the laboratory are
described, including the apparatus, materials, specimen preparations, and the test
procedures. Also, the laboratory tests of concrete pipes reinforced with different fiber
dosages under short and long term loading are described, including materials, pipes
production, curing, testing, instrumentation, and data collection. Then, a three-
dimensional finite element model was created along with different fiber contents and
steel cage areas to create design tables as those introduced by ASTM C76.
3.1 Material Properties of Synthetic Fiber Reinforced Concrete under Freeze-Thaw
Conditions
3.1.1 Materials
The properties of synthetic fiber used in this study are listed in Table 1. The PP
and PVA fiber have different dimensions (length and diameter) and material properties,
which affect the bond area between concrete and fiber. The tensile strength and Young’s
modulus are higher for PVA than PP. Also, both PP and PVA have a different CTE than
conventional concrete (ACI 209R-92, 2008).

38
Table 1. Physical Properties of the Fiber.
Properties Polypropylene fiber (PP) Polyvinyl alcohol fiber (PVA)
Specific Gravity 0.91 1.3
Length, mm (in.) 54 (2.1) 31.75 (1.25)
Diameter, μm (in.) 806 (0.032) 660 (0.026)
Tensile Strength, N/mm2 585 (85) 800 (116)
Young modulus, N/mm2 4000 (580) 23000 (3336)
Chemical Resistance Excellent Excellent
Coefficient of thermal expansion, 10-6 /°C 70 to100a (38.9 to 55.5) 100b (55.5)
(/°F)
a (Tripathi, 2002), b (Mark, 2009).
This research compared plain concrete to concrete with PP and PVA fibers at
concentrations of 6, 7, and 9 kg/m3( 8, 10, 12, and 15 lb/yd3). The fibers were mixed with
other concrete constituents using the mix design in Table 2. Air entrainment was used to
produce 2.5% air content. The cement included 30% Fly ash. The aggregate consisted of
North Carolina 78M stone, which was crushed granite with most pieces ranging between
9 to 12 mm long. The water-cement ratio used in this experiment was 0.32.
Table 2. Mix Proportions of the Concrete.
Cement, Fly ash Fly ash, Fine Coarse Water, PP fiber Water-reducing
kg/m3 (lb/yd3) (%) kg/m3 aggregate, aggregate, kg/m3(lb/yd3 kg/m3(lb/y admixture mL
(lb/yd3) kg/m3(lb/yd3 kg/m3(lb/yd3) ) d3) (gal)
309 (520) 30% 92.7 (156) 1129 (1903) 752 (1268) 128 (216) 9 (15) 2,235 (0.6)
39
3.1.2 Specimen Preparations
According to ASTM C1609/C1609M-15 (2015b), ASTM C215-14 (2014), and
ASTM C666/C666M-15 (2015a) test protocols, prism-shaped specimens with nominal
size 75×100×405mm (3×4×16 in.) were prepared to measure modulus of rupture,
dynamic modulus of elasticity, and loss of mass due to freeze-thaw cycles. For the CTE
tests, two different specimen sizes were used: a) concrete disks with 150 mm (6 in.)
diameter and 38 mm (1.5 in.) thickness for the Ohio CTE test method (see Figure 3 ) and
b) concrete cylinders with nominal diameter 100 mm and 200 mm height for AASHTO
specification AASHTO TP60-00 (2007). All specimens were poured on three separate
days and were steam cured.
Figure 3. Ohio CTE specimen’s preparation.

40
3.1.3 Test procedure
Coefficient of Thermal Expansion
The CTE values of the concrete specimens were measured using the Ohio CTE
test method reported by Akentuna et al. (2017) and Kim et al. (2015) and using the
AASHTO TP60-00 (2007) standard. The Ohio CTE device shown in Figure 4 was
calibrated using a cross square invar validated with 6061 aluminum and 316 stainless
steel disks. After drying test specimens at 60°C (140 ⁰F) for 48 hours, to ensure no effects
from moisture content, the specimen was placed in the chamber and held at 60°C (140 ⁰F)
for one hour. The temperature was then decreased linearly at 20°C/hr (68 ⁰F/hr), as shown
Figure 5 until reaching a minimum of -60°C (-76 ⁰F) after six hours, at which point the
temperature was held constant for an hour. Deformation and temperature data were
collected every 60 seconds.

41
(a) (b)
Figure 4. Ohio CTE device: (a) schematic device details; and (b) specimen installed
inside the chamber.
80
60
40
Temprature (°C)
20
0
-20
-40
-60
-80
0 2 4 6 8
Time (hour)
Figure 5. Temperature profile.
Figure 6 shows the test setup for the AASHTO TP60-00 (2007) test.
The AASHTO test device was calibrated using a 304 stainless steel cylinder. The
concrete specimens were saturated for 48 hours before testing in a water bath. The length
42
of each specimen was measured three times, and the average value recorded. The test
specimen was placed in the frame with the LVDT at the center of the specimen. Then, the
frame with the specimen was placed in the controlled temperature bath to maintain the
full saturated condition during the test. The temperature profile used in this test is shown
in Figure 7. The temperature was set to 10 °C for one-half hour, the temperature then was
raised from 10°C (50 ⁰F) to 50°C (122 ⁰F) over 2 hours, and then kept constant one-half
hour.
(a) (b)
Figure 6. AASHTO-CTE test setup: (a) schematic a mearing setup; and (b) specimen
setup.
43
60
50
Temprature (°C)
40
30
20
10
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Time (hour)
Figure 7. Temperature profile used for AASHTO TP60-00 CTE test method.
Dynamic Modulus of Elasticity
The dynamic modulus of elasticity was measured according to ASTM C215-14
(2014). Determining the dynamic modulus of elasticity requires measuring the mass and
fundamental transverse frequency of the test specimens. A piezoelectric accelerometer
having a frequency range from 100 to 10000 Hz was attached to the concrete prism using
a special base glued at 25 mm (1 in.) distance from the end of the test specimen, as shown
in the schematic in Figure 8. The piezoelectric accelerometer was connected to the high-
speed data acquisition with the sampling rate of 65000 samples/sec. A special hammer
with a head weight of 23 g (0.05 lb) was used to vibrate the specimens. Data collected
from the accelerometer was analyzed using the Fourier series method to calculate the
fundamental transverse frequency. Equation 2 was used to calculate the dynamic of
elasticity.
Dynamic E = 0.9464 (L3T/bt3) Mn2 (2)

44
where M is mass of specimen (kg), n is fundamental transverse frequency (Hz), L
= length of specimen (m), t, b = dimensions of cross section of prism (m), and T is the
correction factor.
Figure 8. Dynamic modulus of the elasticity test setup.
Flexural Strength
The flexural performance was evaluated by measuring the modulus of rupture,
deflection at mid-span, and post-cracking behavior in accordance with ASTM
C78/C78M-15 (2015b). The deflection was measured at the mid-span using an LVDT
installed on the loading plate, as shown in Figure 9. A displacement rate of 0.1 mm/min
was employed in this test.

45
Figure 9. Flexural test setup.
3.1.4 Freeze-thaw Procedure
The Freeze-thaw test was completed in accordance with ASTM C666/666M-15
(2015a) Procedure A and B. The temperature was varied between 4°C to -18°C (39 to 0
⁰
F), with the cycle time about 4 to 5 hours. For procedure A, a freeze-thaw cabinet
(Humboldt MFG. Co. DBA, Logan Freeze-Thaw Mfg. Co. UT) was used to apply cycles
of freezing and thawing, as shown in Figure 10. This cabinet has 18 stainless steel prism
molds, and one mold was used to carry the pilot specimen with the control bulb of the
control cycle and thermometers. Also, two thermocouples were installed on the surface,
and the center of the pilot specimen to monitor the temperature at these locations and
ensure the difference did not exceed 10 °C (50 ⁰F). S-shaped brass wires were placed
under all specimens to allow water movement underneath and prevented rapid heat-
transfer between the specimen and the bottom surface of the mold, which sits on the
freezing plate of the test machine. The resistance of fiber reinforced concrete to the
freeze-thaw cycles was evaluated by measuring the dynamic modulus of elasticity, loss in
46
mass, and flexural strength. The change in the dynamic modulus of elasticity and loss of
mass due freeze thaw cycles was obtained every 30 cycles based on ASTM C666/666M-
15 (2015a) standard, while flexural strength was evaluated after 100, 200, and 300 freeze-
thaw cycles. All specimens were soaked in the water bath for 14 days prior to the test,
and the mass measured with a precision of 0.001 kg in accordance with ASTM
C666/666M-15 (2015a).
Figure 10. Freeze-thaw cabinet.
ASTM C666/666M (2015a) Procedure B was employed for CTE specimens since
CTE specimens did not fit at freeze-thaw cabinet molds. The CTE specimens were frozen
using a different chamber (Cincinnati Sub-Zero products Inc. Mosteller, Cincinnati,
Ohio) and thawed using water. The CTEs were calculated after 0, 100, 200, and 300
freeze-thaw cycles. All the CTE test specimens were air-dried at 60°C (140 ⁰F) for 48
hours before testing since the moisture level of the test specimens has an impact on the
CTE value (Sellevold and Bjøntegaard 2006; Al-Ostaz 2007; ACI 209R-92, 2008).
47
3.2 Evaluation of Synthetic Fiber Reinforced Concrete Pipe Performance Using Three-
Edge Bearing Test
3.2.1 Experimental Procedure
The three-edge bearing test was conducted in accordance with ASTM C497
(2014) on fiber-reinforced concrete pipes with diameters, 600, 1200, and 1500 mm (24,
48, 60 in.). Polypropylene (PP) synthetic fiber with dosages of 4.75, 9, 13.5, and 18
kg/m3 ( 8, 15, 22.5, and 30 lb/yd3) were used. The fiber-reinforced concrete pipes tested
included two types: those with a minimum amount of steel reinforcing cage embedded in
a single layer augmenting the fiber reinforcement and those with only the fiber
reinforcement and no steel. The performance of the fiber reinforced concrete pipe system
was measured in terms of strength requirements (ASTM C76 (2015)), ductility, stiffness,
and post-cracking behavior.
3.2.2 Material Properties
The synthetic fiber used in this study was produced from a blend of 100% virgin
polypropylene resins. This fiber type is monofilament with an embossed surface. The
distance from the embossed peak to the lowest point is from 0.085 to 0.095 mm (0.0033
to 0.037 in.). This fiber has a length of 54 mm (2.1 in.) with an equivalent diameter of
0.82 mm (0.032 in.). The maximum tensile strength that can be carried by this fiber is
585 MPa. The mechanical and physical properties of synthetic fiber used in this study are
listed in Table 1.
Four different dosages of PP fiber, 4.75, 9, 13.50, and 18 kg/m 3(8, 15, 22.5, and
30 lb/yd3), were used. Each fiber dosage was mixed with other concrete constituents
48
using the mix design listed in Table 3. Air concrete of 2.5 % was assured in the mix by
using air-entraining additives. The coarse aggregate used in this study was crashed
granite North Carolina 78M stone. Most pieces of aggregate ranged from 9 to 12 mm
(0.35 to 0.5 in.) long. A water to-cement ratio of 0.32 with zero slump was utilized in this
experiment.
Table 3. Mix Proportions of the Concrete
Cement, Fly ash Fly ash Fine aggregate Coarse aggregate Water
kg/m3 (lb/yd3) (%) kg/m3 (lb/yd3) kg/m3 (lb/yd3) kg/m3 (lb/yd3) kg/m3 (lb/yd3)
309 (520) 30% 92.7 (156) 1129 (1903) 752 (1267) 128 (215)
3.2.3 Specimen Preparation
The concrete pipes were constructed using zero slump mixture and Hawkeye
equipment. In this manufacturing procedure, cylindrical inner and outer metal jackets are
situated in a manner to form the outside and inside diameter of the concrete pipe. A steel
ring is then used to hold the reinforcement cage (see Figure 11(a)). This system is placed
over a vibrating table to allowed concrete material to be compacted during the pouring
process, as shown in Figure 11(b). The fresh compacted concrete with the jackets are
moved carefully to the curing environment. To expedite the curing process, the outside
jacket is removed, and the exposed surface of the pipe is subject to a stem, as shown
Figure 11 (c). Thirty-six concrete pipes of the diameter of 600 mm (24 in.) Wall-B,
1200mm Wall-B, and 1500 mm Wall-C were tested. All pipes were 2.4 m long, except
some 1200 mm (48 in.) diameter pipes were 1.2 m long. Steel reinforcement, when
49
present, was placed in a single layer at 25 mm (1 in.) from the inside diameter. Details of
the pipes used in this study are listed in Table 3.
Table 4. Details of the Tested Fiber Reinforced Concrete Pipe Specimens.
Series no. Inside Wall Fiber dosage kg/m3 Steel cage

Number of
diameter, Thickness, mm (lb/yd3): volume cm2/linear m
pipes tested
mm (in.) (in.) fraction (%) (in2/ft)
1 600 (24) 75 (3) 9 (15):1 0 2
9(15):1 1.5 (0.07) 2
18(30):2 0 2
18(30):2 1.5(0.07) 1
2 1200 (48) 125 (5) 0:0 0 3
4.75(8):0.5 0 3
4.75(8):0.5 5.1 (0.24) 2
9(15):1 0 3
9(15):1 5.1 (0.24) 3
13.5(22.5):1.5 5.1(0.24) 3
18(30):2 5.1(0.24) 3
3 1500 (60) 169 (6.5) 9(15):1 5.1(0.24) 3
13.5(22.5):1.5 5.1(0.24) 3
18(30):2 5.1(0.24) 3
50
(a) (b) (c)
Figure 11. Pipe production: (a) steel cage reinforcement, (b) mixture, and (c) removal of
the jacket.
3.2.4 Test Procedure
The hydraulic testing machine shown in Figure 12 (a) was used to perform the
three-edge bearing test. The test pipe was supported using two incompressible plastic
strips extended along its full length. In order to assure that the applied load is uniformly
distributed along the pipe length, a hard rubber strip fastened to a hard wood member was
used, as shown in Figure 12(a, and b). The crack was measured manually using Feeler
gauge, as shown in Figure 12(c). The deflection was measured at three different locations
along the pipe length using three string potentiometers. The hydraulic testing equipment
and displacement transducers were connected to a computer-based data acquisition
system to record the applied load and the vertical displacement. In order to compare the
pipe strength results with the strength requirements specified by ASTM C76 (2015), the
measurements of the load corresponding to 0.3 mm (0.01 in.) crack width (called the
cracking load) and the ultimate load were divided by the inside diameter of the pipe and
the length of the pipe. The strength requirements specified by ASTM C76 (2015) are
51
presented in Table 5. Based on the three-edge bearing test results, the classification of the
concrete pipe (Class I to Class V) was determined.
(a) (b) (c)
Figure 12. a) Specimen setup; b) schematic three-edge bearing test setup; c) crack width
indicator.
Table 5. ASTM C76 (2015) Pipe Class, Cracking Load, and Ultimate Load
ASTM C76 class Cracking load, Ultimate load,
kN/m/m (kip/ft/ft) kN/m/m (kip/ft/ft)
I 40 (0.8) 60 (1.2)
II 50 (1) 70 (1.5)
III 65 (1.35) 100 (2)
IV 100 (2) 150 (3)
V 140 (3) 175 (3.75)

52
Element Analysis
3.3.1 Fiber Reinforced Concrete Pipes
Full-scaled reinforced concrete pipes by PP fiber were tested under three edge
bearing tests. The pipes with a diameter of 600, 1200, and 1500 mm (24, 48, and 60 in.)
were tested in two categories. In the first category, the pipes were reinforced with only
PP fiber. In the second category, the pipes were also reinforced with a single-layer steel
cage. The details or pipes tested in previous research by the authors (Al Rikabi et al.
2018) are listed in Table 6. The following fiber dosages were used to replace the steel
cage reinforcement in traditional concrete pipes: 4.75, 9, 13.5 and 18 kg/m 3, ( 8, 15, 22.5,
and 30 lb/yd3) equivalent to 0.52, 1, 1.5, and 2 % of concrete volume (Vf).

53
Table 6. Details of the Tested Specimens.
Series Inside Wall Fiber dosage, Steel cage Number
no. diameter, Thickness, kg/m3 (lb/yd3): volume cm2/linear m of pipes
mm (in.) mm (in.) fraction (%) (in2/ft) tested
1 600 (24) 75 (3) 9 (15):1 0 2
9(15):1 1.5 (0.07) 2
18(30):2 0 2
18(30):2 1.5(0.07) 1
2 1200 (48) 125 (5) 0:0 0 3
4.75(8):0.5 0 3
4.75(8):0.5 5.1 (0.24) 2
9(15):1 0 3
9(15):1 5.1 (0.24) 3
13.5(22.5):1.5 5.1(0.24) 3
18(30):2 5.1(0.24) 3
3 1500 (60) 169 (6.5) 9(15):1 5.1(0.24) 3
13.5(22.5):1.5 5.1(0.24) 3
18(30):2 5.1(0.24) 3
3.3.2 Materials
The fiber used in this study was 100% virgin PP resin monofilament with an
embossed surface. The physical and mechanical properties of this type of fiber are listed
in Table 6. This type of fiber has a length of 54 mm (2.1) and an equivalent diameter of
0.82 mm (0.032 in.). The maximum tensile strength of this type of fiber is 585 MPa (85
ksi). Different dosages of the fiber were mixed with other concrete components using the
54
mix design listed in Table 3, a zero-slump mix with water to cement ratio of 0.32. Air
entraining additives were used to assure 2.5 % of air content in the concrete mix. Crushed
granite North Carolina 78M stone of length 9 to 12 mm was used as coarse aggregate.
Figure 13. Polypropylene (PP) fiber used in this research.
Table 7. Physical and mechanical properties of the PP Fiber.
Properties Polypropylene PP) fiber
Specific gravity 0.91
Length, mm (in.) 54 (2)
Equivalent diameter, μm (in.) 820 (0.032)
Tensile strength, N/mm2 (ksi) 585 (85 )
Young’s modulus, N/mm2 (ksi) 4000 (580)
Chemical resistance Excellent

55
Table 8. Mix proportions of the concrete used to make the fiber-reinforced pipes.
Cement, Fly ash Fly ash Fine aggregate Coarse aggregate Water
kg/m3 (lb/yd3) (%) kg/m3 (lb/yd3) kg/m3 (lb/yd3) kg/m3 (lb/yd3) kg/m3 (lb/yd3)
309 (520) 30% 92.7 (156) 1129 (1903) 752 (1267) 128 (215)
Measurements were made on the compressive strength, modulus of elasticity,
Poisson’s ratio, and tensile strength of the fiber reinforced concrete threat fiber dosages
of 0 (plain concrete), 4.75, 6, 7, and 9 kg/m3( 0, 8, 10, 12, and 15 lb/yd3). Compressive
strength and modulus of elasticity were obtained in accordance to ASTM C39 (2015) and
ASTM C469 (2015), respectively, as shown in Fig. 3(a). To obtain Poisson’s ratio, two
strain gauges were affixed horizontally and vertically on the concrete cylinder, as shown
in Fig. 3(b). Tensile strength was obtained in accordance with ASTM C496 (2015), as
depicted in Fig. 3(c).
(a) (b) (c)
Figure 14. Test setup of (a) Compressive strength (b) Poisson’s ratio, and (c) splitting
tensile strength.
56
3.3.3 Finite Element Model of the Three-edge Bearing Test
A three-dimensional finite element model of the three-edge bearing test was
created using finite element software ABAQUS/CAE Version 6.12-3. This model
consisted of five components: concrete pipe, steel reinforcement cage, two lower strips,
upper strip, and rigid member, as shown in Figure 15. The upper and lower rigid
members had dimensions of 100×50 (4×2 in.) and 175×50 mm (3×2 in.), respectively.
The lower strips had cross-section dimensions of 50 ×25 mm each and 75 mm separation.
The pipe, rigid members, and rubber strips were modeled using 8-node linear solid
elements with reduced integration and hourglass control. The steel cage reinforcement
was modeled using 2-node linear truss elements (T3D2) constrained and embedded inside
the concrete pipe, as depicted in Figure 15 (a). The steel reinforcement cage was
distributed along the pipe length at a spacing of 63.5 mm (2.5 in.), as recommended by
the manufacturer. The steel reinforcement cage layer was placed 25 mm from the inside
pipe surface. The lower strips were attached to the concrete pipe and bottom rigid
member using tie constraints. The same constraint was used to attach the upper strip to
the upper rigid member and the concrete pipe. The upper rigid member was constrained
in the horizontal direction to restrict the load to the vertical direction. The lower rigid
member was fixed at the bottom. The load was uniformly applied using the upper rigid
member. Also, the pipe diameter and wall thickness varied in the parametric study.
57
(a) (b)
Figure 15. Finite element modeling of the three-edge bearing test. (a) A-A cross-section;
(b) 3D model.
3.3.4 Concrete Model
In the ABAQUS software, two constitutive models can be used to model the
concrete. These models are concrete smeared crack (CSC) and concrete damage plasticity
(CDP). The CSC model has convergence problems when the steel reaches the yield stage
(Ahn, 2011; Chen and Graybeal, 2011), and was therefore not used. The concrete damage
plasticity (CPD) model has the ability to model the nonlinear response of the concrete
material. CPD assumes that concrete material experiences two modes of failure: tensile
cracking and compressive crushing. In the latter, the concrete material experiences elastic
behavior until the yield point is reached; beyond that, the concrete exhibits strain
58
hardening followed by softening. For the tensile behavior, the tension response of the
concrete material can be represented using three types of modeling, stress-strain data,
stress crack mouth opening displacement data, and yield stress-fracture energy data.
Since the PP fibers start to contribute after the first crack, the stress crack mouth opening
displacement data would be the best model to represent the post cracking behavior of
fiber reinforced concrete under tension. In addition to the compression and tension
response models, CPD includes five parameters: the dilation angle in degrees (ѱ, default
36.67°), the flow potential eccentricity (ϵ, default 0.1), the ratio of the second stress
invariant on the tensile meridian to that on the compressive meridian such that the
maximum principal stress is negative (Kc, default 0.67), a viscosity parameter (μ, 0.001),
and the ratio of the initial equibiaxial compressive yield stress to the initial uniaxial
compressive yield stress (σb0/σc0, default 1.16).
3.3.5 Uniaxial Modelling of Fiber Reinforced Concrete Compression Behavior
Several researchers have introduced analytical models to describe the
compressive strength behavior of fiber-reinforced concrete (Soroushian and Lee 1989;
Ezeldin and Balaguru 1992; Barros and Figueiras 1999; Mansur et al. 1999; Nataraja et
al. 1999). However, most of the research adapted plain concrete models by adding a
dimensionless factor to the compressive strength and ultimate strain. This dimensionless
factor was obtained based on how incorporating steel fiber increases the compressive
strength of plain concrete. However, past research showed that using synthetic fiber
reduces the compressive strength of concrete as fiber dosage is increased. This is
attributed to the high ductility of PP fiber compared to that of other concrete constituents,
59
which may create a discontinuity in the concrete matrix and result in a reduction of
compressive strength (Zhang et al., 1999; Huang, 2001; Puertas et al., 2003; Choi and
Yuan, 2005, Çavdar 2014).
3.3.6 Uniaxial Modelling of Fiber Reinforced Concrete Tensile Behavior
The contribution of concrete matrix dominates the tensile strength until the first
crack and diminishes in the post cracking region as fibers start to dominate the response.
The combined response of matrix and fiber under tensile load was described by Voo and
Foster (2003) using stress-crack opening displacement relationship, as shown in Figure
16.
Figure 16. Tensile stresses vs. crack mouth opening displacement for fibers, matrix, and
fiber-matrix composite.
This research modeled the post-cracking behavior of PP fiber reinforced concrete
after its ultimate tensile strength was reached using fracture energy cracking criteria. The
model was defined by providing the ABAQUS with tensile stress-crack opening
60
displacement values. The tension behavior of fiber-reinforced concrete followed the
Variable Engagement Model proposed by Voo and Foster (2003). In this model, for a
given crack mouth opening displacement (w), the composite tensile strength (σ(w)) is
equal to the sum of stresses carried by the concrete matrix (σc(w)) and stresses (σf (w))
carried by fibers, as represented in equation (1).
𝜎(w)=𝜎𝑐 (𝑤) + 𝜎𝑓 (𝑤) Equation 1
The softening behavior of plain concrete beyond its maximum tensile strength can
be expressed using equation with
𝜎𝑐 (w)=𝑐1 𝑓𝑐𝑡 𝑒 𝑐2𝑤
where fct is the tensile strength of plain concrete, c1 is a parameter representing
any benefit of fibers on the maximum tensile strength of plain concrete (typically c1=1),
and c2 is a parameter controlling the steepness of the softening behavior of plain concrete.
The c2 parameter is mainly affected by fiber volume (Vf) and other concrete constituents
(Voo and Foster, 2003 and 2004; Htut, and Foster 2012; Mohamed et al., 2016). Ng et al.
(2012) proposed to calculate c2 for concrete with maximum aggregate size of 10 mm
using the following equation:

20
𝑐2 = (1+100𝑉 Equation 2
𝑓)
The stresses (σf (w)) carried by the fibers can be calculated using the following
expression (Voo and Foster, 2003 and 2004; Htut, and Foster 2012; Mohamed et al.,
2016).
1 αe∙w 2∙w 2 l
σf (w) = π tan−1 ( ) (1 − ) ∙ df ∙ τb ∙ Vf Equation 3
df lf f
61
where τb is bond strength between fiber and concrete components, and α is the
engagement factor. The bond strength of single fiber (τ) for the synthetic fiber can be
calculated using the following expression (Wang et al., 1987):
df σuf
τ=
4Lc
where σuf is the maximum fiber tensile strength, and Lc is the maximum length of
fiber that can be pulled out without experiencing rupture. According to Li et al. (1990), in
order for fiber reinforcing effects on the concrete behavior to be optimum, fiber length
should twice the Lc. Therefore, Lc was assumed to be half the fiber length. Figure 17
shows the tension stress-crack opening curves used in the finite (FE) element models
based on a model proposed by Voo and Foster.
5
6 kg/m3 7 kg/m3
9 kg/m3 13.5 kg/m3
4 18 kg/m3
Tensile stress (MPa)
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
CMOD (mm)
concrete material used in the finite element models.

62
3.3.7 Other Models
In order to simulate the steel cage so that it reaches its ultimate strength, the steel
cage was defined in terms of elastic and plastic behavior. The elastic behavior was
defined using the Poisson’s ratio and modulus of elasticity. The plastic behavior was
modeled using a stress-strain (f-ε) relation proposed by Mirza and MacGregor (1981) for
deformed and plain reinforcing wire, which is used as steel reinforcement in concrete
pipes. This relationship was expressed using the following equation:
𝑓 𝑓 𝑓 20
𝜀 = 𝐸 + (𝜀𝑢 − 𝐸 ) (𝑓 ) Equation 4
𝑠 𝑠 𝑢
where Es, εu, and fu are modulus of elasticity, ultimate strain, and ultimate stress of
plain reinforcing wire, respectively. The ultimate strain was calculated using the
following expression:
1/2
𝜀𝑢 = 0.0042 An
where An is the nominal area of the wire reinforcing in (mm2).
The ultimate stress results of different wire reinforcing sizes were provided by the
concrete pipe manufacturer and listed in Table 9. The upper and lower strips in the
experiment were modeled as hard rubber with a modulus of elasticity of 4350 MPa (630
ksi) and Poisson’s ratio of 0.4 (AASHTTO LRFD, 2014). The rigid steel members of the
apparatus were modeled with a modulus of elasticity of 200 GPa (29000 ksi) and
Poisson’s ratio of 0.3. The elastic properties of concrete material were defined based on
the experimental results of this study.

63
Table 9. Testing results of wire reinforcing used for finite element models of the concrete
pipes.
Diameter, Area, Ultimate stress,

Wire size
mm (in.) mm (in )
2 2
MPa (ksi)
W2.5 4.53 (0.17) 16.10 (0.025) 672.2 (97.5)
W3 4.95 (0.19) 19.35 (0.030) 620.7 (90.0)
W3.5 5.36 (0.21) 22.60 (0.035) 633 (91.8)
W4.5 6.08 (0.24) 29.00 (0.045) 563.5 (81.7)
W7 7.59 (0.30) 45.16 (0.070) 698.2 (101.2)
W8 8.11 (0.32) 51.6 (0.080) 607.6 (88.1)
3.4 Thin Walled Synthetic Fiber Reinforced Concrete Pipes
3.4.1 Materials
Monofilament polypropylene (PP) fiber used as a replacement for steel reinforcement
cage in the concrete pipes is 100 virgin polypropylene resins, depicted in Fig. 3. This type
of fiber has a length of 54 mm (2.1 in.) and equivalent diameter of 0.82 mm. The physical
and mechanical properties of this type of fiber are presented in Table 10. A fiber dosage
of 9 kg/m3 was mixed with other concrete constituents using the mix design illustrated in
Table 11. Air entrained admixture with a dosage of 28 ml/m3 was used to produce
air content of 2.5% in the mixture. Crushed granite with length ranging from 9 to 12 mm
was used as a coarse aggregate. It should be noted that a self-consolidating concrete
mixture was used for this application due to the thickness of the wall forms. This mix is
typical of a precast concrete mix, which uses high water reducing admixtures to maintain
a very low water-cement ratio. The result is a high strength concrete with a relatively
water content when compared to standard wet-cast ready-mix concrete

64
Table 10. Physical Properties of the Synthetic Fiber.
Table 11. Mix Proportions of the Concrete Mixtures.
kg/m3 (%) kg/m3 aggregate, aggregate, kg/m3 kg/m3 admixture
(lb/yd3) (lb/yd3) kg/m3 kg/m3(lb/yd3) (lb/yd3) (lb/yd3) mL (gal)
(lb/yd3)
309 (520) 30% 92.7 (156) 1129 752 (1268) 128 (216) 9 (15) 2,235 (0.6)
(1903)
All concrete pipes were produced using the wet cast method. A cylindrical outer
jacket forms the outside diameter of the concrete pipe. A steel ring was used to hold the
steel cage in place inside the cylindrical outer jacket. The concrete with the selected fiber
dosage was poured into the pipe mold using a cement mixer truck. Two concrete pipes
with a diameter of 1200 mm (48 in.), wall thickness 50 mm (2 in.), and length 1.22 m (4
ft.) were fabricated. Both pipes were reinforced with a 9 kg/m 3 (15 lb/yd3) dosage of PP
65
fiber. There was one layer of steel cage reinforcement located 25 mm (1 in.) from the
inside diameter of each pipe; one pipe had steel reinforcement at 5.7 cm2/m (0.27 in2/ft)
and the other had 10.2 cm2/m (0.48 in2/ft). Two pipes were prepared with a diameter of
1500 mm (60 in.), wall thickness 63 mm (2.5 in.), and length 1.2 m. The fiber dosage and
steel reinforcement details were the same as for the smaller pipes, except the steel content
in the pipes was 5.7 cm2/m and 8.9 cm2/m (0.27 and 0.42 in2/ft). The details of the pipes
used in this study are summarized in Table 12.
Table 12. Details of the Tested Specimens.
Fiber dosage kg/m3

Inside diameter, mm Wall Thickness, mm Steel cage,
(lb/yd3): volume
(in.) (in.) cm2/m (in2/ft)
fraction (%)
1200 (48) 50 (2) 9 (15):1 5.7 (0.27)
9 (15):1 10.2 (0.48)
1500 (60) 64 (2.5) 9 (15):1 5.7 (0.27)
9 (15):1 8.9 (0.42)
The three-edge bearing test was conducted using the apparatus shown in Figure
18(a) in accordance with ASTM C497 (2015). The load was applied uniformly using a
hard rubber strip affixed to a hardwood member at the crown of the pipe. The pipe was
supported using two hard rubber strips fastened to a steel member. The pipes were
instrumented with two linear string potentiometers to measure the vertical displacement
at the crown, and two linear string potentiometers to measure the horizontal displacement
66
at the spring line. Surface strains for the pipe were measured using uniaxial electrical
resistance gauges with a length of 60 mm (2.36 in.). Four of these strain gauges,
designated SG#1, SG#2, SG#3, and SG#4, were affixed on the concrete pipe wall at the
crown, invert, and spring line, as shown in Figure 18 (b). The load was applied at a rate
of 43.8 kN/linear meter of pipe per minute (3000 lbf/linear foot of pipe per minute) using
a hydraulic testing machine. The data were recorded using a computer-based data
acquisition system. The strength results were compared with those specified by ASTM
C76 (2015) to determine the class of tested pipe, as indicated in Table 13.
Table 13. ASTM C76 (2015) Class Criteria for Cracking Load and Ultimate Load
ASTM C76 class Cracking load, Ultimate load,
I 40 (0.8) 60 (1.2)
II 50 (1) 70 (1.5)
III 65 (1.35) 100 (2)
IV 100 (2) 150 (3)
V 140 (3) 175 (3.75)

67
(a) (b)
Figure 18. a) Specimen setup; b) schematic three-edge bearing test setup.
3.5 A New Test Method for Evaluating the Long-Term Performance of Fiber
Reinforced Concrete Pipes
3.5.1 Finite Element Model of Long-Term Test Setup
A three-dimensional finite element model was created using FE software Abaqus
Version 6.14-3 to simulate the long-term test setup. This model consists of four
components: steel frame, concrete pipe, wood strips, and steel reinforcement cages
embedded in the concrete pipe wall, as shown in Figure 19. The steel frame comprises of
a steel column, steel angles used as column bracing, a cantilever beam used for applying
the sustained load, a pin connection connecting the steel column and the cantilever beam,
a loading beam used to apply the load along pipe length, and a lower beam used as a
support for the concrete pipe. The pin connection was made of semicircular steel plates
68
with a 1 in thickness connected using a 3 in diameter steel rode. To measure the applied
load and avoid eccentricity, a circular steel plate with a thickness of 3 in and semicircular
head, representing the load cell, was placed between the loading and cantilever beams.
The wood strips were affixed to the upper and lower beams as specified by ASTM C497
(2015b). The steel frame, wood strips, and concrete pipe were modeled using 8-node
linear solid elements with reduced integration and hourglass control. The steel
reinforcement cage embedded in the concrete pipe was modeled as a 2-node truss
element (T3D2) constrained and embedded inside the concrete pipe. The upper and lower
wood strips were attached to the concrete pipe using the surface to surface tie constraint.
For the pin connection, the surface to surface interaction was utilized to model the
interface between steel rode and surrounding hole face. The interaction properties were
defined using tangential behavior. This behavior was characterized using penalty friction,
with a friction coefficient of 0.7 (Sullivan, 1988). Also, the interface between the load
cell and cantilever beam was defined in terms of normal and tangential behavior. The
normal behavior was modeled as hard contact, in which no penetration between the load
cell and cantilever beam could occur. Penalty fraction was assigned to the tangential
behavior with a friction coefficient of 0.7 (Sullivan, 1988).

69
Figure 19. FE model of the long-term test setup
3.5.2 Fiber Reinforced Concrete Material Model
In the ABAQUS software, two constitutive models can be used to model the
concrete material. These models are concrete smeared crack (CSC) and concrete damage
plasticity (CDP). The CSC model has convergence problems when the steel reaches the
yield stage (Ahn, 2011; Chen, 2012) and was, therefore, not used. The concrete damage
plasticity (CDP) model has the ability to model the nonlinear response of the concrete
material. CDP assumes that concrete material experiences two modes of failure: tensile
cracking and compressive crushing. In the latter, the concrete material experiences elastic
behavior until the yield point is reached; beyond that, the concrete exhibits strain
hardening followed by softening. This model was defined using the compressive stress-
70
strain curve proposed in previous research by the authors (Al Rikabi et al., 2020), as
shown in Figure 20.
50
9 kg/m3
40
Stress (MPa) 30
20
10
0
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012
Strain (mm/mm)
Figure 20. compressive stress-strain plots used in the FE models.
For the tensile behavior, the tension response of the concrete material can be
represented using three types of modeling, stress-strain data, stress crack mouth opening
displacement data, and yield stress-fracture energy data. Since the PP fibers start to
contribute after the first crack, the stress crack mouth opening displacement data would
be the best model to represent the post cracking behavior of fiber-reinforced concrete
under tension. The tension behavior of fiber-reinforced concrete followed the Variable
Engagement Model proposed by (Voo and Foster, 2003 and 2004), as shown in Figure
21.
71
5
9 kg/m3
4
Tensile stress (MPa)

3
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
CMOD (mm)
concrete material used in the finite element models.
In addition to the compression and tension response models, CDP includes five
parameters: the dilation angle in degrees (ѱ, default 36.67°), the flow potential
eccentricity (ϵ, default 0.1), the ratio of the second stress invariant on the tensile meridian
to that on the compressive meridian such that the maximum principal stress is negative
(Kc, default 0.67), a viscosity parameter (μ, 0.001), and the ratio of the initial equibiaxial
compressive yield stress to the initial uniaxial compressive yield stress (σb0/σc0, default
1.16).
3.5.3 Finite Element Results
A series of finite element models were developed to assess the state of stresses
within the pipe wall and other frame components. The models were created using
different steel member sections to ensure that the new test setup is easy to install, able to
transfer the load, complied with requirements specified by ASTM C497 (2015). Figure
72
22 shows the steel sections adopted for the experimental test procedure based on the FE
analysis. It can be seen even though large sections were selected for the column and
cantilever beam, steel plates were welded along their length to eliminate any section
rotation while applying the load.
Figure 23 shows the damage occurred ae the pipe wall due to the load attached to
the end of the cantilever beam. The failure occurred at the inner invert, inner crown, and
outer springline where the maximum flexural stresses were expected. The results herein
indicate that the new test setup successfully transferred the load to the pipe. Also, to
ensure that the steel frame will not influence the long-term pipe deflection, the
deformation at the steel members was investigated. According to ASTM C497 (2015),
the wood-faced steel beam of such dimensions that deflections under maximum load
should not be greater than L⁄720 of the specimen length. Figure 24 shows the vertical
displacement throughout the wood faced beam depth. It can be seen that the difference
between the displacement at the top and bottom of the beam is almost zero, fulfilling the
deflection requirement specified by ASTM C497.

73
Figure 22. Long-term test setup detail selected based on the FE analysis.
Figure 23 The damage in the concrete pipe due to the applied.

74
(a)
250
200
Steel beam depth (mm)
150
100
50
0
-12.5237 -12.5237 -12.5238 -12.5238 -12.5238 -12.5238
Vertical displacement
(b)
75
350
300
250
Steel beam depth (mm)

200
150
100
50
0
0.000000 -0.000010 -0.000020 -0.000030 -0.000040
Vertical displacement (mm)
(c)
Figure 24. The vertical displacement for (a) whole test setup (b) upper beam (c) bottom
beam.
3.6 Long-term Performance of Synthetic Fiber Reinforced Concrete
Monofilament polypropylene (PP) fiber used as a replacement for steel
reinforcement cage in the concrete pipes is 100 virgin polypropylene resins. This type of
fiber has a length of 54 mm and an equivalent diameter of 0.82 mm (0.032 in.). The
physical and mechanical properties of this type of fiber are presented in Table 14. A fiber
dosage of 9 kg/m3 (15 lb/yd3) was mixed with other concrete constituents using the mix
design illustrated in Table 15. Air entrained admixture with a dosage of 28 ml/m3 was
used to produce air content of 2.5% in the mixture. Crushed granite with length ranging
from 9 to 12 mm (0.35 to 0.5 in.) was used as a coarse aggregate. It should be noted that
76
a self-consolidating concrete mixture was used for this application due to the thickness of
the wall forms. This mix is typical of a precast concrete mix, which uses high water-
reducing admixtures to maintain a very low water-cement ratio.
Table 14. Physical Properties of the Synthetic Fiber.
Table 15. Mix Proportions of the Concrete Mixtures.
kg/m3 (%) kg/m3 aggregate, aggregate, kg/m3 kg/m3 admixture
(lb/yd3) (lb/yd3) kg/m3 kg/m3 (lb/yd3) (lb/yd3) mL (gal)
(lb/yd3) (lb/yd3)
309 (520) 30% 92.7 (156) 1129 (1903) 752 (1268) 128 (216) 9 (15) 2,235 (0.6)
A wet cast method was used to produce all concrete pipes. Cylindrical inner and
outer metal jackets were used to form the inside and outside diameter of the concrete
pipe, and a steel ring located at the end of the mold was used to hold the steel
77
reinforcement mesh in place. The concrete mixture, including selected fiber dosage was
poured in the pipe molds using a concrete mixing truck. After pouring, the pipes were
steam cured. Concrete pipes with a diameter of 1200 and 1500 mm (48 and 60 in.) with a
length of 1.2 m (4 ft) and wall thicknesses of 50 and 63 mm (2 and 2.5 in.) were
produced. All pipes had a PP fiber dosage 9 kg/m3 or 1% by volume, while the area of
steel reinforcement differed as shown in Table 16. The steel reinforcement consisted of a
single layer embedded 25 mm from the inside diameter. The details of the pipes used in
this study are presented in Table 16.
The PP fiber dosage was selected based on the experimental investigation that
indicated there was a performance versus manufacturing limit that must be balanced
when utilizing fibers. Once fiber content exceeds 2% by volume, it is not able to be
feasibly produced in a concrete pipe operation without the material balling-up and
blocking form distribution. On the other hand, fiber content less than 0.5% by volume
was too widely distributed to provide any tensile benefit. For these reasons, the optimal
economic-performance volume content of 1% was selected.
Table 16. Details of the Tested Pipe Specimens, each having length 1.2 m.
Inside diameter, Wall thickness, Fiber dosage, Steel mesh,

Pipe No.
mm (in.) mm (in.) kg/m (lb/yd )
3 3
cm2/m (in2/ft)
1 1200 (48) 50 (2) 9 (15) 5.7 (0.27)
2 9 (15) 10.2 (0.48)
3 1500 (60) 64 (2.5) 9 (15) 5.7 (0.27)
4 9 (15) 8.9 (0.42)

78
The long-term test setup is shown in Figure 25. The pipe was supported at the
invert using two wood strips fastened to a rigid steel member. The load was applied along
the top of the pipe using a wood strip attached to a steel beam member. The sustained
load was applied using a concrete block attached to the end of the cantilever beam. The
load was applied incrementally until the selected load level was reached by relaxing a
hydraulic jack placed under the cantilever beam at a distance of 1m from the beam-
column joint. The load on the pipe was monitored with a load cell attached to the steel
beam cross member below the cantilever beam. The horizontal and vertical
displacements of the pipe interior wall were measured using string potentiometers
installed along the pipe length. Strains were measured using high-resolution strain
gauges placed on the inside of the pipe at the invert, crown, springline, and midway
between haunch and crown, and on the outside of the pipe at the latter two positions, as
indicated by the notation “SG” in the diagram in Figure 25 (b). The pipe was subjected
to 40% of the ultimate load for 30 days in Stage 1, after which the load was removed,
then replaced with a new load at 50% of the ultimate load for another 30 days in Stage
2, and then the load was removed and replaced at 70% of the ultimate load in Stage 3 for
another 30 days. Crack widths were measured using linear variable
transducers (LVDTs) and a feeler gauge. The pipe in the long-term test reported here is
a 1200 mm (48 in.) diameter concrete pipe of length 1.2 m (4 ft) and wall thickness 50
mm (2 in.) with PP fiber reinforcement at a dosage of 9 kg/m3 and a steel reinforcement
mesh with area 5.7 cm2/m (0.27 in2/ft) (Pipe No. 1 in Table 16).
79
(a)
(b)
Figure 25. (a) Photograph and (b) schematic diagram of the long-term test setup.
80
CHAPTER 4 : RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
4.1 Introduction
This chapter provides a discussion of the results obtained during the experimental
tests and numerical simulations of this research. The first section discusses the effect of
adding fiber on the mechanical properties of the concrete material. The next section
discusses the fiber reinforced concrete pipes performance under three-edge bearing load.
Then, the numerical analysis of different pipe diameters reinforced with different fiber
contents and steel areas are discussed. The validating and calibrating finite element
models used to understand synthetic fiber performance are discussed. Then, the
performance of synthetic fiber reinforced concrete pipes with reduced wall thickness are
discussed. Finally, thin-walled synthetic fiber reinforced concrete pipes under sustained
load were discussed.
4.2 Material Properties of Synthetic Fiber Reinforced Concrete under Freeze-Material
Properties
4.2.1 Effect of Adding Fiber on the Mechanical Properties of Concrete
The thermal strain-temperature plots for all air-dried specimens tested using the
Ohio method for the range -60°C to 60°C (-76 to 140 °F) are shown in Figure 26. The
thermal-strain behavior of PP and PVA fiber reinforced concrete is almost linear within
the range from -40 to 60 °C (-40 to 140 °F), and nonlinear from -40 to -60 °C (-40 to -76
°F). The nonlinear behavior may be attributed to the high difference between the coarse
aggregate and hydrated cement past CTEs, which may lead to differential movement
81
between coarse aggregate and the surrounding paste due to the bond failure at large
temperature change (Neville 2011). Also, this behavior may be related to the high CTE
value of synthetic fibers compared to the CTEs of other concrete constituents (Kim et al.,
2008; Sellevold and Bjøntegaard, 2006; Mark, 2009; Tripathi, 2002). For both fiber
types, an increase in dosage led to an increase in the thermal strain, as shown in the
steeper slope in the graph; this increase was higher for PVA fiber. From Figure 26 (a), the
extreme thermal deformations for three dosages of PP fiber ranged from -625 to -656με
at -60°C (-76 °F) and between 722 to 810με at +60°C. Also, for PVA fiber reinforced
concrete specimens, thermal strains varied from -623 to -784με at -60°C (-76 °F), and
between 746 to 908με at +60°C (140 °F), as shown in Figure 26 (b). Comparing fiber
reinforced concrete with plain concrete showed that adding 9 kg/m3(15 lb/yd3) of fiber
increased thermal strain by about 12.62% for PP and 26.32% for PVA fiber reinforced
concrete specimens at 60°C (140 °F). At -60°C (-76 °F), this increase was 16.15% for PP
and 46.35% for PVA fiber reinforced concrete specimens at a temperature of -60°C (-76
°F), respectively. The increase in fiber content led to an increase in the thermal strains of
concrete-fiber matrix, as shown in Fig. 5(a and b). This behavior can be attributed to the
high deformation of synthetic fibers (high CTE, see Table 1) compared to other concrete
constituents, which increases the deformation of fiber reinforced concrete. The PVA fiber
reinforced specimens experienced higher thermal strain than the PP fiber reinforced
specimens (see Figure 26). The difference in thermal strain of the PVA and PP specimens
may be attributed to the properties of each fiber type such as fiber configuration and CTE
value, as listed in Table 1.

82
1000
Plain concrete
800 PP-6 kg/m3
PP-7 kg/m3
600 PP-9 kg/m3
400
Strain (με) 200
0
-200
-400
-600
-800
-1000
-100 -50 0 50 100
Temperature (°C)
(a)
1000
Plain concrete
800 PVA-6 kg/m3
PVA-7 kg/m3
600 PVA-9 kg/m3
400
200
Strain (με)
0
-200
-400
-600
-800
-1000
-100 -50 0 50 100
Temperature (°C)
(b)
Figure 26. Thermal strain-temperature of (a) PP and (b) PVA fiber reinforced specimens.
83
Table 17 summarizes the results of the CTE measurements obtained using the Ohio
method for each material over the temperature ranges: the full range -60°C to 60°C (-76
to140 °F), the lower half range -60°C to 0°C(-76 to 0 °F), and the upper half range 0°C to
60°C (0 to 140 °F). For all three temperature ranges, the CTE increases with fiber dosage,
except in the lower half range where the CTE decreases for PVA dosage of 7 kg/m3 (12
lb/yd3)from that of 6 kg/m3(10 lb/yd3). The increase in CTE with fiber dosage is larger for
PVA fiber than for PP fiber, particularly at the highest dosage, where the increase is 16.73%
for concrete with PP fiber over the full range -60°C to 60°C (-76 to140 °F), and 34.52%
for concrete with PVA fiber. Therefore, the effect of fiber on the concrete structures may
be considered in the design stage of fiber reinforced concrete structures.

84
Table 17. CTE Measured Using Ohio Method Before Applying Freeze-Thaw Cycles.
CTE (10-6 /°C)* Multiply 1/°C by 5/9 to obtain 1/°F
Temp. from COV % Temp. COV % Temp. from COV %

Fiber dosage
Fiber type -60 to 60°C from 0 to 60°C
(kg/m3)
-60 to
0°C
No Fiber 0 10.40 4.17 8.36 8.10 12.00 5.43
PVA 6 11.32 5.39 10.06 4.26 12.59 9.90
PVA 7 11.68 1.37 9.29 9.34 13.66 5.04
PVA 9 13.99 1.37 12.64 4.98 15.07 3.22
PP 6 11.27 8.80 9.98 8.6 12.35 8.13
PP 7 11.56 0.20 10.34 5.50 12.41 3.40
PP 9 12.14 0.76 10.43 0.07 13.48 0.66
* Multiply 1/°C by 5/9 to obtain 1/°F.
The CTEs were also measured for all concrete fiber dosages using the AASHTO
TP60-00 (2007) standard. For convenience in comparing the AASHTO T60-00 (2007)
results with the Ohio method results, the average slope of the strain-temperature curve for
the temperature range from 10°C to 50°C (50 to122 °F) in accordance with AASHTO
T60-00 (2007) was calculated. The CTE results of the two methods are compared in
Table 18. The Ohio method consistently gave greater values than the AASHTO method
for all concrete fiber dosages because the AASHTO method used samples saturated with
water compared to the oven-dried condition of specimens in the Ohio method. According
to ACI 209R-92 (2008) and Neville (1995), increased moisture content reduces the CTE
85
value of normal strength concrete. ACI 209R-92 (2008) specifies corrections to the CTEs
determined from saturated concrete specimens. Therefore, the AASHTO TP60-00 (2007)
CTE values should be corrected for the expected degree of saturation of the concrete
member. In Table 7, the AASHTO method CTE is 13.94% lower than the Ohio method
for concrete without fiber. Also, the CTEs of the specimens reinforced with 9 kg/m3(15
lb/yd3) of PVA and PP are 23. 53% and 17.96% is lower than the Ohio CTE method,
respectively.
The Ohio CTE values represent the severest air-dry condition that the concrete
superstructure may experience. Due to the lack of environmental data regarding fiber
reinforced concrete structures under severe weather conditions, the values of the Ohio CTE
test for the thermal coefficient of expansion may be used for design purposes. The findings
of the Ohio CTE test method also highlighted the significance of using a severe temperature
range to evaluate the thermal effects on the fiber reinforced concrete.

86
Table 18. CTE Results of Ohio CTE Device and AASHTO T60-00.
Fiber type Fiber dosage (kg/m3) CTE (10-6 /°C)* Temp. from 10 to 50°C
Ohio CTE device AASHTO T60
No Fiber 0 11.77 10.33
PVA 6 12.22 10.70
PVA 7 13.56 11.27
PVA 9 14.17 11.47
PP 6 12.52 10.29
PP 7 12.51 11.3
PP 9 13.66 11.58
* Multiply 1/°C by 5/9 to obtain 1/°F.
The dynamic modulus of elasticity was measured for each material according to
the ASTM C215-14 (2014) method described earlier before applying freeze-thaw cycles,
with the results listed in Table 19. Since the fibers have a low modulus of elasticity
compared to the conventional concrete, the fiber reinforced concrete was expected to
have a lower modulus of elasticity than the plain concrete. The PVA fiber reinforced
specimens had elastic modulus values that decreased by 3.8%, 8.6%, and 13% for fiber
dosages 6, 7, and 9 kg/m3 (10, 12, and 15 lb/yd3), respectively compared to plain
concrete; for PP fiber reinforced concrete the corresponding decreases were 1.7%, 4.5%,
and 16%. Therefore, adding fiber increased the flexibility of the concrete material. As a
result, specimens reinforced with synthetic fiber endure high deformations before
showing structural damage compared to the plain concrete. The results of the present
87
study concur with the findings from past research by Çavdar (2014) showing that adding
synthetic fibers decrease the dynamic modulus of elasticity.
Table 19. Dynamic Modulus of Elasticity of Concrete Prisms with Different Fiber Dosages.
Fiber dosage, Fiber type Average Dynamic modulus of elasticity ,

COV (%)
kg/m3 (lb/yd3) MPa (ksi)
0 No Fiber 44602 (6469) 2.55
6 (10) PVA 42899 (6222) 3.01
7 (12) 40755 (5911) 2.58
9 (15) 38707 (5614) 0.82
6 (10) PP 43851 (6360) 1.15
7 (12) 42617 (6181) 1.98
9 (15) 37432 (5429) 3.32
Flexural Performance
The flexural strength results for plain and fiber reinforced concrete specimens are
listed in Table 20. Adding fiber increased the flexural strength of the concrete
significantly in an amount proportional to the fiber type and dosage. This improvement in
flexural strength was expected since concrete is a brittle material. Adding fiber enhanced
the flexural strength of the concrete because of the fibers ability to bridge micro and
macro cracks (Banthia and Sappakittipakorn, 2007). The flexural increased by 15%, 24%,
and 43% for fiber dosages 6, 7, and 9 kg/m3 (10, 12, and 15 lb/yd3),, respectively
compared to plain concrete; for PP fiber reinforced concrete the corresponding increases
were 17.3%, 17.4%, and 51%. PP fiber reinforcement provided more improvement than
88
PVA fiber reinforcement due to the differences in the geometrical properties of the fibers,
such as length and diameter. PP fiber has surface area more than PVA fiber based on
physical properties listed in Table 1 . Therefore, it was expected that PP fiber specimens
to have more bending tensile strength compared to the PVA fiber reinforced specimens as
well as plain concrete. Figure 27 illustrates the load-deflection curves of PP (Figure 27a)
and PVA (Figure 27b) fiber reinforced concrete prisms with different fiber dosages. The
PP reinforced concrete showed better load capacity and post-cracking load performance
than the PVA fiber reinforced specimens. This can be explained by the greater ductility
of PP fiber compared to PVA fiber. At 3 mm deflection, which is the serviceability
deflection specified by ASTM C1609/1609M-15 (2015b), most PVA fibers had pulled
out from the concrete while PP fibers were still engaged. This behavior is mainly
attributed to the configuration of each fiber type. PP fiber have more surface area than
PVA fiber, resulting in high bond strength between PP fiber and surrounding concrete
matrix. This led to larger cracks in the PVA fiber reinforced specimens than the PP fiber
reinforced specimens, which can be seen in Figure 28, which shows the crack width at 3
mm deflection for PP (see Figure 28a) and PVA (see Figure 28b) fiber reinforced
concrete prisms at a dosage of 7 kg/m3 (12lb/yd3).

89
Table 20 Flexural Strength of Fiber Reinforced Concrete.
Fiber dosage, Average Flexural strength, COV (%)

Fiber type
kg/m3 (lb/yd3) MPa (psi)
0 No Fiber 5.43 (787.55) 2.25
6 (10) PVA 6.25 (906.48) 2.98
7 (12) 6.76 (980.45) 4.36
9 (15) 7.76 (1125.49) 3.15
6 (10) PP 6.37 (923.89) 5.12
7 (12) 6.92 (924.76) 3.55
9 (15) 8.20 (1189.31) 5.56

90
20
Plain concrete
PP-6 kg/m3
PP-7 kg/m3
16 PP-9 kg/m3
12
Load (kN)
8
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Deflection (mm)
(a)
20
Plain concrete
PVA-6 Kg/m3
PVA-7 Kg/m3
16 PVA-9 Kg/m3
12
Load (kN)
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Deflection (mm)
(b)
Figure 27. Load versus deflection plots of (a) PP and (b) PVA fiber reinforced specimens.
(Note: 1 kN = 0.2248 kip; 1 mm = 0.0394 in).

91
(a) (b)
Figure 28. The crack width of (a) PP and (b) PVA fiber reinforced specimens. (Note: 1
mm = 0.0394 in).
4.3 Effect of Freeze-Thaw Cycles on the Mechanical Properties of Fiber Reinforced
Concrete
Repeated freezing and thawing of concrete initiates micro cracking in concrete
that breaks contact between concrete constituents and causes loss of structural integrity.
Micro cracking is expected to impact various material properties of the concrete, while
the reinforcing fibers are expected to counteract these effects by holding concrete pieces
together.
The effect of freeze-thaw cycles on the CTE of fiber reinforced and plain concrete
is shown in Figure 29. The CTE specimens were tested every 100 cycles. The plain
concrete showed a decrease in the CTE value by 15% after 200 freeze-thaw cycles; after
92
300 cycles, the specimens had deteriorated too much to measure the CTE. Micro cracks
due to freezing-thawing cycles break the bond between the concrete constituents, and
then causing the concrete specimens to lose their integrity to expand/contract as unit
structure. Thus, the plain concrete showed a decrease in the CTE.
The CTE of PVA fiber reinforced concrete specimens increased after 300 cycles
by 12% for fiber dosage of 7 kg/m3 and 14.5% for fiber dosage of 9 kg/m3. The CTE of
the 6 kg/m3 PVA fiber dosed cement declined by 1.8% compared to the CTE at zero
cycle, which suggests that this fiber dosage was not sufficient to bridge all microcracks
initiated due to freeze-thaw cycles. The CTE of PP fiber reinforced concrete specimens
increased by 12%, 4.4%, and 14.7% with fiber dosages of 6, 7, and 9 kg/m 3 (10, 12, and
15 lb/yd3),, respectively. Therefore, the higher CTE in fiber reinforced concrete after 300
freeze-thaw cycles can be attributed to the higher CTE of the fiber materials bridging the
microcracks that cause the specimens to expand/contract with high thermal strain, as
shown in Figure 30. Based on these results, the optimum fiber dosage was found to 7
kg/m3 (12 lb/yd3) for both fiber types, which shows the least increase in the CTE.
93
16
14
12
CTE (10-6/°C)
10
4
Plain concrete
2 PVA-6 kg/m3
PVA-7 kg/m3
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Number of freeze-thaw cycles
(a)
16
14
12
CTE (10-6/°C)
10
4
Plain concrete
2 PP-6 kg/m3
PP-7 kg/m3
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
(b)
Figure 29. CTE versus freeze-thaw cycles: (a) PVA and; (b) PP fiber reinforced concrete
specimens. (Note: Multiply 1/°C by 5/9 to obtain 1/°F.)

94
Cracks in the interface between

coarse aggregate and cement
mortar
Cracks in adhering mortar
Figure 30. The damage in the meso-structure of PVA fiber reinforced specimen with fiber
dosage of 7 kg/m3 (12 lb/yd3).
Mass Lost
Figure 31 illustrates the change in the concrete prism masses over 300 freeze-
thaw cycles as a fraction of the original specimen mass. Both PP and PVA fiber
reinforced concrete prisms showed different percentages of mass loss after applying 300
cycles. PP fiber reinforced specimens showed loss in the mass by 0.41%, 0.88%, and
4.90% at fiber dosage of 6 kg/m3, 7 kg/m3, and 9 kg/m3(10, 12, and 15 lb/yd3),,
respectively, while PVA fiber reinforced specimens lost 1.50%, 0.06%, and 0.16%,
respectively. Plain concrete showed a noticeable decrease in mass, especially after the
120 freeze-thaw cycles, eventually losing 74% of its mass after 300 cycles. This massive
reduction in the plain concrete mass can be attributed to water expansion when it freezes
in the concrete matrix pores (Gruebl 1980; Korhonen 2002; Setzer and Liebrecht 2002).
This mechanism exerts pressure on the pore walls. When the applied pressure exceeds the
tensile strength of the concrete material, micro cracks start to propagate causing an
95
increase in the pore volume of the concrete matrix. As a result, the deterioration increases
after each cycle causing the specimens to lose their integrity and losing more mass. On
the other hand, fiber reinforced specimens showed better performance due to fiber
presence connecting the concrete constituents compared with the plain concrete
specimens. Therefore, Synthetic fiber increased the durability of the concrete material
under these freeze-thaw conditions.

96
1.1
1
0.9
0.8
Normalized mass 0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4 Plain concrete
PP-6 Kg/m3
0.3 PP-7 Kg/m3
PP-9 Kg/m3
0.2
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
(a)
1.1
1
0.9
0.8
Normalized mass
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4 Plain concrete
PVA-6 Kg/m3
0.3 PVA-7 Kg/m3
PVA-9 Kg/m3
0.2
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
(b)
Figure 31. Mass of fiber reinforced concrete prisms as a function of freeze-thaw cycles:
(a) PP and (b) PVA fiber reinforcement.

97
Figure 32 shows the effect of freeze-thaw cycles on the dynamic modulus of
elasticity of concrete specimens. For the plain concrete specimens, it was difficult to
measure the dynamic modulus of elasticity after 120 freeze-thaw cycles due to specimen
disintegration. The dynamic modulus of elasticity of PP fiber reinforced concrete prisms
decreased by about 12%, 9%, and 51% at fiber dosages of 6, 7, and 9 kg/m3(10, 12, and
15 lb/yd3), respectively, after 300 freeze-thaw cycles. Since the relationship between the
dynamic modulus of elasticity and the unit mass is proportional, there was also a decrease
in the dynamic modulus of elasticity. Another reason for the dynamic modulus reduction
is that when the specimen undergoes more freeze-thaw cycles, the fundamental transverse
frequency decreases as a result of material deterioration
The steep decrease in the dynamic modulus of elasticity for concrete with PP fiber
at the dosage of 9 kg/m3(15 lb/yd3) is due to the increase in the surface area of the mortar
matrix, which could lead to reduced workability of the concrete mixture (Karahan and
Atiş, 2011; Salih and Al-Azaawee, 2008; Raghavan et al. 1998; Zhong, 2007). The
reduction in the concrete mixture workability will increase the number of permeable
voids, which leads to tensile stresses in the surrounding matrix when water freezes in the
voids. If these stresses exceed the maximum concrete tensile strength, microcracking will
occur (Neville and Brooks, 1993). Adding fiber to the concrete mixture will reduce
bleeding and segregation during concrete mixing and create a grid structure supporting
concrete material structure along with the aggregate (Bagherzadeh et al. 2011), which
creates more air voids and can improve the durability of the concrete. Also, Huang (1997
98
and 2001) and Karahan and Atiş (2011) stated that fiber inclusion in the concrete material
increased the number of large pores and water absorption. This implies that the increase
in water absorption is due to voids caused by fiber addition. However, at a PP fiber
dosage of 9 kg/m3, the limited space between fibers made interface areas overlap each
other, which has a detrimental effect on the freeze-thaw durability and leads to a
reduction in the dynamic modulus of elasticity.
PVA fiber reinforced specimens showed a reduction in dynamic modulus of
elasticity by 5.4%, 1.6%, and 1 % for fiber dosages of 6, 7, and 9 kg/m3, respectively,
after 300 freeze-thaw cycles. Comparing the dynamic modulus of elasticity for both fiber
types showed that the PVA fiber reinforced specimens experienced less reduction than PP
fiber reinforced specimens, especially, with fiber dosage of 9kg/m3 (15 lb/yd3), after 300
freeze-thaw cycles. This mainly could be related to fiber configuration. The PP fiber has
a length and diameter greater than the PVA fiber, which could lead to more water
absorption (Bagherzadeh et al. 2012). As a result, the PP fiber reinforced specimens
could experience more micro-cracks due to the freeze-thaw cycles than the PVA fiber
reinforced specimens, which may reduce the dynamic modulus of elasticity. The best
performance was found to be with using fiber dosage of 9 and 7 kg/m3 (12 and 15 lb/yd3),
for PVA and PP fiber reinforced specimens, respectively, which maintained the highest
dynamic modulus of elasticity after 300 freeze-thaw cycles.

99
50000
45000
Dynamic Modulus of elasticity (MPa)

40000
35000
30000
25000
20000
15000
10000 Plain concrete
PP-6 Kg/m3
5000 PP-7 Kg/m3
PP-9 Kg/m3
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
(a)
50000
45000
Dynamic Modulus of elasticity (MPa)
40000
35000
30000
25000
20000
15000
Plain concrete
10000
PVA-6 Kg/m3
5000 PVA-9 Kg/m3
PVA-7 Kg/m3
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
(b)
Figure 32. Dynamic modulus of elasticity versus freeze-thaw cycles: (a) PP and (b) PVA
fiber reinforced specimens. (Note: 1 MPa = 0.145 ksi)

100
Flexural Performance
Figure 33 shows that synthetic fiber minimized the reduction in the flexural
strength by freezing and thawing compared with plain concrete. After 300 freeze-thaw
cycles, the flexural strength of PP fiber reinforced specimens decreased by 36 %, 19%,
and 78% for fiber dosages of 6, 7, and 9 kg/m3(10, 12, and 15 lb/yd3),, respectively. As
the fiber dosage increased from 6 to 7kg/m3, the flexural strength resistance to the freeze-
thaw cycle increased by about 50%. Using low fiber, lower than 7kg/m3, may not be
enough to link all micro cracks propagated due to freeze-thaw cycles. Specimens with 9
kg/m3 showed lower resistance to the freeze-thaw effects compared to lower dosages.
Adding fiber to the concrete material increases the entrained air voids, while the fibers
tend to block capillary pores in concrete specimens, which reduces water ingress
(Richardson, 2003). As a result of these processes, less water absorption and better
freeze-thaw resistance are expected. However, according to the United States Department
of Agriculture (USDA), natural resources conservation service (USDA, 1976), once air
content increases past 12% there is a significant decrease in durability. Richardson et al.
(2012) noted that adding 0.9 kg/m3 of PP fiber increased air concrete by 1.5%. The
maximum PP fiber dosage of 9 kg/m3 (15 lb/yd3), employed in this study is ten times that
was used by Richardson et al. (2012), which could produce air content over 12%.
Increasing the fiber dosage while maintaining the same water-to-cement ratio will
decrease the workability of the concrete mixture due to the increase in the surface area
and increase the possibility of creating new air voids. When water goes inside theses
voids and solidifies at the freeze phase, high stresses will be generated within the
101
concrete, leading to damage. For PVA fiber reinforced concrete, increased fiber dosage
improved the resistance to the freeze-thaw cycles until the optimum fiber was reached.
After this point, a reduction in the flexural strength was observed. The reduction in the
flexural strength of PVA fiber reinforced concrete was 33%, 22%, and 27% at fiber
dosages of 6, 7, and 9 kg/m3(10, 12, and 15 lb/yd3), respectively. The best MOR
performance under freeze-thaw conditions appeared at fiber dosage of 7 kg/m3 for PP and
PVA fibers, which suggests there is an optimum fiber dosage. It is recommended,
however, that the optimum fiber dosage be investigated further for each fiber type.
102
9
8
7
6
Flexural strength (MPa) 5

4
3
2 Plain concrete
PVA-6 kg/m3
1 PVA-7 kg/m3
PVA-9 kg/m3
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Number of cycles
(a)
9
8
7
Flexural strength(Mpa)
6
5
4
3
Plain concrete
2
PP-6 kg/m3
1 PP-7 kg/m3
PP-9 kg/m3
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Number of cycles
(b)
Figure 33. Flexural strength versus freeze-thaw cycles for concrete reinforced with (a)
PVA and (b) PP fiber. (Note: 1 MPa = 0.145 ksi)

103
Figure 34 and Figure 35 depict the load deflection response of prisms reinforced
with PVA and PP fibers before and after applying 300 freeze-thaw cycles, respectively.
The deflection increased linearly with applied load until the first crack. After the first
crack, an abrupt decrease in the applied load was observed. The magnitude of the load
reduction after the first crack for 300 freeze-thaw cycles load-deflection response was
small compared to the zero-cycle load reduction. This mainly can be attributed to the
existence of micro cracks propagated after 300 cycles. Beyond the first crack, the PVA
fiber reinforced specimens showed a deflection hardening response followed by a steep
decrease in the applied due to fiber pull-out or rapture. This steep decrease in the load
deflection response was greater after 300 cycles than zero cycle. This may be related to
the weakness in bond strength between fiber and surrounding matrix due to freeze-thaw
cycles. On the other hand, PP fiber reinforced specimens showed a deflection hardening
behavior after the first crack even after 300 cycles. This type of fiber has a surface area
greater than PVA fiber, which increased the bond strength between fiber and concrete
components. Therefore, the possibility of failure under certain loads for PVA fiber
reinforced specimens is greater than PP fiber reinforced specimens. In general, fiber
reinforced concrete showed consistently better performance compared to plain concrete
with improved resistance to freeze-thaw cycles. Past research by Allan and Kukacka
(1995) indicated adding fiber did not significantly improve freeze-thaw durability, while
this study shows using synthetic fiber enhanced concrete durability against the freeze-
thaw cycles. Also, this study contributes to the literature by providing more data on
freeze-thaw resistance of concrete containing PP and PVA fibers.

104
16
14 PVA-6 Kg/m3-0C
12 PVA-6 Kg/m3-300C
Load (kN)
10
8
6
4
2
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Deflection (mm)
(a)
16
PVA-7 Kg/m3-0C
14 PVA-7 Kg/m3-300C
12
Load (kN)
10
8
6
4
2
0
0 2 4
Deflection (mm)
(b)
16
PVA-9 Kg/m3-0C
14 PVA-9 Kg/m3-300C
12
Load (kN)
10
8
6
4
2
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Deflection (mm)
(c)
Figure 34. Load versus deflection of prisms reinforced with PVA fiber with different
kg/m3(12 lb/yd3); (c) 9 kg/m3 (15 lb/yd3). (Note: 1 kN = 0.2248 kip; 1 mm = 0.0394 in)
105
15
Load (kN)
10
5
PP-6 Kg/m3-0C
PP-6 Kg/m3-300C
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Deflection (mm)
(a)
15
10
Load (kN)
5
PP-7 Kg/m3-0C
PP-7 Kg/m3-300C
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Deflection (mm)
(b)
15
10
Load (N)
PP-9 Kg/m3-0C
5 PP-9 Kg/m3-300C
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Deflection (mm)
(c)
Figure 35. Load versus deflection of prisms reinforced with PP fiber with different
kg/m3(12 lb/yd3); (c) 9 kg/m3 (15 lb/yd3). (Note: 1 kN = 0.2248 kip; 1 mm = 0.0394 in).
106
4.4 Evaluation of Synthetic Fiber Reinforced Concrete Pipe Performance Using Three-
Edge Bearing Test
4.4.1 Load-deflection Response
Load-deflection curves for concrete pipes of diameter 600, 1200, and 1500 mm
(24, 48, and 60 in.) are shown in Figure 36, Figure 37, and Figure 38, respectively. A
label with four numerals separated by hyphens was created to distinguish each tested
pipe. For example, in the label 600-9-1.5-1, the first numeral represents the pipe diameter
in mm (600 mm (24 in.) ), the second numeral represents the fiber dosage in kg/m3 (9
kg/m3), the third numeral represents the amount of steel reinforcement in cm2/m (1.5
cm2/m [0.07 in2/ft]; 0 indicates no steel), and the fourth numeral represents the specimen
number of that type (1 denotes the first of two pipes with these properties.). Due to
differences in pipe lengths used in this study, the applied load was normalized by
dividing the load by the ratio of the pipe length to the shortest pipe length, 1.2 m. The
vertical displacement represents the average readings of three displacement transducers
installed along the tested pipe.
For the 600 mm (24 in.), concrete pipe diameter without steel reinforcement,
Figure 36(a) shows the load-deflection behavior of pipes reinforced with fiber dosage 9
and 18 kg/m3. Pipes reinforced with fiber dosage of 9 kg/m3 showed a linear behavior
until the first crack and then deflection softening behavior. With a fiber dosage of 18
kg/m3, the 600 mm (24 in.) pipe diameter had a significant enhancement in load
deflection response; as there was deflection hardening after the first crack. Also, the
average first crack and the ultimate loads increased by 8.22% and 26.80%, respectively,
107
for the higher fiber dose. Figure 36(b) shows that including 18 kg/m3 fiber dosage with
steel reinforcement improved the load-defection behavior as average cracking, and
ultimate loads increased by 11.0% and 4.95% compared to the pipe reinforced with a
one-layer steel cage and fiber dosage of 9 kg/m3. In addition, increasing fiber dosage
limited the instability regions after the first crack due to the increase in the concrete
matrix strength due to the increased number of fibers resisting crack propagation. For the
1200 mm (48 in.) pipe diameter, Figure 37(b) shows the load deflection behavior of
using synthetic fiber as sole reinforcement at the dosages of 4.75 and 9 kg/m3 (8 to 15
lb/yd3) as well as a plain concrete pipe shown in Figure 37(a). It can be seen that the
cracking load (produces 0.3 mm crack width) of plain concrete pipe coincides with its
ultimate load. This due to the brittle behavior of plain concrete. The cracking load also
matches the ultimate load of pipes tested with fiber dosage of 4.75 and 9 kg/m3 as sole
reinforcement; however, these load values for the pipes with fiber were considerably
larger than for the plain concrete pipes: 21.21% (4.98%) and 31.0% (10.0%) larger
cracking (ultimate) loads. The tested pipes exhibited a softening deflection behavior after
reaching its cracking load. Using synthetic fiber as sole reinforcement enhanced the load
capacity, ductility, and post-cracking behavior of tested pipes due to the fibers’ tendency
to resist the propagated cracks. The load deflection curves depicted in Figure 37(c - e)
represent the 1200 mm (48 in.) concrete pipe diameter behavior reinforced using one
steel cage reinforcement layer with fiber dosages of 4.75, 9, 13.5, and 18 kg/m3.
Increasing fiber dosage enhanced the cracking, ultimate load, post-cracking behavior, and
the ductility of the pipes with the steel reinforcement. The cracking load of concrete pipe
108
reinforced with one steel cage layer and fiber dosage of 9, 13.5, and 18 kg/m3 increased
by 3.70, 8.60, and 29.15%, respectively, compared to 1200 mm (48 in.) pipes diameter
reinforced with fiber dosage of 4.75 kg/m3 while the ultimate load increased by 14.77,
16.83, and 43.27%, respectively. The effect of increasing fiber dosage on the response of
the 1200 mm (48 in.) pipes under the three-edge bearing test was more effective than the
effect of increasing fiber dosage on the 600 mm (24 in.) diameter pipe.
For 1500 mm pipe diameter, pipes were reinforced with synthetic fiber dosages of
9, 13.5, and 18 kg/m3 along with one-layer steel cage, as shown in Figure 38(a-c).
Increasing fiber dosage enhanced cracking and ultimate load. Cracking load increased by
15.60 and 19.55% with fiber dosage of 13.5 and 18 kg/m3, respectively. Ultimate load
increased by 26.48 and 33.07% with fiber dosage of 13.5, and 18 kg/m3, respectively.
The effect of incorporating synthetic fiber on both cracking and ultimate load was more
noticeable than concrete pipe diameter of 600 m and 1200 mm as pipe thickness
increased to 1500 mm, which confirms the observed trend of the increased fiber dosage
to yield greater improvement resistance to applied loads for larger diameter pipes.
All specimens reinforced with synthetic fiber surpassed 2% deflection of their
inside diameter with high load capacity. This indicates that buried synthetic fiber
reinforced concrete pipe could interact with the surrounding soil and carry more load than
expected. The inclusion of synthetic fiber enhanced the cracking load, ultimate load,
flexibility, stability, and ductility for all tested pipes. The size of this enhancement is
related to two factors. The first factor is the pipe diameter. For small diameter pipes, the
primary failure mode is flexural control, which means that fibers resist flexural cracks.
109
As concrete pipe diameter increases, different failure mechanisms become critical such as
radial and diagonal failures, and due to fiber dispersion in the concrete pipe wall, more
fibers are engaged to resist these failure modes. The second factor that affects the amount
of enhancement is the pipe wall thickness. As pipe wall thickness increases, better fiber
dispersion is expected, and then fiber more efficiently resists the applied load. Thus,
concrete pipes with a diameter of 1200 mm and 1500 mm (48 and 60 in.) exhibited better
performance in terms of load carrying capacity than the 600 mm (24 in.) pipes. More
studies are required to show the effect of using fiber dosages greater than 18 kg/m3 (30
lb/yd3) on load carrying capacity.

110
350
600-9-0-1
300 600-9-0-2
600-18-0-1
600-18-0-2
250
Load (kN)
200
150
100
50 2% deflection
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Deflection (mm)
(a)
350
600-9-1.5-1
600-9-1.5-2
300 600-18-1.5-1
250
Load (kN)
200
150
100
50
2% deflection
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Deflection (mm)
(b)
Figure 36. Load deflection curves of 600 mm (24 in.) pipe diameter reinforced with: (a)
synthetic fiber only; (b) synthetic fiber with one steel cage layer. (Note: 1 kN = 0.2248
kip; 1 mm = 0.0394 in)

111
350
1200-0-0-1
300 1200-0-0-2
1200-0-0-3
250
Load (kN.)
200
150
100
50
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Deflection (mm)
(a)
350
1200-4.75-0-1
1200-4.75-0-2
300 1200-4.75-0-3
1200-9-0-1
250 1200-9-0-2
1200-9-0-3
Load (kN.)
200
150
100 2% deflection ratio
50
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Deflection (mm)
(b)
112
350
1200-4.75-5.1-1
300 1200-4.75-5.1-2
250
Load (kN.)
200
150
100
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Deflection (mm)
(c)
350
1200-9-5.1-1
1200-9-5.1-2
300
1200-9-5.1-3
250
Load (kN.)
200
150
100
2% deflection ratio
50
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Deflection (mm)
(d)
113
350
1200-13.5-5.1-1
1200-13.5-5.1-2
300
1200-13.5-5.1-3
250
Load (kN)
200
150
100
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Deflection (mm)
(e)
350
1200-18-5.1-1
1200-18-5.1-2
300 1200-18-5.1-3
250
Load (kN)
200
150
100
2% deflection ratio
50
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Deflection (mm)
(f)
Figure 37. Load deflection curves of 1200 mm (48 in.) pipes diameter: (a) plain concrete
pipes; (b), pipes reinforced with fiber dosage of 4.75 and 9 kg/m3; (b, c, d, e, and f) pipes
reinforced with fiber dosage of 4.75, 9, 13.5, and 18 kg/m3, respectively, along with one
steel cage layer. (Note: 1 kN = 0.2248 kip; 1 mm = 0.0394 in).

114
350
1500-9-5.1-1
300 1500-9-5.1-2
1500-9-5.1-3
250
Load (kN.) 200
150 2%
deflection ratio
100
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Deflection (mm)
(a)
350
1500-13.5-5.1-1
1500-13.5-5.1-2
300
1500-13.5-5.1-3
250
Load (kN)
200
150
100
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Deflection (mm)
(b)
115
350
300
250
Load (kN)
200
150
100
1500-18-5.1-1
50 1500-18-5.1-2 2% deflection ratio
1500-18-5.1-3
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Deflection (mm)
(c)
Figure 38. Load deflection curves of 1500 mm pipe diameter reinforced with one steel
cage layer along with fiber dosage of: (a) 9 kg/m3 ;(b) 13.5 kg/m3 ;(c) 18 kg/m3. (Note: 1
kN = 0.2248 kip; 1 mm = 0.0394 in)
4.4.2 Failure Mechanism
The crack opening was monitored while applying load to measure the crack width
and observe fiber failure. The main failure mechanism observed for the test pipes was a
flexural failure. This mode was characterized by longitudinal cracks at the inside face of
the crown and invert as well as along outside face of the spring lines, as shown in Figure
39. As it can be seen, the largest crack was at the highest flexural tension stresses zone.
Also, longitudinal cracks with a small width were observed. These multiple cracking
patterns resulted in the pipe actually deflecting more than a non-fiber reinforced pipe.
The negative of this benefit is the increase in strain on the fibers, which are time-
116
dependent materials. A greater discussion of this critical design issue is a principle
interest in developing a structural design criterion for this product. Other failure
mechanisms such as radial and diagonal cracks associated with large concrete pipes
diameter were observed at high load rates. This can be attributed to fiber ability to
distribute the stresses to a greater degree.
Figure 39. Crack development of concrete pipes: 1200 mm (48 in.).
4.4.3 ASTM Strength Requirements
According to ASTM C76 (ASTM 2015), concrete pipes are classified into five
Classes, numbered I through V, based on the strength required for each class, as listed in
Table 5. It should be mentioned that pipe diameters of 600 mm (24 in.) and 1200 mm
appear in all classes except Class I. In order to validate the strength of fiber reinforced
concrete pipes, the strength results (loads that produce 0.3 mm crack width and ultimate
117
load) were compared to those specified by ASTM C76 (2015). The results of cracking
load and ultimate load for all tested concrete pips are summarized in
Table 21. The average coefficient of variation (COV) ranged from 0.73% to
28.81% for cracking load, and from 1.73% to 17.91% for ultimate load. Based on these
results, concrete pipes with a diameter of 600 mm (24 in.) reinforced with fiber dosage
of 9 and 18 kg/m3 (15 and 30 lb/yd3) as only reinforcement met the cracking load and
ultimate load requirements specified by ASTM C76 (ASTM 2015) as Class II and III.
Adding these fiber dosages eliminated the use of steel reinforcement without
compromising the strength requirements specified by ASTM standard. Another
advantage of using fiber reinforcement is the reduction of the total cost as the fiber is
considerably cheaper than steel reinforcement. In order to meet strength requirements of
Class IV and Class V that demand high strength requirements, minimum steel
reinforcement of one layer of cage with 1.5 cm2/m (0.07 in2/ft) area placed at 25.4 mm
from the inside diameter was used. Concrete pipes with a diameter of 600 mm (24 in.)
reinforced with steel cage of one layer and fiber dosage of 9 and 18 kg/m3 met the
strength requirements of Class IV. These fiber dosages with minimum steel
reinforcement helped reduce 85.84% of the steel reinforcement area compared with the
conventional steel reinforcement of concrete pipe for the same class. However, the
cracking load results did not meet the cracking load specified for Class V even though the
ultimate load of fiber reinforced concrete pipes exceeded Class V’s ultimate load.
Concrete pipes with a diameter of 1200 mm (48 in.) reinforced purely with synthetic
118
fiber dosage of 4.79 and 9 kg/m3 met the strength requirements for any class. Therefore,
using one steel cage layer along with synthetic fibers was necessary. The results of crack
and ultimate load of 1200 mm (48 in.) diameter pipes reinforced with fiber dosage of
4.75, 9, and 13.5 kg/m3 along with one steel cage layer exceeded the strength
requirements of pipes Class II and Class III. Moreover, strength results of 1200 mm (48
in.) diameter concrete pipes reinforced with 18 kg/m3 fulfilled the strength requirements
of ASTM C76 (ASTM 2015) Class II, III, and IV. The reduction in steel reinforcement
area associated with incorporating synthetic fiber and one steel cage layer was 51.02%,
63.07%, and 78.76% for Class II, III, and IV, respectively. Since only fiber reinforcement
was not enough for 1200 m pipe diameter to meet the stranded specifications under all
classes, concrete pipes with a diameter of 1500 mm were reinforced with synthetic fiber
as well as one steel cage layer with area of 5.1 cm2/m. The strength results of 1500 mm
pipes diameter reinforced with 13.5, and 18 kg/m3 along with one steel cage layer
satisfied the strength requirements of pipes Class I, II, III, and IV. Moreover, pipes
reinforced with 9 kg/m3 along with one steel cage layer satisfied the strength
requirements of pipes Class I, II, III. The reduction in steel reinforcement cage area
associated with incorporating synthetic fiber with one steel cage layer was 57.14%,
63.63%, 73.91%, and 85% for Class I, II, III, and IV, respectively.
The outcomes reported previously concur with past research (Peyvandi et al.,
2013 and 2014; de la Fuente et al., 2014; Park et al., 2014; Wilson and Abolmaali, 2014)
that using synthetic fiber can be a suitable replacement for the reinforcement steel cage in
precast concrete pipes. However, it should be mentioned that the results reported above
119
could be different from manufacturer to another. For example, comparing the results of
600 mm (24 in.) reported by (Wilson et al., 2014) shows a difference in the fiber dosage
that achieves strength requirements from manufacturing plant to another. This can be
attributed to differences in the material used in the mix design such coarse aggregate, w/c
ratio, etc. The achieved strength is a function of the synthetic fiber content, pipe wall
thickness, and pipe diameter.
Table 21. Summary of the Crack and Ultimate Loads of Tested Pipes
Cracking
COV Ultimate load COV
No Pipe load Average Average
(%) (kN/m/m) (%)
(kN/m/m)
1 600-9-0-1 115.29 116.35
118.33 3.64 118.86 3.0
2 600-9-0-2 121.38 121.38
3 600-9-1.5-1 123.39 229.20
120.32 3.6 232.55 2.03
4 600-9-1.5-2 117.26 235.90
5 600-18-0-1 121.19 154.43
128.06 7.58 150.72 3.48
6 600-18-0-2 134.93 147.00
7 600-18-1.5-1 133.54 133.54 - 244.10 244.10 -
8 1200-0-0-1 46.85 58.77
9 1200-0-0-2 46.85 47.88 3.75 54.99 57.03 3.34
10 1200-0-0-3 49.96 57.34
11 1200-4.75-0-1 61.31 66.77
12 1200-4.75-0-2 58.72 58.05 6.26 58.72 59.87 10.68
13 1200-4.75-0-3 54.13 54.13
14 1200-4.75-5.1-1 79.42 117.98
79.01 0.73 119.44 1.73
15 1200-4.75-5.1-2 78.60 120.90
16 1200-9-0-1 66.24 66.24
17 1200-9-0-2 58.87 62.73 5.89 58.87 62.73 5.89
18 1200-9-0-3 63.08 63.08
19 1200-9-5.1-1 80.09 123.77
81.96 2.09 137.09 9.89
20 1200-9-5.1-2 83.44 150.88
120
21 1200-9-5.1-3 82.34 136.61

22 1200-13.5-5.1-1 86.07 119.40
23 1200-13.5-5.1-2 86.84 85.83 1.33 140.06 139.55 14.26
24 1200-13.5-5.1-3 84.59 159.18
25 1200-18-5.1-1 74.84 150.65
26 1200-18-5.1-2 133.22 102.04 28.81 201.87 171.14 15.84
27 1200-18-5.1-3 98.04 160.90
28 1500-9-5.1-1 71.85 100.33
29 1500-9-5.1-2 105.07 90.31 18.73 143.68 121.24 17.91
30 1500-9-5.1-3 94.00 119.71
31 1500-13.5-5.1-1 99.99 148.47
32 1500-13.5-5.1-2 106.58 104.38 3.64 151.61 153.34 3.87
33 1500-13.5-5.1-3 106.58 159.96
34 1500-18-5.1-1 100.59 147.54
35 1500-18-5.1-2 101.79 107.97 10.90 174.34 161.34 8.32
36 1500-18-5.1-3 121.54 162.12
(Note: 1 kN = 0.2248 kip; 1 m = 3.28 ft;1 mm = 0.0394 in).
4.4.4 Stiffness of Synthetic Fiber Reinforced Concrete Pipes
Based on most US standards, pipes are considered flexible if they can deflect more
than 2% of their inside diameter. Most of the tested fiber reinforced pipes exhibited
deflection of more than 2% of their inside diameter with superior stiffness and retained
strength compared to other kinds of flexible pipes such as corrugated metal pipes and
high-density polyethylene pipes specified by AASHTO M294 (AASHTO 2011). The
results of all concrete pipes stiffness at 2% deflection are summarized in Table 22. The
COV of stiffness results ranged from 0.44 to 21.17%. Stiffness was calculated by
dividing the applied load by the corresponding deflection and the length of the pipe.
121
Table 22. Stiffness Results at 2% Deflection Ratio.
No Pipe Stiff. /length (kN/m/m) Average (kN/m/m) COV (%)
1 600-9-0-1 - 5204.25 -
2 600-9-0-2 5204.25
3 600-9-1.5-1 10379.91 10347.61 0.44
4 600-9-1.5-2 10315.31
5 600-18-0-1 7362.31 7144.68 4.31
6 600-18-0-2 6927.05
7 600-18-1.5-1 10578.41 10578.41 -
8 1200-0-0-1* - - -
9 1200-0-0-2* -
10 1200-0-0-3* -
11 1200-4.75-0-1* - 961.21 4.69
12 1200-4.75-0-2 993.1
13 1200-4.75-0-3 929.31
14 1200-4.75-5.1-1 5961.34 5909.10 1.25
15 1200-4.75-5.1-2 5856.85
16 1200-9-0-1* - 2125.10 -
17 1200-9-0-2* -
18 1200-9-0-3* 2125.1
19 1200-9-5.1-1 5921.01 6455.01 8.62
20 1200-9-5.1-2 7030.92
21 1200-9-5.1-3 6413.09
22 1200-13.5-5.1-1 5911.06 6621.16 11.45
23 1200-13.5-5.1-2 6533.01
24 1200-13.5-5.1-3 7419.41
25 1200-18-5.1-1 7167.06 7898.89 11.26
26 1200-18-5.1-2 8889.13
27 1200-18-5.1-3 7640.47
28 1500-9-5.1-1 4675.25 5825.66 21.17
29 1500-9-5.1-2 7127.91
30 1500-9-5.1-3 5673.81
31 1500-13.5-5.1-1 5747.01 6997.32 15.64
32 1500-13.5-5.1-2 7463.88
33 1500-13.5-5.1-3 7781.07
34 1500-18-5.1-1 7122.9 7923.35 9.39
35 1500-18-5.1-2 8593.21
36 1500-18-5.1-3 8053.93
*Unavailable data at 2% deflection ratio. (Note: 1 kN = 0.2248 kip; 1 m = 3.28 ft).

122
Inclusion of fiber with zero-slump concrete mixture improved the stiffness of
concrete pipes significantly due to fibers’ tendency to bridge cracks, and as result increased
load capacity. The pipes with a diameter of 600 mm (24 in.) reinforced with synthetic fiber
only exhibited a gain in the stiffness by 37.29% when fiber dosage increased from 9 kg/m3
to 18 kg/m3. This gain was less for pipes reinforced with one steel cage layer in addition to
synthetic fiber, where the gain was only 2.23% for the same increase in fiber dosage. This
is because for small diameter pipes, the primary mode of failure was flexural, and the
ductility of steel cage governed the failure behavior. The effect of increasing fiber dosage
on the stiffness of 1200 mm (48 in.) diameter concrete pipes showed greater improvement
in the pipe stiffness when fiber dosage increased. With synthetic fiber only, increasing fiber
dosage from 4.75 to 9 kg/m3 resulted in 121.09% gain in the stiffness. Moreover, for pipes
reinforced with synthetic fiber and one steel cage layer, using fiber dosage of 9, 13.5, and
18 kg/m3 (15, 22.5 and 30 lb/yd3) increased stiffness by 9.24, 12.05, and 33.67%,
respectively, compared to pipe reinforced with a steel cage layer and fiber dosage of 4.75
kg/m3. The effect of fiber dosage on the stiffness of 1500 mm pipe diameter was more
noticeable as strength requirements increased and more modes of failure came into play.
The stiffness of pipes with this diameter increased by 20.11% and 36.01% with fiber
dosage of 13.5 and 18 kg/m3, respectively, compared to pipes reinforced with fiber dosage
of 9 kg/m3. The effect of addition of fiber on the stiffness of concrete pipes of diameters
1200 and 1500 mm was more pronounced than for those of diameter 600 mm (24 in.).
Figure 40(a, b, and c) shows the ratio of ultimate deflection to the 2% deflection of
the pipe diameter (ΔUltimate/Δ2%) that the concrete pipes experienced under three-edge
123
bearing test. When (ΔUltimate/Δ2%) is 1 or greater, it means that the ultimate pipe stiffness is
equal or greater than its stiffness at 2% deflection, which means these concrete pipes have
more bending strength to resist the exerted load (Park, Y., 2015). In addition, the
surrounding soil could add support to the pipe to resist load. All fiber concrete pipes with
diameter of 600 and 1200 mm reinforced with synthetic fiber and a steel cage layer had
(ΔUltimate/Δ2%) greater than 1. The ratio of (ΔUltimate/Δ2%) for concrete pipe diameters of 1500
mm ranged from 0.63 to 1, only one had a ratio of one.
Incorporating synthetic fiber had a significant impact on the stiffness and retained
bending strength of all tested pipes. The effect of using synthetic fiber along with one
steel cage layer on concrete pipe stiffness was more pronounced for inner diameters of
1200 and 1500 mm (48 and 60 in.) than for 600 mm (24 in.). This difference is attributed
to the thickness of the pipe wall and the different failure modes associated with each pipe
diameter. modes associated with each pipe diameter.

124
2.2
5 1 600-9-0-1
2 7 2 600-9-0-2
1.8 3 6 3 600-9-1.5-1
1.6 4 4 600-9-1.5-2
5 600-18-0-1
1.4 6 600-18-0-2
Δult/Δ2%
1.2 7 600-18-1.5-1
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0 1 2
600 mm (24 in.) pipe diameter
(a)
2.2
8 1200-0-0-1
2 9 1200-0-0-2
1.8 26 10 1200-0-0-3
1.6 21 23 11 1200-4.75-0-1
19 27 12 1200-4.75-0-2
1.4 20 24 25
22 13 1200-4.75-5.1-1
Δult/Δ2%
1.2 13 14 1200-4.75-5.1-2
14 15 1,200-4.75-5.1-3
1
16 1200-9-0-1
0.8 17 1200-9-0-2
0.6 18 1200-9-0-3
19 1200-9-5.1-1
0.4 20 1200-9-5.1-2
0.2 18 21 1200-9-5.1-3
8 9 1011 12 151617
0 22 1200-13.5-5.1-1
23 1200-13.5-5.1-2
1200 mm (48 in.) pipe diameter 24 1200-13.5-5.1-3
25 1200-18-5.1-1
26 1200-18-5.1-2
(b) 27 1200-18-5.1-3
125
2.2
28 1500-9-5.1-1
2
29 1500-9-5.1-2
1.8 30 1500-9-5.1-3
1.6 31 1500-13.5-5.1-1
32 1500-13.5-5.1-2
1.4
33 1500-13.5-5.1-3
Δult/Δ2%
1.2 34 1500-18-5.1-1
32
1 29 35 1500-18-5.1-2
33 35 36 1500-18-5.1-3
0.8 36
31 34
28 30
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38
1500 mm (60 in.) pipe diameter
(c)
Figure 40. Summary of deflection ratio of fiber-reinforced concrete pipes.
Element Analysis
4.5.1 Three-Edge Bearing Test Results
The load-deflection responses of all tested pipes are shown in Figs. 8-10. Each
pipe was given a label with four numerals. For example, in the label 600-9-150-1, the
first numeral represents the pipe diameter in mm (600 mm (24 in.) ), the second numeral
represents the fiber dosage in kg/m3 (9 kg/m3), the third numeral represents the amount of
steel reinforcement in mm2/m (150mm2/m; 0 indicates no steel), and the fourth numeral
represents the specimen number of that type (1 denotes the first of two pipes with these
properties). Incorporating PP fiber as a replacement for steel cage enhanced the first
crack and ultimate load capacity of tested pipes. As fiber dosage increased, both the first
126
crack and ultimate load increased. However, the size of the enhancement in the first crack
and ultimate loads capacities was influenced by the diameter and thickness of tested
pipes. For small diameter pipes, the failure mode was flexural, where the fibers were
effective in resisting only the flexural loads. As pipe diameter increased, other failure
modes such as radial and shear came into play, and the random distribution and
orientation of the fibers help the larger diameter pipes withstand these stresses as well.
Therefore, increasing fiber dosage on the large diameter pipes had a greater effect on
ultimate load results than for the smaller diameter pipes. For example, for the 600 mm
(24 in.) diameter pipes, increasing the fiber dosage from 9 to 18 kg/m3 resulted in a
4.95% gain in the ultimate load. In contrast, the ultimate load of the 1500 mm diameter
pipe increased by 23.34% for the same fiber dosages.
Because the pipes reinforced only with PP fiber could not meet the ASTM
strength requirements as both pipe diameter and ASTM Class strength requirements
increased (Al Rikabi, 2017), additional reinforcement in the form of a single steel mesh
layer located 25 mm (in.) from the inside diameter were tested. These pipes showed a
superior stiffness and could withstand deflection ratios of 2% of the pipe diameter.
127
350
600-9-0-1
600-9-0-2
300
600-18-0-1
250
Load (kN)
200
150
100
50
0
0 10 20 30 40
Deflection (mm)
(a)
350
600-9-150-1
600-9-150-2
300
600-18-150-1
250
Load (kN)
200
150
100
50
0
0 10 20 30 40
Deflection (mm)
(b)
Figure 41. Load deflection curves of 600 mm (24 in.) diameter pipe reinforced with (a)
PP fiber only; (b) PP fiber with one steel cage layer. (Note: 1 kN = 0.2248 kip; 1 mm =
0.0394 in).
128
350
1200-0-0-1
1200-0-0-2
300 1200-0-0-3
250
Load (kN.) 200
150
100
50
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Deflection (mm)
(a)
350
1200-4.75-0-1
1200-4.75-0-2
300 1200-4.75-0-3
1200-9-0-1
250 1200-9-0-2
1200-9-0-3
Load (kN.)
200
150
100
50
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Deflection (mm)
(b)
129
350
1200-4.75-510-1
300 1200-4.75-510-2
250
Load (kN.)
200
150
100
50
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Deflection (mm)
(c)
350
1200-9-510-1
1200-9-510-2
300 1200-9-510-3
250
Load (kN.)
200
150
100
50
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Deflection (mm)
(d)
130
350
1200-13.5-510-1
1200-13.5-510-2
300 1200-13.5-510-3
250
Load (kN)
200
150
100
50
0
0 10 20
Deflection (mm)30 40
(e)
350
1200-18-510-1
300 1200-18-510-2
1200-18-510-3
250
Load (kN)
200
150
100
50
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Deflection (mm)
(f)
Figure 42. Load deflection curves of 1200 mm (48 in.) diameter pipe: (a) plain concrete
pipes; (b), pipes reinforced with PP fiber dosage of 4.75 and 9 kg/m 3 (8 and 15 lb/yd3); (c,
d, e, and f) pipes reinforced with a steel cage layer and PP fiber dosage of 4.75, 9, 13.5,
and 18 kg/m3 (8, 15, 22.5 and 30 lb/yd3), respectively. (Note: 1 kN = 0.2248 kip; 1 mm =
0.0394 in).
131
350
300
Load (kN.) 250
200
150
100
1500-9-510-1
50
1500-9-510-2
1500-9-510-3
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Deflection (mm)
(a)
350
300
250
Load (kN)
200
150
100
1500-13.5-510-1
50 1500-13.5-510-2
1500-13.5-510-3
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Deflection (mm)
(b)
132
350
300
250
Load (kN)
200
150
100
1500-18-510-1
50 1500-18-510-2
1500-18-510-3
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Deflection (mm)
(c)
Figure 43. Load deflection curves of 1500 mm (60 in.) diameter pipe reinforced with one
steel cage layer and PP fiber dosage of: (a) 9 kg/m3 (15 lb/yd3);(b) 13.5 kg/m3(22.5
lb/yd3) ;(c) 18 kg/m3 (30 lb/yd3). . (Note: 1 kN = 0.2248 kip; 1 mm = 0.0394 in).
In order to provide the FE model in ABAQUS with concrete material properties, values for
compressive strength, tensile strength, modulus of elasticity, and Poisson’s ratio were
obtained experimentally and are shown in Table 6. Increasing PP dosage reduced the
compressive strength and modulus of elasticity of test specimens, while Poisson’s ratio and
splitting tensile strength increased. The trend in compressive strength agrees with past
research ( Zhang et al., 1999; Huang, 2001; Puertas et al., 2003; Choi and Yuan, 2005).
Therefore, in order to validate models mentioned previously used for PP fiber reinforced
concrete compression behavior, the dimensionless factor added to compressive strength

133
and strain of plain concrete was modified using a regression analysis of the compressive
strength results.
Table 23.The average compressive strength, tensile strength, modulus of elasticity and
Poisson’s ratio test results.
Fiber dosage, Splitting tensile

Compressive Modulus of
strength Poisson’s
Mix no. strength at 28 days, elasticity,
kg/m 3
strength at 28 days, ratio
MPa (ksi) MPa (ksi)
(lb/yd )3
MPa (ksi)
1 0 3.58 60.70 (8.860) 36618 (5311) 0.13
2 4.75 (8) 3.56 53.35 (7.73) 35925 (5210) 0.142
3 6 (10) 3.59 51.79 (7.51) 34155 (4954) 0.185
5 7 (12) 3.74 50.22 (7.28) 31064 (4505) 0.192
6 9 (15) 3.93 47.35 (6.86) 30333 (4400) 0.253
The stress-strain curves for the fiber reinforced concrete cylinders were compared
to the models given in past research (Soroushian and Lee 1989; Ezeldin and Balaguru 1992;
Barros and Figueiras 1999; Nataraja et al. 1999), as shown in Figure 44(a, b, and c). As
can be seen from Figure 44, the modified stress-strain relationship proposed by Nataraja et
al. (1999) showed the most similar behavior to the experimental stress-strain response in
this research. Therefore, this model was adopted to describe the compression behavior of
synthetic fiber reinforced concrete. This model includes the following relationships.
𝜀
𝛽 (𝜀 )
𝜎 𝑝𝑓
=
𝑓𝑐𝑓 𝜀 𝛽
𝛽 − 1 + (𝜀 )
𝑝𝑓
with
134
𝑓𝑐𝑓 = 𝑓𝑐 − 19.907 (𝑅𝐼)
𝜀𝑝𝑓 = 𝜀𝑐𝑜 + 965 × 10−6 (𝑅𝐼)
𝛽 = 0.5811 + 1.93 (𝑅𝐼)−0.7406
𝑊𝑓 𝐿𝑓
𝑅𝐼 =
𝐷𝑓
Where fc is the compressive strength of plain concrete, εco is the strain the peak compressive
strength of plain concrete, RI is the reinforcing index, Wf is the fiber weight percentage in
the mixture, Lf is the fiber length, and Df is the fiber diameter. Figure 45shows the
compressive stress-strain plots used in the FEM based on the modified Nataraja et al.
(1999) model.
135
Figure 44. Comparison of experimental stress-strain curves of concrete cylinders
reinforced PP with dosage of (a) 4.75 kg/m3 (b) 6 kg/m3; (c) 7 kg/m3; and (d) 9 kg/m3
with various models of compressive stress response from the literature.

136
60
4.75 kg/m3 6 kg/m3
7 kg/m3 9 kg/m3
50 13.5 kg/m3 18 kg/m3
40
Stress (MPa)
30
20
10
0
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012
Strain (mm/mm)
Figure 45. compressive stress-strain plots used in the FE models.
The combined reduction in the modulus of elasticity and an increase in Poisson’s
ratio indicated that the synthetic fibers increased the flexibility of the concrete material.
This may be attributed to the ductile behavior of synthetic fiber compared to the plain
concrete since fiber has a lower modulus of elasticity than plain concrete. Furthermore,
adding synthetic fiber to the concrete mixture enhanced tensile strength. The Poisson’s
ratio for fiber dosages over 9 kg/m3 (15 lb/yd3) was calculated using a regression analysis
of the Poisson’s ratio results, yielding Equation 6.
𝜈𝑓 = 𝜈𝑜 + 0.174 (𝑅𝐼 ) (6)
where 𝜈𝑓 is the Poisson’s ratio of fiber reinforced concrete, and 𝜈𝑜 is the Poisson’s ratio
of plain concrete.
137
4.5.3 Finite Element Results and Discussion
Model Calibration
The finite element (FE) model was calibrated using the results of concrete pipes
with a diameter of 1200 mm (48 in.) in terms of load-deflection response, ultimate load
capacity, and failure mode. surface-to-surface tie constraint was used to attach the
concrete pipe model to the lower and upper strips. The concrete pipe external surface was
selected as a master surface while the lower and upper striped surfaces were selected as
slave surfaces. Concrete pipes reinforced with dosages of PP fiber 9, 13.5, and 18 kg/m3
(15, 22.5, and 30 lb/yd3) along with one steel layer area of 510 mm2/m were simulated.
Also, concrete pipe with a diameter of 1200 mm (48 in.) reinforced with fiber dosage of
9 kg/m3 as sole reinforcement was calibrated. To calibrate the response of fiber
reinforced concrete pipes, a tensile strength parameter was considered. According to past
research (Mobasher, 2011; Blazejowski, 2012), this parameter along with modulus of
elasticity have the most significant impact on the FE results. After several trials, a good
agreement was obtained between experimental and FE results as the specimens showed
the same load-deflection response, as shown in Figure 46.

138
300
1200-9-0-1
1200-9-0-2
250 1200-9-0-3
FE
200
Load (kN)
150
100
50
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Deflection (mm)
(a)
300
250
200
Load (kN)
150
100
1200-9-510-1
1200-9-510-2
50 1200-9-510-3
FE
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Deflection (mm)
(b)
139
300
250
200
Load (kN)
150
100
1200-13.5-510-1
50 1200-13.5-510-2
1200-13.5-510-3
FE
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Deflection (mm)
(c)
300
250
200
Load (kN)
150
100
1200-18-510-1
50 1200-18-510-2
1200-18-510-3
FE
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Deflection (mm)
(d)
Figure 46. Experimental versus calibrated FE load-deflection responses of 1200 mm (48
in.) diameter pipe reinforced with fiber dosage of (a) 9 kg/m3 (15 lb/yd3), (b) 9 kg/m3 (15
lb/yd3) with 510mm2/m (0.24 in2/ft) steel area (c) 13.5 kg/m3 (22.5 lb/yd3)with 510
mm2/m (15 lb/yd3) steel area (d) 18 kg/m3 (30 lb/yd3) with 510mm2/m (0.24 in2/ft) steel
area. . (Note: 1 kN = 0.2248 kip; 1 mm = 0.0394 in).

140
The same mode of failure was observed in both the experiments and in the
corresponding finite element simulation, as shown in Figure 47 where both the tested and
simulated pipes experienced a progressive flexural failure that started at the invert and the
crown (see Figure 47(b)) as ultimate tensile strength of the pipe was reached, followed by
cracking at the spring lines (see Figure 47(c)).

141
Figure 47. Crack propagation (a) experimental results (b) Maximum principal strain
contour at crown and invert (c) Maximum principal strain contour at the crown, invert,
and springline (c,d, and e) cracks propagation.

142
Furthermore, the ultimate strengths of the calibrated pipes were compared to those
experimentally tested. The results were summarized in Table 24. As can be seen, the
difference between experimental and FE ultimate load ranged from -0.2 to -8.8 %, making
the FE model more conservative than the experiment.
Table 24. FE and experimental results of ultimate strength of the calibrated pipes.
Experimental ultimate
FE ultimate load,
Pipe designation load, Error (%)
kN
kN
1200-9-0 89.2 88.9 -0.2
1200-9-5.1 190.3 181.6 -4.5
1200-13.5-5.1 205.4 204.8 -0.3
1200-18-5.1 246.8 224.9 -8.8
(Note: 1 kN = 0.2248 kip; 1 mm = 0.0394 in)
Model Verification
The calibrated models of 1200 mm (48 in.) diameter concrete pipe reinforced
with steel and fiber at selected dosages were validated using the experimental results of
1500 mm diameter pipes reinforced with the same fiber dosage and steel area. Also, the
calibrated model of 1200 mm (48 in.) diameter pipe reinforced with fiber dosage of 9
kg/m3 (15 lb/yd3) was validated using experimental results of 600 mm (24 in.) diameter
pipe with the same fiber dosage. The calibrated models were validated in terms of load-
deflection response and ultimate load capacity. A good agreement was observed between
143
experimental and FE load-deflection response observed in elastic and post-cracking
stages, as shown in Figure 48.
350
600-9-0-1
600-9-0-2
300 FE
250
Load (kN)
200
150
100
50
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Deflection (mm)
(a)
350
300
250
Load (kN.)
200
150
100
1500-9-510-1
1500-9-510-2
50
1500-9-510-3
FE
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Deflection (mm)
(b)
144
350
300
250
Load (kN)
200
150
100
1500-13.5-510-1
1500-13.5-510-2
50
1500-13.5-510-3
FE
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Deflection (mm)
(c)
350
300
250
Load (kN)
200
150
100
1500-18-510-1
1500-18-510-2
50 1500-18-510-3
FE
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Deflection (mm)
(d)
Figure 48. Experimental versus FE load-deflection responses: a) 600 mm (24 in.)
diameter pipe reinforced with 9 kg/m3; (b), (c) and (d) 1500 mm diameter pipe reinforced
with steel area of 510 mm2/m and fiber dosage of 9,13.5 and 18 kg/m3, respectively.
.(Note: 1 kN = 0.2248 kip; 1 mm = 0.0394 in).

145
Moreover, the ultimate load of FE models was compared to the corresponding
experimental results and summarized in Table 8. The ultimate load predicted by the FE
model fell in the conservative side with values less than the experiment. With this
validation, the parametric study including different pipe diameters and thickness used the
same fiber dosages as the validated pipes.
Table 25. FE and Experimental Results of Ultimate Strength of the Validate Models.
Pipe designation Experimental ultimate

FE ultimate load Difference
load,
kN (kip) (%)
kN (kip)
600-90-0 83.7 (18.82) 83.1 (18.68) -0.7
1500-9-5.1 229.1 (51.5) 222.7 (50.06) -2.7
1500-13.5-5.1 275.6 (61.96) 262.3 (58.97) -4.8
1500-18-5.1 286 (64.3) 285.3 (64.14) -0.2
Parametric Study
In an attempt to provide engineers with tables that can be used for design
purposes, concrete pipes with different diameters (D) and wall thicknesses (h) were
simulated to determine the ultimate strength. Based on the ultimate strength results, pipes
were classified as Class I through Class V as specified by ASTM C76 (2015). As
mentioned previously, a significant enhancement in maximum load capacity and post-
cracking behavior of tested pipes using fiber dosage of 9 kg/m3 (15 lb/yd3) (1% by
volume) or more. Also, it was observed that using synthetic fiber as sole reinforcement
did not comply with ASTM C76 (2015) specifications as pipe diameter and strength
146
requirements increase. Therefore, pipes were simulated using fiber dosage over 9 kg/m 3
(15 lb/yd3) with and without additional steel cage reinforcement. The steel cage
reinforcement was simulated as a single layer located 25 mm (1 in.) from the inside
surface of the pipe.
The outcomes of the parametric study are summarized in Tables 26-30. For Class
I Wall A pipes, using a fiber dosage of 9 kg/m3 (15 lb/yd3) was sufficient to fulfill the
strength requirement for pipes with diameters ranging from 300 to 750 mm (12 to 30 in.).
Pipes with diameters beyond this range were reinforced with an additional steel cage
meeting the minimum requirements specified by ASTM C76, 150 mm 2/m (0.07 in2/ft), to
fulfill the strength requirements of Class I. Pipes with type B wall achieved the strength
requirement of Class I using fiber dosage of 9 kg/m3, except for pipes with a diameter of
1200 mm (48 in.), which required additional steel cage reinforcement to comply with
strength requirements. Pipes with type C wall reinforced with fiber dosage of 9 kg/m3 (15
lb/yd3)fulfilled the strength requirements of Class I and II. In order to achieve the
strength requirements of higher classes, additional reinforcement from either fiber or steel
cage was needed.

147
Table 26. Design requirements for Class I synthetic fiber reinforced concrete pipes.
Wall A Wall B Wall C

D, mm (in.)
h steel area Wf h steel area Wf h steel area Wf
mm mm2/m kg/m3 mm mm2/m (kg/m3) mm mm2/m (kg/m3)
300 44 - 9 50 - 9 69 - 9
375 47 - 9 57 - 9 75 - 9
450 50 - 9 63 - 9 82 - 9
525 57 - 9 69 - 9 88 - 9
600 63 - 9 75 - 9 94 - 9
675 66 - 9 82 - 9 100 - 9
750 69 - 9 88 - 9 107 - 9
825 72 150 9 94 - 9 113 - 9
900 75 150 9 100 - 9 119 - 9
1050 88 150 13.5 113 - 9 132 - 9
1200 100 150 18 125 - 9 144 - 9
1350 113 150 18 138 - 9 157 - 9
1500 125 150 18 150 150 9 169 - 9
(Note: 1 kg/m = 1.68 lb/yd ; 1 mm = 0.0394 in).
3 3
148
Table 27. Design requirements for class II synthetic fiber reinforced concrete pipes.
Wall A Wall B Wall C

D (mm) h steel area Wf h steel area Wf h steel area Wf
mm mm2/m (kg/m3) mm mm2/m (kg/m3) mm mm2/m (kg/m3)
300 44 - 9 50 - 9 69 - 9
375 47 - 9 57 - 9 75 - 9
450 50 - 9 63 - 9 82 - 9
525 57 - 9 69 - 9 88 - 9
600 63 - 9 75 - 9 94 - 9
675 66 150 9 82 - 9 100 - 9
750 69 150 9 88 - 9 107 - 9
825 72 150 13.5 94 - 9 113 - 9
900 75 150 18 100 - 9 119 - 9
1050 88 190 18 113 150 9 132 - 9
1200 100 210 18 125 150 13.5 144 - 9
1350 113 250 18 138 150 13.5 157 - 9
1500 125 320 18 150 150 13.5 169 - 9
(Note: 1 kg/m = 1.68 lb/yd ; 1 mm = 0.0394 in)
3 3
149
Table 28. Design requirements for class II synthetic fiber reinforced concrete pipes.
D (mm) Wall A Wall B Wall C

mm mm2/m kg/m3 mm mm2/m kg/m3 mm mm2/m kg/m3
300 44 - 9 50 - 9 69 - 9
375 47 - 9 57 - 9 75 - 9
450 50 - 9 63 - 9 82 - 9
525 57 150 9 69 - 9 88 - 9
600 63 150 9 75 - 9 94 - 9
675 66 150 13.5 82 - 9 100 - 9
750 69 150 18 88 - 9 107 - 9
825 72 230 18 94 150 14 113 - 9
900 75 280 18 100 150 14 119 - 9
1050 88 360 18 113 150 18 132 - 9
1200 100 420 18 125 170 18 144 150 13.5
1350 113 470 18 138 250 18 157 150 13.5
1500 125 570 18 150 310 18 169 150 18
3 3
150
Table 29. Design requirements for Class IV synthetic fiber reinforced concrete pipes.

mm mm2/m (kg/m3) (mm) mm2/m (kg/m3) (mm) mm2/m (kg/m3)
300 44 - 9 50 - 9 69 - 9
375 47 150 9 57 - 9 75 - 9
450 50 150 9 63 - 9 82 - 9
525 57 150 13.5 69 150 9 88 - 9
600 63 210 13.5 75 150 9 94 - 9
675 66 300 18 82 150 18 100 - 9
750 69 380 18 88 150 18 107 150 9
825 72 420 18 94 230 18 113 150 13.5
900 75 570 18 100 280 18 119 150 18
1050 88 720 18 113 380 18 132 170 18
1200 100 850 18 125 460 18 144 280 18
1350 113 960 18 138 550 18 157 340 18
1500 125 1060 18 150 660 18 169 470 18
3 3
151
Table 30. Design requirements for Class V synthetic fiber reinforced concrete pipes.

(mm) mm2/m (kg/m3) (mm) mm2/m (kg/m3) (mm) mm2/m (kg/m3)
300 44 - 9 50 - 9 69 - 9
375 47 150 9 57 150 9 75 - 9
450 50 210 9 63 150 9 82 - 9
525 57 210 18 69 150 9 88 - 9
600 63 300 18 75 150 9 94 150 9
675 66 490 18 82 300 18 100 150 13.5
750 69 570 18 88 250 18 107 150 13.5
825 72 550 18 94 380 18 113 190 18
900 75 820 18 100 490 18 119 270 18
1050 88 980 18 113 570 18 132 300 18
1200 100 1160 18 125 700 18 144 470 18
1350 113 1220 18 138 810 18 157 530 18
1500 125 1530 18 150 950 18 169 700 18
3 3
To compare the FE analysis results of one of the concrete pipe configurations with
the strength requirement specified for each ASTM class, the load-deflection responses of
1350 mm diameter pipe were compared to 0.3 mm cracking load and ultimate load of each
class, as shown in Fig. 16 (a) and (b), respectively. It can be deduced that increasing fiber
dosage only is not always enough to meet the strength requirement for the targeted class.
For example, increasing fiber dosage from 13.5 to 18 kg/m3 along with the same steel area
was not enough to fulfill the strength requirement of Class III. Instead, the only factor
changed was the steel area to fulfill the strength requirements for Classes III, IV, and V.
152
200
190
180
170
160
150 Class V
140
D-Load (kN/m/m)
130
120
110 Class IV
100
90
80
70 Class III 1350-9-0
60 Class II
50 1350-9-1.5
40 Class I 1350-13.5-1.5
30 1350-18-1.5
20 1350-18-2.5
10 1350-18-5.5
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Deflection (mm)
(a)
200
190
180 Class V
170
160 Class IV
150
140
D-Load (kN/m/m)
130
120
110 Class III
100
90
80 Class II
70 Class I
60 1350-9-0
50 1350-9-1.5
40 1350-13.5-1.5
30 1350-18-1.5
20 1350-18-2.5
10 1350-18-5.5
0
0 10 20Deflection (mm)30 40 50
(b)
Figure 49. Load-deflection responses of 1350 mm (54 in) (B wall) pipe diameter with
different fiber dosage and steel cage areas imposed on (a) 0.3 mm (0.01 in.) and (b)
ultimate loads specified in ASTM C76 for pipe strength classes. (Note: 1 kN = 0.2248
kip; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.) .

153
The minimum fiber dosage used in the design tables as sole reinforcement was 9
kg/m3. As strength requirements increase for higher ASTM classes, the reinforcement
was augmented with one layer of a steel cage. The maximum fiber dosage utilized in this
study was 18 kg/m3, to avoid problems with the workability of the concrete mix at high
fiber dosages. It may be preferred to use a pipe that includes minimum steel cage
reinforcement, 150 mm2/m as specified by ASTM C76, along with fiber dosage of
9kg/m3
4.6 Experimental Investigation of Thin-Wall Synthetic Fiber Reinforced Concrete
Pipes
4.6.1 Load-Deflection Response
The deflection responses of 1200 and 1500 mm (48 and 60 in.) concrete pipes
under load are depicted in Figure 50and Figure 51, respectively. The vertical (horizontal)
deflection is the average of readings from the two string potentiometers installed in the
vertical (horizontal) direction. Note that the vertical deflections (solid lines) represent a
decrease in vertical pipe diameter, while the horizontal deflections (dashed lines)
represent an increase in the horizontal pipe diameter. The vertical lines in each graph
mark 5% deflection, which represents the maximum allowed deflection in flexible pipe
installations (e.g. polyethylene pipes). For the 1200 mm (48 in.) diameter concrete pipe,
Figure 50 (a) shows the deflection behavior of pipe reinforced with 9 kg/m 3(15 lb/yd3) PP
fiber and a steel cage of area 5.7 cm2/m (0.27 in2/ft) under load. The deflection increased
approximately linearly with load up to about 10 kN (2.248 kip), where the line changes
slope, indicating the first crack in the pipe. Rather than rapidly failing, the deflection
154
increased with applied load (as can be seen by the lower slope in the graph), reflecting
the bridging of cracks in the pipe by the PP fibers and steel cage. The ultimate load
appears at the peak of the curve, which for vertical deflection was about 50 kN (11.25
kip) at a deflection of about 55 mm (2.16 in.), just shy of the 5% deflection line, while the
horizontal deflection at ultimate load was approximately 75 mm (2.95 in.), above the 5%
line. When the steel area was increased to 10.2 cm2/m (0.48 in2/ft), the slope of the load-
deflection curve increased, as shown in Figure 50 (b). The increase in the slope of load-
deflection curve associated with steel area increasing indicated a gain in pipe stiffness.
Using a steel reinforcement area of 10.2 cm2/m (0.48 in2/ft) governed the load-defection
behavior after first crack (at about 20 kN [4.5 kip]) as the load-deflection response
continued to be linear. Increasing the steel area from 5.7 cm2/m to 10.2 cm2/m (0.27 to
0.48 in2/ft) increased the cracking load (which produced 0.3 mm crack width) and
ultimate load by 88% and 120%, respectively, and the ultimate loads for the latter were
well past the 5% deflection line.
For concrete pipes with a diameter 1500 mm (60 in.), Figure 51 (a) and (b) shows
the load deflection behavior of pipe reinforced with a fiber content of 9 kg/m3(15 lb/yd3)
and steel cage of area 5.7 cm2/m (0.27 in2/ft). The deflection behavior under load was
linear until the appearance of the first crack at just under 20 kN. Under greater loads, the
deflection increased following a non-linear curve to about 85 mm, above the 5% line.
Increasing steel area to 8.9 cm2/m (0.42 in2/ft) increased the cracking and ultimate loads
by 36% and 21%, respectively, as shown in Figure 51(b).

155
Incorporating PP fiber in the concrete material enhances the non-linear structural
behavior of the pipe and increases the post-cracking residual strength. The bridging
effects of fiber play a major role in absorbing energy, resisting the propagation of cracks,
and limiting their width (Banthia and Dubey, 2000; Li and Maalej, 1996; Mobasher and
Li, 1996; Zollo, 1997). This is mainly influenced by the number of fibers crossing the
cracks and bond strength between the concrete matrix and the fibers. As the surface area
of the fiber and number of fibers bridging the cracks increase, the bond strength between
fiber and concrete components increases, resulting in more stress transmitted by the fiber
when cracks are initiated. Comparing the load deflection responses of the tested pipes
showed that concrete pipes with a diameter of 1200 mm (48 in.) were stiffer than those
with a diameter of 1500 mm (60 in.). This may be attributed to the number of fibers
engaged in resisting the initiated cracks, which is a function of pipe wall thickness. As
pipe wall thickness increases, the total number of fibers across the thickness of the wall
increases. As a result, the number of fibers expected to bridge the propagated cracks
increases. Also, the fibers contribute significantly to the response of the pipes with a
larger diameter as failure modes such as radial and shear become more critical. This can
be attributed to fiber dispersion in the concrete pipe wall that bridged cracks propagated
due to these failure modes as well as flexural cracks. On the other hand, steel
reinforcement cage contributes only to the flexural strength of the pipe because it is
parallel to the pipe wall. Thus, concrete pipes with a diameter of 1500 mm (60 in.)
showed a better performance in terms of load-deflection behavior than 1200 mm (48 in.)
pipe diameter. Also, it was observed that pipes reinforced with greater steel area
156
exhibited stiffer behavior after the first crack as steel reinforcement started to govern the
load-deflection response. Thus, there is a need to balance between steel reinforcement
area and flexibility from synthetic fibers for each pipe diameter.
All tested pipes exhibited deflection, which exceeded 5% of their inside diameter
with high load carrying capacity and greatly exceeded the 2% deflection criterion for
flexible pipes, which may indicate that fiber reinforced concrete pipes may take
advantage of soil-structure interaction to carry more load. Therefore, buried pipes with
wall thickness less than that specified by ASTM C76 (2015) reinforced with synthetic
fiber along with minimum steel cage area can resist greater loads.
Using fiber dosage of 9 kg/m3(15 lb/yd3) was necessary to ensure the maximum
benefit of fiber contribution to the ultimate strength and avoid workability problems
associated with concrete using higher fiber dosage. Comparing the ultimate strength
results of 1500 mm (60 in.) pipe diameter with past research (Park et al, 2016) showed
that the ultimate strength increased by 11.5% as fiber content was increased from 4.75 to
9 kg/m3 (8 to 15 lb/yd3). The findings of this research concur with past research results
that including synthetic fiber enhances the overall performance of concrete pipes
(Peyvandi et al., 2013 and 2014; Fuente et al., 2014; Abolmaali et al., 2014; Wilson et
al.,2014; Park et al, 2016, Al Rikabi et al., 2017).

157
120
Vertical deflection
Horizontal deflection
100
80
Load (kN)
60
40
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Deflection (mm)
(a)
120
Vertical deflection
100
80
Load (kN)
60
5% deflection ratio
40
20
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Deflection (mm)
(b)
(b) 10.2 cm2/m (0.48 in2/ft). (Note: 1 kN = 0.2248 kip; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.).
158
120
Vertical Deflection
100
80
Load (kN)
60
5% deflection ratio
40
20
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Deflection (mm)
(a)
120
Verical deflection
100
80
Load (kN)
60
40
5% deflection ratio
20
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Deflection (mm)
(b)
(b) 8.9 cm2/m (0.42 in2/ft). (Note: 1 kN = 0.2248 kip; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.).
159
4.6.2 Load-Strain Response
The strain was measured at the inner crown, inner invert, inner springline, and
outer springline of concrete pipe with a diameter of 1200 and 1500 mm (48 and 60 in.)
using strain gauges labeled SG#1, SG#4, SG#2, and SG#3, respectively. The load versus
strain measurements are depicted in Figure 52. Due to the flexural deformation of tested
pipes, the measured strain at the inner crown, inner invert, and outer of springline were
positive (tensile strain). The strain measured on the inner surface of the springline was
negative (compressive strains). This strain distribution was consistent with the oval-
shaped response reported in relation to pipe deflections in the previous section. All tested
pipes exhibited linear load-strain relationships before cracking began. As cracks started to
propagate, the load-strain relationship became non-linear, as did the load-deflection
response. For 1200 mm (48 in.) concrete pipe diameter reinforced with 5.7 cm2/m (0.27
in2/ft) steel area, the maximum elastic tensile strain within the elastic range was 300 με.
The ultimate tensile strains recorded at the inner crown, inner invert, and outer springline
were 3500, 2830, and 2105 με, respectively. SG#1 mounted on the inner crown failed
after reaching its maximum strain capacity when one of the propagated cracks passed
under the strain gauge at a load of 20 kN (4.496 kip), as shown in Figure 52 (a). Thus,
this strain gauge did not measure the strain corresponding to the ultimate load. The
maximum compressive strain recorded on the inner surface of springline was -1950 με.
For 1200 mm (48 in.) pipe diameter reinforced with 10.2 cm2/m (0.48 in2/ft) area
steel, the maximum tensile elastic strain was 400 με at the outer face of the springline, as
shown in Figure 52(b). The maximum tensile strains recorded on the surface of the inner
160
crown, inner invert, and outer springline were 2006, 3410, and 2875 με, respectively. A
sudden decrease in the tensile strains at the crown and invert was observed when load of
13.5 kN (3.035 kip) and 20.3 kN (4.56 kip) was reached, respectively, as shown in Figure
52 (a) and (c). This decrease comes from the stress distribution associated with crack
propagation. Then, each of these strain gauges experienced failure as a crack propagated
underneath, causing the gauge to fail. The strain gauges affixed on the outer face at the
springline continued to record the strain as the cracks propagated away from the strain
gauge positions. The maximum compressive strain was -2665 με. Comparing the strain
results of both pipes with a diameter of 1200 mm (48 in.) showed that pipe reinforced
with 10.2 cm2/m (0.48 in2/ft) steel area experienced more strain at the inner crown and
the springline than pipe reinforced with 5.7 cm2/m (0.27 in2/ft) steel area. This high strain
capacity may be attributed to the increase in the steel area, which increases the
confinement of the concrete. Comparing the strain results at the crown showed that strain
experienced by pipe reinforced with steel area of 5.7 cm2/m (0.27 in2/ft) was higher than
that for the pipe reinforced with steel area 10.2 cm2/m (0.48 in2/ft). This can be attributed
to the crack propagation pattern, which started away from the strain gauge location,
causing an abrupt decrease in strain reading with a load of 13.5 kN (3.1 kip), as shown in
Figure 52(a).
161
120
5.7cm2/m
100 10.2 cm2/m
80
Load (kN)
60
40
20
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Strain (με)
(a)
120
5.7 cm2/m
10.2 cm2/m
100
80
Load (kN)
60
40
20
0
-4000 -3000 -2000 -1000 0
Strain (με)
(b)
120
5.7 cm2/m
100 10.2 cm2/m
80
Load (kN)
60
40
20
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Strain (με)
(c)
162
120
100
80
Load (kN)
60
40
20 5.7 cm2/m
10.2 cm2/m
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Strain (με)
(d)
Figure 52. Strain measurements of pipe with diameter of 1200 mm (48 in) reinforced
with PP fiber dosage of 9 kg/m3(15 lb/yd3) along with steel mesh at amounts indicated in
(Note: 1 kN = 0.2248 kip).
For 1500 mm (60 in.) pipe diameter reinforced with steel area of 5.7 cm2/m (0.27
in2/ft) (see Figure 53), the maximum linear tensile strain is 155 με. Also, the maximum
compressive strain within the linear part of the load -strain response is -85 με (Figure
53(b)). Then, non-linear behavior was observed as the cracks started to appear on the
concrete pipe wall. The maximum strains recorded on the inner crown, inner invert, inner
springline, and outer springline were 1000, 2586, -1543, and 256 με, respectively. As the
steel area increased to 8.9 cm2/m (0.42 in2/ft), the strain capacity of the pipe increased.
The ultimate strains recorded on the surface of the inner crown, inner invert, inner
springline, outer springline were 3500, 2443, -1820, and 2412 με, respectively. Also, all
strain-load curves showed the same trend after the first crack at a load of 16 kN (3.6-kip).
163
As the applied load increased, an abrupt decrease appears in measurements from the
strain gauge located on the inner surface of the pipe invert (Figure 53(c)). This was likely
because a longitudinal crack passed through the gauge. Concrete pipes reinforced with
synthetic fiber can endure more strain (tensile and compressive) when the steel area was
increased. Using a steel reinforced cage along synthetic fiber increased the restrained
concrete material and, as a result, enhanced strain capacity. Also, strain readings at the
compression vicinity were more stable than those at the tension region as no cracks were
initiated at the compression zone.
120
5.7 cm2/m
100 8.9 cm2/m
80
Load (kN)
60
40
20
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Strain (με)
(a)
120
5.7 cm2/m
10.2 cm2/m 100
80
Load (kN)
60
40
20
0
-4000 -3000 -2000 -1000 0
Strain (με)
164
(b)
80
5.7 cm2/m
70 8.9 cm2/m
60
50
Load (kN)
40
30
20
10
0
0 1000 2000 3000
Strain (με)
(c)
80
5.7 cm2/m
70 8.9 cm2/m
60
50
Load (kN)
40
30
20
10
0
0 1000 2000 3000
Strain (με)
(d)
Figure 53. Strain measurements of pipe with diameter of 1500 (60 in.) mm reinforced
with PP fiber dosage of 9 kg/m3 (15 lb/yd3) along with steel mesh at amounts indicated in
(Note: 1 kN = 0.2248 kip).

165
4.6.3 Failure Mechanism
Crack growth and propagation were monitored during the test to determine the
failure mechanism associated with each pipe configuration. The main observed failure
mode was flexural, where cracks initiated at the inside face of the crown and invert as
well as the outer face of the springlines. Other failure modes such as radial and shear
failures were also observed, where the cracks propagated radially and diagonally at the
invert and crown of some tested pipes, respectively, as shown in Figures 54, 55, 56 and
57.
For concrete pipe with a diameter of 1200 mm (48 in.) reinforced with steel area
of 5.7 cm2/m (0.27 in2/ft) (Figure. 54), cracks first appeared on the outside face at the
springline with a load of 6.6 kN (1.5 kip) (Figure. 54c), and subsequently initiated at the
inner face at the crown (Fig. 9a) and invert (Figure. 54b). The number of cracks increased
as the applied load increased. On the other hand, for 1200 mm (48 in.) diameter pipe
reinforced with 10.2 cm2/m (0.48 in2/ft) (see Figure. 55), multiple hairline cracks initially
appeared at the crown (Figure. 55a) and invert (Figure. 55b) and then at the springlines
(Figure. 55c). The number of propagated cracks for 1200 mm (48 in.) diameter pipe
reinforced with steel area of 5.7 cm2/m (0.27 in2/ft) was higher than that reinforced with
steel area of 10.2 cm2/m (0.48 in2/ft). Also, the latter pipe experienced larger cracks than
the former. Thus, as the steel area increased, pipes become stiffer and the failure
mechanism tended to be governed by the steel cage rather than the synthetic fiber.
Therefore, it is possible to adjust the steel reinforcement content to achieve a desired
balance between flexibility and serviceability.

166
For 1500 mm (60 in.) diameter pipe reinforced with steel area of 5.7 cm2/m (0.27
in2/ft) (see Figure. 56), the first crack initiated at the inner face of the invert (Figure. 56b).
As the applied load increased, more hairline cracks initiated at the inner face of the crown
(Figure. 56a) and the outer face at the springlines (Figure. 56c). On other hand, the same
diameter pipe reinforced with a steel of area 8.9 cm2/m (0.42 in2/ft) experienced a
different crack pattern (see Error! Reference source not found.) as the first crack
initiated at the outer face of the springline. This also can be observed from Figure 53(d)
and Figure 50(b) as the pipe showed flexible load-strain/deflection responses in the
springline compared to other pipes. Moreover, the observed cracks were smaller and
greater in number than those observed in the pipe reinforced with a steel area of 5.7
cm2/m (0.27 in2/ft). After the flexural cracks first appeared, other crack types such as
radial and shear cracks were observed at a load of 60 kN (13.5 kip). These cracks were
formed mainly at the invert and crown of tested pipes. It should be highlighted that pipes
of 1500 (60 in.) diameter reinforced with 8.9 cm2/m (0.42 in2/ft) experienced shear and
radial cracks larger than those observed in pipes reinforced with steel area of 5.7 cm2/m
(0.27 in2/ft).
(a) (b) (c)

167
invert; (c) springline.
(a) (b) (c)
(a) (b) (c)

168
(a) (b) (c)
Figure 57. Crack development in 1500 mm (60 in.) concrete pipe diameter reinforced
4.6.4 ASTM Strength Requirements
According to ASTM C76 (2015), concrete pipes are classified into five Classes,
numbered I through V, based on the strength required for each class, as listed in Table 4.
The cracking load (load that produces 0.3 mm [0.01 in] crack width) and ultimate load
measurements were compared with the requirements of each class in ASTM C76 (2015).
The applied load was divided by the diameter and length of test pipes, and the results are
summarized in Table 5. Based on these results, concrete pipe with a diameter of 1200
mm (48 in.) reinforced with a fiber content of 9 kg/m3(15 lb/yd3) and steel cage area of
5.7 cm2/m (0.27 in2/ft) did not meet the strength requirement of any of the ASTM classes.
As the steel area was increased to 10.2 cm2/m (0.48 in2/ft), the ultimate strength of the
tested pipe fulfilled the ultimate strength requirements of Classes I, II, and III. However,
the 0.3 mm (0.01 in.) cracking load did not comply with the cracking load specified with
any of these classes. The 1500 mm (60 in.) diameter pipe reinforced with a fiber content
169
of 9 kg/m3(15 lb/yd3) and steel area of 5.7 cm2/m (0.27 in2/ft) satisfied the ultimate
strength criterion of Class I. As the steel area increased to 10.2 cm2/m (0.48 in2/ft), the
tested pipe met the ultimate strength requirement for Classes I and II. However, the
cracking test results of neither 1500 mm (60 in.) diameter pipe met ASTM Class I or II
requirements. Due to the high flexibility of tested pipes as mentioned in the previous
section, more carrying capacity can be expected when the pipe is buried in the soil, due to
soil-structure interaction. The wall thickness of 1200 mm (48 in.) diameter fiber
reinforced concrete pipe represents a reduction of 50%, 60%, and 65%, compared to wall
thicknesses specified by ASTM C76 (2015) standard, Wall A, Wall B, and Wall C,
respectively. For 1500 mm (60 in.) pipe diameter, this corresponding wall thickness
reduction represents 50%, 58%, and 63%. This reduction in the concrete pipe thickness
can reduce material and transportation costs. Furthermore, incorporating synthetic
reduced the steel area by more than 50% compared to those specified by ASTM for Class
I, Class II, and III.
Table 31. ASTM C76 (2015) Class Criteria for Cracking Load and Ultimate Load
ASTM C76 class Cracking load, kN/m/m (kip/ft/ft) Ultimate load, kN/m/m (kip/ft/ft)
I 40 (0.8) 60 (1.2)
II 50 (1) 70 (1.5)
III 65 (1.35) 100 (2)
IV 100 (2) 150 (3)
V 140 (3) 175 (3.75)

170
Table 32. Summary of the Crack and Ultimate Loads of Tested Pipe
Pipe diameter, Steel area, cm2/m Fiber dosage, Cracking load, Ultimate load,
mm (in.) (in /ft)
2
kg/m (lb/yd )
3 3
1200 (48) 5.7 (0.27) 9 (15) 22.3 (0.465) 49.3 (1.03)
1200 (48) 10.2 (0.48) 9 (15) 25.15 (0.525) 108 (2.25)
1500 (60) 5.7 (0.27) 9 (15) 22.35 (0.4667) 62.5 (1.30)
1500 (60) 8.9 (0.42) 9 (15) 30.25 (0.631) 75.32 (1.57)
4.6.5 Stiffness
Most standards consider pipe as a flexible member when it experiences a
deflection more than 2% of its inside diameter. All tested pipes experienced deflection of
5% of their inside diameter with greater stiffness than high-density polyethylene pipes as
specified by ASTM F2648 / F2648M (2013) and AASHTO M294 (2011). The stiffness
of the fiber reinforced concrete pipes was calculated by the applied load by the
corresponding deflection and the length of the pipe. The stiffness at 5% deflection for
each of the concrete pipes is summarized and compared to the corresponding ASMT
F2648 / F2648M (2013) specified stiffness in Table 6. The stiffness of 1200 mm (48 in.)
diameter pipe with 9 kg/m3(15 lb/yd3) PP fiber content and steel area of 5.7 cm2/m (0.27
in2/ft) was 4.8 (10) times that specified by ASTM standard for HDPE pipes. Note that as
the steel area in the concrete pipes increased from 5.7 to 10.2 cm2/m (0.27 to 0.48 in2/ft),
the stiffness at 5% deflection increased by 110%. For the 1500 mm (60 in.) diameter pipe
with 9 kg/m3(15 lb/yd3) PP fiber and steel area of 5.7 cm2/m (8.9 cm2/m), the stiffness at
5% deflection was 6.5(7.8) times that specified for HDPE pipe. As the steel area in the
171
1500 mm (60 in.) diameter pipes increased from 5.7 to 8.9 cm2/m (0.27 to 0.42 in2/ft), the
stiffness at 5% deflection increased by 19.5%.
The ratio of the deflection corresponding to the ultimate load to the 5% deflection
of the pipe diameter (ΔUltimate/Δ5%) experienced by concrete pipe under three-edge bearing
test is also listed in Table 6. All tested pipes experienced ΔUltimate/Δ5% ratio > 1, which
indicates that these pipes can each sustain a load greater than that which creates a 5%
deflection ratio, even without the benefit of soil-structure interaction when placed in the
earth. Incorporating synthetic fiber had a significant impact on the retained bending
strength of all tested pipes as all tested pipe experienced (ΔUltimate/Δ5%) ratio over 1.
Furthermore, the effect of fiber addition on the pipe stiffness was studied by
comparing the stiffness results of 1500 mm (60 in.) diameter pipe reinforced with fiber
content of 9 kg/m3 (15 lb/yd3) and steel area of 5.7 cm2/m (0.27 in2/ft) with past research
(Parke et al 2016). The stiffness results corresponding to a 3% deflection ratio were
employed for the comparison since no data are available from the literature regarding 5%
deflection ratio. The data in Table 7 show the fiber dosage of 9kg/m3 significantly
enhances the stiffness of the pipe. The stiffness of pipes reinforced with fiber increased
by 146.5%, 140.4%, and 95% compared to pipes reinforced with fiber dosage of 0, 3.56,
and 4.75 kg/m3, respectively. The results highlight the significance of using fiber content
of 9 kg/m3 (15 lb/yd3) as overall pipe performance-enhanced substantially. Therefore, the
inclusion of fiber along with one layer steel cage improved the stiffness of concrete pipes
significantly due to the fibers’ tendency to bridge cracks, and as a result, increased load
capacity.
172
Table 33. Stiffness of Tested Pipes at deflection ratio of 5%.
Steel area, Fiber stiffness@5% Specification of pipe Δutimate/Δ5%

Pipe stiffness- HDPE
cm2/m dosage, deflection, kN/m/m pipe @5%
diameter, deflection (ASTM
(in2/ft) kg/m3 (kip/ft/ft) F2648 / F2648M -
mm (in.) 13), kN/m/m
(lb/yd3) (kip/ft/ft)
1200 (48) 5.7 (0.27) 9 (15) 602 (12.6) 125 (2.6) 1.18
1200 (48) 10.2 (0.48) 9 (15) 1269 (26.5) 125 (2.6) 1.31
1500 (60) 5.7 (0.27) 9 (15) 691 (14.4) 105 (2.2) 1.04
1500 (60) 8.9 (0.42) 9 (15) 826 (17.3) 105 (2.2) 1.03
Table 34. Stiffness of Tested Pipes at Deflection Ratio of 3%.
Pipe Steel area, cm2/m Wall thickness, mm Fiber dosage, kg/m3 Stiffness @3%
diameter (in2/ft) (in.) (lb/yd3) deflection, kN/m/m
(kip/ft/ft)
1500 (60 in.)a 5.7 (0.27) 63 (2.5) 0 393 (8.2)
1500 (60 in.)a 5.7 (0.27) 63 (2.5) 3.56 (6) 403 (8.4)
1500 (60 in.)a 5.7 (0.27) 63 (2.5) 4.75 (8) 496 (10.3)
1500 5.7 (0.27) 63 (2.5) 9 (15) 969 (20.2)

a
past research results obtained by (Park et al, 2016).
173
4.7 Performance of Thin-wall Synthetic Fiber Reinforced Concrete Pipes Under Short
and Long-term Loading
4.7.1 Short-term Performance
The load-displacement curves of the 1200 and 1500 mm (48 and 60 in.) diameter
concrete pipes are shown in Figure 58 and Figure 59, respectively. For 1200 (48 in)mm
pipe reinforced with fiber dosage of 9 kg/m3(15 lb/yd3) and steel area of 5.7 cm2/m (0.27
in2/ft), a linear load-deflection response was observed prior to the first crack, which
occurred at a load of 10 kN, as depicted in Figure 58(a). At higher loads, the pipe
exhibited deflection hardening as the reinforcement resisted the propagation of cracks.
With the steel area was increased to 10.2 cm2/m(0.27 in2/ft), stiffer behavior was
observed in non-linear zone of the load-deflection response, as shown in Figure 58(b).
Increasing the steel area increased the cracking and ultimate load by 88% and 120%,
respectively. The 1200 mm (48 in.) diameter pipe reinforced with 9 kg/m3(15 lb/yd3) PP
fiber and steel area of 5.7 cm2/m (0.27 in2/ft) did not fulfill the strength requirements for
any class specified in ASTM C76. The 1200 mm (48 in.) diameter pipe reinforced with
steel area of 10.2 cm2/m (0.48 in2/ft) met the ultimate strength requirements for Classes I,
II, and III.
For 1500 mm (60 in.) diameter pipe reinforced with PP fiber content of 9
kg/m3(15 lb/yd3) and steel area of 5.7 cm2/m (0.27 in2/ft), the load-deflection response
was approximately linear until the first crack occurred at a load of 20 kN. As the load
increased, the pipe showed a non-linear response, with an ultimate load of 62 kN, as
depicted in Figure 59 (a). The cracking and ultimate loads increased by 36% and 21%,
174
respectively when the steel area was increased to 8.9 cm2/m (0.42 in2/ft). The first pipe
met the ultimate strength requirement of Class I, while the second pipe with steel
reinforcement area increased to 8.9 cm2/m (0.42 in2/ft)fulfilled the strength requirements
for Class I and II. The PP fibers bridged the cracks and did not pull out from the
concrete.
All tested pipes qualified as flexible, sustaining deflections of at least 2% of the
pipe diameter. Indeed, the pipes experienced deflection up to 5% of their inside diameter
with high load capacity and residual strength. This indicates that these pipes can be
expected to carry more loads when buried in the soil as a portion of the load can be
carried through the soil-pipe interaction.

175
120
Vertical deflection
100 Horizontal deflection
80
Load (kN)
60
40
5% deflection ratio
20
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Deflection (mm)
(a)
120
Vertical deflection
80
Load (kN)
60
40
5% deflection ratio
20
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Deflection (mm)
(b)
dosage of 9 kg/m3 and reinforcing steel area of: (a) 5.7 cm2/m(0.27 in2/ft); (b) 10.2
cm2/m(0.48 in2/ft). (Note: 1 kN = 0.2248 kip; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.)

176
120
Vertical Deflection
80
Load (kN)
60
40
5% deflection ratio
20
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Deflection (mm)
(a)
120
Verical deflection
100
80
Load (kN)
60
40
5% deflection ratio
20
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Deflection (mm)
(b)
dosage of 9 kg/m3 and reinforcing steel area of: (a) 5.7 cm2/m (0.27 in2/ft); (b) 8.9 cm2/m
(0.42 in2/ft). (Note: 1 kN = 0.2248 kip; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.)

177
4.7.2 Long-term Performance for 30 days
Deflection Response
The load-displacement responses of three load stages of the long-term experiment
on the concrete pipe with diameter of 1200 mm (48 in.) reinforced with steel area of 5.7
cm2/m (0.27 in2/ft) and PP fiber dosage of 9 kg/m3(15 lb/yd3) are shown in Figure 60.
For Stage 1 (see Figure 60(a)), the behavior was linear for load up to 10 kN (2.25 kip);
then non-linear behavior was observed as the load increased. During Load Stage 1, there
are two unstable regions in the non-linear a portion of the graph, indicating the formation
of cracks that initiated at the inner crown, inner invert, and outer surface at the springline.
The initiation of each crack caused an abrupt increase in deflection accompanied by a
decrease in load. As the load was increased for Stage 2(see Figure 60(b)), linear behavior
was observed until new cracks were initiated at a load of 20.5 kN. During Stage 3 (see
Figure 60(c)), new cracks initiated at a load of 30 kN (6.74 kip) with better performance
in terms of the load deflection response as fewer cracks initiated than in the previous two
stages. During Load Stages 2 and 3, fewer cracks were initiated at the concrete pipe wall.
These cracks were hairline cracks connecting the main cracks formed during Load Stage
1 at the inner invert, inner crown, and springline. The hairline cracks did not influence
the load deflection responses significantly due to the fiber bridging effect. This
enhancement in the pipe deflection behavior after each load stage is because the fibers
resisting crack propagation are fully stressed, creating high tensile strength and enhancing
ductility. During Stages 1, 2, and 3, the pipe exhibited a deflection ratio of 1.75%, 2%,
and 3%, respectively. This confirms the flexible behavior observed in the short-term test.
178
Thus, in the field, a portion of the applied load will be carried through soil-structure
interaction.
(a)
(b)
179
(c)
Figure 60. Load vs. displacement plot of 1200 mm diameter concrete pipe reinforced
with steel area of 5.7 cm2/m (0.27 in2/ft) and PP fiber dosage of 9 kg/m3, (a) Stage 1
(40% ultimate load); (b) Stage 2 (50% ultimate load); (c) Stage 3 (70% ultimate load).
(Note: 1 kN = 0.2248 kip; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.).
The deflection responses as a function of time during Load Stages 1, 2, and 3 for
30 days each are shown in Figure 61, where the increase in the deflection is synchronized
with the change in the sustained load. The time-dependent deformation (subtracted from
the instantaneous deflection due to the application of the load) of the pipe during Stage 1
appeared to stabilize after 4 days as after which the deflection was observed to approach
an asymptote and become almost constant. The time-dependent vertical (horizontal)
deflection after 4 days was 4.3 mm (4.3 mm), and the total time-dependent deflection
after 30 days was 6.1 mm (5.6 mm). For Stage 2, linear time-dependent deflection was
180
observed during the first day and from 9.6 to 12.7 days after applying the load. Over
these ranges, almost constant time-dependent deflection response can be observed. The
time-dependent vertical (horizontal) deflections after 1, 9.6 12.7, and 30 days were 4.2
mm (4.0 mm), 5.3 mm (5.0 mm), 6.0 mm (5.9 mm), 6.8 mm (6.7 mm), respectively.
Under Stage 3, the deflection response over time was linear for 5 days after applying the
load, followed by a stable response. There is a slight jump in the deflection value on Day
17, which is attributed to a slight change in the load value. The time-dependent vertical
(horizontal) deflections after 5 and 30 days are 5.4 mm (4.7 mm) and 6.9 mm (6.0 mm),
respectively. After the deflection response stabilized, only a very slight increase in the
total deflection was noted. This increase in the time-dependent deflection could be
attributed to the pullout or stretch of the synthetic fibers under the sustained load. Also,
as the sustained load increased, the total time-dependent deflection was increased. This
behavior is ascribed mainly to the increase in the number of initiated cracks as the load
was increased, which resulted in fiber deformation contributing more to the total
deflection. These results concur with those from Mackay and Trottier (2004), who argued
synthetic fiber creep showed no significant impact on the deflection response and did not
adversely affect the fiber as a replacement for the steel reinforcing mesh.
181
(a)
(b)
182
(c)
Figure 61. Displacement vs. time plots of 1200 mm (48 in.) diameter concrete pipe
reinforced with steel area of 5.7 cm2/m (0.27 in2/ft) and PP fiber dosage of 9 kg/m3. (a)
Load Stage 1 (b) Load Stage 2 (c) Load Stage 3. (Note: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.).
Crack Width
Figure 62 shows the crack width versus time measured during Load Stage 2 and
Load Stage 3 at the inside invert, outer springline, and inside crown using LVDTs (see
Fig. 11) labeled as LVDT-1, LVDT-2, and LVDT-3, respectively. For Load Stage 1, a
feeler gauge was used to measure the crack width. The maximum recorded crack width
recorded initially was 0.25 mm during this stage and did not exceed the 0.3 mm (0.01 in.)
upper limit specified by ASTM Standard C76. However, after 30 days, the crack widths
at invert, springline, and crown increased to 0.56, 0.45, and 0.56 mm (0.022, 0.017, and
0.022 in.), respectively. Upon increasing the load to 50% of ultimate value for Load
183
Stage 2, the crack widths at the inside crown, inside invert, and outer springline increased
to 1.49, 0.78, and 1.83 mm (0.058, 0.03, and 0.072 in.), respectively. The crack widths at
the crown and invert increased almost linearly during the first day, and between 9.6 days
and 12.7 days, following the same pattern observed for the deflection response. The
time-dependent crack width (subtracted from the instantaneous crack width during the
initial response to the applied load in this stage) at the invert (crown) was 0.25 mm ( 0.01
in.)(0.13 mm [0.005 in.]), 0.32 mm ( 0.0126 in) (0.19 mm [0.0074 in.]), 0.35 mm (0.0137
in.) (0.22 mm [0.00866]), and 0.40 mm (0.0157 in.) (0.27 mm [0.0106]) mm after 1 day,
9.6 days, 12.7 days, and 30 days, respectively. The crack width time dependence at the
springline after the first day was almost linear before essentially stopping. The time-
dependent after crack width was 0.05 mm (0.001968 in.) at 1 day and 0.11(0.0043 in.)
mm at 30 days. During Load Stage 3, the total maximum crack width at the invert,
springline, and crown increased to 2.18, 1.01, and 2.53 mm (0.083, 0.04, and 0.099 in.),
respectively. The crack width response was linear crack over time within 5 days of
applying the load. At the springline, the crack width stabilized after a few hours applying
load with only 0.05 mm increase over the next 30 days. The time-dependent crack width
at the invert (crown) was 0.47 mm (0.018 in.) (0.37 mm [0.0145 in.]) and 0.54 mm (0.021
in.) (0.43 mm [0.017 in.]) after 5 days and 30 days, respectively. The time-dependent
crack width at the springline showed almost no change after 30 days. This increase in the
crack width can be attributed mainly to fiber creep or pull out, with other possible
contributing factors, including fiber aspect ratio, fiber volume, matrix composition, and
fiber geometry. Based on the physical properties of the PP fiber used in this study, high
184
bond strength is expected. However, when the stresses exerted on a fiber exceeds the
bond strength, the fiber will slip inside the matrix, and the crack width increase. As this
experiment represents a worst-case scenario, a study of a properly installed pipe buried in
soil will provide a more realistic evaluation of thin-walled fiber-reinforced concrete pipe,
including soil-structure interaction effects.

185
(a)
(b)
with steel area of 5.7 cm2/m and PP fiber dosage of 9 kg/m3(15 lb/yd3) during (a) Load
Stage 2 (b) Load Stage 3. (Note: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.)

186
LVDT-1
LVDT-3
LVDT-2
Figure. 63. LVDTs used to measure the crack width.
Strain Response
The strain readings were collected from six strain gauges installed on the surface
of the inner invert (labeled SG#1 in Figure 25 (b)), inner springline (SG#2), outer
springline (SG#3), inner midway crown-haunch (SG#4), outer midway crown-haunch
(SG#5), and inner crown (SG#6). The load versus strain measurements are depicted in
Figure 64. Due to flexural deformation, the strains measured at the inner crown, inner
invert, inner midway crown-haunch, and outer springline were positive (tensile), and
those measured on the inner surface of the springline and outer midway crown-haunch
were negative (compressive). This strain distribution was consistent with the oval-shaped
pipe deflection pattern reported in the previous section. All tested pipes exhibited linear
load-strain relationships prior to cracking. As cracks began to propagate, the load-strain
relationship became non-linear, as did the load-deflection response. During Load Stage
187
1, Strain gauges SG#1 and SG#6 at the inner crown and invert surfaces failed when their
maximum capacity was exceeded after cracks started underneath; the maximum strains
recorded were 12,236 με at the inner invert (SG#1) and 14,860 με at the inner crown
(SG#6). The other strain gauges, SG#2 through SG#5, continued recording as the cracks
propagated away from their locations. The maximum tensile strain within the elastic
range was 1000 με at the invert. The ultimate tensile (compressive) strains recorded at
outer springline and inner midway crown-haunch were 629 με (-1180 με) and 307 με (-
432) με, respectively. For Load Stage 2, the strain recorded at the outer springline and
inner midway crown-haunch increased to 825 με (-1320 με) and 376 με (-639 με),
respectively. During Load Stage 3 the corresponding ultimate tensile (compressive)
strains increased to 3108 με (-2887 με) and 516 με (-849 με), respectively. The fibers
bridging the cracks adequately transferred stresses generated in the concrete pipe wall
even as the number of cracks increased at each stage of loading. The ultimate tensile
strain value at the springline surpassed the compression strain value in Load Stage 3. This
behavior can be mainly attributed to that the neutral axis became closer to the
compressive face. On the other hand, ultimate tensile strain at the midway crown-haunch
was larger than compressive strain for all load stages; the stress distribution at the pipe
haunches are expected to have less stress intensity than the crown, invert, and springline.
188
(a)
(b)
189
(c)
Figure 64. Load-strain responses (a) invert and crown (b) springline (c) midway crown-
haunch.
During Load Stages 1 and 2, strains induced at the springline (see Figure 65(a))
increased linearly as the load was applied during the first day, then the strain leveled off
once the load was held constant at its final value, increasing slightly over the next 30
days. The tensile (compressive) strain change at the end of the first day of constant load
during Load Stage 1 was 79 με (-155 με) and at 30 days was 276 με (-451 με). Even
though the total strain increased in Load stage 2, the change in strain while the load was
held constant was less after 30 days than that recorded at the end of Load Stage 1. The
time-dependent tensile (compressive) strains in Load Stage 2 at the end of 1 day and 30
days were respectively 98 με (-77 με) and 142 με (-326 με). The lower 30-day strain
values could be attributed to stress redistribution associated with crack propagation.

190
During Load Stage 3, strains induced at the springline exhibited linear response during
the 5 days after the final load increment was applied. A sudden increase in strain was
observed on Day 17, perhaps in response to a slight increase in the load. The tensile
(compressive) strain change at the end of 5 days and 30 days were 1020 με (-661 με) and
1237 με (-902 με), respectively.
Figure 65 (b) shows the strain response in the midway crown-haunch as a
function of time. During Load Stage 1, the tensile (compressive) strain under constant
load after 1 day and 30 days were 14 με (-39 με) and 103 με (-168 με), respectively. As
the load was increased for Stages 2 and 3, the compressive strain-time dependent
increased, and the tensile strain time-dependent decreased. The tensile (compressive)
strains-time dependent at the end of Load Stages 2 and 3 were 9 με (-224 με) and 43 με (-
286 με), respectively. The tensile and compressive strain responses exhibited different
trends in terms of the increase, and the decrease in the strain values, which is attributed
primarily to the cracks, propagated the inner crown causing stress redistribution.
191
(a)
(b)
haunch.
192
Crack Patterns
The growth and propagation of cracks were monitored to determine the effect of
the sustained load change on their number and the pattern. Flexural cracks were the only
type created under all loads. The flexural cracks propagated longitudinally where there
was high flexural tensile stress. Other crack types associated with larger diameter pipes,
such as shear and radial cracks, were not observed. During Load Stage 1, a single crack
first appeared on the inside surface at the crown, then one on the inside at the invert and
two on the outside at the springline, as depicted in Figure 66. Additional fine cracks were
also observed, especially at the invert and crown. The primary cracks propagated
longitudinally at the invert and crown across where a strain gauge was installed, causing
failure in the strain gauge. On the other hand, the primary cracks at the springline
occurred away from the centerline and avoided the strain gauge installed there, as shown
in Figure 66(b). Additional cracks appeared during Load Stage 2 at the crown and
springlines, as illustrated in Figure 67, and new cracks formed at the haunches. This
indicates, under certain conditions of pipe geometry and support, the haunches absorb the
excess bending moment from the springlines. The crack patterns resemble those reported
previously by Mont et al (2016), who also observed haunch cracked after crown and
springline. During Load Stage 3, newly formed fine cracks connected the existing cracks
from previous stages; these are presented in Figure 68.

193
3 (a) (b)
5 (c)
Figure 66. Cracks formed during Load Stage 1 at (a) crown (b) springline (c) invert.
194
Figure 67. Crack propagated during Load Stage 2 at (a) crown (b) springline
195
New cracks
New crack
2
3 (a) (b)
New crack
5
6 (c)
Figure 68. Cracks propagated during Load Stage 3 (a) crown (b) invert (c) springline.
196
4.7.3 Long-term Performance for 120 days
Deflection Response
The deflection response as a function of time under load stage-1 and 3 for 120
days is shown in Figure 69. It can be seen the increase in the incremental deflection is
synchronized with the change in the sustained load. The most important factor in this
research is the actual change in deflection after stabilization (Park et al, 2013). The time-
dependent deflection (subtracted from the instantaneous deflection due to applying load)
of the pipe under load stage-1 appeared to stabilize after 5 days as slight changes in the
time-dependent relationship was observed. The time-dependent vertical (horizontal)
deflection after 5 days was 4.3 mm (0.17 in.) (4.3 mm [0.017 in.]), and the total time-
dependent deflection after 120 days was 7.8 mm (0.3 in.) (6.9 mm [0.27]). Under load
stage-3, the rate of increase in the deflection was rapid within 5 days of applying the load,
but then it fell and exhibited a very slow rate of increase. The time-dependent vertical
(horizontal) deflections after 5 and 120 days were 5.4mm (0.21 in.) (4.7mm [0.185 in.])
and 7.5 mm (0.295 in.) (6.4mm [0.297 in.]), respectively. After the pipe deflection
response stabilized, a very slight increase in the total deflection was observed. This
increase in the time-dependent deflection could be attributed to the pullout or stretch of
the fibers under sustained load. Also, as the sustained load was increased, the total time-
dependent deflection was increased. This behavior can be mainly ascribed to the increase
in the number of initiated cracks as the load was increased, and as a result, more fiber
deformation contributing to the total deflection was expected. The results obtained from
the present study concur with previous research by Mackay and Trottier (2004), showing
197
that synthetic fiber can be used as a replacement for the steel reinforcement cage without
adverse effect due to fiber creep, as synthetic fiber showed no significant impact on the
deflection response. Also, the results herein in congruent with previous findings reported
by Park et al, (2013), showing that synthetic fiber the time-dependent material properties
of synthetic fiber concrete will not adversely affect the performance of the concrete pipes.
Furthermore, as shown in Figure 69, the total vertical deflections of the crown
and the horizontal deflection of springline during load stage 1 were 21.1 and 22.5 mm (
0.83 and 0.88 in.), respectively, while the corresponding deflection under load stage 2
was 34.3 and 30.7 mm (1.35 and 1.2 in.), respectively. This increase in the deflection
could be attributed to fiber pull-out or stretch of the fibers and the initiation of new cracks
(Park et al., 2014; Pujadas et al., 2017; Babafemi and Boshoff, 2013, 2015, 2016;
Bernard, 2010; MacKay and Trottier, 2004; Boshoff et al., 2009).On the other hand,
including synthetic fiber along with a steel reinforcement cage enhanced the ductility and
energy absorption capacity for concrete pipes. Also, the deflection ratio (deflection to the
pipe diameter) is an important index to classify pipes as flexible, semi-rigid pipes, or
rigid (Plastics Pipe Institute, 2011; AS4, 2003). Maintaining a deflection ratio of 2% or
more in concrete pipe ensures that it could perform as a non-rigid behavior when buried.
Thin-walled fiber reinforced concrete pipe exhibited a deflection ratio of 1.75 % and
2.5% under load stages 1 and 2, respectively. The results indicate that the pipe can endure
more load when buried in soil as the new concrete system has sufficient flexibility to
obtain passive support from the surrounding soil.

198
40
Vertical displacement
35 Horizontal displacement
Displacement (mm) 30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
Time (days)
(a)
40
35
30
Displacement (mm)
25
20
15
10
5 Vertical displacement.
0 Horizontal displacement
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Time (days)
(b)
Figure 69. Displacement vs. time plots of 1200 mm (48 in) diameter concrete pipe
reinforced with steel area of 5.7 cm2/m (0.27 in2/ft) and PP fiber dosage of 9
kg/m3(15lb/yd3). (a) Load Stage 1 (b) Load Stage 3. (Note:1 mm = 0.0394 in.).
199
Crack Width
Figure 70 shows the crack width versus time measured under load stage 1 and 3 at
the crown, invert, and outer face of the springline. For load stage 1, the crack width was
measured using Feeler gauge. On the other hand, during load stage 3, LVDTs labeled as
LVDT-1, LVDT-2, and LVDT-3 were used to monitor the crack width (see Figure 71),
respectively. The crack width response under all load stages coincides with the deflection
response due to the ovaling response of the pipe. The maximum recorded crack width
was 0.25 mm when the pipe was loaded under load stage 1. The crack width did not
exceed the limit specified by the ASTM C76 standard, 0.3 mm (0.01 in.). However, after
120 days, the crack widths at the invert, springline, and crown increased to 0.56, 0.53,
and 0.76 mm ( 0.022, 0.020, and 0.03 in.), respectively. As the load was increased to 70%
of the ultimate capacity during load stage 3, the crack widths at the crown, invert, and
outer face of the springline increased to 2.55, 2.22, and 1 mm (0.1, 0.087 and 0.039 in.),
respectively. The increase rate of crack width at the crown and invert was almost linear
within 5 days. The time-dependent crack width (subtracted from the instantaneous crack
width due to the applied load) at the invert (crown) was 0.29 mm (0.011 in.) (0.38 mm
[0.015]), 0.37 mm (0.0145 in.) (0.47 mm [0.0185]), and 0.45 mm (0.0177) (0.57 mm
[0.022]) mm after 1 day, 5 days, and 120 days, respectively. Also, the time-dependent
crack width at the springline after the first day was linear before essentially stopping. It
can be seen that the fiber has a slight impact on the crack width time-dependent increase
and this increase can be mainly attributed to the fiber creep or pull out. Moreover, the
increase in crack width could be also attributed to other factors associated with fiber-
200
matrix bond strength, including fiber aspect ratio, fiber volume, matrix composition, and
fiber geometry. Thus, based on the physical properties of the PP fiber used in this study,
high bond strength could be expected. However, when the stresses exerted on each fiber
exceeds the bond strength, a slip could occur between fibers and matrix and as a result, an
increase in the crack width is expected. Therefore, it is recommended that the synthetic
fiber-reinforced thin-wall concrete pipe be investigated further while buried in the soil as
the test setup employed in this study represents the most severe load condition.
201
0.7
0.6
0.5
Crack width (mm)

0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1 Crown
Invert
Springline
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
Time (days)
(a)
2.5
Displacement (mm)
1.5
1
LVDT-1
0.5
LVDT-2
LVDT-3
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Time (days)
(b)
with steel area of 5.7 cm2/m (0.27 in2/ft) and PP fiber dosage of 9 kg/m3(15lb/yd3). (a)
Load Stage 1 (b) Load Stage 3. (Note:1 mm = 0.0394 in.).

202
LVDT-3
LVDT-2
LVDT-1
Figure 71. LVDTs used to measure the crack width.
Creep Coefficient
The creep coefficient was proposed by several authors to get a better
understanding of the creep behavior and feasibly compare the results of cracked fiber
reinforced concrete members under different load levels. The creep coefficient is the ratio
of creep deformation to the elastic deformation. Nevertheless, since the creep
deformation was not directly measured, the creep coefficient can be calculated using
crack width of deflection data as reported in the previous research (Babafemi and
Boshoff, 2013 ; Abrishambaf et al., 2015; Buratti, 2015; Buratti and Mazzotti, 2015;
Arango et al., 2011). Thus, the creep coefficient φ(t) was calculated as the ratio of crack
width due to the creep at a time (t) (𝑤𝑐𝑡 ) to the crack width measured immediately after
applying the load (𝑤𝑐𝑜 ) as presented in Eq. (1).

203
𝑤𝑐𝑡 −𝑤𝑐0 𝛥𝑤𝑐𝑡

𝜑(𝑡) = = (1)
𝑤𝑐0 𝑤𝑐0
The development of the creep coefficient after 120 days φ(t=120) under load
stages 1 and 3 is presented in
(a)
(b)
Figure 72. Following the trend indicated in previous sections for the time-
dependent deformation, the creep coefficient stabilized within several days in specimens
subjected to load stages 1 and 3. Also, as can be seen, the creep coefficient value ranged
between 0.05 to 2.2 for cracks propagated at the crown, invert, and springline under both
load stages. These results are significantly lower than those obtained by previous
researchers who reported that PP fiber reinforced concrete specimens experienced φ(t)
ranged from 1.5 to 3.5.
According to previous research by MacKay and Trottier (2004), the synthetic
fiber-reinforced specimens exhibit greater creep initially after loading, but the tensile
204
fiber creep becomes less significant as time elapses, and the remaining creep deformation
is due to the fiber pull out. However, the effect of fiber pull-out on the total creep
deformation can be minimized when increasing the bond strength of the fiber-matrix
interface, which is a function of fiber geometry and cement paste surrounding the fiber.
Thus, PP with embossed surface used in this study might have increased the bond
strength, and as a result, the total creep deformation was reduced. Also, this behavior
could be attributed to the fact that using a steel reinforcement cage along with synthetic
fiber aided to reduce the creep deformation as steel reinforcement is much lower than that
for synthetic fiber. The results herein indicate that synthetic fiber can be used along with
steel as reinforcement without concerns about the visco-elastic behavior of synthetic
fiber. This outcome may have a positive repercussion in the philosophy adopted to
account for the creep of FRC in the design.
(a)
205
(b)
Figure 72. Creep coefficient (a) Load stage 1 (b) load stage 2
Strain Response
The strain readings were collected from six strain gauges: SG#1, SG#2, SG#3,
SG#4, SG#5, and SG#6 installed on the surface of the inner invert, inner springline, outer
springline, inner midway crown-haunch, outer midway crown-haunch, and inner crown,
respectively. The instrumentation profile utilized in this study was very important to
study the stress distribution associated with strain distribution. Due to the flexural
deformation of tested pipes, the measured strain at the inner crown, inner invert, inner
midway crown-haunch, and outer of springline was positive (tensile strain). The strains
measured on the inner surface of the springline and outer midway crown-haunch were
negative (compressive strains). The strain distribution was consistent with the oval-
shaped behavior observed in response to pipe deflections reported in the previous section.
206
Under all load stages, the pipe exhibited linear load-strain relationships prior to the first
crack, followed by a non-linear response. During load stage-1, Strain gauges SG#1 and
SG#6 experienced high strains due to the cracks initiated at the inner crown and invert
surfaces. As a result, these strain gauges failed as their maximum capacity was reached.
The maximum recorded strains at the inner invert and crown were 12,236 με and 14,860
με, respectively. On the other hand, strain gauges, SG#2, SG#3, SG#4, and SG#5,
continued recording as the cracks propagated away from the strain gauges.
Figure 73. shows strain responses versus time from SG#2, SG#3, SG#4, and
SG#5. Under load stages 1 and 2, strains generated at the springline (see Figure 73 (a))
showed a linear response within 5 days of applying the load, followed by a stable
response. The tensile (compressive) time-dependent strains under load stage 1 after 5 and
120 days were 102 με (-327με) and 356 με (-653 με), respectively. As the load was
increased under load stage 2, the total and time-dependent strain increased. The time-
dependent tensile (compressive) strains under load stage 2 after 5 days and 120 days were
1019 με (-661 με) and 1596 με (-1062 με), respectively. This increase in the time-
dependent and total strains could be attributed primarily to stress redistribution associated
with the cracks propagation.
Figure 73(b) shows the strain response in the midway crown- hunch as a function
of time. The tensile (compressive) strain-time dependent under load stage 1 after 5 and 30
days were -33 με (-127 με) and 220 (-460 με), respectively. As the load was increased
under load case 2 and 3, it was observed that there was an increase in the tensile
compressive strain-time dependent. The tensile (compressive) strains-time dependent

207
under load case 2 were 37 με (-168 με) and 234 με (-346 με), respectively. Also, it was
noted that tensile and compressive strains responses exhibited different trends in terms of
the increase and the decrease in the strain values. This behavior is mainly attributed to the
cracks propagated at the inner crown, causing stress redistribution.
Furthermore, concrete pipes reinforced with synthetic fiber experienced an
increase in the strain as the load was increased beyond that for plain concrete. Also, the
ultimate tensile and compressive strain values at the springline are 3468 με and -3046 με,
respectively. The strain results indicate that concrete pipes reinforced with synthetic can
endure more strain beyond that for plain concrete. Also, it can be concluded that fiber
bridging the propagated cracks adequately transfer stresses generated in the concrete pipe
wall even though the number of cracks increased after each load stage. This behavior
highlights the fiber contribution to the pipe strength and ductility, indicating that the
fracture energy absorption improved significantly. As a result, thin-wall synthetic fiber
reinforced concrete pipes are expected to behave like a flexible pipe when buried in the
soil. This subject is the current focus of further research.

208
(a)
(b)
haunch.
209
Crack Patterns
Crack growth and propagation were monitored during the test to determine the
effect of the sustained load change on the number and pattern of cracks propagation. It
was observed that the flexural cracks were the only type of cracks initiated under all load
stages. Flexural cracks propagated longitudinally at the vicinities that experienced high
flexural tensile stress. Under load stage 1, cracks first appeared on the inner face at the
crown and subsequently initiated on the inner face at the invert and the outer side of the
springline. Under load stage 1, These cracks were characterized with one main crack at
the crown and invert, and two main cracks on the outer surface at the springlines, as
depicted in Figure 74. Additional hairline cracks were also observed, especially, at the
invert and crown. The main cracks that propagated longitudinally at the invert and crown
passed through strain gauges, causing failure in the strain gauge. On the other hand, the
main cracks at the springline propagated away from the strain gauges, as shown in Figure
74(a). The number of cracks increased as the load was increased during load stage-2.
More cracks were observed at the crown and springlines, as illustrated inFigure 74. Also,
new cracks formed at the haunches, indicating that haunches at a certain grade of stress
redistribution absorb the excess of bending moment from the springlines. The
redistribution grade is a function of the geometry and support condition of the pipe. The
observed cracks’ patterns are similar to those reported in previous research conducted by
Mont et al., (2016), who reported that haunches experienced cracks after the cracks
occurred at the crown and springline. The presence of fibers bridging the cracks at the
crown, invert, and springline, allows section rotation while resisting the crack, resulting
210
in stress redistribution. Under load stage 3, it was also observed forming new fine cracks,
connecting cracks occurred in the previous load stage, as presented in Figure 75. During
all load stages, it was noted that the sustained load formed new cracks. The existing
cracks experienced increases in the width and depth, making these cracks largely visible
to the naked eye over time.
(a)
(b)
211
(c)
Figure 74. Cracks formed during Load Stage 1 at (a) crown (b) springline (c) invert.
(a)
212
(b)
(c)
Figure 75. Cracks propagated during Load Stage 3 (a) crown (b) invert (c) springline.
213
CHAPTER 5 : CONCLUSIONS, SUMMARY, AND RECOMMENDATION
5.1 Conclusions
The aim of this study was to evaluate the synthetic fiber reinforced concrete pipes
performance in terms of ASTM requirements for strength, stiffness, and ductility, and
develop design tables for synthetic fiber reinforced concrete pipe similar to those
proposed in ASTM C76 standard using the numerical analysis. The performance of the
synthetic fiber reinforced concrete pipes was evaluated under short- and long-term
loading in accordance with ASTM protocols using different pipe diameters. High fidelity
3-dimensional FEMs were developed to capture the complex behavior for the fiber-
reinforced concrete pipes. The FEMs were calibrated and validated with the field and
laboratory results. The validated FEM models were used to conduct A parametric study
on four parameters: pipe diameter, pipe wall thickness, fiber dosage, and steel cage area.
Based on this study, the following conclusions can be drawn:
5.1.1 Material Properties of Synthetic Fiber Reinforced Concrete under Freeze-
Material Properties
The effect of using synthetic polypropylene (PP) and polyvinyl alcohol (PVA)
reinforcing fibers on mechanical properties of concrete before and after applying freeze-
thaw cycles was presented in this study. The coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) of
concrete reinforced with PVA and PP fibers increased over the value of plain concrete.
The dynamic modulus of elasticity of specimens reinforced with fiber dosage of 9 kg/m 3
PVA and PP fibers was the lowest compared to other specimens reinforced with low fiber
content. Adding PVA and PP fiber has a significant impact on the flexural strength of
214
concrete. The flexural strength of the concrete specimens increased substantially with
using fiber dosage of 9 kg/m3 (15 lb/yd3) for both types of fiber compared to the plain
concrete. Repeated freezing and thawing increased the CTEs of fiber reinforced
specimens, except for that with 6 kg/m3 PVA fiber. After 300 freeze-thaw cycles, plain
concrete specimens lost over 70% of their mass by the end of 300 freeze-thaw cycles.
The corresponding mass loss for fiber reinforced specimens was under 5%. For dosages
of 6 and 7 kg/m3 (10 and 12 lb/yd3), the concrete material loss was less than 1% for both
types of fiber. PVA fiber reinforced specimens showed a slight reduction in the dynamic
modulus of elasticity compared with PP fiber after 300 freeze-thaw cycles. The flexural
strength of fiber reinforced specimens decreased due to freeze-thaw cycles.
5.1.2 Evaluation of Synthetic Fiber Reinforced Concrete Pipe Performance Using
Three-Edge Bearing Test
The impact of incorporating synthetic fiber in concrete pipes on minimizing the
use of conventional steel reinforcing, improving the mechanical properties, and on the
overall performance was investigated. A total of 36 pipes of different diameters with
varying fiber content and presence or absence of a steel reinforcement cage were utilized
in conducting this study. Pipes were tested in accordance with ASTM C497. The
dominant failure mode in pipes with diameters of 600, 1200, and 1500 mm (24, 48, and
60 in.) was a flexural failure. Other failure modes associated with large pipes
diameter,1200 and 1500 mm (48 and 60 in.), was observed at high load rates. Inclusion of
synthetic fiber in the concrete pipes as a new reinforcement enhanced the load carrying
capacity, post-cracking behavior, ductility, and the stiffness of tested pipes. Each pipe
215
diameter has an optimum fiber dosage that meets strength requirements specified by
ASTM standards. Using synthetic fiber dosage of 18 kg/m3 (30 lb/yd3) reduced the steel
cage area as high as 100%, 78.76%, and 85.84% for pipes with the diameter of 600, 1200,
and 1500 mm (24, 48, and 60 in.), respectively, allowing for a significant reduction in
cost over conventional steel reinforced concrete pipes. Increasing fiber dosage improved
the stiffness of tested pipes. The size of this improvement was influenced by pipe size,
fiber dosage, and amount of steel reinforcement. For large size pipes, increasing fiber
dosage had more impact on stiffness enhancement than small size pipes. Also, using a
steel cage along with fiber as reinforcement showed less gain in the stiffness compared to
those reinforced with fiber only. The (ΔUltimate/Δ2%) ratio of 600 and 1200 mm (24 and 48
in.) pipe diameters reinforced with synthetic fiber along with steel cage was always larger
than 1, which indicates there is residual bending strength even after 2% deflection of the
inside diameter. Incorporating synthetic fiber in the concrete pipes with a large diameter
is effective in reducing some of the cracks that occur due to other failure modes
associated with a large diameter.
5.1.3 Design Proposal for Synthetic Fiber Reinforced Concrete Pipes Using Finite
Element Analysis
A three-dimensional finite element model was developed to simulate the three-
edge bearing test of synthetic fiber reinforced concrete pipes. Concrete damage plasticity
model was used to model polypropylene fiber reinforced concrete material. In order to
provide the finite element model with concrete material properties, compression strength,
tensile strength, modulus of elasticity, and Poisson’s ratio were measured. The finite
216
element model was calibrated and validated using the experimental results from full-scale
testing of PP fiber reinforced concrete pipes. A new compressive stress-strain model was
developed for PP fiber reinforced concrete material as the compressive strength of PP
fiber reinforced concrete reduced with increasing fiber dosage. The ultimate load results
of validated models were more conservative than the experimental results. The ultimate
and cracking loads of the finite element models were compared to the strength
requirements of each class specified by ASTM C76, and the results summarized in tables
similar to those presented in the ASTM C76 standard. A fiber dosage of 9 kg/m3 (15
lb/yd3) was sufficient to fulfill Class I strength requirement for Type A wall pipe with a
diameter of 300 to 750 mm (12 to 30 in.). For Type B wall pipe, using the same fiber
dosage fulfilled the strength requirements of Class I, except for pipe with diameter of
1200 mm (48 in.) where one layer of a steel cage was needed to achieve strength
requirements. Pipes with Type C walls fulfilled the strength requirements of Classes I and
II when fiber dosage of 9 kg/m3(15 lb/yd3) was used. As pipe diameter and certain class
strength increase, fiber dosage, steel cage area, or both were increased. The tables present
in the study can be used as a design reference for PP fiber reinforced concrete pipes.
5.1.4 Experimental Investigation of Thin-wall Synthetic Fiber Reinforced Concrete
Pipes
The effect of incorporating synthetic fiber with content of 9 kg/m 3(15 lb/yd3)
along with minimum steel reinforcement area on the performance of concrete pipe was
investigated. In an attempt to increase the concrete pipe flexibility and reduce the
production and transportation cost, the wall thickness of concrete pipe was reduced to
217
50% of that specified by ASTM C76 (2015) for Wall Type A. The pipes were subjected
to the three-edge bearing load test in accordance ASTM C496 (2015). The results were
evaluated in terms of load-deflection response, achieving ASTM strength requirements,
failure mode, stiffness, and strain capacity. The inclusion of PP fiber along with
minimum steel area and reduced wall thickness increased the flexibility of tested pipes as
all tested pipes experienced a deflection ratio of 5% of their inside diameter before
reaching their ultimate load. Fiber contribution to pipe strength and post cracking
behavior was more for pipes with diameter of 1500 mm (60 in.) than those with diameter
of 1200 mm (48 in.) due to wall thickness and failure modes associated with each pipe
configuration. The dominant failure mode was a flexural failure with cracks initiated
longitudinally at the inner invert, inner crown, and outer springline. Other failure modes
such as radial and shear failures were observed at high loading levels due to fiber
contribution. The synthetic fiber dosage of 9 kg/m3(15 lb/yd3) enhanced the overall pipe
performance compared to pipes studied in past research that used lower fiber dosages.
Fiber reinforced concrete pipe with a diameter of 1200 mm (48 in.) augmented with steel
reinforcement mesh at 10.2 cm2/m (0.48 in2/ft) fulfilled the ultimate load requirements of
ASTM Classes I, II and III. Pipe with diameter of 1500 mm (60 in.) met the ultimate load
requirements for Classes I and II. In addition to the reduction in steel reinforcement
relative to conventional concrete pipes, the wall thickness was reduced as much as 65%
and 63% for pipe with diameter of 1200mm (48 in.), and 1500 mm (60in.) compared to
conventional pipe specifications for Wall Type C, respectively. This significantly reduces
the cost of fiber reinforced concrete pipes compared to conventional steel reinforced
218
concrete pipes. The tested pipes exhibited a stiffness at 5% deflection ratio as much as
7.8 and10.2 times that of HDPE pipe of diameter of 1200mm (48 in.) and 1500 mm
(60in.), respectively. Using the fiber content of 9 kg/m3 (15 lb/yd3) has a significant
impact on the pipe stiffness compared to past research. The stiffness increased by 95%
when fiber dosage increased from 4.75 to 9 kg/m3 (8 to15 lb/yd3). The (ΔUltimate/Δ5%) ratio
of the fiber reinforced pipe was always larger than 1, which means there is residual
bending strength even when the pipe reaches a 5% deflection of their inside diameter.
Increasing the steel area along with 9 kg/m3(15 lb/yd3) synthetic fiber increased the strain
capacity of tested pipes as the concrete material was restrained by fiber and steel
reinforcement.
5.2 Performance of Thin-wall Synthetic Fiber Reinforced Concrete Pipes Under Short
and Long-term Loading
The performance of concrete pipes reinforced with synthetic fiber dosage of 9
kg/m3 (15 lb/yd3) and minimum steel reinforcement area was investigated. To reduce the
cost of production and transportation and increase the concrete pipe flexibility, these
concrete pipes had a wall thickness reduced to 50% of that specified by ASTM C76
(2015) for Wall A. The pipes were subjected to short and long term three-edge bearing
load tests. The results were evaluated in terms of deflection, strain, crack width, and
crack patterns. Incorporating synthetic fiber with dosage of 9 kg/m3 (15 lb/yd3) along
with minimum steel reinforcement areas enhanced the flexibility of the thin-walled
concrete pipes as the pipes sustained deflection ratios of 5% before reaching ultimate
load capacity. Under constant load, deflection, strain, and crack width readings increased
219
linearly within a specific period of time, and then leveled off. Only a slight increase in the
time-dependent deflection was observed after 30 days during all load stages, indicating
the fiber creep has no significant impact on the long-term deflection. The time-dependent
crack width increased slightly even when the load was increased to 70% of the ultimate
load capacity. Synthetic fiber reinforced concrete pipe with steel reinforcement can
endure greater strains than those reported by past research for the conventional concrete
material without fiber reinforcement. As the increased load was applied at different
stages, new cracks were observed at invert, crown, and springline. Also, during Load
Stages 2 and 3 cracks were observed in the pipe haunches, indicating the haunches
absorbed the excess bending moment from the crown, invert, and springlines.
5.3 Recommendation
The behavior of joints between segments of synthetic fiber reinforced concrete
pipes joint should be investigated since joints are typically the weakest points in a
concrete pipe system. Also, it should be noted that pipes are often more likely to be
damaged during installation than in service. Therefore, additional studies using dynamic
and concentrated load conditions are necessary to fully understand the behavior of the
synthetic fiber reinforced concrete pipes.

220
REFERENCES
AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials).
(1989). “AASHTO guide specifications thermal effect in concrete bridge
superstructures.” Washington, D.C.
AASHTO, AASHTO LRFD bridge design specifications, SI Units, 3rd Ed., Washington,
DC, 2012.
AASHTO. (2011). “Standard specification for corrugated polyethylene pipe, 300- to
1500-mm (12- to 60-in.) Diameter.” M 294-11, Washington, DC.
Abaqus 6.12-3 [Computer software]. Dassault Systèmes, Providence, RI.
Abolmaali, A. and Kararam, A. (2013). “Nonlinear Finite-Element Modeling Analysis of
Soil-Pipe Interaction.” International Journal of Geomechanics, 46(June), 197–
204.
Abrishambaf, A., Barros, J.A. and Cunha, V.M., (2015) Time-dependent flexural
behaviour of cracked steel fibre reinforced self-compacting concrete
panels. Cement and Concrete Research, 72: 21-36.
ACI (American Concrete Institute). (2010). “Report on the Physical properties and
Durability of Fiber-Reinforced Concrete.” ACI 544.5R-10, ACI Committee 544,
Farmington Hills, Michigan.
Ahn, T., Thermal and mechanical studies of Thin Spray-on Liner (TSL) for concrete
tunnel linings (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Western Ontario), 2011.

221
Akentuna, M., Kim, S. S., Nazzal, M., and Abbas, A. R. (2017). “Asphalt Mixture CTE
Measurement and the Determination of Factors Affecting CTE.” Journal of
Materials in Civil Engineering, 04017010
Al Rikabi, F. T., Sargand, S. M., and Hussein, H. H. (2020) Design Proposal for
Synthetic Fiber-Reinforced Concrete Pipes Using Finite Element
Analysis. Journal of Testing and Evaluation, 48(2),
https://doi.org/10.1520/JTE20180097.
Al Rikabi, F. T., Sargand, S. M., Hussein, H. H., and Khoury, I. “Material Properties of
Synthetic Fiber Reinforced Concrete under Freeze-Thaw Conditions.” Journal of
Materials in Civil Engineering,10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0002297.
Al Rikabi, F. T., Sargand, S. M., Kurdziel, J.M, and Hussein, H. H., “Experimental
Investigation of Thin-wall Synthetic Fiber Reinforced Concrete Pipes”, ACI
Structural journal, 2018. Vol. 115, 6, pp.1671-1681.
https://doi:10.14359/51702413.
Al Rikabi, F. T., Sargand, S.M., Kurdziel, J.M., “Evaluation of Synthetic Fiber
Reinforced Concrete Pipe Performance Using Three-Edge Bearing Test,” J. of
Testing and Evaluation. (In press).
Al Rikabi, F., Sargand, S., and Kurdziel, J., "Evaluation of Synthetic Fiber Reinforced
Concrete Pipe Performance Using Three-Edge Bearing Test," Journal of Testing and
Evaluation, Vol. 7, Issue 2, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1520/JTE20170369.
Al Rikabi, F.T., Sargand, S.M. and Kurdziel, J., (2018a) Evaluation of Synthetic Fiber
Reinforced Concrete Pipe Performance Using Three-Edge Bearing Test. Journal of
Testing and Evaluation, 47(2): 942-958.

222
Al Rikabi, F.T., Sargand, S.M., Kurdziel, J. and Hussein, H.H. (2018b) Experimental
Investigation of Thin-Wall Synthetic Fiber-Reinforced Concrete Pipes. ACI
Structural Journal, 115(6): 1671-1681.
Allan, M. L. and Kukacka, L. E. (1995). “Strength and durability of polypropylene fiber
reinforced grouts.” Cement and concrete research, 25(3), 511-521.
Al-Ostaz, A. (2007). “Study Effect of moisture content on the coefficient of thermal
expansion of concrete.” Technical Report, Department of Civil Engineering,
University of Mississippi
Altoubat, S., Yazdanbakhsh, A. and Rieder, K.A. (2009) Shear behavior of macro-
synthetic fiber-reinforced concrete beams without stirrups. ACI Materials
Journal, 106(4), 381-389
American Association of State Highway and Transportation (AASHTO). (2007).
“Standard test method for the coefficient of thermal expansion of hydraulic
cement concrete.” Standard Specifications for Transportation Materials and
Methods of Sampling and Testing, TP60-00, Washington, DC.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO).
(1989). AASHTO guide specifications thermal effect in concrete bridge
superstructures, Washington, D.C.
American Concrete Institute (ACI). (2008). “Prediction of creep, shrinkage and
temperature effects in concrete structures.” ACI-209R-92, ACI Committee 209,
Farmington Hills, Michigan.

223
Arango, S.E., Serna, P., Martí-Vargas, J.R. and García-Taengua, E. (2012) A test method
to characterize flexural creep behavior of pre-cracked FRC
specimens. Experimental mechanics, 52(8), 1067-1078.
AS4139-2003, (2003) Fiber-Reinforced Concrete Pipe and Fitting, Standards Australia
International, Sydney.
ASCE. (2001). “Standard practice for direct design of precast concrete pipe using
standard installations (SIDD).” ASCE 15-93, Reston, VA.
ASTM C1818-15, Standard Specification for Synthetic Fiber Reinforced Concrete
Culvert, Storm Drain, and Sewer Pipe, ASTM International, West Conshohocken,
PA, 2015, www.astm.org
ASTM C39/C39M-15, Standard test method for compressive strength of cylindrical
concrete specimens, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2015,
www.astm.org.
ASTM C469/C469M-14, Standard Test Method for Static Modulus of Elasticity and
Poisson’s Ratio of Concrete in Compression, ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, 2014, www.astm.org.
ASTM C496 / C496M-15, Standard Test Method for Splitting Tensile Strength of
Cylindrical Concrete Specimens, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA,
2017, www.astm.org
ASTM C497-15a, (2015b) Standard Test Methods for Concrete Pipe, Concrete Box
Sections, Manhole Sections, or Tile, ASTM International, West Conshohocken,
PA, www.astm.org.
224
ASTM C76-15, Standard Specification for Reinforced Concrete Culvert, Storm Drain,
and Sewer Pipe,” West Conshohocken, PA, 2015, www.astm.org.
ASTM, Standard test methods for concrete pipe, manhole sections, or tile.” C497-15,
(2015b), West Conshohocken, PA, 2015, DOI: 10.1520/C0412-15.
www.astm.org.
ASTM. (2012). “Standard Test Method for Linear Shrinkage and Coefficient of Thermal
Expansion of Chemical-Resistant Mortars, Grouts, Monolithic Surfacings, and
Polymer Concretes.” C531-00(2012), West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2013). Standard Specification for 2 to 60 inch [50 to 1500 mm] Annular
Corrugated Profile Wall Polyethylene (PE) Pipe and Fittings for Land Drainage
Applications, F2648/F2648M-13, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2014) “Standard test methods for concrete pipe, manhole sections, or tile.”
C497-14, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2014). “Standard Test Method for Fundamental Transverse, Longitudinal,
and Torsional Resonant Frequencies of Concrete Specimens.” ASTM C215-14
(2014), West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2015) “Standard Specification for Reinforced Concrete Culvert, Storm Drain,
and Sewer Pipe.” C76M-15, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2015a). “Standard Test Method for Resistance of Concrete to a Rapid Freezing
and Thawing.” C666 / C666M-15, West Conshohocken, PA.

225
ASTM. (2015b). “Standard Test Method for Flexural Performance of Fiber-Reinforced
Concrete (Using Beam with Third-Point Loading).” C1609 / C1609M-15, West
Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2015c). “Standard test method for flexural strength of concrete (using simple
beam with third-point loading).” C78/C78M-15, West Conshohocken, PA.
Babafemi, A. J., and Boshoff, W. P., “Tensile creep of macro-synthetic fibre reinforced
concrete (MSFRC) under uni-axial tensile loading,” Cement and Concrete
Composites,” Vol. 55, (2015), pp. 62-69.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2014.08.002.
Babafemi, A. J., and Boshoff, W. P., “Testing and modelling the creep of cracked macro-
synthetic fibre reinforced concrete (MSFRC) under flexural loading,” Materials
and Structures, 49(10), (2016), pp. 4389-4400. https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-
016-0795-7.
Babafemi, A.J. and Boshoff, W.P. (2013) Time-dependent behaviour of pre-cracked
polypropylene fibre reinforced concrete (PFRC) under sustained loading. Res.
Appl. Struct. Eng. Mech. Comput:1593-1598.
Babafemi, A.J. and Boshoff, W.P. (2016) Testing and modelling the creep of cracked
macro-synthetic fibre reinforced concrete (MSFRC) under flexural
loading. Materials and Structures, 49(10), 4389-4400.
Babafemi, A.J. and Boshoff, W.P., (2015) Tensile creep of macro-synthetic fibre
reinforced concrete (MSFRC) under uni-axial tensile loading. Cement and
Concrete Composites, 55: 62-69.

226
Bagherzadeh, R. Sadeghi, A. H. and Latifi, M. (2011). “Utilizing polypropylene fibers to
improve physical and mechanical properties of concrete.” Textile Research
Journal, 0040517511420767.
Bagherzadeh, R., Pakravan, H. R., Sadeghi, A. H., Latifi, M., and Merati, A. A. (2012).
“An Investigation on Adding Polypropylene Fibers to Reinforce Lightweight
Cement Composites (LWC).” Journal of Engineered Fabrics and Fibers
(JEFF), 7(4).
Bagherzadeh, Roohollah, Abdol-Hossein Sadeghi, and Masoud Latifi. "Utilizing
polypropylene fibers to improve physical and mechanical properties of
concrete." Textile Research Journal, Vol. 82, No.1, 2012, pp. 88-96.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0040517511420767.
Balaguru P, Shah S. (1992) Fiber-reinforced cement composites. New York: McGraw-
Hill Inc.
Balaguru, P. N. and Shah, S. P. (1992). Fiber-reinforced cement composites. McGraw-
Hill, Incorporated, New York.
Balaguru, P. N. and Shah, S. P. Fiber-reinforced cement composites. McGraw-Hill,
Banthia, N. and Sappakittipakorn, M. (2007). “Toughness enhancement in steel fiber
reinforced concrete through fiber hybridization.” Cement and Concrete
Research, 37(9), 1366-1372.
Banthia, N., and Dubey, A. (2000). “Measurement of flexural toughness of fiber-
reinforced concrete using a novel technique part 2: performance of various
composites.” Materials Journal, 97(1), 3-11.

227
Barros, J. A., and Figueiras, J. A., “Flexural behavior of SFRC: testing and
modeling,” Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, Vol. 11. No. 4, pp. 331-
339, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(1999)11:4(331).
Bernard, E. S. (2010) Influence of Fiber Type on Creep Deformation of Cracked Fiber-
Reinforced Shotcrete Panels. ACI Materials Journal, 107(5).
Blazejowski, M., Flexural Behaviour of Steel Fibre Reinforced Concrete Tunnel Linings,
Doctoral dissertation, The University of Western Ontario, 2012.
Boshoff, W. P., Mechtcherine, V., and van Zijl, G. P. (2009) Characterising the time-
dependant behaviour on the single fibre level of SHCC: Part 1: Mechanism of
fibre pull-out creep. Cement and Concrete Research, 39(9), 779-786.
British Standards (BS) Institution. (1986). “Testing Concrete-Recommendations for
Measurement of Velocity of Ultrasonic Pulses in Concrete.” BS 1881-203.
Buratti, N. and Mazzotti, C., 2015. Experimental tests on the effect of temperature on the
long-term behaviour of macrosynthetic Fibre Reinforced Concretes. Construction
and Building Materials, 95, pp.133-142.
Buratti, N., and Mazzotti, C. (2015). Experimental tests on the effect of temperature on
the long-term behaviour of macrosynthetic Fibre Reinforced
Concretes. Construction and Building Materials, 95, 133-142.
Canada, 2011.
Çavdar, A. (2013). “The effects of high temperature on mechanical properties of
cementitious composites reinforced with polymeric fibers.” Composites Part B:
Engineering, 45(1), 78-88.

228
Çavdar, A. (2014). “Investigation of freeze–thaw effects on mechanical properties of
fiber reinforced cement mortars.” Composites Part B: Engineering, 58, 463-472.
Chen, L. and Graybeal, B. A. (2012) Modeling Structural Performance of Ultrahigh
Performance Concrete I-Girders, Journal Bridge Eng., 17(5): 754–764,
Choi, Y., and Yuan, R. L., “Experimental relationship between splitting tensile strength
and compressive strength of GFRC and PFRC,” Cem. And Concr. Re., Vol. 35,
No. 8, 2005, pp.1587-1591, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2004.09.010.
Choubane, B. and Tia, M. A. N. G. (1992). “Nonlinear temperature gradient effect on
maximum warping stresses in rigid pavements.” Transportation Research
Record, 1370(1), 11.
concrete I-girders.” Journal of Bridge Engineering, Vol. 17. No. 5, 2011, pp. 754-
764. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000305
de la Fuente, A., Escariz, R. C., de Figueiredo, A. D., and Aguado, A. (2013) Design of
macro-synthetic fibre reinforced concrete pipes, Construction and Building
Material., 43: 523-532.
Ezeldin, A. S., and Balaguru, P. N., “Normal-and high-strength fiber-reinforced concrete
under compression,” J. of materials in civil engineering, Vol. 4. No. 4, 1992, pp.
415-429, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(1992)4:4(415).
Gergely, P. and Lutz, L. A. (1968). “Maximum crack width in reinforced concrete
flexural members.” ACI special publication, 87-117.
Gruebl, P., (1980). “Rapid ice formation in hardened cement paste, mortar and concrete
due to supercooling.” Cement and Concrete Research, 10, 334-345.

229
Haktanir T, Ari K, Altun F, Karahan O. A comparative experimental investigation of
concrete, reinforced-concrete and steel-ﬁbre concrete pipes under three-edge-
bearing test. Constr Build Mater 2007;21(8):1702–8
Huang, W. H. (1997). “Properties of cement-fly ash grout admixed with bentonite, silica
fume, or organic fiber.” Cement and Concrete Research, 27(3), 395-406.
Huang, W. H. (2001). “Improving the properties of cement–fly ash grout using fiber and
superplasticizer.” Cement and Concrete Research, 31(7), 1033-1041.
Karahan, O. and Atiş, C. D. (2011). “The durability properties of polypropylene fiber
reinforced fly ash concrete.” Materials and Design, 32(2), 1044-1049.
Kim, D. H., Fasulo, P. D., Rodgers, W. R., and Paul, D. R. (2008). Effect of the ratio of
maleated polypropylene to organoclay on the structure and properties of TPO-
based nanocomposites. Part II: Thermal expansion behavior. Polymer, 49(10),
2492-2506.
Kim, S. S. Nazzal, M. Abbas, A. R. Akentuna, M. and Arefin, M. S. (2015). Evaluation
of Low Temperature Cracking Resistance of WMA (No. FHWA/OH-2015/11).
Korhonen, C., (2002). “Effect of high doses of chemical admixtures on the freeze-thaw
durability of portland cement concrete.” US Army Corps of Engineers: Engineer
and Research Development Center, Technical Report 02-5.
Kuder, K. G. and Shah, S. P. (2010). “Processing of high-performance fiber-reinforced
cement-based composites.” Construction and Building Materials,24(2), 181-186.
Kuder, K. G., and Shah, S. P. (2010) Processing of high-performance fiber-reinforced
cement-based composites. Construction and Building Materials, 24(2): 181-186.

230
Li, V. C., and Maalej, M. (1996). “Toughening in cement based composites. Part II: Fiber
reinforced cementitious composites.” Cement and Concrete Composites, 18(4),
239-249.
MacKay, J., and Trottier, J. F., “Post-crack creep behavior of steel and synthetic FRC
under flexural loading.” Shotcrete: Proceedings of the Second International
Conference on Engineering Developments in Shotcrete, October 2004, Cairns,
Queensland, Australia More engineering developments, pp. 183-192.
https://doi.org/10.1201/9780203023389.
Mansur, M. A., Chin, M. S., and Wee, T. H., “Stress-strain relationship of high-strength
fiber concrete in compression.” J. Mater. Civ. Eng., Vol.11. No. 1, 1999, pp. 21–
29, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(1999)11:1(21).
Mark, J. E. (Ed.). (2009). Polymer data handbook. Oxford university press.
Mehta PK and Monteiro PJM. (2006). Concrete: microstructure, properties, and
materials, 3rd ed. New York.
Mirza, S. A., and MacGregor, J. G., “Strength and Ductility of Concrete Slabs Reinforced
with Welded Wire Fabric,” In Journal Proceedings, Vol. 78, No. 5, 1981, pp.
374-381, 002-8061/81/050374-08.
Mobasher, B., and Li, C. Y. (1996). “Mechanical properties of hybrid cement-based
composites.” ACI Materials Journal, 93, 284-292.
Mobasher, B., Mechanics of fiber and textile reinforced cement composites, CRC press,
2011.
231
Mohamed, Nedal, and Moncef L. Nehdi. "Rational finite element assisted design of
precast steel fiber reinforced concrete pipes." Engineering Structures, Vol. 124,
2016, pp. 196-206
Monte, R., de la Fuente, A., de Figueiredo, A. D., and Aguado, A.,. (2016). “Barcelona
Test as an Alternative Method to Control and Design Fiber-Reinforced Concrete
Pipes.” ACI Structural Journal, Vol.113, No. 60.
https://doi.org/10.14359/51689018.
Munro, S. M. Moore, I. D. and Brachman, R. W. (2009).” Laboratory testing to examine
deformations and moments in fiber-reinforced cement pipe.” Journal of
geotechnical and geoenvironmental engineering, 135(11), 1722-1731.
Nataraja, M. C., Dhang, N., and Gupta, A. P., “Stress–strain curves for steel-fiber
reinforced concrete under compression,” Cem. and Concr. Comp., Vol. 21, No.5,
1999, pp. 383-390.
Neville, A. M. (1995). Properties of concrete. Wiley, New York
Neville, A. M. (2011). Properties of Concrete, 5th. London: Pitman Publishing, 687, 331.
Neville, A. M. and Brooks, J. J. (1993). Concrete technology. England: Longman
Scientific and Technical, Longman Group UK Limited.
Ng, T. S., Htut, T. N. S., and Foster, S. J., “Fracture of steel fibre reinforced concrete—
the Unified Variable Engagement Model,” UNICIV Report R-460, School of Civil
and Environmental Engineering, The University of New South Wales, Sydney,
2012.
232
Park, Y., Abolmaali, A., Attiogbe, E., and Lee, S. H. (2014). “Time-Dependent Behavior
of Synthetic Fiber-Reinforced Concrete Pipes Under Long-Term Sustained
Loading.” Journal of the Transportation Research Board, (2407), 71-79.
Park, Y., Abolmaali, A., Beakley, J. and Attiogbe, E. (2015) Thin-walled flexible
concrete pipes with synthetic fibers and reduced traditional steel
cage. Engineering Structures, 100: 731-741.
Peyvandi, A., Soroushian, P., and Jahangirnejad, S, (2013) Enhancement of the structural
efficiency and performance of concrete pipes through fiber
reinforcement, Construction and Building Materials, 45: 36-44.
Peyvandi, A., Soroushian, P., and Jahangirnejad, S. (2014). “Structural design
methodologies for concrete pipes with steel and synthetic fiber
reinforcement.” ACI Structural Journal, 111(1), 83.
Plastics Pipe Institute, (2011), “Design Methodology,” Corrugated Polyethylene Pipe
Design Manual and Installation Guide, Plastics Pipe Institute,
https://plasticpipe.org/drainage/cppa-design-guide.html (accessed 17 Jan. 2017).).
Puertas, F., Amat, T., Fernández-Jiménez, A., and Vázquez, T., “Mechanical and durable
behavior of alkaline cement mortars reinforced with polypropylene
fibres,” Cement and Concrete Research, Vol. 33, No. 12, 2003, pp. 2031-2036,
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0008-8846(03)00222-9.
Pujadas, P., Blanco, A., Cavalaro, S., de la Fuente, A., and Aguado, A. (2017) The need
to consider flexural post-cracking creep behavior of macro-synthetic fiber
reinforced concrete, Construction and Building Materials, 149: 790-800.

233
Raghavan, D. Huynh, H. and Ferraris, C. F. (1998). “Workability, mechanical properties,
and chemical stability of a recycled tyre rubber-filled cementitious
composite.” Journal of Materials science, 33(7), 1745-1752.
Richardson, A. E. (2003). “Freeze/thaw durability in concrete with fiber
additions.” Structural Survey, 21(5), 225-233.
Richardson, A. E. Coventry, K. A. and Wilkinson, S. (2012). “Freeze/thaw durability of
concrete with synthetic fiber additions.” Cold regions science and technology, 83,
49-56.
Salih, S. A. and Al-Azaawee, M. E. (2008). “Effect of polypropylene fibers on properties
of mortar containing crushed bricks as aggregate.” Eng Technol,26(12), 1508-
1513.
Sellevold, E. J. and Bjøntegaard. (2006). “Coefficient of thermal expansion of cement
paste and concrete: Mechanisms of moisture interaction.” Materials and
Structures, 39(9), 809-815.
Setzer, M. J. and Liebrecht, A., (2002). “Frost dilatation and pore system of hardened
cement paste under different storage conditions.” Frost Resistance of Concrete,
RILEM Proceedings, 24, 169-178
Simpson, A. L., Schmalzer, P. N., and Rada, G. R. (2007). “Long Term Pavement
Performance Project Laboratory Materials Testing and Handling Guide” Report
No. FHWA-HRT-07-052, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC.

234
Soroushian, P., and Lee, C. D., “Constitutive modeling of steel fiber reinforced concrete
under direct tension and compression,” Fibre reinforced cements and concretes,
recent developments, R. N. Swamy and B. Barr, eds., 1989, pp. 363–375.
Sullivan, James F. (1988) Technical Physics. USA, Wiley Publishers.
Tripathi, D. (2002). Practical guide to polypropylene. Smithers Rapra Technology.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (CRD) (1981), “Test Method for Coefficient of Linear
Thermal Expansion of Concrete.” CRD-C 39-81.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation
Service. (1976). “Air entrainment and concrete.” publication#C760105.
(http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs141p2_023438.pdf)
(1976)
Voo, J. Y. L. and Foster, S. J. (2003) Variable Engagement Model for Fibre Reinforced
Concrete in Tension,” UNICIV Report No. R-420, University of New South
Wales, Sydney, Australia.
Voo, J. Y. L. and Foster, S. J. (2004) Tensile-Fracture of Fibre-Reinforced Concrete:
Variable Engagement Model,” presented at the Sixth International RILEM
Symposium on Fibre Reinforced Concretes (FRC) 535 – BEFIB 2004, Varenna,
Italy, Sep. 20 536 –22, pp.875–884.
Wang, Y., Backer, S., and Li, V. C., “An experimental study of synthetic fibre reinforced
cementitious composites,” Journal of Materials Science, Vol. 22, No. 12, 1987,
pp. 4281-4291, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01132019.

235
Wilson, A. and Abolmaali, A. (2014). “Performance of Synthetic Fiber-Reinforced
Concrete Pipes.” Journal of Pipeline Systems Engineering and Practice, 5(3),
04014002.
Wilson, A., Abolmaali*, A., Park, Y., and Attiogbe, E., (2017) “Research and Concepts
behind the ASTM C1818 Specification for Synthetic Fiber Concrete Pipes”,
ASTM Special Topic (STP1601). doi:10.1520/STP160120160125.
Yun, H. D. and Rokugo, K. (2012). “Freeze-thaw influence on the flexural properties of
ductile fiber-reinforced cementitious composites (DFRCCs) for durable
infrastructures.” Cold Regions Science and Technology, 78, 82-88.
Zhang, M., Mirza, J., and Malhotra, V., "Mechanical Properties and Freezing and
Thawing Durability of Polypropylene Fiber-Reinforced Shotcrete Incorporating
Silica Fume and High Volumes of Fly Ash," Cement, Concrete and Aggregates,
Vol. 21, No. 2, 1999, pp. 117-125, https://doi.org/10.1520/CCA10425J.
Zhang, P. and Li, Q. F. (2013). “Effect of polypropylene fiber on durability of concrete
composite containing fly ash and silica fume.” Composites Part B:
Engineering, 45(1), 1587-1594.
Zhong, W. (2007). “Effect of polypropylene fibers on the long-term tensile strength of
concrete.” Journal of Wuhan University of Technology-Mater. Sci. Ed. 22(1), 52-
55.
Zollo, R. F.,1997, “Fiber-reinforced concrete: an overview after 30 years of
development,” Cement and Concrete Composites, 19(2), 107-122.

236
APPENDIX I: LIST OF JOURNAL PAPERS
Al Rikabi, F. T., Sargand, S.M., Kurdziel, J.M. (2017). Evaluation of Synthetic
Fiber Reinforced Concrete Pipe Performance Using Three-Edge Bearing Test. Journal of
Testing and Evaluation, 47(2). https://doi.org/10.1520/JTE20170369. ISSN 0090-3973
Al Rikabi, F. T., Sargand, S. M., Khoury, I., and Hussein, H. H. (2018). Material
Properties of Synthetic Fiber–Reinforced Concrete under Freeze-Thaw
Conditions. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 30(6), 04018090.
Al Rikabi, F. T., Sargand, S. M., Kurdziel. J., and Hussein, H. H. (2017).
Experimental Investigation of Thin-Wall Synthetic Fiber-Reinforced Concrete Pipes. ACI
Structural Journal 115, no. 6 (2018): 1671-1681
Al Rikabi, F. T., Sargand, S. M., and Hussein, H. H. (2018). Design Proposal for
Synthetic Fiber-Reinforced Concrete Pipes Using Finite Element Analysis. Journal of
Testing and Evaluation, 48(2). https://doi.org/10.1520/JTE20180097. ISSN 0090-3973.
Al Rikabi, F. T., Sargand, S. M., and Kurdziel, J.M. Experimental study of Thin-
Walled Synthetic Fiber Reinforced Concrete Pipes Under short and long-term loading.
ASTM- Journal of Testing and Evaluation. https://doi.org/10.1520/JTE20180369.
Al Rikabi, F. T., Sargand, S. M., Khoury, I., and Kurdziel, J.M. (2019). A New
Test Method for Evaluating the Long-Term Performance of Fiber Reinforced Concrete
Pipes. Journal of Advances in Structural Engineering. (In press).
Hussein, H. H., Sargand, S. M., Al Rikabi, F. T., and Steinberg, E. P. (2016).
Laboratory Evaluation of Ultrahigh-Performance Concrete Shear Key for Prestressed

237
Adjacent Precast Concrete Box Girder Bridges. Journal of Bridge Engineering, 22(2),
04016113.
Hussein, H. H., Walsh, K. K., Sargand, S. M., Al Rikabi, F. T., and Steinberg, E.
P. (2017). Modeling the shear connection in adjacent box-beam bridges with ultrahigh-
performance concrete joints. I: Model calibration and validation”. Journal of Bridge
Engineering, 22(8), 04017043.
Sargand, S. M., Walsh, K. K., Hussein, H. H., Al Rikabi, F. T., and Steinberg, E.
P. (2017). Modeling the shear connection in adjacent box-beam bridges with ultrahigh-
performance concrete joints. II: Load transfer mechanism. Journal of Bridge
Engineering, 22(8), 04017044.
Experimental validation of optimized ultra-high-performance concrete shear key shape
for precast pre-stressed adjacent box girder bridges. Construction and Building Materials,
190, 178-190.
Mutashar, R., Sargand, S., Khoury, I., and T. Al Rikabi, F. (2018). Influence of
Nonuniform Box Beam Dimensions and Bridge Transverse Slope on Environmentally
Induced Stresses in Adjacent Box Beam Bridges. Journal of Performance of Constructed
Facilities, 32(6), 04018081.
Mutashar, R., Sargand, S., Al Rikabi, F. T., and Khoury, I. (2019). Response of a
Composite-Adjacent Box Beam Bridge with Skewed Beams under Static and Quasi-
Static Loads. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, 33(3), 04019022.

238
Mutashar, R., Sargand, S., Khoury, I., and T. Al Rikabi, F. (2020).’’
Experimental and Theoretical Investigation Live Load Distribution Factors for Skewed
Composite Adjacent Box Beam Bridge”. Journal of Bridge Engineering. (In press)
Mutashar, R., Sargand, S., Khoury, I., and T. Al Rikabi, F. (2020). “Early-Age
Crack Prediction of Concrete Decks in The Skewed Adjacent Box Beam Bridges”.
Structure and Infrastructure Engineering. (Submitted).

239
APPENDIX II: LIST OF CONFERENCE PAPERS
Al Rikabi, F. T., Sargand, S. M., Hussein, H. H., and Khoury, I. (2017). The
Thermal Expansion of Synthetic Fiber-Reinforced Concrete under Air-Dry and Saturated
Conditions. First Congress on Technical Advancement, American Society of Civil
Engineers, Duluth, MN, 10-21. https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784481035.002
Al Rikabi, F. T., Sargand, S. M., and Kurdziel, J.(2018)‘ Thin-Walled Steel Fiber
Reinforced Concrete Pipes Performance under Three-Edge Bearing Load. Proc.,Annual
UESI Pipelines Conf., American Society of Civil Engineers, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784481646.037, 355 – 363.
Evaluation of Ultra-High Performance Concrete Grout Performance under Longitudinal
Shear. First Congress on Technical Advancement, American Society of Civil Engineers,
Duluth, MN, 34-44. https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784481035.004
Al Rikabi, F. T., Hussein, H. H., and Khoury, I. (2019). Experimental Study on
Shear Strength of Synthetic Fiber Reinforced High Strength Concrete Containing Slag
Aggregate. Structures Congress, American Society of Civil Engineers, Orlando, FL.,
April 24-27. https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784482223.018.
Al Rikabi, F. T., Sargand, S. M., and Kurdziel, J.(2019)‘ Thin-Walled Synthetic
Fiber Reinforced Concrete Pipe Performance Under Cyclic Loading.Annual UESI
Pipelines Conf., American Society of Civil Engineers, Nashville, TN, July 21-24.
Hussein, H. H., Al Rikabi, F. T., and Khoury, I. (2019). Effects of Interface
roughness on Shear Key Performance of Ultra-High Performance Concrete in Adjacent

240
Box Girder Bridges. 2nd International Interactive Symposium on UHPC, Albany , NY,
June 2- 5.
Khoury, I., Sargand, S. M., Hussein, H. H., and Al Rikabi, F. T. (2020). Field
investigation of Metal Multi-Pipe Culvert under Shallow Cover . Performance Under
Cyclic Loading. Annual UESI Pipelines Conf., American Society of Civil Engineers, San
Antonio, Texas, August 9-12.
Hussein, H. H., Al Rikabi, F. T., and Khoury, I. (2021). Experimental
investigation on shrinkage behavior of Synthetic Fiber Reinforced High Strength
Concrete Containing Slag Aggregate. Structures Congress, American Society of Civil
Engineers, Seattle, Washington, March 10-13. (submitted).
Al Rikabi, F. T., Hussein, H. H., and Khoury, I. (2021). Flexural Performance of
fiber Reinforced Concrete Containing Slag. Structures Congress, American Society of
Civil Engineers, Seattle, Washington, March 10-13. (submitted)

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Thesis and Dissertation Services

Al Rikabi, Fouad Accepted Dissertation 7-16-20 Su 20

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Al Rikabi, Fouad Accepted Dissertation 7-16-20 Su 20

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Experimental and Numerical Study on Synthetic Fiber-Reinforced Concrete Pipes

the Russ College of Engineering and Technology of Ohio University

of the requirements for the degree

© 2020 Fouad T.S. Al Rikabi. All Rights Reserved

This dissertation titled

Experimental and Numerical Study on Synthetic Fiber-Reinforced Concrete Pipes

has been approved for

the Department of Civil Engineering

and the Russ College of Engineering and Technology by

Russ Professor of Civil Engineering

Dean, Russ College of Engineering and Technology

AL RIKABI, FOUAD T., Ph.D., August 2020, Civil Engineering.

Experimental and Numerical Study on Fiber-Reinforced Concrete Pipes

Director of Dissertation: Shad M. Sargand

Synthetic fibers have been recently used in a concrete mixture in an attempt to

concrete pipe standard.

Moreover, in response to sustained load, the tested pipes initially exhibited a

wall and limit the crack width.

I dedicate this work to my love and life:

sincere gratitude to my sponsor, Higher Committee for Educational Development in Iraq

(HCED), University of Wasit, Iraq.

In addition, I would like to express my gratitude to the Advanced Drainage

4.4 Evaluation of Synthetic Fiber Reinforced Concrete Pipe Performance Using

Table 1. Physical Properties of the Fiber. ....................................................................... 38

Table 2. Mix Proportions of the Concrete. ..................................................................... 38

Table 3. Mix Proportions of the Concrete ...................................................................... 48

Table 6. Details of the Tested Specimens. ...................................................................... 53

Table 7. Physical and mechanical properties of the PP Fiber. ......................................... 54

Table 10. Physical Properties of the Synthetic Fiber....................................................... 64

Table 11. Mix Proportions of the Concrete Mixtures. ..................................................... 64

Table 12. Details of the Tested Specimens. .................................................................... 65

Table 14. Physical Properties of the Synthetic Fiber....................................................... 76

Table 15. Mix Proportions of the Concrete Mixtures. ..................................................... 76

Table 20 Flexural Strength of Fiber Reinforced Concrete. ............................................. 89

Table 22. Stiffness Results at 2% Deflection Ratio. .................................................. 121

Poisson’s ratio test results. ........................................................................................... 133

Typical Design with Surface Wheel Loads (ASCE15-98). ............................................. 21

Figure 3. Ohio CTE specimen’s preparation. ................................................................. 39

inside the chamber. ........................................................................................................ 41

Figure 5. Temperature profile. ....................................................................................... 41

Figure 8. Dynamic modulus of the elasticity test setup. .................................................. 44

Figure 9. Flexural test setup. .......................................................................................... 45

Figure 10. Freeze-thaw cabinet. ..................................................................................... 46

the jacket. ...................................................................................................................... 50

Figure 13. Polypropylene (PP) fiber used in this research............................................... 54

(b) 3D model. ................................................................................................................ 57

concrete material used in the finite element models........................................................ 61

Figure 19. FE model of the long-term test setup ............................................................. 69

Figure 20. compressive stress-strain plots used in the FE models. .................................. 70

concrete material used in the finite element models........................................................ 71

(Note: 1 kN = 0.2248 kip; 1 mm = 0.0394 in). ............................................................... 90

mm = 0.0394 in). ........................................................................................................... 91

specimens. (Note: Multiply 1/°C by 5/9 to obtain 1/°F.)................................................. 93

dosage of 7 kg/m3 (12 lb/yd3)......................................................................................... 94

(a) PP and (b) PVA fiber reinforcement. ........................................................................ 96

fiber reinforced specimens. (Note: 1 MPa = 0.145 ksi) ................................................... 99

kip; 1 mm = 0.0394 in) ................................................................................................ 110

steel cage layer. (Note: 1 kN = 0.2248 kip; 1 mm = 0.0394 in)..................................... 113

kN = 0.2248 kip; 1 mm = 0.0394 in) ............................................................................ 115

0.0394 in). ................................................................................................................... 127

mm = 0.0394 in). ......................................................................................................... 130

Figure 44. Comparison of experimental stress-strain curves of concrete cylinders

Figure 46. Experimental versus calibrated FE load-deflection responses of 1200 mm (48

area. . (Note: 1 kN = 0.2248 kip; 1 mm = 0.0394 in). ................................................... 139