FRC - Pavements

TR.1.06.03.
20
TECHNICAL REPORT
Fiber-Reinforced Concrete - Pavements
FORTA Corporation
March 2020
© 2020 FORTA Corporation

No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form, in an electronic retrieval system or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher.
THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY
ii
AUTHORS
Daniel Biddle
Vice President of Sales
FORTA CORPORATION
FORTA personnel are available to assist with fiber selection and use, as well as the
explanation of reasonable expectations of the fiber. FORTA representatives do not engage
in the practice of engineering or architecture as licensed by government agencies, nor are
they licensed to act in a role of overall project supervision where FORTA products are
used. FORTA personnel are available solely for the support of our customers - those that
purchase and specify our products.
100 Forta Drive, Grove City, PA 16127-6399 U.S.A.
1-800-245-0306 or 1-724-458-5221
Fax: 1-724-458-8331
www.forta-ferro.com
FORTA®, ECONO-MONO®, ECONO-NET®, and FORTA-FERRO® are

registered trademarks of FORTA Corporation.
KEYWORDS
FORTA-FERRO®, FRC, Macro Synthetic Fiber, Pavements
iii
CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1
2. Concrete Pavement History ....................................................................................... 1
3. ISSUES REGARDING PAVEMENT DURABILITY .................................................... 3
4. FIBER HISTORY IN PAVEMENTS............................................................................ 4
5. CURRENT PAVEMENT DESIGN OPTIONS ............................................................. 5
5.1 JRCP - Jointed Reinforced Concrete Pavement ............................................... 6
5.2 JPCP - Jointed Plain Concrete Pavement ......................................................... 6
5.3 CRCP - Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement...................................... 7
6. FRC – Fiber-Reinforced Concrete Pavement Options ............................................... 8
7. CFRCP – Continuously Fiber-Reinforced Concrete Pavement .................................. 8
8. LTRC FRC Fatigue and Toughness Research Program ............................................ 9
8.1 Toughness ...................................................................................................... 13
8.1.1 Fibrillated Polypropylene Toughness ....................................................... 13
8.1.2 Macro Synthetic Toughness ..................................................................... 14
8.1.3 Carbon Fiber Toughness.......................................................................... 15
8.1.4 Toughness Summary ............................................................................... 16
8.2 Fatigue Testing ............................................................................................... 16
8.2.1 Fibrillated Polypropylene Fatigue ............................................................. 17
8.2.2 Macro Synthetic Fatigue........................................................................... 17
8.2.3 Carbon Fiber Fatigue ............................................................................... 19
8.2.4 Fatigue Summary ..................................................................................... 20
8.2.5 LTRC Results Summary........................................................................... 22
9. FORTA Pavement Project History ........................................................................... 24
9.1 FRJCP – Fiber Reinforced Jointed Concrete Pavements................................ 24
9.1.1 TechniGraphics - Wooster, OH - September 2008 ................................... 24
9.1.2 All Pro Freight - Avon, OH - October 2008 ............................................... 25
9.1.3 J. M. Smucker - Orrville, OH - 2009 – 2014 .............................................. 25
9.1.4 FedEx Freight - Conley, GA - March 2011 ............................................... 26
9.1.5 Mineral Spring Street - Orrville, OH - August 2012 ................................... 26
9.1.6 Kil-Kare Speedway - Xenia, OH - April 2013 ............................................ 27
9.1.7 Ames Hangar 1006 - Wilmington, OH - July 2013 .................................... 27
9.1.8 Bacon Universal – Komatsu - Honolulu, HI - June 2014 ........................... 27
9.1.9 Old Dominion Freight - Phoenix, AZ - December 2014 ............................. 28
iv
9.1.10 FedEx Ground - Kennesaw, GA - July 2015 ............................................. 28

9.1.11 Murphy Tractor - Zelienople, PA - October 2015 ...................................... 28
9.2 FREJCP – Fiber Reinforced Extended-Joint Concrete Pavements ................. 29
9.2.1 Atlanta Bonded Warehouse - Kennesaw, GA - 2003 ................................ 29
9.2.2 Aldi Paving - Springfield, OH - October 2012 ........................................... 29
9.2.3 GALOT Motorsports Dragstrip - Benson, NC - April 2014......................... 30
9.2.4 McMaster-Carr Paving - Douglasville, GA - November 2014 .................... 30
9.2.5 Terrapin Trail - Orrville, OH - September 2015 ......................................... 31
10. Conclusion: Moving Forward with FRC Pavements ................................................. 31
v
THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY
vi
1. INTRODUCTION
At a time when the U.S. infrastructure
continues to deteriorate, and
construction and maintenance budgets
remain underfunded, it becomes even
more imperative that highways and
pavements achieve longer life and
increased durability. While the basic
design and available construction
materials for Portland cement concrete
pavements have remained essentially
the same for decades, the traffic and
weight loads on today’s pavements have
continued to multiply. As a result,
Figure 1: Example of deteriorated roadway. corporate owners, cities, counties, and
state and federal highway authorities
have renewed efforts and funding for experimental materials and novel practices that can
help stretch their available transportation dollars. The roadway of the future must be
tougher, more durable, and resistant to cracking, while being cost comparative with current
methods and materials at the same time. These demands and requirements open the door
of opportunity for fiber-reinforced concrete, which has a history of adding tremendous
performance improvements at a reasonable cost in a wide variety of applications. This
report represents a collection of historical data regarding FORTA Corporation’s pavement
experiences and includes several current and new novel pavement design options and
related research to take advantage of these opportunities in the future.
2. CONCRETE PAVEMENT HISTORY

The need for hard, flat, and cleanable
pavement surfaces became quite evident
in the late 1800’s, when equestrian
transportation ruled the day. Though it
may seem humorous today, one of the
major city street issues of the time was
muddy streetways compounded by tons
of manure left behind by this majority
mode of transportation. This nasty
combination encouraged insects,
disease, accidents, and certainly,
disruption to traffic. At the first
international urban planning conference
held in the U.S. in 1898 in New York
City, the main topic of discussion was Figure 2: New York City street, circa 1890’s.
1
manure, focusing on what had been dubbed by the London Times as “The Great Horse
Manure Crisis of 1894.” 1 Though this ‘crisis’ appeared unsolvable at the time – the
conference ended in 3 days instead of the scheduled 10 with the conclusion that
metropolitan life was not sustainable, and a return to rural life was imminent - the
appearance of Henry Ford’s automobile assembly-line invention soon after solved at least
one of the day’s major pavement problems. However, the change in transportation mode
further encouraged the need for tough level pavement surfaces, a solution for which had
actually been trialed just a few years before the New York convention.
The first documented Portland
cement concrete pavement was
placed around the courthouse in
the city of Bellefontaine, Ohio,
in 1891 (Figure 3). Prompted by
local inventor George
Bartholomew’s investigation of
cement production in Germany
and Texas, Bellefontaine city
officials commissioned an 8-
foot wide concrete pavement -
then called “artificial stone” 2 -
some of which is still in use
today. The stipulation made by
the city was notable: Figure 3: Court Avenue, Bellefontaine, OH.
“Bartholomew had to post a
$5,000 performance bond and guarantee that the pavement would last for five years.”2
Clearly, having performed over 125 years since, Bartholomew’s pavement was more than
adequate to satisfy the bond. In the years since, pavement requirements have continued to
progress and become more challenging, however the same precepts remain: pavements
must be hard, flat, cleanable, and affordable, and must last for much longer than the early
5-year projections.
According to the American Concrete Institute’s Committee 325 Concrete Pavements recent
“Guide for Construction of Concrete Pavements ACI 325.9R-15” 3, there are three general
pavement design methodologies in current use today: the PCA (Portland Cement
Association) method, the AASHTO design methodology, and the M-E (Mechanistic-
Empirical) design methodology. Though all three methods and related details could be
considered current state-of-the-art for pavement technology, regrettably none of them
facilitate the consideration of fiber reinforcement as a design element. In fact, the only
mention of fibers in the ACI 325.9R-15 document is a one-line statement: “Guidance for
1
Bytes Daily, www.bytesdaily.blogspot.com/2011/07/great-horse-manure-crisis-of-1894, July 16, 2011.
2
“A Concrete Legacy, The Past, Present, and Future of the American Concrete Pavement Association”, B.
Davenport, G. Voigt, P. Deem, 2014, pg. 9.
3
ACI 325.9R-15 “Guide for Construction of Concrete Pavements”, American Concrete Institute, 2015.
2
the use of fiber-reinforced concrete can be found in ACI 544.1R.” 4, which was published
in 1996 and could hardly be considered a ‘state-of-the-art’ source of fiber information on
its 20th birthday. This scant consideration of fibers seems at odds with known areas of
FRC (Fiber Reinforced Concrete) performance improvements, since crack-width control,
ease of placement, and smooth riding surfaces are deemed important to the construction of
durable concrete pavements. One possible avenue for fiber-design insertion might come
within the PCA thickness-design procedure, which “…evaluates a candidate pavement
design with respect to two potential failure modes: fatigue and erosion.” 5 Fiber-fatigue
values, discussed in the “LTRC FRC Fatigue and Toughness Research” section that
follows, may offer a reasonable foundation to include fibers in future pavement design
conversations.
3. ISSUES REGARDING PAVEMENT DURABILITY

There are a host of pavement deterioration issues that reflect a direct cost to motorists –
some of which are quite obvious and easy to track, while others are hidden and not as well
documented. In either case, pavements in poor condition cause tremendous costs to street
and highway users that must be absorbed by businesses, governments, and the economy in
general. According to TRIP, a national transportation research group, “In 2013 more than
one quarter of the nation’s major urban roads…had pavements that were in substandard
condition and provided an unacceptably rough ride to motorists, costing the average driver
$516 annually.” 6 These poor road conditions manifest these costs to drivers in many ways
– by speeding up vehicle wear-and-tear and reducing value, and by increasing the need for
resulting repairs and maintenance, along with higher fuel consumption and tire wear. And
these rising costs and the causes are not likely to diminish any time soon – according to
TRIP, “…the amount of large commercial truck travel in the U.S. is expected to increase
by 72 percent from 2015 to 2030.”6
Even with a history of cracking, joint failure, and other durability issues, concrete remains
the material of choice regarding driver costs. According to a study by the National
Research Council of Canada, commercial trucks traveling on concrete pavements use
noticeably less fuel than on asphalt pavements – up to 7% less. The study suggests that
“Heavy vehicles cause greater deflection on flexible pavements than on rigid pavements.
When the pavement deflects or moves, it absorbs a portion of the vehicle energy that would
otherwise be available to propel the vehicle forward. Concrete’s rigid design reduces road
deflection and corresponding fuel consumption.” 7 In another study conducted by Florida
International University comparing flexible and rigid pavements on Interstate 95 in Florida,
“For rigid pavement sections, they observed lower fuel consumption figures of 3.2 percent
4
ACI 325.9R-15 “Guide for Construction of Concrete Pavements”, American Concrete Institute, 2015, pg.
26.
5
ACI 325.9R-15 “Guide for Construction of Concrete Pavements”, American Concrete Institute, 2015, pg.
4.
6
“Bumpy Roads Ahead: America’s Roughest Rides and Strategies to Make our Roads Smoother”, TRIP
Report, July 23, 2015.
7
“Save Fuel with Concrete Pavements”, National Research Council of Canada, February 6, 2007.
3
and 4.5 percent, respectively, for passenger vehicles and loaded tractor-trailers. If all
Florida pavements were rigid, it could amount to an annual fuel savings of more than $2
billion for highway users, researchers concluded.” 8
Amongst many possible issues of
vulnerability for concrete pavements,
the most common area of weakness is
joints. Obviously, pavement joints
provide a value to help accommodate
concrete dimensional changes caused by
contraction and expansion due to
temperature and moisture changes.
However, those benefits come with a
collection of issues that must be solved,
such as adequate joint filler, water and
debris migration, and edge damage from
Figure 4: Repairing a pavement joint.
uneven surfaces across the jointed plane.
A vast majority of pavement durability issues begins at the joints, creating an area that
must typically be repaired or replaced much sooner than the between-joint panels.
Considerable research and investigation have been performed for decades in hopes of
reducing the durability issues caused by joints, and new energy is being directed at design
options that might allow for the reduction or elimination of these troublesome pavement
joint areas.
4. FIBER HISTORY IN PAVEMENTS

One of the earliest steel fiber reinforced pavement applications occurred in 1972 as an
overlay to existing taxiways at Tampa International Airport. 9 Two overlay sections were
involved – 4 inches and 6 inches thick - and each area used 742 pounds of total cementitious
along with 200 pounds of steel fibers. Micro synthetic fibers were used at low dosages in
residential driveways and other pavement applications soon after arriving on the U.S.
construction scene in 1978. These fibers, introduced by FORTA Corporation, were
typically used to help reduce plastic shrinkage cracking, and many times were utilized as a
replacement for non-structural light-gauge wire mesh.
The advent of macro synthetic fibers – FORTA-FERRO was introduced in late 1999 –
allowed for a higher replacement level of conventional temperature steel reinforcement by
using considerably higher fiber dosages, such as 3 to 5 pounds per cubic yard of concrete,
and thicker filaments. And soon after that initial introduction, designers and contractors
began to experiment at even higher dosages with the intent of extending normal control
joint spacing. These early joint-stretching trials and projects were based on field
8
“PCA to Feds: Pavements Part of Vehicle Fuel Economy, Lower Emissions Equation”, Concrete Products
Magazine, April 2014, pg. 11.
9
4
observations and laboratory testing that exposed considerable reductions of slab shrinkage
and edge-curling. This joint-stretching practice for interior floor slabs-on-ground
continued in earnest after the publication of a warehouse trial study in 2009, organized by
CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION magazine 10.
Figure 5: Warehouse trial study in 2009, organized by CONCRETE

CONSTRUCTION magazine.10
In this trial study, several fiber types and dosages were utilized, one of which was the
FORTA-FERRO macro fiber at 7.5 lb/cu yd that allowed for joint-free column-line panels
measuring 38 x 42.5 ft. Not only did this result in an 80% reduction of control joints, but
periodic flatness measurements showed essentially zero slab-edge curling long after project
completion, as documented in a resulting Project Profile White Paper 11. Since that time,
column-line floors with high dosages of macro synthetic fibers have become quite
common, and the reduction of joint-related problems in interior floor applications has
become a tremendous benefit to owners of large warehouses, distribution centers, and
manufacturing facilities all over the world. Though macro fibers are an essential ingredient
to the process, an entire shrinkage-management protocol has been developed for the
process, as published in the FORTA Technical Report: “High Fiber Slabs – Extending Joint
Spacing.” 12 Based on scores of successful joint-extended projects all around the world,
there was no longer any reason to limit this practice to interior applications alone, and
exterior pavements provided a huge area for market exploration.
5. CURRENT PAVEMENT DESIGN OPTIONS

There are several basic pavement design approaches used in the U.S., two of which are the
most commonly practiced, and one which has essentially been discontinued. Each method
has advantages and disadvantages, some of which are based on long-term performance and
some on constructability and cost.
10
“Researching Warehouse Floors”, CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION, Joe Nasvik, February 2009.
11
“White Paper: Chicago Floor Study – Warehouse Floor”, Bartlett, IL, FORTA Corporation, February
2009.
12
“High-Fiber Slabs: Extending Joint Spacing”, FORTA Corporation Technical Report, March 2012.
5
5.1 JRCP - Jointed Reinforced Concrete Pavement

These pavements involve long (30 to 60 ft) panels with mild steel reinforcement such as
wire mesh or distributed steel, and dowel load-transfer devices at the joints. This was the
most common pavement design in the 1960’s and 1970’s, however mid-panel faulting was
common. As a result, the use of this reinforced design began to diminish, and prompted
by the efforts of the American Concrete Pavement Association, “…by the 1990’s jointed
reinforced pavements were essentially extinct from all but a few state DOT standards.” 13
5.2 JPCP - Jointed Plain Concrete Pavement

These pavements are plain (unreinforced) concrete panels, shorter than JRCP sections
(typically 15 to 20 ft) using load-transfer mechanisms at all joints. Dowels are used across
the joints of a series of contiguous concrete slabs, and are intended to help prevent faulting,
pumping, and corner-breaks at these joints. This served as the pavement design
recommended by the ACPA, based on failure issues of JRCP systems. With the
elimination of the conventional mild reinforcing steel, JPCP represented the most
economical pavement construction method.
Figure 6: Jointed plain concrete pavement.
13
6
5.3 CRCP - Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement

Continuously reinforced concrete
pavements do not require any
transverse contraction joints, but
instead use sufficient reinforcement
steel to hold resulting cracks tightly
together. Since the concrete’s
tendency towards thermal and
shrinkage volume changes do not go
away, closely-spaced cracks are
imperative to the long-term success of
this pavement design. The amount of
reinforcing steel used is significant –
generally between 0.6 and 0.8% by Figure 7: Continuously reinforced concrete
cross-sectional area – which adds pavement.
considerably to the construction cost
vs. that of JPCP designs. However long-term performance and smooth surface ride-ability
can reveal cost savings over time.
The purpose of the steel in CRCP
design is not to add tensile or
flexural capacity to the concrete, but
only to maintain tight crack widths –
generally less than 0.02 inches.
These tight cracks occur relatively
quickly - typically prior to traffic
opening - and generally occur at
spacing of 2 to 6 feet. This concept
and a ‘let-it-crack’ philosophy
depend on the steel’s capacity to
keep cracks tightly closed, therefore
maintaining adequate aggregate
interlock across the crack and
Figure 8: Steel mat can be cumbersome and preventing future damage from the
labor intensive in CRCP systems. ingress of water, dirt, corrosive
leachates, etc. The key to the
success of this system is the development of a multitude of tight cracks, allowing any
stresses to be distributed more evenly over all of the cracks and not allowing any single
crack to open excessively. The inclusion of this high amount of steel reinforcement does
come with drawbacks of cost and considerable placement labor, as well as challenges
involved in the placement, consolidation, and vibration of the concrete through the chaired-
steel layer by the paver system (Figure 8). And though longevity is the goal of CRCP
pavements, eventual removal is especially challenging due to the high amount of steel,
making recycling costly and difficult.
[This report does not engage in the discussion or comparison of additional alternate
pavement systems such as precast or post-tensioned panels.]
7
6. FRC – FIBER-REINFORCED CONCRETE PAVEMENT

OPTIONS
There are several ways to consider three-dimensional macro synthetic fibers for pavements,
each of which can offer cost and performance advantages over conventional pavement
designs and practices. The resulting FRC designs are dependent on fiber dosage – the
higher the dosage, the more opportunities that become available. Based on these dosages,
the following general parameters can be considered:
1. Low dosage – Dosages of 3.0 to 4.0 lb/cu yd of macro synthetic fibers can be added
to conventional jointed pavement designs to offer an element of crack control along
with improved toughness.
2. Medium dosage – When dosages of 4.0 to 7.0 lb/cu yd are used, consideration of
increasing the spacing between control joints becomes valid.
3. High dosage – Dosages of 7.5 lb/cu yd and higher open the door to dramatically
increased joint spacing, as well as consideration of joint-free pavements based on a
similar design philosophy as CRCP’s.
Both low and medium dosage macro fiber designs have been in play for many years, and
the collection of successful pavement projects in each category continues to grow (see
FORTA Pavement Project History). However, the most intriguing potential for macro
fibers comes from the idea of applying even higher dosages to simulate the frequent, tight
crack regimen of CRCP. Based on extensive knowledge and research of many fiber types
and chemistries, the possibility of joint-free, high-fiber pavements became the brainchild
of Dr. John Kevern, Associate Professor of Civil Engineering at the University of Missouri-
Kansas City. The stability of the frequent cracks in an FRC pavement however would
depend on the fibers’ ability to maintain crack integrity under changing concrete conditions
and repetitive loading. This question of the fatigue capacity of FRC became the foundation
of an extensive research program to that end.
7. CFRCP – CONTINUOUSLY FIBER-REINFORCED

CONCRETE PAVEMENT
The concept of high-fiber, joint-free pavements was dubbed CFRCP – Continuously Fiber-
Reinforced Concrete Pavement – to distinguish it from the established continuous steel-
reinforced system approach of CRCP. The two systems would share a common goal –
using sufficient reinforcement and design that would allow for multiple cracking in a
pavement length, and that would also keep the cracks tightly contained. The premise that
many tight micro-cracks were preferred over fewer wide cracks or dominant joints had
been proven in the case of continuous steel reinforcement, however the question remained
for discrete pieces of fiber reinforcement. The fibers’ response to cracked concrete became
the focal point for the research, the answer to which could steer the use of fibers in several
pavement directions. Clearly macro synthetic fibers had a proven track record of joint-
extension and reduced curling in large commercial interior floors, however the transition
to their effect in pavement mixes and under pavement conditions had yet to be made.
8
The scope of the planned research was to determine if fiber reinforcement could act as a
viable replacement of steel reinforcement and/or dowels in conventional pavement design.
Researchers outlined the benefits, shortcomings, and general cost comparisons of the three
pavement systems – CRCP, JPCP, and CFRCP – showing a clear fiber advantage if
sufficient fatigue and toughness could be proven (Table 1).
Table 1: Comparison of CRCP, JPCP, and CFRCP. 14
8. LTRC FRC FATIGUE AND TOUGHNESS RESEARCH

PROGRAM
To facilitate this research, Dr. Kevern engaged the
Louisiana Department of Transportation and Dr. Tyson
Rupnow, Associate Director of Research. Together they
developed a multi-faceted laboratory program in early
2013. Funding for the project was contributed in large
part by the LA-DOT (70%) and shared by the
participating fiber producers (30%). Testing and
specimen casting were performed at the Louisiana
Transportation Research Center (LTRC) in Baton Rouge,
LA, with portions of the hardened-specimen testing
completed in the concrete laboratories of the University
of Missouri-Kansas City. The research was conducted in
cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation,
Federal Highway Administration. The program abstract
outlined current concrete pavement designs, and the
corrodibility issues with both steel reinforcement and steel dowelling systems in JPCP and
14
“Evaluation of the Fatigue and Toughness of Fiber Reinforced Concrete for Use as a New Highway
Pavement Design”, Louisiana Transportation Research Center, J. Kevern, T. Rupnow, M. Mulheron, Z.
Collier, P. Icenogle, April 2016, Table 1, pg. 11.
9
CRCP systems. The intent was to determine if a discrete fiber reinforcement of various
types and dosages could suffice as the sole reinforcement in a CFRCP system, and if so, to
find an optimum fiber make-up or shape, length, and dosage. To that end, four fiber types
were included at several dosages:
• Polypropylene micro synthetic fibrillated fiber, 1.5-inch long, dosages of 1.5, 3.0,
and 4.5 lb/cu yd (0.1, 0.2, and 0.3% by volume respectively)
• Polypropylene macro synthetic fiber, 2.25-inch long, dosages of 4.5, 7.5, 10.5,
and 15.0 lb/cu yd (0.3, 0.5, 0.7, and 1.0% by volume respectively)
• Carbon sheath fiber, 4-inch long, dosages of 9.0, 21.0, and 30.5 lb/cu yd (0.3, 0.7,
and 1.02% by volume respectively)
• Steel fiber, type I, hooked-end, 2-inch long, dosage of 85 lb/cu yd (0.9% by
volume)
Table 2: Properties of reinforcing fiber. 15
Length Tensile Strength

Specific
Fiber Type Gravity (in.) (ksi)
Polypropylene Fibrillated 0.91 1.50 83-96
Polypropylene Macro 0.91 2.25 83-96
Carbon 1.70 4.00 600
Steel 7.85 2.00 152
Figure 9: Fiber types: polypropylene fibrillated, polypropylene macro, carbon, and

steel.15
The mix materials and mixture proportions used in the program were standard for LA-DOT
highway pavements used for JPCP design. Mix constants were Portland cement at
400 lb/cu yd, class C fly ash at 100 lb/cu yd, and water content at 250 lb/cu yd. Other mix
parameters included W/C ratio of 0.50, air content of 5 to 7%, average of 1900 lb/cu yd
#67 limestone coarse aggregate, and average of 1266 lb/cu yd natural concrete sand fine
aggregate.
15
10
Figure 10: Sand (Lafarge, Clemons AY02) and #67 limestone (Martin Marietta
AB3).
Tests for a wide variety of fresh and hardened concrete properties were performed on each
fiber at each fiber dosage. Basic tests included unit weight (ASTM C138), air content
(ASTM C231), slump (ASTM C143/143M), compressive strength at 7 and 28 days (ASTM
C39), and flexural strength (ASTM C78). Results for each fiber and dosage are reported
in Table 3.
Table 3: Fresh and hardened properties of the fiber-reinforced concrete. 16
In addition, two hardened property regimens were performed for all fiber mixes – fatigue
and toughness – which would comprise the critical data necessary for the determination of
16
11
an optimum fiber type and dosage that could facilitate a CFRCP system. Results from
these two areas would determine if the fiber reinforcement would have the capacity to
maintain serviceability across cracked concrete pavement and would provide the
foundation to optimize the fiber characteristics of type, length, and dosage. Specimen
toughness was determined by ASTM C1609 “Standard Test Method for Flexural
Performance of Fiber-Reinforced Concrete”. Per the test method standard, values for first
peak load, peak load, and residual loads were determined. Residual loads were determined
using deflection (opening) values of 0.03 in and 0.12 in (shown as vertical lines on the
individual fiber toughness graphs). As would be expected by those in the art, the fibers
with the highest tensile strengths, and at higher dosages, offered the best toughness results,
especially at the greater deflection levels. Following are the graphs, ARS (Average
Residual Strength) performance order sequence at both deflection levels, and a brief
summary for each fiber type and dosage. A pertinent observation becomes the fiber values
per deflection level, with the expected crack-width openings anticipated in a CFRCP
pavement application in mind. The results for the steel fiber (85 lb/cu yd) mixes are
included in each fiber graph for comparison perspective.
12
8.1 Toughness
8.1.1 Fibrillated Polypropylene Toughness
Figure 11: Toughness results for polypropylene fiber with L/150 (right vertical line)
and L/600 (left vertical line) shown. 17
ARS Performance Order:
• At L/150 (0.03 in) deflection
1. Steel fiber (85 lb/cu yd)
2. Fibrillated polypropylene (4.5 lb/cu yd)
The shorter (1.5-inch long) fibrillated polypropylene micro synthetic fibers showed little
impact on the toughness of the samples. “The relative ease that the fibers were pulled from
the concrete provided little resistance to deformation after cracking started, which happens
when peak loading is achieved.” 18
17
Collier, P. Icenogle, April 2016, pg. 36.
18
13
8.1.2 Macro Synthetic Toughness
Figure 12: Toughness results for polypropylene macro fiber with L/150 (right
vertical line) and L/600 (left vertical line) shown.17
1. Macro synthetic (10.5 lb/cu yd)
At the smaller crack opening (0.03 in), the macro synthetic fibers at a 10.5 lb/cu yd dosage
slightly outperformed the steel fibers at the 85 lb/cu yd dosage. From there, the ARS
results decreased linearly as fiber dosage decreased. At the larger crack opening (0.12 in),
the steel fiber ARS outperformed the macro synthetic levels due to its higher tensile
strength, and again the macro synthetic values decreased as dosage decreased. In both
cases, the two highest ARS levels for macro synthetic fibers were achieved at the 15.0 and
10.5 lb/cu yd dosages.
14
8.1.3 Carbon Fiber Toughness
Figure 13: Toughness results for carbon fiber with L/150 (right vertical line) and
L/600 (left vertical line) shown. 19
1. Carbon (21.0 lb/cu yd)
The carbon fiber performed extremely well in toughness, outperforming the steel fiber at a
dosage of 21.0 lb/cu yd for the smaller deflection opening. At the larger deflection, steel
fiber rose back to the top at the 85 lb/cu yd dosage, and the carbon fiber results decreased
linearly as dosage decreased.
19
15
8.1.4 Toughness Summary

Though steel fibers and the carbon-sheath fibers did quite well in the toughness testing at
both small and large crack deflection levels, it was interesting to note that the higher
dosages of macro synthetic fibers consistently placed in the top 5 of the 11 overall fiber
combinations for ARS results at both deflection levels. As the LTRC testing continued,
researchers continued to strive to determine the fiber characteristics and dosage that would
provide optimization when considering both toughness and fatigue demands most likely to
occur in pavement applications. The toughness performance sequence listed below (from
highest to lowest) at both deflection levels became an important factor towards the fiber-
in-pavement optimization process.
Table 4: ARS performance summary (ranked highest to lowest).

Toughness ARS @ 0.03” deflection Toughness ARS @ 0.12” deflection
Carbon, 21.0 lb/cu yd Steel, 85 lb/cu yd
Macro synthetic 10.5 lb/cu yd Macro synthetic, 15.0 lb/cu yd
Steel, 85 lb/cu yd Carbon, 30.5 lb/cu yd
Macro synthetic, 15.0 lb/cu yd Carbon, 21.0 lb/cu yd
Macro synthetic, 7.5 lb/cu yd Macro synthetic, 10.5 lb/cu yd.
Macro synthetic, 4.5 lb/cu yd Macro synthetic, 7.5 lb/cu yd
Carbon, 9.0 lb/cu yd Carbon, 9.0 lb/cu yd
Fibrillated, 4.5 lb/cu yd Fibrillated, 1.5 lb/cu yd
Carbon, 30.0 lb/cu yd Macro synthetic, 4.5 lb/cu yd.
8.2 Fatigue Testing

The research program intent was to test each of the fiber
types and dosages at 3 different fatigue-load levels for
comparison – 90%, 70%, and 50% of ultimate flexural
strength. The testing protocol was based on previous
fatigue research at the University of Illinois, where
standard beams are notched 2 in deep on one side to allow
for a uniform cross-sectional area of 4 x 6 in for all
specimens. Figure 14 shows the wet-saw notching
process 20 and Figure 15 represents the beam loading set- Figure 14: Wet saw setup
up. 21 for notching beams.
20
21
16
Fatigue beams were all tested to ultimate

failure, which was determined to be when the
load-carrying capacity of the sample fell
below a 100-pound limit. However, during
the fatigue testing at the 50% stress ratio, it
quickly became apparent that the fiber-
reinforced concrete created results that were
considered to be “…infinite, greater than 10
million cycles per beam.” 22 This unique
fatigue capacity of the fiber reinforcement
would cause the cyclic loading to continue for
years, and therefore the test method was
Figure 16: Notched beam testing adjusted to pre-crack the notched 50% load
arrangement. specimens per ASTM C1399 protocol to
shorten the cyclic time to failure (Figure
16). 23 This pre-cracked testing was
performed until the beam reached ultimate
failure or one million cycles of loading.
8.2.1 Fibrillated Polypropylene
Fatigue
Due to the relatively short length (1.5 in,
38 mm) of the fibrillated polypropylene fiber
used in the program, the fatigue results
generally duplicated the toughness results,
and the shorter, finer fibers were more easily
pulled out of the cracked concrete specimens. Figure 15: Setup for pre-cracked
At the 90% stress level, the fibrillated fibers testing, using third-point loading.
were better than the control but fell below the
steel fibers. At the 70% stress level, the fibrillated fibers did exceed steel fibers 85 lb/cu yd
at the 3.0 lb/cu yd dosage, reaching failure at approximately 900 cycles vs. approximately
500 for the steel. At the 50% stress ratio, the polypropylene fibrillated fibers were unable
to hold the pre-load, therefore contributing no data at that stress level.
8.2.2 Macro Synthetic Fatigue
At the 90% stress ratio, all macro synthetic fiber dosages improved on the control, however
only one dosage (15 lb/cu yd) exceeded that of the steel fibers at 85 lb/cu yd. It is important
to note that the cycles to failure were all quite low at this high load rate, such as the control
failing at 3 load cycles and the majority of the macro synthetic and steel fiber specimens
22
23
17
failing in the 8 to 12 cycle range. However, the 70% stress ratio testing showed a different
story, allowing the fiber reinforcement – especially the macro synthetic fibers – to reveal
the benefits of a more ductile mode of failure. At this ratio, all four of the macro synthetic
dosages outperformed the steel fibers (approximately 500 cycles), with the 4.5 lb/cu yd
(approximately 6,400 cycles) and 10.5 lb/cu yd (approximately 5,500 cycles) dosages
rising to the top of all fiber options.
In the pre-cracked fatigue testing at the 50% stress ratio loading, the macro synthetic fibers
began to show some remarkable characteristics. This segment of the research may have
likely offered the most valuable data of the entire program, to allow researchers to better
understand the ability of the various fibers to withstand low intensity, high volume loading
that would be expected for a typical pavement. The FRC pre-cracked fatigue data began
to reveal 4 distinct regions of performance when plotting CMOD (Crack Mouth Opening
Displacement) vs. number of cycles (Figure 17): 1. aggregate interlock is beginning to fail,
but fibers have yet to engage; 2. fibers begin to activate and hold the specimen together, as
evidenced by a flat-line response to the crack width opening; 3. the fibers begin to fatigue
and crack opening width begins to grow again; 4. the fibers begin to fail (break) at a crack
opening width of 4 mm, which was the set failure criteria for this portion of the program.
Figure 17: CMOD vs. cycles for pre-cracked fatigue test, with four fatigue regions
labeled. 24
However, at the highest macro synthetic fiber dosage of 15.0 lb/cu yd, the pre-cracked
testing revealed only a two-stage failure, likely due to the high fiber count within the
specimens. When the fibers in the lower portion of the specimen began to fatigue and then
break, those fibers near the top were able to absorb the load and postpone failure as shown
in (Figure 18).
24
18
Figure 18: Example of two-stage failure for polypropylene macro fiber 15 lb/cu yd
sample.25
Ultimately, both the 10.5 lb/cu yd (100,000 cycles) and 15.0 lb/cu yd (600,000 cycles)
dosages of the macro synthetic fibers met or exceeded the steel fibers at the 85 lb/cu yd
dosage (approximately 100,000 cycles).
8.2.3 Carbon Fiber Fatigue
Due to the unique configuration of the carbon fiber that is enclosed in a fabric-type sheath
containing multiple single filaments, the fatigue specimens showed a high variability in
results, dependent on the number of carbon bundles that fell across the crack zone during
testing. The low number of bundles crossing the crack often contributed to low fatigue
cycle results at both the 90% and 70% stress ratio loading levels. At the 90% ratio, the
carbon fiber dosages all exceeded the plain control specimens, however the 9.0 lb/cu yd
dosage was the only carbon fiber group to exceed the steel fiber at the 70% stress ratio. In
the pre-cracked fatigue testing at the 50% stress ratio, the 9.0 lb/cu yd dosage fell
considerably below the steel fiber results, however the two higher dosages (21.0 and
30.5 lb/cu yd) performed considerably higher than the steel fiber at 85 lb/cu yd.
25
19
8.2.4 Fatigue Summary

In summary, the 90% stress ratio fatigue testing resulted in relatively quick cyclic failure,
ranging from the control low of 3 cycles to the macro synthetic 15.0 lb/cu yd high of 11
cycles, as compared to the steel fiber 85 lb/cu yd result of 9 cycles (Figure 19).
Figure 19: Comparison of different fiber dosages at 90% stress ratio. 26
26
20
At the 70% stress ratio, many of the fibers tested met or exceeded the steel fiber fatigue
results per the bar graph in Figure 20 such as polypropylene fibrillated at 3.0 lb/cu yd,
macro synthetic at all four dosages (4.5, 7.5, 10.5, and 15 lb/cu yd), and carbon fibers at
9.0 lb/cu yd. The two highest-rated fibers at this stress ratio were macro synthetic
4.5 lb/cu yd at approximately 2,300 cycles and 10.5 lb/cu yd at approximately 6,800
cycles, as compared to the steel 85 lb/cu yd at approximately 325 cycles. The four macro
synthetic fiber dosages finished in the top 6 performers of the 11 total fiber type and dosage
possibilities.
Figure 20: Comparison of different fiber dosages at 70% stress ratio. 27

During the pre-cracked fatigue testing at 50% stress ratio, specimen fracture faces were
observed for visual comparison regarding failure mode. Whereas the synthetic and carbon
fibers showed evidence of gradual fatigue and rupture, the steel fiber specimens showed
signs that the steel fibers had pulled out of the concrete as evidenced by the hole voids,
which led to a more sudden and progressive failure (see Figure 21).
27
21
Holes left by pull

out of steel fibers
Figure 21: Failed pre-cracked samples showing broken synthetic fibers24 (left) and
holes left behind by steel fibers pulling out of concrete25 (right).
As previously discussed, the pre-cracked fatigue results of the test regimen became an
extremely valuable component of a successful CFRCP system, as it quantified particular
fiber types, shapes, lengths, and dosages that could maintain integrity across a tight
pavement crack. Three fiber types were compared to steel fibers at the pre-cracked 50%
stress ratio level, two of which surpassed the steel fiber 85 lb/cu yd values: macro synthetic
fibers at 10.5 and 15.0 lb/cu yd dosages, and carbon sheath fibers at 21.0 and 30.5 lb/cu yd
dosages. When fiber costs and user-friendliness become part of the fiber-selection process,
the macro synthetic results of 100,000 cycles (at 10.5 lb/cu yd) and approximately 600,000
cycles (at 15.0 lb/cu yd) become quite attractive compared to the steel and carbon fibers.
Figure 22: Results of pre-cracked fatigue testing.25

8.2.5 LTRC Results Summary
Based on the considerable increase in the FRC fatigue performance revealed in the testing
program, the LTRC research team analyzed various design models to help gauge how a
CFRCP pavement might compare with currently used pavement design methods, using the
22
McCall form for Portland cement fatigue and the Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and
StreetPave curves. Per the calculated analyses, researchers made the following
observations:
1. JPCP has a better performance at high stress ratios when compared to CFRCP,
meaning that at higher stress ratios, the thickness of CFRCP will be thicker than
JPCP.
2. After a stress ratio of approximately 60% when using the 95% reliability curve, the
CFRCP begins to outperform JPCP, meaning that at stress ratios lower than 60%,
CFRCP will be thinner than JPCP.” 28
Based on the laboratory data, researchers arrived at a variety of conclusions regarding the
use of fibers in a potential joint-free or reduced-joint pavement system. “Test results
showed that the use of fiber reinforcement improves the performance of Portland cement
concrete with respect to fatigue. The results showed that polypropylene, both fibrillated
and macro, increase the fatigue performance of fiber reinforced concrete more than steel
fiber reinforced concrete, when used in the correct dosages.” 29 With regards to toughness,
the research suggested that high fiber tensile strength and high fiber dosage led to higher
performance, “…However, toughness and fatigue performance did not correlate for small
deflections. This study also found that when repeated low deflections are a concern, such
as with pavements, the following conclusions can be drawn:
• Polypropylene fibrillated fibers offer increased fatigue performance but do not
offer any significant support to the concrete after the sample has cracked.
• Carbon fibers provide the greatest toughness and post-crack performance, but do
not necessarily correlate to greater fatigue performance.
• Polypropylene macro fibers, in the range of 7.5 to 10.5 lb/cu yd, provide the
greatest combination of fatigue, toughness and pre-cracked fatigue performance.
• The use of fiber reinforcement has an effect on the thickness design of pavements
and can result in reduced pavement thickness for low stress, high volume
pavements.” 30
The resulting recommendations of the research team moving forward were two-fold:
additional full-scale testing (proposed as a Phase II program), and actual highway test
sections under real-world conditions. “The construction of full-scale testing sections to
evaluate the performance of CFRCP with different subgrade support systems will further
the understanding of how fiber reinforcement improves the performance of concrete
pavements…. Finally, a test highway section should be built to evaluate CFRCP alongside
28
29
30
23
JPCP and/or CRCP in the same climatic conditions to determine if CFRCP will eliminate
the need for joints in pavements and perform to the same level as CRCP.” 31
9. FORTA PAVEMENT PROJECT HISTORY

As mentioned previously, the application focus for the FORTA-FERRO macro fiber after
initial introduction to the U.S. market was primarily on interior commercial slabs-on-
ground. In these applications, the fibers were used in low, medium, and high dosages to
accomplish a variety of shrinkage and reinforcement goals. Soon after, the use of macro
fibers expanded into a variety of exterior slab applications and projects, a review of which
can provide designers, owners, and contractors a collection of data to help add comfort
level for their use of fibers. For the most part, these past projects used FORTA-FERRO in
two ways – in low to medium dosages to reduce temperature/shrinkage cracking while
maintaining conventional joint spacing (Fiber Reinforced Jointed Concrete Pavement), or
in higher dosages to add toughness and extend normal joint spacing (Fiber Reinforced
Extended-Joint Concrete Pavement). The following project examples represent both uses
and help provide real-world background for the consideration of future FRC pavement
systems.
9.1 FRJCP – Fiber Reinforced Jointed Concrete Pavements

9.1.1 TechniGraphics - Wooster, OH - September 2008
For this 5-inch thick corporate
headquarters parking lot pavement,
FORTA-FERRO was used at a dosage
of 5.0 lb/cu yd as an alternate to the
specified 6x6-W2.9xW2.9 WWF
reinforcement. Over 3,000 cu yd of
fiber-reinforced concrete were pumped
into place using a round-bar, high-fiber
pump grate, and effectively broom-
finished for this 200,000 sq ft jointed
pavement.
31
24
9.1.2 All Pro Freight - Avon, OH - October 2008

FORTA-FERRO was used at a dosage of
4.0 lb/cu yd as an alternate temperature/
shrinkage reinforcement to the specified
6x6-W4.0xW4.0 WWF. Over 1,500 cu yd
of concrete were placed at conventional
joint spacing for this freight company
parking lot and pavement in Avon, OH.
9.1.3 J. M. Smucker - Orrville, OH - 2009 – 2014

In-house engineers at the J. M. Smucker
Company in Orrville, OH, had considerable
prior experience using synthetic fibers to
reduce shrinkage cracking in a variety of
interior slab applications. Based on this
positive experience, engineers approved the
use of macro synthetic fibers as a reinforcing
alternate to their wire mesh norm in
5,000 cu yd of new parking lot pavement in
2009. FORTA-FERRO was used at a dosage
of 4.0 lb/cu yd in this 6-inch pavement, which
alleviated the hassle of proper fabric-reinforcement placement with laser-guided screed
concrete placement. Based on this initial project success, an additional 5,000 cu yd of FRC
pavements have been placed over a 5-year period surrounding this large headquarters
facility.
25
9.1.4 FedEx Freight - Conley, GA - March 2011

This 2011 truck pavement project
represented an example of fiber
reinforcement saving time and
money during the course of the
project. During the first 500 cubic
yards of project placement, the
concrete contractor fell quickly
behind the pour schedule due to the
extra time and effort caused by the
specified #3 bar at 24 in O.C.E.W.
reinforcement mat. The subsequent
approval and use of FORTA-
FERRO macro fiber at a dosage of
3.0 lb/cu yd as an alternate more
than doubled the placement volume per time by eliminating the steel and the required
pumping operation for placement and allowed the original project schedule to be recovered.
Over a short two-week period, over 4,400 cubic yards of fiber-reinforced concrete were
placed for this 7-½-inch thick pavement slab, jointed in 15 x 15 ft panels. The total project
encompassed over 5 acres of trailer truck pavement and parking area at this high-volume
freight service center terminal in Conley, GA.
9.1.5 Mineral Spring Street - Orrville, OH - August 2012
In August of 2012, the City of Orrville
accepted an alternate reinforcement
design from their civil engineering
project consultant for a city street
reconstruction project. This fiber-
alternate of 4.0 lb/cu yd replaced the
4x4-W2.9xW2.9 WWF historically
specified for these 9-inch thick street
pavements. The Mineral Spring
Street project encompassed 2,700 ft
of pavement and used conventional
joint spacing of approximately 14.5 ft
panels across the roadway width of
29 ft.
26
9.1.6 Kil-Kare Speedway - Xenia, OH - April 2013

As an alternate to the specified 6x6-
W1.4xW1.4 WWF temperature reinforcement,
project participants opted to use 3.0 lb/cu yd of
the FORTA-FERRO macro synthetic fiber
reinforcement for this 300 ft long concrete
dragstrip raceway staging pad. The 6-inch
thick ‘burn-out box’ pad used conventional
joint spacing of approximately 12 x 12 ft
panels.
9.1.7 Ames Hangar 1006 - Wilmington, OH - July 2013

FORTA-FERRO macro fiber was used
at a dosage of 5.0 lb/cu yd³ as an
alternate to 2 mats of #4 bar at 18 in
O.C.E.W. for this high-load airport
pavement slab in Wilmington, OH.
Jointed in 15 ft square panels over
88,000 sq ft, this 12-inch thick
pavement was placed at the Joint Use
Maintenance and Paint Hangar 1006
facility, which required loading
capacity for aircraft as large as Boeing
747-400 and 777-300ER.
9.1.8 Bacon Universal – Komatsu - Honolulu, HI - June 2014

Engineers for this Komatsu dealer heavy equipment
pavement approved a 7.5 lb/cu yd dosage of FORTA-
FERRO macro fiber as alternate to #4 bar at 12 in O.C.E.W.
mat. Covering over 12,000 sq ft, the 8-inch thick equipment
maintenance pavement has held up well under the high-load
abrasive track traffic.
27
9.1.9 Old Dominion Freight - Phoenix, AZ - December 2014

Due to positive experience on several
previous truck-traffic paving projects,
owner Old Dominion Freight approved
and used the FORTA-FERRO macro
synthetic fiber reinforcement for this
large truck pavement, parking, and dock
slabs for a new freight-transfer hub in
Phoenix, AZ. Requiring over
18,000 cu yd of concrete, the high
traffic volume pavements utilized a
macro fiber dosage of 5.0 lb/cu yd of
concrete and used conventional joint
spacing.
9.1.10 FedEx Ground - Kennesaw, GA - July 2015
FORTA-FERRO 2.25-inch long fiber was used at a dosage of 5.0 lb/cu yd as an alternate
to temperature/shrinkage steel reinforcement in this truck pavement project in Kennesaw,
GA. The macro fiber was used in all 8-inch thick pavement roadways and loading-dock
pads, as well as new concrete strips in existing asphalt lots for improved trailer support.
9.1.11 Murphy Tractor - Zelienople, PA - October 2015

This 330,000 sq ft pavement and parking
project for the largest John Deere equipment
dealer in western Pennsylvania utilized a
FORTA-FERRO macro fiber dosage of
4.0 lb/cu yd. For this 7,000 cu yd of concrete
poured at 7-inch thick, joint spacing was
maintained at 15 x 15 ft panels and used no
load-transfer baskets at the saw cuts.
28
9.2 FREJCP – Fiber Reinforced Extended-Joint Concrete Pavements

9.2.1 Atlanta Bonded Warehouse - Kennesaw, GA - 2003
At the time of construction in 2003, this
large food-product warehouse and
distribution center handled over 100
tractor trailer deliveries per day, all of
which arrived via a single-gate check-in
station. In the 17+ years since, traffic
volumes have increased considerably.
In this critical 6-inch thick pavement
path, FORTA-FERRO was used at a
7.5 lb/cu yd dosage in a joint-free panel
measuring 40 x 70 ft. Even with poor
subgrade conditions and an interior
catch basin cut-out, this heavily
trafficked pavement has continued to perform without repair after millions of stop-and-
start traffic cycles.
9.2.2 Aldi Paving - Springfield, OH - October 2012
To reduce historic joint-curl and deterioration issues in company pavements, this owner
chose a high-volume macro synthetic fiber option to increase joint-spacing. For this
70,000 sq ft carpark and pavement project, FORTA-FERRO macro fiber was used at
7.5 lb/cu yd to increase panel size from 12 x 12 ft to 40 x 40 ft for the 6-inch thick
pavement. As a result, over 7,000 linear feet of control-joints were eliminated, offering a
saw-cut and joint-filler savings of almost 70%.
29
9.2.3 GALOT Motorsports Dragstrip - Benson, NC - April 2014

The reconstruction of this auto dragstrip
required a high level of both flatness and
levelness to accommodate high-speed
drag racing. To reduce past racing
issues over deteriorated and curled
pavement joints, the project opted for a
high dosage (7.5 lb/cu yd) of FORTA-
FERRO macro fiber for the 8-inch thick
pavement, consisting of two 30 ft wide
by 840 ft long racing lanes. The macro
fiber joint-free alternative eliminated
over 4,300 linear feet of control joints.
The eventual pavement cracks, ranging
from spans of 35 to 70 ft, were easily filled with conventional joint-fill material, and the
fatigue capacity of the high-volume fiber reinforcement has maintained an extremely level
racing surface since track opening in mid-2014. Project contractor American Concrete
Construction Inc., Trinity, NC, was awarded a 2015 Golden Trowel Award for the project
in recognition of excellence in the construction of flat and level slabs, achieving the best
Fl values ever recorded for a dragstrip application of Ff 108.9 and Fl 57.7. Since opening,
a number of track speed records have been recorded in various drag-car classifications at
this facility, due in part to the considerable improvement to track flatness.
9.2.4 McMaster-Carr Paving - Douglasville, GA - November 2014
This 1-million square foot distribution center project included over 300,000 sq ft of tractor
trailer driving lane pavement, parking area, and loading dock pads. Opting for a high-
volume macro fiber dosage of 7.5 lb/cu yd, project engineers effectively reduced over 50%
of the conventional control joints and filler. For the 6-inch thick pavements, joint panels
were extended from the normal 12 to 15 ft spans to panels of 30 ft or more, depending on
panel and roadway layout dimensions.
30
9.2.5 Terrapin Trail - Orrville, OH - September 2015

For several years, the City of
Orrville, Ohio, has successfully
specified and used 4.0 lb/cu yd
of the FORTA-FERRO macro
synthetic fiber in all new city
street reconstruction projects,
following a control-joint
protocol of approximately 15 ft
panel spacing for the 9-inch
thick pavements. In September
of 2015, a private residential
developer secured City approval
to stretch transverse joint
spacing to 30 ft, based on a
slightly higher macro fiber
dosage of 5.0 lb/cu yd. Load-transfer dowels were utilized only at the mid-street sawcut
joint for the 29-foot wide pavement with integral curb and gutter. At the one-year mark,
City officials reported no mid-panel cracking on the 14.5 x 30 ft panels over approximately
40,000 sq ft of pavement. Since that time, several of the 30 ft panels have shown tight,
mid-panel cracks, yet the panels 28 ft and shorter have exhibited no cracking.
10. CONCLUSION: MOVING FORWARD WITH FRC

PAVEMENTS
For the most part, concrete pavement design has remained stagnant for decades, while the
demand for flatter and more durable highways has continued to grow. In efforts to improve
highway durability and performance, specifications and requirements for concrete
pavements have become more demanding. One such requirement has attempted to address
a driver’s response to the pavement surface, by quantifying a ratio of accumulated motion
per mile of roadway. Factored in unit measurements of inches per mile, the International
Roughness Index - IRI - was developed in 1982 to provide a method that would better
measure and monitor the true ride quality of a pavement vs. simple smoothness
measurements achieved with previous profile-a-graph type measurements. Many states,
such as Louisiana and Pennsylvania, have adopted IRI requirements for new pavement
construction, and specifiers and contractors will be further challenged to meet these ride-
ability demands. Obviously, pavement elevation issues caused by curling and warping at
the joints further aggravate the challenge of placing and maintaining a pavement surface
that will remain tough, flat and level, durable, and sustainable and therefore meet these IRI
requirements, while remaining cost-effective against current design and construction
methods at the same time.
The simplest and least expensive solution to these more stringent pavement demands is
quite likely fiber reinforcement. It is long-proven that three-dimensional fibers distributed
uniformly throughout the concrete cross-section add both consistency and uniformity to
31
both plastic and hardened concrete. And with more recent evidence that fibers contribute
mightily to concrete’s toughness and fatigue capacity, it becomes apparent that the answers
to current pavement issues are readily available today. The question becomes one of fiber
optimization to fit the application - determining the best fiber type, shape, length, and
dosage that will maximize pavement performance and minimize pavement issues.
Per the LTRC fatigue and toughness research along with market observations regarding
cost and user-friendliness, a strong case could be made that an optimum fiber for pavement
applications is a long-length, macro synthetic fiber, at relatively high dosages. For the
joint-free continuous fiber-reinforced pavement design proposed by the LTRC research
program, the conclusions suggested an optimum macro synthetic fiber dosage range of
between 7.5 and 10.5 lb/cu yd of concrete. Yet, as mentioned previously, there are other
ways to capitalize on the contributions of macro fibers at lesser dosages as well:
• Low dosage of macro synthetic fiber, i.e. 3.0 to 4.0 lb/cu yd, as an alternate to
conventional mesh or light-steel temperature reinforcement to reduce cracking
and improve durability while maintaining conventional pavement panel size
• Medium dosage of macro synthetic fiber, i.e. 5.0 to 7.5 lb/cu yd, to replace
temperature steel reinforcement and considerably reduce the volume of control
joints by extending joint-spacing
• Use the LTRC research recommendation of 7.5 to 10.5 lb/cu yd i.e. 9.0 lb/cu yd,
to engage the principle of a continuous joint-free, tight-crack, sustainable and
durable continuous fiber-reinforced concrete pavement
For any of the three fiber-dosage options noted, it is paramount that the fiber of choice
accommodates these elevated dosages while remaining user-friendly in the field.
Contractors around the world construction arena can provide ample evidence that all macro
synthetic fibers are not created equal when it comes to uniform fiber mixing and an
acceptable surface finish, by offering stories of troublesome fiber balling and fuzzy
finishes. The unique FORTA-FERRO twisted-bundle macro fiber has alleviated the
mixing and uniform distribution issues typical of rigid, single-filament fibers, and the gray
color and designed softness have allowed it to earn an international reputation as the best
finishing macro fiber in the industry. Durable, cost-effective, and reduced-joint or even
joint-free pavements are possible today by selecting and using a macro synthetic fiber
reinforcement that offers the toughness and fatigue performance evidenced in the extensive
LTRC research regimen, and relying on a team of experienced fiber field experts to guide
the FRC paving process.
32
Though certainly not considered a ‘major

highway pavement’, a small residential project
in western Pennsylvania is indicative of the
possibilities offered by a high-fiber, joint-free
design. Placed in the fall of 2011, this 10-foot
wide by 5-inch thick driveway pavement
remains durable - and crack-free - after 9 harsh
winters, and at a joint-free panel length of
over 155 ft. Successful projects such as this
and scores of others over a 20-year macro fiber
history, along with substantial research to
confirm the considerable increases to concrete
toughness and fatigue resistance, can hopefully
provide a comfort level for pavement designers,
owners, and contractors, as well as municipal,
state, and national transportation departments,
in the use of the FORTA-FERRO macro
synthetic fiber reinforcement as a viable method
to improve concrete pavements in the future.
33

FRC - Pavements

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

FRC - Pavements

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TR.1.06.03.

Fiber-Reinforced Concrete - Pavements

© 2020 FORTA Corporation

THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

FORTA®, ECONO-MONO®, ECONO-NET®, and FORTA-FERRO® are

9.1.10 FedEx Ground - Kennesaw, GA - July 2015 ............................................. 28

THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

2. CONCRETE PAVEMENT HISTORY

3. ISSUES REGARDING PAVEMENT DURABILITY

4. FIBER HISTORY IN PAVEMENTS

Figure 5: Warehouse trial study in 2009, organized by CONCRETE

5. CURRENT PAVEMENT DESIGN OPTIONS

5.1 JRCP - Jointed Reinforced Concrete Pavement

5.2 JPCP - Jointed Plain Concrete Pavement

Figure 6: Jointed plain concrete pavement.

5.3 CRCP - Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement

6. FRC – FIBER-REINFORCED CONCRETE PAVEMENT

7. CFRCP – CONTINUOUSLY FIBER-REINFORCED

Table 1: Comparison of CRCP, JPCP, and CFRCP. 14

8. LTRC FRC FATIGUE AND TOUGHNESS RESEARCH

Table 2: Properties of reinforcing fiber. 15

Length Tensile Strength

Figure 9: Fiber types: polypropylene fibrillated, polypropylene macro, carbon, and

Table 3: Fresh and hardened properties of the fiber-reinforced concrete. 16

8.1.2 Macro Synthetic Toughness

8.1.3 Carbon Fiber Toughness

8.1.4 Toughness Summary

Table 4: ARS performance summary (ranked highest to lowest).

8.2 Fatigue Testing

Fatigue beams were all tested to ultimate

8.2.4 Fatigue Summary

Figure 19: Comparison of different fiber dosages at 90% stress ratio. 26

Figure 20: Comparison of different fiber dosages at 70% stress ratio. 27

Holes left by pull

Figure 22: Results of pre-cracked fatigue testing.25

9. FORTA PAVEMENT PROJECT HISTORY

9.1 FRJCP – Fiber Reinforced Jointed Concrete Pavements

9.1.2 All Pro Freight - Avon, OH - October 2008

9.1.3 J. M. Smucker - Orrville, OH - 2009 – 2014

9.1.4 FedEx Freight - Conley, GA - March 2011

9.1.6 Kil-Kare Speedway - Xenia, OH - April 2013

9.1.7 Ames Hangar 1006 - Wilmington, OH - July 2013

9.1.8 Bacon Universal – Komatsu - Honolulu, HI - June 2014

9.1.9 Old Dominion Freight - Phoenix, AZ - December 2014

9.1.11 Murphy Tractor - Zelienople, PA - October 2015

9.2 FREJCP – Fiber Reinforced Extended-Joint Concrete Pavements

9.2.3 GALOT Motorsports Dragstrip - Benson, NC - April 2014

9.2.5 Terrapin Trail - Orrville, OH - September 2015

10. CONCLUSION: MOVING FORWARD WITH FRC

Though certainly not considered a ‘major

You might also like