Engineering Structures 208 (2020) 110271

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Assessment of MC2010 and AS3600 models for estimating instantaneous T

flexural crack widths in fibre reinforced concrete members
E.S. Bernarda, , A. Aminb, R.I. Gilbertc
⁎

a
TSE P/L, Sydney, Australia
b
School of Civil Engineering, The University of Sydney, Australia
c
School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The University of New South Wales, Australia

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: The inclusion of fibres into concrete is now an accepted method of controlling crack widths. Several recently
Fibre released design guidelines and codes of practice contain provisions which allow designers to predict the in-
Concrete stantaneous crack widths in reinforced concrete members (containing fibre reinforcement) subjected to flexure.
Crack widths Most of these models have been developed for steel fibres, despite non-steel fibres representing a significant
Serviceability
proportion of the fibres available in the marketplace. The current paper examines the results of flexural tests on
53 sets of beams reinforced with steel bars and fibre reinforced concrete. The specimens contained a wide range
of fibre types, including steel, polypropylene, aramid, glass, basalt & PVA fibres. An assessment of available
codified expressions for crack width estimation has been compared to measured crack widths presented herein.
Despite satisfactory results, improved comparisons may be obtained by using the residual tensile strength of
fibres at crack widths substantially smaller than is normally used, and by considering alternative expressions for
the bond strength between steel reinforcing bars and fibre-concrete than are presently used in code models.

1. Introduction
Several internationally recognized concrete guidelines and codes of
practice have acknowledged that fibres are a viable and potentially
economical mechanism for controlling cracking in reinforcing concrete
[1–7]. Many publications confirm that the inclusion of fibres in con-
crete provides a reliable mechanism for the transmission of tension
across cracks [8–11]. At the material constitutive level, it is the post-
crack tensile strength of concrete that is most substantially altered
when fibres are added to a mix. The enhanced strength after cracking of
the matrix is predominantly a function of the fibre type, fibre dosage
and concrete quality [12–13].
Although much research effort has been devoted to understanding
the behaviour of structural members made of FRC at the ultimate limit
state, particularly in shear [14–17] and flexure [18], significant im-
provements in the behaviour of reinforced concrete structures at service
loads can be achieved by incorporating fibres into the concrete mixture
[19–22]. These improvements include a reduction in the spacing and
width of cracks, and a reduction in curvatures. These changes are
mainly attributed to the capacity of fibres to reduce tensile strains in the
reinforcing steel and in the enhancement of tension stiffening [23,24].
While rules have been introduced and indeed verified for the strength
of members containing steel fibres subjected to flexure and shear, pro-
visions for the determination of crack widths of FRC structures at service
loads are much less robustly addressed and require experimental valida-
tion. Most of the models in the codes of practice listed above have been
developed for steel fibres, despite non-steel fibres representing a sig-
nificant proportion of the fibres available in the marketplace. Recent re-
sults have demonstrated that synthetic FRC is similarly capable of redu-
cing in-service crack widths provided the level of post-crack residual
flexural strength is the same as for a steel FRC under consideration
[25,26]. Moreover, the accuracy of predictions has been shown to be
improved when post-crack performance of the FRC is measured at cracks
widths appropriate to service conditions (0.1–0.3 mm) rather than at
larger crack widths (0.5–0.75 mm) [26]. The current paper presents the
results of flexural tests on 53 sets of plain and FRC beams reinforced with
varying amounts of longitudinal steel bars and containing a wide range of
fibre types (including steel, polypropylene, aramid, glass, basalt & PVA).
An assessment of crack width predictions using available codified ex-
pressions have been compared to the test results herein.
2. Experimental program
The majority of test data used in this study were derived from tests

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: s.bernard@tse.net.au (E.S. Bernard).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.110271
Received 31 October 2019; Received in revised form 21 January 2020; Accepted 21 January 2020
Available online 31 January 2020
0141-0296/ © 2020 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
E.S. Bernard, et al. Engineering Structures 208 (2020) 110271

Nomenclature lf Length of fibre

M applied moment
Act Area of tensile concrete Mcr cracking moment
Ast area of longitudinal tensile steel reinforcement n modular ratio
b width of member P applied load
c cover sr crack spacing
D total depth of section w crack width
d effective depth Δ deflection
db diameter of steel reinforcing bar εc strain in concrete
dn depth of neutral axis εcm mean strain in concrete
Ec Elastic modulus of concrete εs strain in steel
Es Elastic modulus of steel reinforcement εsm mean strain in steel
f1.5 Residual tensile strength calculated at a crack ρeff effective reinforcing ratio
width = 1.5 mm ρt reinforcing ratio of tension tie
fct Tensile strength of concrete matrix σ stress
fR,j residual flexural tensile strength of FRC corresponding to a σs stress in steel reinforcing bar
Crack Mouth Opening Displacement (CMOD) = CMODj τb bond stress between fibers and concrete matrix
hsp depth of prism less notch depth τR bond stress between fibers and concrete matrix
Icr cracked 2nd moment of area

published previously [25,26], but four additional sets of beam tests
(with four nominally identical beams in each set) were undertaken to
further increase the database for investigating crack widths in lightly
reinforced plain and fibre reinforced concrete hybrid beams. These tests
were all undertaken on beams produced using a nominal 50 MPa
compressive strength concrete conforming with the mix design shown
in Table 1. The type and dosage rate of fibres used in each of the sets are
listed in Table 2. The conventional reinforcement consisted of 10 mm
normal ductility (Class N) cold-formed deformed steel bars of 500 MPa
nominal yield strength, but with an estimated actual yield strength of
600 MPa. The rib dimensions for these bars are listed in Table 3 to-
gether with comparable information for the bars used in the earlier
studies [25–27].
All the beams newly produced and tested for this investigation
measured 3600 mm in length and 300 × 300 mm in cross-section. The
conventional reinforcement comprised 3 × 10 mm Class N cold-rolled
deformed steel bars (representing a reinforcement ratio of 0.26%).
There were no reinforcing bars in the compressed regions of any of the
beams, and no stirrups. The cover to the bars was 30 mm, and the
lateral spacing between the bars was 100 mm. Seven ASTM C1609/
C1609M standard beams [28] and two ∅100 × 200 mm compression
cylinders were cast in parallel with each set of four nominally identical
reinforced concrete beams. The compressive strength of the concrete at
the age of testing averaged 70–78 MPa (see Sets 50–53, Table 4). Other
aspects of specimen production were identical to those described by
Bernard [27].
All of the specimens described in this paper were tested using the
same procedure. The beams were simply supported and subjected to
two equal point loads, each a distance of 1150 mm from the adjacent
support (with a central span of 1200 mm). The initial central de-
formation imposed on the beam was 3.0 mm as this corresponded to the
onset of flexural cracking. After this first deformation increment the
beam was inspected for cracks. Load was then increased in increments
of 1.5 mm displacement followed by pauses to permit crack widths to
be manually measured on each side of the beam 10 mm from the soffit
using a 100× optical field microscope. The increments of deformation
and measurement were continued until a total central displacement of
about 25–30 mm had been reached, at which yielding of the tensile bars
had occurred. Approximately 15–18 sets of crack width/spacing mea-
surements were recorded for each beam. All the specimens suffered a
flexural failure governed by yielding of the bars, no shear cracks or
signs of shear failure were evident in any of the tests.
A load-deflection curve was generated for each specimen (eg.
Fig. 1). However, the primary test outcomes of interest in the
investigation were the mean crack widths measured as a function of
applied moment. Given the relatively high strength of the concrete and
light level of conventional reinforcement, the service load could not be
taken to be half of the ultimate load because many of the beams had not
yet cracked at this load. The service load was therefore taken as the
average of the first peak cracking and ultimate loads for sets 50–53
(refer to Fig. 1). The moments corresponding to these points are listed
as the ‘service moment’ in Table 4. These moments were used in ana-
lyses of the specimens to estimate the tensile stress in the bars corre-
sponding to the ‘service’ crack widths used below.
A summary of the performance of the accompanying ASTM C1609/
C1609M beams is listed in Table 4, and all mean measured crack widths
together with predicted crack widths according to each of the alter-
native methods of analysis described below are listed in Table 5. The
average ratio of the maximum over mean measured crack widths in all
specimen sets at 50% to 80% of the yielding moment are listed in
Table 6. The ratios are relatively constant with increasing load for the
RC/FRC specimens, but steadily fall for the RC beams made with plain
concrete. The average ratio of maximum over mean measured crack
width is close to 1.7. The alternative methods of analysis are described
as follows.
3. Codified models for crack widths in FRC
Available codified models for the determination of crack widths and
spacings are generally based on the concept of the so called “transfer
length”. This concept has emerged as a suitable compromise to empirical
expressions previously used to provide estimates on the in-service be-
haviour of reinforced concrete. The transfer length (sometimes referred
to as the transmission length) represents the distance from the face of a
primary crack over which bond stresses at the reinforcement-concrete
interface act to restore a condition of strain compatibility between both
materials. When combined with simplistic assumptions pertaining to
Table 1
Mix design for 50 MPa concrete used in four present trials.
Component Quantity (kg/m3)
Coarse aggregate (10/7 mm) 1020
Coarse sand 460
Fine sand 270
Cement 360
Fly Ash 110
LRWR (mL/100 kg cement) 300
HR Water reducer (L/m3) 2.0

2
E.S. Bernard, et al. Engineering Structures 208 (2020) 110271

Table 2
Fibres and dosage rates used in the four sets of specimens (50–53) presently
tested.
Mix Parameter Dimensions (kg/m3)
1 Dramix 80/60 4D 0.75 × 60 mm, steel 30
2 BC48 1.4 × 48 mm embossed PP 7
3 BC48 1.4 × 48 mm embossed PP 10
4 Plain concrete – –
the form of the underlying bond stress distribution, the transfer length
concept can provide an efficient way of describing the variations of
stress and strain in the concrete and the reinforcement in the cracked
regions of a reinforced concrete structure. Based on these variations of
stress and strain, predictions of cracking behaviour (including the
spacing and width of cracks) and deformation may be made.
In its most rudimentary form, the transfer length refers to a portion
of the tensile concrete on each side of a crack which is influenced by the
crack. Moving away from the crack, the concrete surface stresses are
reduced within the transfer length, and new cracks may form outside
the transfer length. This leads to a crack spacing, sr, between one and
two times the transfer length. The corresponding crack widths may be
determined as:
w= ( s c) dx = s r ( sm cm )
sr
where s and c are the incremental strains in the steel and concrete,
respectively and sm and cm are the mean strains in the steel and con-
crete, respectively.
It is important to physically recognize the influence of the fibres in
calculations pertaining to crack spacing and crack widths in reinforced
concrete. Consider an element of FRC stressed in tension. Before
cracking, the contribution of the fibres to the principal tensile strength
of the concrete is insignificant provided they are uniformly dispersed.
For a fibre to resist tension, the fibre-matrix bond must be activated.
This usually coincides with some small opening at the crack, and is
mostly developed through mechanical means. Now consider an element
of FRC co-reinforced with a steel reinforcing bar. When reinforcement
bridges a crack, the tensile force carried across the crack is divided
between the fibres and the reinforcement [29]. Consequently, the
average strain in the steel reinforcement can be much lower than it
would be without the fibres between the cracks. This phenomena leads
to finer and more closely spaced cracks [30], which, in turn, leads to a
reduced likelihood of crack localisation.
This phenomenon is related to tension stiffening in FRC and can be
explained by considering the two tension ties illustrated in Fig. 2. In this
example, it is assumed that the gradient of stress developed in the
concrete between two primary cracks is the same for a tension tie with
and without fibres and that a crack has formed within the tie – ac-
cording to the Tension Chord Model of Marti et al. [31], this is a
function of the diameter of the reinforcing bar, db, the reinforcing ratio,
ρtc. For the tension tie containing fibres, the fibres transmit a tensile
stress across the crack, shown as σf(w). As the applied load P increases,
the concrete will reach its tensile strength, fct, at a section closer to the
original crack than the same section that does not contain fibres. That
is, the spacing between cracks in ties with fibres, sr,FRC is smaller than
that without fibres sr,RC. This reduction in crack spacing is a function of
σf(w) at cracking and hence the amount and type of fibres in the con-
crete [32].
The benefits of crack refinement associated with tension stiffening
were introduced in codified form in Eurocode 2 in 2004. Since then,
numerous modifications to the modelling of this effect have been made
and somewhat different approximations were introduced in the fib
Model Code 20105. The commentary to the 2009 version of Australian
Standard AS3600 [33] followed Eurocode 2 [34]. AS5100:20176 did
not include explicit procedures to determine crack widths but instead
stipulated the maximum stress in the tension steel needed to control
crack widths so that the maximum crack width was less than 0.30 mm.
AS3600:20187 included further modifications that now account for the
post-crack tensile strength that is associated with steel fibres. All these
variations shared several common features. The first is that crack spa-
cing and crack widths are primarily determined by the tensile strain and
hence stress in the steel bars. Inclusion of fibres can reduce this stress
and thereby reduce crack widths. The second is that the crack width is
related to the level of residual tensile strength provided by the FRC,
through the determination of the crack spacing and also the stress/
strain in the reinforcing bar. The greater the magnitude of post-crack
capacity in FRC relative to the tensile strength of the concrete matrix,
the smaller the spacing of cracks, and a consequent reduction in the
(1) width of cracks. The third is that the benefits of fibre addition are ad-
ditive to other beneficial effects such as reduced cover to the steel,
reduced average bar size, and increased concrete strength [35].
3.1. AS3600:2018 method
The recently released Australian Standard for concrete structures
[7] provides a method that can be used to estimate the crack widths of
reinforced concrete containing steel fibres. The model is founded on the
rationale presented in Eq. (1). For instantaneous cracking (i.e. ne-
glecting any effects due to shrinkage and creep), the relative difference
of the mean strain in the steel and concrete is taken as:
s fct f1.5 s
sm cm = 0.6 (1 + n eff ) 1+ 0.6
Es Es eff fct Es (2)
where s is the stress in the reinforcing steels and can be calculated from
a sectional analysis assuming a rectangular stress block for the fibres in
tension, Es is the elastic modulus of the steel reinforcing bar, n is the
modular ratio (n = Es/Ec) and eff is the effective reinforcing ratio
(discussed below). The term f1.5 in Eq. (2) represents the residual tensile
strength offered by the fibres at a crack opening displacement (COD) of
1.5 mm, as determined from an inverse analysis of section bending or
directly from uniaxial direct tension testing, at the material constitutive
level.
With respect to the effective reinforcement ratio term introduced
above, a cracked rectangular beam subjected to flexure can be treated
as a compression chord of depth dn and width b. The tensile region of
the beam can be considered as a cracked tension chord consisting of the
tensile steel reinforcement Ast surrounded by an area of tensile concrete

Table 3
Reinforcing bar parameters.
Nominal External Core Rib Rib Rib τR d/a Nominal Estimated

Dia. d Dia. de Dia. di Spac. s Ht. a Width w Grade fy

(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (MPa) (MPa)
10 11.02 10.25 7.129 0.39 2.68 0.057 25.97 500 634
12 13.61 12.20 7.28 0.71 1.92 0.104 17.02 500 520
16 17.40 15.56 9.59 0.92 2.53 0.099 17.39 500 540
20 22.15 19.40 12.76 1.38 2.97 0.112 14.55 500 510

3
E.S. Bernard, et al. Engineering Structures 208 (2020) 110271

Table 4
Reinforcement and post-crack performance in ASTM C1609/C1609M beam tests for all 53 specimen sets, plus calculated parameters. Abridged test data previously
published for sets 1-12 [26], and 13-33 [27], and 34-49 [25].
Set Parameter Rebar Mser UCS MOR Residual Flex. Str. (MPa) fctm τb ρeff
(kNm) (MPa) (MPa) 0.20 0.75 3.0 (MPa) (MPa)

1 Plain − 5 mm 3 × 16 40.25 41.0 6.140 0.007 0.000 0.000 4.095 7.370 0.0264
2 Plain − 10 mm 3 × 16 40.25 41.5 6.140 0.007 0.000 0.000 4.095 7.370 0.0264
3 Plain − 20 mm 3 × 16 40.25 44.7 6.140 0.007 0.000 0.000 4.095 7.370 0.0264
4 FM650S −5 mm 3 × 16 40.25 39.0 5.706 2.084 1.717 1.983 3.805 6.849 0.0264
5 FM650S 10 mm 3 × 16 40.25 41.7 6.680 2.058 1.210 1.315 4.455 8.018 0.0264
6 FM650S 20 mm 3 × 16 40.25 42.0 6.620 3.489 1.472 1.525 4.415 7.946 0.0264
7 BC54 −5 mm 3 × 16 40.25 41.7 5.565 1.948 1.909 1.996 3.711 6.680 0.0264
8 BC54 −10 mm 3 × 16 40.25 44.3 6.370 2.827 1.956 1.947 4.248 7.646 0.0264
9 BC54 −20 mm 3 × 16 40.25 40.2 6.290 2.986 1.691 1.716 4.195 7.550 0.0264
10 MQ58 − 5 mm 3 × 16 40.25 42.3 6.400 2.165 1.466 1.826 4.268 7.682 0.0264
11 MQ58 − 10 mm 3 × 16 40.25 43.3 6.260 1.834 1.440 1.881 4.175 7.514 0.0264
12 MQ58 − 20 mm 3 × 16 40.25 43.7 5.991 1.967 1.579 1.883 3.995 7.191 0.0264
13 Dramix 3D 20 kg 3 × 16 40.25 48.0 7.271 2.883 2.254 2.358 4.849 8.728 0.0264
14 Dramix 3D 20 kg 3 × 16 40.25 45.0 7.440 3.306 2.866 2.780 4.961 8.930 0.0264
15 Dramix 3D 30 kg 3 × 16 40.25 49.0 7.844 4.039 4.731 4.630 5.231 9.415 0.0264
16 Dramix 3D 40 kg 3 × 16 40.25 46.0 7.365 4.354 5.667 5.964 4.912 8.841 0.0264
17 Dramix 4D 30 kg 3 × 16 40.25 51.0 7.768 3.743 3.821 2.114 5.180 9.324 0.0264
18 BC48 4.5 kg 3 × 16 40.25 40.0 6.680 2.318 2.470 1.969 4.455 8.018 0.0264
19 BC48 + RMS702 3 × 16 40.25 43.0 5.857 1.965 1.386 0.986 3.906 7.030 0.0264
20 4 kg RMS702 3 × 16 40.25 45.0 6.251 2.336 0.304 0.000 4.169 7.504 0.0264
21 6 kg RMS702 3 × 16 40.25 47.0 6.640 5.566 0.732 0.083 4.428 7.970 0.0264
22 4 kg RECS15 3 × 16 40.25 42.0 6.136 2.489 0.477 0.050 4.092 7.366 0.0264
23 Aramide 3 × 16 40.25 45.0 5.892 2.581 2.489 1.591 3.929 7.072 0.0264
24 FM150 3 × 16 40.25 41.0 6.170 0.711 0.370 0.000 4.115 7.406 0.0264
25 PA 1 3 × 16 40.25 47.0 6.310 1.691 0.360 0.154 4.208 7.574 0.0264
26 PA 2 3 × 16 40.25 54.0 7.547 3.297 0.507 0.217 5.033 9.059 0.0264
27 Glass 3 × 16 40.25 42.0 6.230 0.492 0.000 0.000 4.155 7.478 0.0264
28 Basalt 3 × 16 40.25 46.0 5.790 0.077 0.000 0.000 3.861 6.950 0.0264
29 FF 15 kg 3 × 16 40.25 44.0 7.029 4.433 1.406 0.276 4.688 8.438 0.0264
30 FF 30 kg 3 × 16 40.25 42.0 8.815 7.121 2.748 0.599 5.878 10.58 0.0264
31 RF4000 3 × 16 40.25 53.0 7.149 2.856 1.330 0.385 4.767 8.581 0.0264
32 RF400 3 × 16 40.25 53.0 7.126 3.320 0.486 0.017 4.752 8.553 0.0264
33 BC54 9 kg 3 × 16 40.25 49.5 6.552 2.778 2.855 3.049 4.369 7.865 0.0264
34 Plain 2 × 12 22.50 36.5 5.813 1.011 0.000 0.000 3.876 6.977 0.0126
35 Plain 2 × 16 28.00 36.5 5.813 1.011 0.000 0.000 3.876 6.977 0.0126
36 Plain 2 × 20 35.00 36.5 5.813 1.011 0.000 0.000 3.876 6.977 0.0331
37 Plain 3 × 20 37.00 36.5 5.813 1.011 0.000 0.000 3.876 6.977 0.0331
38 3 kg BC54 2 × 12 22.50 37.0 5.884 1.908 1.520 1.323 3.924 7.063 0.0126
39 3 kg BC54 2 × 16 28.00 37.0 5.884 1.908 1.520 1.323 3.924 7.063 0.0126
40 3 kg BC54 2 × 20 35.00 37.0 5.884 1.908 1.520 1.323 3.924 7.063 0.0331
41 3 kg BC54 3 × 20 37.00 37.0 5.884 1.908 1.520 1.323 3.924 7.063 0.0331
42 6 kg BC54 2 × 12 22.50 36.5 5.583 2.894 2.911 2.881 3.723 6.701 0.0126
43 6 kg BC54 2 × 16 28.00 36.5 5.583 2.894 2.911 2.881 3.723 6.701 0.0126
44 6 kg BC54 2 × 20 35.00 36.5 5.583 2.894 2.911 2.881 3.723 6.701 0.0331
45 6 kg BC54 3 × 20 37.00 36.5 5.583 2.894 2.911 2.881 3.723 6.701 0.0331
46 9 kg BC54 2 × 12 22.50 36.0 6.003 2.538 2.920 2.997 4.003 7.206 0.0126
47 9 kg BC54 2 × 16 28.00 36.0 6.003 2.538 2.920 2.997 4.003 7.206 0.0126
48 9 kg BC54 2 × 20 35.00 36.0 6.003 2.538 2.920 2.997 4.003 7.206 0.0331
49 9 kg BC54 3 × 20 37.00 36.0 6.003 2.538 2.920 2.997 4.003 7.206 0.0331
50 Dramix 80/60 4D 3 × 10 30.00 73.0 9.718 5.532 4.853 2.363 6.481 11.66 0.0090
51 7 kg BC48 3 × 10 39.10 74.0 9.927 5.264 3.503 3.206 6.620 11.92 0.0090
52 10 kg BC48 3 × 10 35.00 71.0 7.882 4.354 4.326 3.923 5.256 9.46 0.0090
53 Plain 3 × 10 34.50 78.0 9.220 0.100 0.000 0.000 6.148 11.07 0.0090

Act. AS3600:2018 equates Act to 2.5 times the distance from the tension
face of the section to the centroid of the tensile reinforcement i.e. 2.5(D
– d) but not greater than (D – dn)/3 or D/2 where D is the depth of the
section, and d is the effective depth of the section.
For beams, Marti [36] derived a mechanically consistent expression
for eff treating the tensile region of a member as an equivalent tension
chord by equating the stresses in the reinforcement obtained from a
cracked-elastic analysis of a cross-section subjected to a cracking mo-
ment to the maximum stresses attained by the steel at the cracks of a
tension chord:
be estimated as Mcr = fct bD 2 6 and Icr is the second moment of area of
the cracked section and may be taken as:
dn
Icr = nAst (d dn ) d
3 (4)
The coefficient α in Eq. (4) is equal to 1 for members without fibre
reinforcement. Fargier-Gabaldon et al. [37] and Amin and Gilbert [38]
reckoned α to range between 1.0 and 1.1 for FRC members depending
on the reinforcement ratio and fibre quantity.
The crack spacing, as required in Eq. (1), is determined as:

nMcr (d dn ) 2d
1 sr = k f2 (3.4c + 0.3k1 k2 db eff ) (5a)
eff = +1 n 1 = Ast Act
fct Icr D (3) fct 1.1kg f1.5
k f2 = 0.25
where Mcr is the moment which induces cracking on the section and can fct (5b)

4
E.S. Bernard, et al.
Fig. 1. Load-deflection curve for a beam made with plain concrete, 3 × 10 mm
cold-formed deformed bars, loaded to the onset of steel yielding. Service load
was taken to be average of load at first crack and at ultimate.
where c is the concrete cover, k1 is equal to 0.8 for deformed bars, k2
accounts for the longitudinal strain distribution and is equal to 0.5 for
bending elements and kg is an empirical member size factor equal to
1 + 0.0067Act/15600 ≤ 1.6.
3.2. Fib Model Code 2010 method
An alternative approach to crack width estimation is described in
the fib Model Code 20105. This method is specifically applicable to steel
fibre reinforced concrete, but recent research indicates it may also be
extended to synthetic fibre reinforced concrete [26,39]. The basic ap-
proach is similar to that described in AS3600:2018, but with some
variations. The most important change is that post-crack performance
in FRC is assessed at a crack mouth opening displacement (CMOD)
using EN14651 beams [40] of 0.50 mm (fR1), which corresponds to the
stress taken at a Crack Opening Displacement (COD) of approximately
0.20 mm in direct tension, not at 1.5 mm [41,42]. This means that
performance is assessed at crack widths that are more appropriate to
the serviceability limit state than those prescribed in AS3600:2018. For
instantaneous loading, the fib MC 2010 model for the evaluation of
crack widths in FRC members is equal to:
2( s sr ) 1 db (fct fFts )
w= c+
Es 4 eff b (6)
where fFts = 0.45 fR1, b is a bond strength parameter between the con-
crete matrix and steel reinforcing bars and taken as 1.8 fct , β is an em-
pirical coefficient equal to 0.6 and sr = fct (1 + n eff ) eff .
4. Assessment of models
The residual post-crack performance of the FRC are listed in Table 4
and have been used together with the beam specimens and conven-
tional reinforcement details to estimate the design crack widths in ac-
cordance with the methods outlined by fib MC2010 and AS3600. The
suitability of each method has been assessed by plotting the predicted
crack widths against mean measured crack widths in Figs. 3 to 7, and by
calculating the standard error for these results relative to the diagonal
line of equality shown in each figure.
The residual tensile strength of the FRC mixes was obtained from
5
Engineering Structures 208 (2020) 110271
ASTM C1609/C1609M flexural beams. However, to use the measured
parameters from the ASTM tests in the models above, which call up
results from EN14651 beam testing, a method of conversion between
these two material tests is required. In the ASTM test set-up, the
150 mm sq. prisms are tested in a third-point arrangement (with a shear
span equal to 150 mm). The beams are un-notched through the length
of the beam and load is recorded as a function of the mid-span de-
flection, Δ. In the EN14651 test, the 150 mm sq. prisms are tested under
a central point load arrangement (spanning 500 mm). The prisms are
notched 25 mm at their midspan and load is recorded as a function of
CMOD. RILEM TC 162-TDF [43] developed a simple correlation be-
tween Δ and CMOD by considering rigid body rotations in cracked
prism tests. This expression was modified by Amin and Foster [44] to
account for the fact that the crack does not propagate through the entire
section:
CMOD ×l
=
4(D d n ) (7)
where l is the beam span. In reality dn is not constant and will depend
on the residual strength exhibited by the fibres. However, it was shown
by Amin and Foster [44] that dn could be approximated as 0.3D without
inducing significant error in subsequent analyses. Furthermore, Amin
et al. [45] derived a simple expression for converting CMOD to COD:
CMOD hsp dn
COD = ×
2 D dn (8)
where hsp is the depth of prism minus the notch depth (if any). For
ASTM C1609 beams, where there is no notch, Eq. (8) reduces to:
CMOD 2 (D d n ) 1.4D
COD = =
(9)
2 l l
In each of the analyses, the post-crack performance of the ASTM
C1609/C1609M beams at 0.75 mm central deflection (f600) has been
taken as a substitute for fR1 (which is equivalent to a residual flexural
strength at CMOD equal to 0.50 mm) in the MC2010 approach. This is a
fair assumption, as through Equations (7)–(9), a central deflection of
0.75 mm in the ASTM test corresponds to a COD of approximately
0.70 mm. Crack widths corresponding to smaller central deflections of
between 0.1 and 0.5 mm were calculated in the same way. Similarly, in
the AS3600 method, the residual strength at 3 mm deflection in the
ASTM C1609/C1609M tests has been taken as a substitute for f1.5; again
by Eqs. (7)–(9), a central deflection of 3 mm in the ASTM test corre-
sponds to a COD of approximately 1.40 mm. The simplified method of
Amin et al. [45] is used to convert the flexural stress obtained in the
ASTM C1609/C1609M test to a direct tension stress:
fDT = 0.417fASTM (10)
The direct tensile strength of the concrete fct has been based on the
first peak flexural strength f1. The first method of prediction examined
here is the standard MC2010 approach but using fR1 based on residual
flexural strength corresponding to 0.75 mm central deflection in the
ASTM C1609/C1609M beams.
5. Discussion
Most of the predictions of crack width shown in Fig. 3 correlate well
with mean measured crack widths for the case of the beams reinforced
with 16 mm and 20 mm bars. The bond strength between steel bars and
concrete is taken to be 1.8fct in this approach. However, the standard
MC2010 approach does not work so well for beams reinforced with 10
and 12 mm bars, and this did not change when the residual strength at
0.20 mm central deflection in the ASTM C1609/C1609M beams was
used instead of 0.75 mm (see Table 7 for standard errors relative to the
line of equality for 50% load). The predictions for these specimens were
found to be better when a modified estimation method for the effective
bond strength τb between steel bars and concrete is used, which takes
E.S. Bernard, et al. Engineering Structures 208 (2020) 110271

Table 5
Bar bond strength parameters, and crack widths (mm), for all 53 specimen sets. Sets 1–49 included hot-rolled bars, Sets 50–53 cold-formed bars.
Set kb krib τbm MC2010 MC2010/Marti AS3600 Measured

(MPa) 0.75 mm 0.20 mm ρeff 0.75 mm 0.20 mm 0.75 mm 0.20 mm Width

1 2.16 0.995 9.119 0.194 0.167 0.0383 0.150 0.131 0.161 0.160 0.157
2 2.16 0.995 9.119 0.194 0.167 0.0383 0.150 0.131 0.161 0.160 0.197
3 2.16 0.995 9.119 0.194 0.167 0.0383 0.150 0.131 0.161 0.160 0.184
4 2.16 0.995 8.412 0.169 0.139 0.0383 0.133 0.112 0.118 0.117 0.145
5 2.16 0.995 10.005 0.164 0.128 0.0383 0.128 0.102 0.134 0.125 0.155
6 2.16 0.995 9.906 0.161 0.106 0.0383 0.126 0.087 0.130 0.106 0.146
7 2.16 0.995 8.184 0.166 0.145 0.0383 0.131 0.116 0.116 0.117 0.155
8 2.16 0.995 9.495 0.156 0.120 0.0383 0.123 0.097 0.120 0.109 0.148
9 2.16 0.995 9.364 0.162 0.117 0.0383 0.127 0.095 0.125 0.108 0.151
10 2.16 0.995 9.544 0.164 0.131 0.0383 0.128 0.105 0.125 0.121 0.153
11 2.16 0.995 9.315 0.166 0.137 0.0383 0.130 0.109 0.123 0.125 0.153
12 2.16 0.995 8.875 0.166 0.140 0.0383 0.130 0.112 0.121 0.120 0.157
13 2.16 0.995 10.983 0.136 0.110 0.0383 0.107 0.089 0.115 0.109 0.145
14 2.16 0.995 11.263 0.126 0.102 0.0383 0.099 0.083 0.107 0.102 0.135
15 2.16 0.995 11.938 0.085 0.084 0.0383 0.069 0.069 0.074 0.078 0.130
16 2.16 0.995 11.139 0.072 0.085 0.0383 0.059 0.070 0.053 0.064 0.111
17 2.16 0.995 11.811 0.102 0.091 0.0383 0.081 0.074 0.105 0.089 0.126
18 2.16 0.995 10.005 0.139 0.124 0.0383 0.110 0.100 0.116 0.111 0.137
19 2.16 0.995 8.658 0.172 0.141 0.0383 0.135 0.113 0.136 0.121 0.135
20 2.16 0.995 9.301 0.188 0.129 0.0383 0.145 0.104 0.160 0.125 0.102
21 2.16 0.995 9.939 0.173 0.068 0.0383 0.135 0.057 0.156 0.082 0.103
22 2.16 0.995 9.113 0.186 0.126 0.0383 0.144 0.102 0.158 0.121 0.139
23 2.16 0.995 8.714 0.147 0.128 0.0383 0.117 0.104 0.119 0.104 0.156
24 2.16 0.995 9.168 0.189 0.156 0.0383 0.147 0.124 0.160 0.149 0.187
25 2.16 0.995 9.397 0.187 0.139 0.0383 0.145 0.111 0.157 0.135 0.184
26 2.16 0.995 11.441 0.160 0.101 0.0383 0.124 0.082 0.155 0.118 0.149
27 2.16 0.995 9.266 0.192 0.159 0.0383 0.149 0.125 0.161 0.153 0.194
28 2.16 0.995 8.549 0.201 0.173 0.0383 0.155 0.136 0.161 0.159 0.179
29 2.16 0.995 10.582 0.155 0.088 0.0383 0.121 0.073 0.148 0.096 0.116
30 2.16 0.995 13.574 0.107 0.031 0.0383 0.084 0.026 0.132 0.074 0.066
31 2.16 0.995 10.780 0.156 0.112 0.0383 0.122 0.090 0.148 0.117 0.132
32 2.16 0.995 10.742 0.168 0.105 0.0383 0.130 0.085 0.158 0.116 0.089
33 2.16 0.995 9.794 0.136 0.118 0.0383 0.108 0.096 0.100 0.103 0.096
34 2.52 1.020 10.269 0.426 0.281 0.0200 0.290 0.199 0.291 0.262 0.229
35 2.16 0.995 8.586 0.166 0.149 0.0369 0.070 0.067 0.221 0.200 0.185
36 1.80 1.110 7.982 0.151 0.132 0.0606 0.103 0.094 0.138 0.125 0.143
37 1.80 1.110 7.982 0.085 0.078 0.1003 0.046 0.045 0.099 0.089 0.053
38 2.52 1.020 10.408 0.353 0.247 0.0200 0.244 0.177 0.232 0.217 0.183
39 2.16 0.995 8.702 0.184 0.157 0.0369 0.083 0.075 0.201 0.188 0.137
40 1.80 1.110 8.090 0.139 0.125 0.0606 0.098 0.091 0.119 0.111 0.078
41 1.80 1.110 8.090 0.083 0.076 0.1003 0.047 0.045 0.085 0.079 0.102
42 2.52 1.020 9.823 0.354 0.265 0.0200 0.249 0.194 0.191 0.190 0.185
43 2.16 0.995 8.213 0.199 0.170 0.0369 0.095 0.085 0.159 0.158 0.115
44 1.80 1.110 7.635 0.129 0.119 0.0606 0.094 0.089 0.095 0.094 0.119
45 1.80 1.110 7.635 0.082 0.076 0.1003 0.049 0.047 0.068 0.067 0.048
46 2.52 1.020 10.639 0.318 0.249 0.0200 0.223 0.180 0.184 0.194 0.201
47 2.16 0.995 8.896 0.177 0.150 0.0369 0.081 0.070 0.150 0.158 0.115
48 1.80 1.110 8.270 0.127 0.120 0.0606 0.092 0.088 0.095 0.101 0.060
49 1.80 1.110 8.270 0.079 0.074 0.1003 0.047 0.045 0.068 0.072 0.072
50 2.70 0.785 14.902 0.239 0.249 0.0138 0.246 0.179 0.338 0.260 0.227
51 2.70 0.785 15.255 0.323 0.317 0.0138 0.334 0.227 0.371 0.318 0.300
52 2.70 0.785 11.837 0.276 0.331 0.0138 0.284 0.237 0.258 0.245 0.238
53 2.70 0.785 14.064 0.286 0.434 0.0138 0.295 0.303 0.459 0.456 0.424

Table 6 b = 0.9kb k rib f 1.1ct (11)

Ratio of maximum measured crack over mean measured crack within each set
of four beams, listed for each load level considered, plus averaged for all. in which

Specimen Load Level (proportion of yield moment) kb = 3.6 0.09db 1.8 (12)

Set 50% 60% 70% 80% All levels k rib = 0.5 + 5 R (13)

Plain RC 1.854 1.790 1.714 1.649 1.752 where db is the bar diameter (in mm) and τR is a bond index described
FRC/RC 1.678 1.675 1.728 1.698 1.695 by Metelli and Plizzari. Expression (11) has been based on test results in
All beams 1.744 1.718 1.722 1.679 1.716 which the bond index τR was shown to be related to the bond strength,
τ0.1, between bars and concrete at small deformations (i.e. a slip of
0.1 mm). This parameter is related to the size and spacing of the ribs on
the superior bond associated with small diameter bars into account the deformed reinforcing bars. Moreover, the tests by Metelli and
[46–50]. Based on bar pull-out tests performed by Metelli and Plizzari Plizzari [46] and Tiberti et al. [35] indicate that compressive strength
[46], an expression for the bond strength in Eq. (5a) has been adopted has a more pronounced effect on bond strength than is presently ac-
as follows: counted for in MC2010, hence a factor f 1.1ct has been included in Eq.

6
E.S. Bernard, et al.
P
fct
P 0
fct 0
sr,FRC σf (w)
w
db
4τb ρtc
4τb ρtc
fct 0
P
Tensile concrete
& fibre stress fct
P Tensile concrete
stress
Fig. 2. Effect of fibres on crack spacing.
Fig. 3. Mean measured and predicted crack widths at service moment based on
residual strength measured at 0.75 mm central deflection in ASTM C1609/
C1609M beams and standard MC2010 approach, compared to residual strength
measured at 0.20 mm central deflection and modified bond strength τbm.
(11). When the standard MC2010 method is used with residual flexural
stress of the FRC measured at 0.2 mm central deflection in the ASTM
C1609/C1609M beams [27], and bond strength calculated in ac-
cordance with Eq. (11), the design crack width is better correlated with
the mean measured crack width corresponding to the 50% service
moment (see Table 7). Accounting for the rib properties of the steel
reinforcing is not common practice in design but has a marked effect on
the observed behaviour.
The main area in which the standard model according to MC2010
performed poorly for the current specimens was for the smaller bar
sizes. The 10 mm cold-formed bars had substantially smaller ribs than
the hot-rolled bars and therefore exhibited a poorer capacity to develop
bond and thus control crack widths. When this difference was ac-
counted for in estimating the effective bond strength between steel bars
and concrete, the standard error in predicted crack width decreased
from 0.0515 to 0.0349 (Table 7).
The Marti approach [31,36] to estimating the effective area of
concrete in tension (refer to Eq. (3)) did not appear to make much of a
difference to the accuracy of crack width predictions (Fig. 4). The
Engineering Structures 208 (2020) 110271
sr,RC
db
0
Fig. 4. Mean measured and predicted crack widths at service moment based on
residual strength measured at 0.2 mm and 0.75 mm central deflection in ASTM
C1609/C1609M beams and standard MC2010 approach, but ρeff calculated
using Marti (2005).
majority of crack width predictions decreased in magnitude when the
effective area of concrete in tension was calculated according to the
method by Marti, but the standard error did not improve (Table 7).
There was some improvement when the bond strength was further
calculated according to Eq. (11), but the majority of crack width pre-
dictions were slightly smaller in magnitude than the mean measured
crack widths.
The expressions listed above for estimating instantaneous crack
widths according to MC2010 are generally intended to be used only for
members subjected to service loads. Generally these loads are ap-
proximately 50% of the moment at which yielding of the tensile re-
inforcing bars first occurs. To test the robustness of the expressions in
MC2010, an investigation was undertaken to determine how satisfac-
tory they are for estimating crack widths at higher load levels. Thus, the
various parameters were calculated for an applied moment equal to 50,
60, 70, and 80 percent of the moment to cause yielding of the re-
inforcing bars (except for the last four sets, see Experimental Program
section above), and the resulting estimates of crack widths are shown in
Fig. 5a as a series of lines. with the smallest crack width in each line
corresponding to 50% load and the largest crack width corresponding
to 80% load. As shown in Table 8, when the residual strength measured
at a central deflection of 0.20 mm in the associated ASTM C1609/
C1609M beams is used to estimate crack widths at all levels of load, the
standard error is 0.03965 when the mean measured crack width is
compared to the design estimate according to Eq. (6). If the crack width
in the ASTM C1609/C1609M beam tests at which residual strength is
measured is increased to reflect the wider mean crack width at 60, 70,
and 80% of the load at yielding (corresponding to 0.30, 0.40, and
0.50 mm central deflection, respectively), then the standard error in
results increases to 0.0424. It therefore appears best to use the residual
strength measured at 0.20 mm in the ASTM C1609/C1609M beam tests
for all mean crack width estimates for members subjected to service
loads.
When the estimates of design crack width according to the MC2010
approach are compared to the maximum measured crack width in each
set of four beams, it is immediately apparent that the maximum mea-
sured crack widths are much larger than the calculated estimates. This
was true for both the standard MC2010 approach and the modified
7
E.S. Bernard, et al. Engineering Structures 208 (2020) 110271

Fig. 5. a) Mean measured, and b) maximum measured crack widths at 50–80% of yield moment based on residual strength measured at 0.20 mm central deflection in
ASTM C1609/C1609M beams compared to MC2010 predictions with modified bond strength τbm to Eq. (11).

measured crack widths found in Table 6), whereupon the accuracy of

the prediction improved substantially (Fig. 6, Table 7). As an alter-
native, the residual flexural strength parameter f1.5 was replaced by
residual strength measured at 0.30 mm in the ASTM C1609/C1609M
beam tests, as explained above. Both sets of results are shown in Fig. 6,
with the second approach (based on performance at 0.30 mm deflec-
tion) demonstrating a slightly smaller standard error (Table 7) when
assessed within the service load range (50% of yield moment). When
this method was extended to 60, 70, and 80% of the yield moment, the
estimates of the mean crack width diverged increasingly from the
measured values, especially for beams incorporating the 10 mm cold-
formed bars. This is possibly because the effective bond strength be-
tween the steel bars and concrete is taken as fixed for bars of all sizes
and rib patterns in the AS3600 approach.
To correct for the drift in crack width estimates with increasing
applied moment, the following expression for the factor k1 was in-
troduced to the AS3600 approach represented by Eq. (5a):
fctm
k1 =
1.8kb krib (14)

in which the modification factor γ for the rib performance is taken

as:
Fig. 6. Mean measured crack width at 50% service moment compared to design
= (fsy 250(db 20) 4) sr (15)
crack width/1.7 based on residual strength measured at 0.3 mm and 0.75 mm
central deflection in ASTM C1609/C1609M beams, using standard AS3600
for the hot rolled bars (with fsy = 500 MPa). In Eq. (15), σsr is the
approach.
stress in the steel at the prevailing moment (accounting for the presence
of the fibres). For members with cold-formed bars, the resistance to
approach accounting for changes in bond strength for different bar sizes pull-out appeared to fall more rapidly as the level of load was increased
and types. Various further modifications were trialled, including fac- relative to the yield moment. Hence, γ is adjusted for cold-formed bars
toring down the magnitude of the direct tensile strength fFts of the FRC and taken as:
in Eq. (6), but only a minor improvement in the predictions was found. c
However, when the 2 in Eq. (6) was replaced by 2 × 1.7 = 3.4, the = (fsy 250) sr (16)
results shown in Fig. 5b were obtained. This expression produced the
where fsy = 600 MPa and c is the magnitude of the moment applied
best fit when FRC post-crack performance data obtained at 0.2 mm
expressed relative to the yield moment (with a value ranging from 0.5
central deflection in the ASTM C1609/C1609M beams was used in Eq.
to 0.8 at present). When these expressions were used to estimate crack
(6) (Table 8).
widths in the range 50–80% of the yield moments, the standard error
When the AS3600 approach to crack width calculation was ex-
fell substantially and the best fit was obtained for residual strengths
amined, two variations in the method were adopted. In the first, the
measured at 0.3 mm in the ASTM C1609/C1609M beams (Table 8,
standard method was used with the residual flexural strength at
Fig. 7a). When the calculations were repeated with the residual strength
0.75 mm deflection in the ASTM C1609 test taken as a substitute for
at 0.2 mm in the ASTM C1609/C1609M beams used for 50% load,
f1.5, as explained above. The resulting estimates of the maximum crack
0.3 mm used for 60% load, through to 0.5 mm for 80% load, the results
width were all substantially higher than the mean measured results.
have a standard error of 0.039866 (Table 8), thus it appeared best to
These results were divided by 1.7 (the ratio of maximum to mean
use residual strengths at 0.3 mm. Several outliers occurred at higher

8
E.S. Bernard, et al. Engineering Structures 208 (2020) 110271

Fig. 7. a) Mean measured, and b) maximum measured crack widths, compared to predicted crack widths at 50–80% of yield moment based on residual strength
measured at 0.3 mm central deflection in ASTM C1609/C1609M beams, using modified AS3600 approach with k1 based on Eq. (14).

Table 7 MC2010 approach with bond strength modified according to Eq. (11)
Standard Errors in crack width estimates at 50% load compared to mean was less empirical and used a unified approach for all bar sizes and bar
measured crack width, for various models and variations in approach. and fibre types. This method appeared effective for predicting crack
Model Modification Standard Error widths in beams loaded to 50–80% of the yield moment.

MC2010 0.75 mm Residual Strength, 50% load only 0.0601

MC2010 0.20 mm Residual Strength, 50% load only 0.0515
6. Conclusions
MC2010 0.20 mm Residual Strength and τbm by Eq. (2), 50% 0.0349
load only
MC2010 0.20 mm Residual Strength, ρeff using Marti, τbm by 0.0393 This paper describes tests conducted on 53 sets of steel bar and FRC
Eq. (2), 50% load only hybrid beams subjected to flexure containing a wide range of fibre
AS3600 0.75 mm Residual Strength, design crack width/1.7, 0.0481 types, including steel, polypropylene, aramid, glass, basalt & PVA fi-
50% load only
bres. A comparison of predicted flexural crack widths using available
AS3600 0.30 mm Residual Strength, design crack width/1.7, 0.0444
50% load only codified expressions (fib Model Code 2010, AS3600:2018) with the
mean and maximum measured crack widths has led to the following
conclusions:
Table 8
Standard Errors in crack width estimates for the range 50–80% load compared
to mean and maximum measured crack width, for various models and varia-
• Both the models in fib Model 2010 and AS3600:2018 make rea-
sonable predictions of instantaneous crack widths in RC/FRC beams,
tions in approach. regardless of fibre type.
Deflection MC2010 AS3600 • Improved predictions may be obtained if the post-crack tensile
strength provided by the fibres at crack widths of ~ 0.20–0.30 mm
Mean Maximum Mean Maximum are used instead of at larger crack widths (such as 1.5 mm as used in
AS3600:2018).
•
0.10 0.053430 0.083697 0.075453 0.124242
0.20 0.039650 0.063815 0.042574 0.071471 In addition, for the case of reinforcing bars with small diameters, the
0.30 0.043439 0.070831 0.037541 0.062351 results were found to be strongly influenced by the rib dimensions
0.40 0.046771 0.075433 0.038525 0.062991 and properties of the steel reinforcing bars. Improved predictions of
0.50 0.046870 0.076373 0.039730 0.065292
observed behaviour can be obtained when this is accounted for in
0.75 0.046055 0.075334 0.047839 0.082801
Variable 0.045776 0.073774 0.039866 0.065778 both the MC2010 and AS3600:2018 approaches.

load levels for mixtures with PVA micro-fibres and Fibraflex fibres, all
of which displayed in an exceptionally close crack spacing and very
narrow crack widths even at 80% load. When the maximum measured
crack widths were compared to the unfactored design crack width ac-
cording to modified AS3600 method (Fig. 7b), the best fit was also
found for residual strengths measured at 0.3 mm (Table 8).
Among all the approaches examined, the lowest standard error was
found for the modified AS3600 approach (with k1 calculated by Eq.
(14)) and the residual flexural strength of the FRC measured at
0.30 mm central deflection in the ASTM C1609/C1609M beam tests.
However, this approach required many empirical adjustments to fit the
available data, and confirmation of this approach for a broader range of
design circumstances must await a larger range of data. In contrast, the
CRediT authorship contribution statement
E.S. Bernard: Funding acquisition, Project administration,
Investigation, Validation, Writing - original draft, Writing - review &
editing. A. Amin: Investigation, Validation, Writing - original draft,
Writing - review & editing. R.I. Gilbert: Writing - review & editing.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.

9
E.S. Bernard, et al.
Acknowledgements
Funding for the experimental work in this study was provided by
Barchip Australia Pty Ltd. No external funding sources were provided
for the remainder of the work.
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.110271.
References
[1] NZS 3101: Part 2. 2006. Concrete structures standard Part 2 – commentary on the
design of concrete structures. Standards New Zealand, 391 pp.
[2] ACI-318:19. 2019. Building code requirements for structural concrete and com-
mentary. American Concrete Industry. Farmington Hills, MI, USA.
[3] ACI 544.1R. 2009. Report on Fiber Reinforced Concrete. ACI Committee 544,
American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, ML.
[4] DAfStB. 2012. Richtlinie Stahlfaserbeton. Deutscher Ausschuss fur Stahlbeton.
Germany (in German).
[5] fib Model Code 2010. 2013. Model Code 2010. Fédération Internationale du Béton:
402 pp.
[6] AS5100.5. 2017. Australian Standard, bridge design part 5: concrete. Standards
Australia.
[7] AS3600. 2018. Concrete Structures. Australian Standard, Standards Association of
Australia.
[8] Marti P, Pfyl T, Sigrist V, Ulaga T. Harmonized test procedures for steel fiber re-
inforced concrete. ACI Mater J 1999;96(6):676–86.
[9] Pfyl, T. 2003. Tragverhalten von Stahlfaserbeton. PhD Dissertation, IBK-Report No.
279. Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Switzerland. [in German].
[10] di Prisco M, Plizzari G, Vandewalle L. Fiber reinforced concrete: new design per-
spectives. Mater Struct 2009;42:1261–81.
[11] Amin A, Gilbert RI. Instantaneous crack width calculation for steel fiber reinforced
concrete flexural members. ACI Struct J 2018;115(2):535–43.
[12] Löfgren I. 2005. Fibre reinforced concrete for industrial construction – a fracture
mechanics approach to material testing and structural analysis. PhD Dissertation.
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Chalmers University of
Technology, Sweden.
[13] Mudadu A, Tiberti G, Plizzari G, Morbi A. Post-cracking behavior of polypropylene
fiber reinforced concrete under bending and uniaxial tensile tests. Struct Concrete
2019;20:1411–24. https://doi.org/10.1002/suco.201800224.
[14] Adebar P, Mindess S, Pierre DS, Olend B. Shear tests of fiber concrete beams without
stirrups. ACI Struct J 1997;94(1):68–76.
[15] Minelli F. Plain and fiber reinforced concrete beams under shear loading: structural
behavior and design aspects PhD Dissertation University of Brescia, Italy:
Department of Civil Engineering; 2005
[16] Amin A, Foster SJ. Shear strength of steel fiber reinforced concrete beams with
stirrups. Eng Struct 2016;111:323–32.
[17] Kaufmann W, Amin A, Beck A, Lee M. Shear stress across cracks in steel fibre re-
inforced concrete. Eng Struct 2019;186:508–24.
[18] de Montaignac R, Massicotte B, Charron JP. Design of SFRC structural elements:
flexural behaviour prediction. Mater Struct 2012;45:623–36.
[19] Deluce JR, Vecchio FJ. Cracking behavior of steel fiber reinforced concrete mem-
bers containing conventional reinforcement. ACI Struct J 2013;110(3):481–90.
[20] Bernardi P, Michelini E, Minelli F, Tiberti G. Experimental and numerical study on
cracking process in RC and R/FRC ties. Mater Struct 2016;49(1):261–77.
[21] Amin A, Foster SJ, Kaufmann W. Instantaneous deflection calculation for steel fiber
reinforced concrete one way members. Eng Struct 2017;131:438–45.
[22] Tiberti G, Trabucchi I, Al Hamaydeh M, Minelli F, Plizzari GA. Crack development
in steel fibre reinforced concrete members with conventional rebars. Mag Concr Res
2018. https://doi.org/10.1680/jmacr.17.00361.
[23] Tiberti G, Minelli F, Plizzari GA. Cracking behavior in reinforced concrete members
with steel fibres: a comprehensive experimental study. Cem Concr Compos
2015;868:24–34.
10
Engineering Structures 208 (2020) 110271
[24] Sturm AB, Visintin P, Oehlers DJ. Rational design approach for the instantaneous
and time-dependent serviceability deflections and crack widths of FRC and UHPFRC
continuous and simply supported beams. ASCE J. Struct. Eng.
2019;144(8):0419138.
[25] Bernard ES. Crack Width Reduction in Reinforced Concrete Members Using Barchip
Macro-Synthetic Fibers, World Tunnelling Congress 2016, San Francisco, April 22-
28; 2016.
[26] Bernard ES. Effect of synthetic fibers and aggregate size on flexural crack widths.
ACI Struct J 2019;116(3):1–8.
[27] Bernard ES. Predicting crack widths in FRC/Reinforced Concrete members using
small deformation post-crack parameters. Struct Concrete 2019;2019:1–12. https://
doi.org/10.1002/suco.201900083.
[28] ASTM C1609/1609M, 2006. Standard method for flexural performance of fiber-
reinforced concrete (using beam with third-point loading). ASTM International,
West Conshohocken, PA.
[29] Fischer G, Li VC. Influence of matrix ductility on tension-stiffening behavior of steel
reinforced engineered cementitious composites (ECC). ACI Struct J
2002;99(1):104–11.
[30] Amin A, Foster SJ, Watts M. Modelling the tension stiffening effect in steel fiber
reinforced-reinforced concrete. Mag Concr Res 2016;68(7):339–52.
[31] Marti P, Alvarez M, Kaufmann W, Sigrist V. Tension chord model for structural
concrete. Struct Eng Int 1998;8(4):287–98.
[32] Kaufmann W, Mata-Falcon J, Amin A. Compression field analysis of FRC based on
the cracked membrane model. ACI Struct J 2019;116(5):213–24.
[33] AS3600. 2009. Concrete structures. Standards Australia.
[34] Eurocode 2. 2004. Design of Concrete Structures – Part 1-1: General Rules and Rules
for Buildings, European-Commission.
[35] Tiberti G, Minelli F, Plizzari GA, Vecchio FJ. Influence of concrete strength on crack
development in SFRC members. Cem Concr Compos 2014;45:176–85.
[36] Marti P. Stahlbeton Grundzuge (structural concrete fundementals). Lecture Notes,
Institute of Structural Engineering, ETH, Zurich; 2005. [in German].
[37] Fargier-Gabaldon LB, Al-Tameemi M, Parra-Montesinos GJ. Evaluation of effective
moment of inertia for calculation of short-term deflections of steel fiber reinforced
concrete flexural members. Proceedings Fibre Reinforced Concrete: from Design to
Structural Applications, Desenzano, Italy. 2018.
[38] Amin A, Gilbert RI. Steel fiber-reinforced concrete beams—Part I: material char-
acterization and in-service behavior. ACI Struct J 2019;116(2):113–23.
[39] Conforti A, Zerbino R, Plizzari GA. Influence of steel, glass, and polymer fibers on
the cracking behavior of reinforced concrete beams under flexure. Struct Concrete
2018;2018:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1002/suco.201800079.
[40] EN 14651. 2007. Test method for metallic fibre concrete- measuring the flexural
tensile strength (Limit of Proportionality (LOP), residual). European Committee for
Standardization: 17 pp.
[41] Amin A. Post Cracking Behavior of Steel Fibre Reinforced Concrete: from Material
to Structure, PhD dissertation, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The
University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia, 2015.
[42] Conforti A, Minelli F, Plizzari G, Tiberti G. Comparing test methods for the me-
chanical characterization of fiber reinforced concrete. Struct Concrete
2018;19:656–69.
[43] RILEM TC 162-TDF, 2003. Test and design methods for steel fibre reinforced con-
crete. Round-round robin analysis of the RILEM TC 162-TDF beam bending test:
Part 2 Approximation of Δ from the CMOD response. Materials and Structures: 36:
621–30.
[44] Amin A, Foster SJ. Predicting the flexural response of steel fibre reinforced concrete
prisms using a sectional model. Cem Concr Compos 2016;67(7):339–52.
[45] Amin A, Foster SJ, Muttoni A. Derivation of the σ-w relationship for SFRC from
prism bending tests. Struct Concrete 2015;16(1):93–105.
[46] Metelli G, Plizzari G. Influence of the relative rib area on bond behaviour. Mag
Concr Res 2014;66(6):277–94.
[47] Harajli M. Effect of confinement using steel, FRC, or FRP on the bond stress-slip
response of steel bars under cyclic loading. Mater Struct 2006;39(6):621–34.
[48] Bandelt M, Billington S. Bond behavior of steel reinforcement in high performance
fiber-reinforced cementitious composite flexural members. Mater Struct
2016;49(1–2):71–86.
[49] Metelli G, Marchina E, Plizzari G. Experimental study on staggered lapped bars in
fiber reinforced concrete beams. Compos Struct 2017;179:655–64.
[50] Marchand P, Baby F, Khadour A, Battesti T, Rivillon P, Quiertant M, et al. Bond
behaviour of reinforcing bars in UHPFRC. Mater Struct 2016;49:1979–95.