See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/269122196

Using Steel Fiber Reinforced Concrete in Post-Tensioned Anchorage Zones

Conference Paper · April 2009

DOI: 10.1061/41031(341)29

CITATIONS READS
4 4,614

3 authors, including:

Kamal Tawfiq Nur Yazdani

Florida A&M University University of Texas at Arlington
29 PUBLICATIONS 316 CITATIONS 136 PUBLICATIONS 1,359 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Nur Yazdani on 20 January 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Structures 2009: Don't Mess with Structural Engineers © 2009 ASCE 270

USING STEEL FIBER REINFORCED CONCRETE IN

POST-TENSIONED ANCHORAGE ZONES

Authors:
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Texas at Arlington on 01/20/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Brenda Robinson, Florida A & M University, Tallahassee, Florida 32307

Kamal S. Tawfiq, FAMU-FSU College of Engineering, Tallahassee, Florida 32310
Nur Yazdani, University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, Texas 76019

INTRODUCTION
In segmental box girder bridge construction, post-tensioning is used to connect individual bridge
segments together to create bridge spans. Post-tensioning tendons transmit high compressive
forces to concrete bridge segments. As a result, compressive and tensile stresses develop at and
near the tendon anchorages. Figure 1 [Breen et al, 1994] shows principal stress paths that
develop as a result of the post-tensioning force.

P P P/2 P/2

C C

T T

P/2 P/2
(a) Stress Trajectories (b) Lateral Stresses (c) Load Path

a h
Bearing
P Stresses P Spalling
Stresses

Local h Bursting
Zone Stresses

General
Zone

(d) Compression (e) Tension

FIGURE 1 - STRESS DISTRIBUTION AT THE ANCHORAGE ZONE

As shown in Figure 1, the concentrated post-tensioning force at the surface becomes nearly
equivalent to a linearly distributed force along the members cross-section at a distance away

Structures Congress 2009

 Structures 2009: Don't Mess with Structural Engineers © 2009 ASCE 271

from the load surface. The distance through which this load transformation takes place is called
the “anchorage zone”.
The lateral stress distribution which occurs in the anchorage zone is shown in Figure 1. As
shown, compressive lateral stresses develop in the vicinity of the anchor bearing plate. At a
distance away from the anchor, lateral tensile stresses develop. These tensile stresses are
referred to as “bursting stresses”. Reinforcement must be provided to resist the bursting tensile
stresses. Principal compressive and tensile stress contours for a post-tensioning anchorage zone
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Texas at Arlington on 01/20/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

are shown in Figure 1. Three critical stress regions which develop are shown in Figure 1. These
are the locations of high bearing stresses, spalling stresses and bursting stresses.
In the 2007 LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, the American Association of State
Highway Officials (AASHTO) considers the post-tensioned anchorage zone as two regions: the
local zone and the general zone. According to AASHTO the local zone is in the immediate
vicinity of the anchorage device. The general zone is the area where the tensile stresses develop
due to the spreading of the tensile force. For end anchorage zones, the transverse dimensions of
the general zone may be taken as the length and width of the segment (or component) but not
larger than the longitudinal dimension of the segment (or component). The length of the general
zone shall be one to one and one half (1 to 1.5) times the greater of the transverse dimensions
[AASHTO,2007].
To provide adequate resistance for the large compressive forces at the anchors and the large
tensile forces that develop at a distance ahead of the anchors, the post-tensioned anchorage zone
must be properly designed and detailed with reinforcement. However, reducing the amount of
steel congestion in the post-tensioning anchorage zone may have beneficial effects related to
construction costs. When less steel exists in the post-tensioning anchorage zone, the potential is
reduced for construction delays related to steel congestion. This could lead to significant dollar
savings by the avoidance of construction delays and associated construction claims. Thus,
construction methods that may reduce of eliminate problems associated with steel congestion
should be of interest.

OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

This paper discusses an investigation of using steel fiber reinforced concrete (SFRC) in the post-
tensioning anchorage zones of bridge girders. The purpose of using the SFRC was to enhance
the overall performance and to reduce the amount of steel rebar required in the anchorage zone.
This investigation considered the use of SFRC in both the local and general anchorage zones.
Experimental and analytical investigations were conducted to determine if the mild steel
reinforcement required by AASHTO in the anchorage zone could be reduced without
deterioration of strength or performance.

RESEARCH METHODS
To achieve the objectives of this study, both experimental and analytical investigations were
conducted. The experimental part of the study involved laboratory testing of twenty-seven (27)
samples representing typical anchorage zone dimensions in post-tensioned girders. The
analytical study was conducted using non-linear finite element analysis in order to have a
comprehensive stress analysis of the anchorage zones with and without fiber reinforcement and
mild steel reinforcement Thus, the work performed in this research included 1. testing materials;

Structures Congress 2009

 Structures 2009: Don't Mess with Structural Engineers © 2009 ASCE 272

2. load testing twenty-seven (27) anchorage specimens; 3. using the finite element method to
model test specimens; 4. using empirical equations for computing forces and stresses; and 5)
comparing all test, finite element results and empirical results.

MATERIALS TESTING
To help determine appropriate fibers and percentage of fibers to use in the anchorage load test
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Texas at Arlington on 01/20/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

program, extensive materials testing was performed. The materials test program considered a
4000 psi mix design, three (3) different fibers, and a range of fiber percentages: 0%, 0.25%,
0.33%, 0.5%, 0.75% and 1.0%. To investigate materials properties for the fiber reinforced
concrete, compressive strength, split tensile strength and flexural strength tests were conducted
from “preliminary” concrete batches which were cast before anchor test specimens were cast.

FIBER REINFORCEMENT
The three (3) fibers used in the research project were Dramix ZP305, Helix, and Novomesh 850.
Dramix ZP305 (a steel fiber with bent ends) was used in earlier tests conducted by Haroon
[2003]. Helix is a product consisting of twisted polygon shaped high tensile steel wires.
Novomesh 850 is a steel and polypropylene blend. Although a 1% fiber percentage was
originally considered due to results of the research conducted by Haroon [2003], material test
specimens were cast with different amounts of fibers (0.0%, 0.25%, 0.33%, 0.5%, 0.75% and
1.0% by volume). As a result of finite element analysis results [Johnson, 2006] and materials
tests, 0.5% by volume fibers were used in the anchorage load test specimens.

ANCHORAGE SPECIMENS TESTING

The size of the load test specimens was based upon the definition of the general post-tensioning
(PT) anchorage zone, the AASHTO code and finite element analysis. The geometry of the
proposed test specimen was based upon two main sources of information: 1) the joint
manufacturer’s recommendations concerning minimum edge distances and minimum anchor
spacing and 2) the AASHTO code definitions of local and general post-tensioning zones and
geometry limitations for use of the AASHTO “Approximate Method” for designing post-
tensioning anchorage zones. By comparing finite element analysis results for the proposed test
specimen with finite element results for the Mid-Bay Bridge anchorage zone, verification was
made that the proposed test specimen size was adequate to achieve stress levels of similar
magnitude to those developed in the anchorage zones of typical box girder segments.
The selected size of the post-tensioned anchorage test specimen was 19.5” height, 29.5” width
and 29.5” length. The length dimension is parallel to the longitudinal axis of the post-tensioning
ducts. The height and width dimensions for the cross-section form the surface area for the PT
anchors bearing plates. The geometric dimensions of the PT test specimens and a photograph of
one test specimen are shown in Figure 2.

Structures Congress 2009

 Structures 2009: Don't Mess with Structural Engineers © 2009 ASCE 273
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Texas at Arlington on 01/20/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

FIGURE 2 - DIMENSIONS OF THE PT ANCHORAGE SPECIMEN

Post-Tensioning Anchorages And Ducts

The size of the post-tensioning anchors was limited based upon consideration of the 1000 Kip
load capacity of the Florida Department of Transportation’s (FDOT) load testing frame. Thus,
based upon the size of the test specimen and the use of two (2) anchors in each specimen, a
relatively small anchor system (with design capacity of 289 Kip) was used. The PT test
specimen size was selected with the intent of ensuring that most of the specimens would fail
under loading prior to reaching the load capacity of the FDOT loading system. The VSL anchor
designation for the 289 Kip capacity PT anchor is VSL Type EC 5-7. The Dywidag anchor
designation for the 289 Kip capacity PT anchor is Dywidag MA 5-0.6. The duct used was a 59
mm plastic duct.

Spiral And Tie Reinforcement For VSL & Dywidag Anchorages

The steel spiral used with the VSL EC 5-7 anchor was a #4 bar spiral with a diameter of 9.0
inches and 6 turns. Twelve inches (12”) is the distance that the spiral shall extend beyond the
outer surface of the PT anchor into the PT anchor zone. The spiral used with the MA 5-0.6
anchor was a #4 bar spiral with a diameter of 7.75 inches. Ten inches (10”) is the distance that
the spiral shall extend beyond the outer surface of the PT anchor into the anchor zone. The pitch
for the spiral is 1.875”.
For PT test specimens, the bursting steel, tie reinforcement was designed satisfy the
AASHTO recommendation by using five (5) # 4 bars spaced at 5.25”. See Figure 3 for the basic
bursting steel configuration in the test specimens. In order to consider the effect of reducing the
amount of bursting steel, some specimens were cast with only three (3), #4 bars spaced at 10.5
inches. The steel reinforcement cage was 16.5”x26.5”x26.5” so that a 1.5” concrete cover was
provided on all sides of the anchorage specimen.

Structures Congress 2009

 Structures 2009: Don't Mess with Structural Engineers © 2009 ASCE 274

29.5”
5 #4 @ 5.25”

#4
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Texas at Arlington on 01/20/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

19.5”

29.5”

FIGURE 3: ANCHORAGE TEST SPECIMEN STEEL TIE REINFORCEMENT

Anchorage Specimen Parameters

In an effort to consider the effects of several variables (type of steel fiber, confinement steel,
bursting steel and anchorage device), twenty-seven (27) test specimens were cast with embedded
post-tensioning anchors and ducts. Twenty-three (23) of the specimens were cast with steel
fibers and four (4) were cast with plain concrete.

INSTRUMENTATION IN ANCHORAGE TEST SPECIMENS

During the test, both strains and displacements were measured and recorded. Internal and
external strain gages were used. The internal gages were mainly 5” gages by Vishay
Micromeasurements (models EPG-5-350W and EPG-5-120W). The external (surface) gages
were TML Model PL-60-11, 60 mm, 120 ohm, foil strain gages. Displacements of the test
specimens were measured using a TML Model SDP-2000, full bridge, displacement transducers
and Balluf Model BOD 66M Class II Laser distance measurement sensors.

DATA ACQUISITION SYSTEM

The test data was sampled and recorded using a data acquisition system manufactured by
National Instruments: Chassis Model PXI-1011 combo PXI/SCXI, Controller Model PXI-8176
embedded controller running Windows XP/LabView, DAC (ADC) Card Model PXI-6251,
Signal Conditioning Model SCXI-1530 strain gage module. With this data acquisition system,
the data was sampled at 1 kHz, averaging every 100 samples for a recording rate of 10 Hz.
During testing the target strain rate was three (3) microstrains per second.

TESTING SETUP
The laboratory load test setup is shown in Figure 4, The PT anchor test specimens were load
tested at the Florida Department of Transportation’s Structures Research Center in Tallahassee,
Florida. A photograph of the test setup is shown in Figure 5. As shown in the photograph, the

Structures Congress 2009

 Structures 2009: Don't Mess with Structural Engineers © 2009 ASCE 275

1000 Kip load frame (RSFrame) provided resistance for two (2) 800 Kip Enerpac actuators
(Model #RR-40018). The load of each actuator was measured by an Interface 600 K load cell
(Model #1260CHG-600K). The loads were applied to a heavy steel box which transferred the
load to two (2) round steel tendon wedge anchor plates which loaded the anchors of the test
specimen. For the first specimen tested, S1-1, the concrete test specimen rested on a neoprene
bearing pad. For all other tests, the specimens rested in a box of sand.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Texas at Arlington on 01/20/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

FIGURE 4 - ANCHORAGE TEST SPECIMEN LOAD TEST SETUP

FIGURE 5 - ANCHORAGE TEST SPECIMEN LOAD TEST SETUP WITH SAND BOX

LOAD TEST RESULTS FOR ANCHORAGE SPECIMENS

Each specimen was loaded until 1) it failed suddenly due to punching shear or bursting tension,
2) it failed to carry additional load, or 3) the capacity of the load frame was reached. The

Structures Congress 2009

 Structures 2009: Don't Mess with Structural Engineers © 2009 ASCE 276

maximum load applied to S1 and S2 specimens are shown in Table 1. Each of the S1 Specimens
was cast with two (2) EC5-7 VSL anchors. The VSL anchor has a maximum size of 6.5”x 6.5”.
Each anchor is designed for a tendon with at Guaranteed Ultimate Tensile Strength (GUTS) of
289 kips. This is the minimum breaking load for a tendon made of seven (7), 0.5”, 270 ksi low
relaxation strands. For two anchors, 80% of GUTS is 462.4 kips.

Specimen Fiber/Spiral/ First

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Texas at Arlington on 01/20/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Ties Crack
Cast Date Test Date Test Age f'c28 f't28 f''t@age f't age f'c@age f'c age Failure
Load (K) Load (K)
S1-1 None/Y/Y 9/28/2006 2/13/2007 138 4846 362 457 95 6618 96 1 627.9 400+
S1-2 Dramix/N/N 9/28/2006 2/28/2007 153 4767 408 359 95 5748 96 1 794.0 287
S1-3 Dramix/Y/N 9/28/2006 3/1/2007 154 4767 408 359 95 5748 96 1 865.6 830+
S1-4 Dramix/N/Y 9/28/2006 3/1/2007 154 4767 408 359 95 5748 96 1 999.2 1000
S1-5 Dramix/0.5/0.6 9/28/2006 3/1/2007 154 4767 408 359 95 5748 96 1 1000.4 1000
S1-6 Helix/N/N 10/6/2007 3/2/2007 145 2848 389 350 135 3770 136 1 600.0 535+
S1-7 Helix/Y/N 10/6/2007 3/5/2007 148 2848 389 350 135 3770 136 1 677.2
S1-8 Helix/N/Y 10/6/2007 3/5/2007 148 2848 389 350 135 3770 136 1 916.7 800
S1-9 Helix/0.5/0.6 10/6/2007 3/5/2007 148 2848 389 350 135 3770 136 1 869.2
S1-10 Novomesh/N/N 10/6/2007 3/6/2007 149 4305 408 407 154 5752 154 - 838.5 750
S1-11 Novomesh/Y/N 10/6/2007 3/6/2007 149 4305 408 407 154 5752 154 - 706.3 450
S1-13 None/0.5/0.6 9/28/2006 3/2/2007 155 4305 408 457 95 6618 96 - 732.5 500
S1-14 Novomesh/0.5/0.6 10/6/2007 3/6/2007 149 4846 362 407 154 5752 154 - 995.6 NA

S2-1 None/Y/Y 1/16/2007 3/12/2007 55 4406 265 275 56 5598 56 2 723.2

S2-2 Dramix/N/N 1/16/2007 3/12/2007 55 3463 323 365 56 4200 56 2 557.2 550
S2-3 Dramix/Y/N 1/16/2007 3/12/2007 55 3463 323 365 56 4200 56 2 628.3 600
S2-4 Dramix/N/Y 1/16/2007 3/13/2007 56 3463 323 365 56 4200 56 2 674.0 560
S2-5 Dramix/0.5/0.6 1/16/2007 3/13/2007 56 3463 323 365 56 4200 56 2 665.6 500+
S2-6 Helix/N/N 1/17/2007 3/14/2007 56 4550 361 388 56 5757 56 2 567.7 450
S2-7 Helix/Y/N 1/17/2007 3/14/2007 56 4550 361 388 56 5757 56 2 691.1 400
S2-8 Helix/N/Y 1/17/2007 3/14/2007 56 4550 361 388 56 5757 56 2 747.7 675
S2-9 Helix/0.5/0.6 1/17/2007 3/15/2007 57 4550 361 388 56 5757 56 2 752.6 550
S2-10 Novomesh/N/N 1/17/2007 3/15/2007 57 4127 410 295 61 5179 61 - 653.6 600
S2-11 Novomesh/Y/N 1/17/2007 3/15/2007 57 4127 410 295 61 5179 61 - 569.7 450
S2-12 Novomesh/N/Y 1/17/2007 3/19/2007 61 4127 410 295 61 5179 61 - 750.1 720+
S2-13 Novomesh/0.5/0.6 1/17/2007 3/19/2007 61 4127 410 295 61 5179 61 - 752.7 550
S2-14 None/0.5/0.6 1/16/2007 3/13/2007 56 4212 265 275 56 5598 56 - 645.8 600+

TABLE 1 - S1 AND S2 ANCHORAGE TEST SPECIMENS LOAD TEST RESULTS

FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF ANCHORAGE ZONES

The finite element analysis (FEA) of post-tensioning anchorage zones specimens was performed
in three stages using ANSYS 10.0 software package. In Stage 1, FEA was used to determine the
size and other parameters for the anchorage specimen to be used for load testing. FEA was used
in Stage 2 to evaluate the geometry and parameters selected for the anchorage specimen. In
Stage 3, finite element analysis was used to develop a relationship to determine the bursting
force in the anchorage zone by considering the anchor size to bearing surface depth ratio and the
percentage of the steel fiber. The finite element model is shown in Figure 6.

Structures Congress 2009

 Structures 2009: Don't Mess with Structural Engineers © 2009 ASCE 277
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Texas at Arlington on 01/20/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

FIGURE 6 - FINITE ELEMENT MODEL FOR POST-TENSIONED ANCHORAGE SPECIMEN

COMPUTING BURSTING FORCES USING TENSILE STRESS PLOTS

Using the maximum tensile stress values resulting from the finite element analysis, plots were
made for tensile stresses versus the ratio of plate width to member width (b/h) for various fiber
percentages. These bursting stress distributions were very similar to the ones presented by other
researchers [Breen et al, 1994]. An example of a maximum tensile stress (Sx) versus x/h ratios
plots is shown in Figure 7. The b/h ratios ranged from 0.0 to 1.0. The areas under the Sx versus
x/h curves for each percentage of fiber were computed to obtain the bursting force, Tmax. By
plotting the bursting forces (areas under the stress curves) versus b/h for each percentage of fiber,
an equation relating Tmax to b/h was obtained by fitting a line through the plot.

0.5
b/h 0.033 b/h = 0.0666 b/h = 0.133 b/h = 0.2
b/h = 0.267 b/h = 0.33333 b/h = 0.333 0.005 fiber b/h = 0.53333
b/h = 0.7333 b/h = 0.933 B/H=0.5333 0.005 FIBER B/H=0.733 0.005 FIBER
0.45 B/H=0.933 0.005 FIBER b/h=0.267 0.005 Fiber b/h=0.133 0.005 Fiber b/h=0.066 0.005 Fiber
b/h=0.2 0.005 Fiber b/h=0.033 0.005 Fiber

0.4

0.35

0.3

0.25

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

FIGURE 7 - MAXIMUM TENSILE STRESS, SX VERSUS x/h FOR 0.5% FIBER

For an example, see Figure 8. The figure shows an equation for the best fit line to the
curve for Tmax. An equation was developed to compute the Tmax values for each of the following
fiber percentages: 0.0%, 0.5%, 1.0%, 2.0% and 3.0%.

Structures Congress 2009

 Structures 2009: Don't Mess with Structural Engineers © 2009 ASCE 278

Considering the Tmax equations obtained for the percentages of fiber, one equation was
developed which relates Tmax to the tendon force (P), the b/h ratio and the fiber percentage (b).
The full equation is as follows:

Tmax=0.23P[1-1.11(b/h)-0.15(b)+0.15(b/h)(b)] (1)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Texas at Arlington on 01/20/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0.5% Fiber: Bursting Force vs b/h

0.250

0.200
y = -0.2307x + 0.2077
0.150
P (K)

0.100

0.050

0.000
0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600 0.700 0.800 0.900 1.000
b/h

FIGURE 8 - 0.5% FIBER BURSTING FORCE VERSUS b/h

The Tmax values computed using the developed equation were on average 0.02% different
from the values computed by determining the area under the curves of the Sx versus b/h plots for
b/h =0.333. Computations based on the new equation showed that by adding steel fibers in the
concrete, the finite element results indicated that the maximum tensile force developed would be
approximately 20% less for 0.5% fibers and approximately 54.3% less for 3.0% fibers

CONCLUSIONS
Comparison of laboratory test results for 27 concrete specimens representing anchorage zones
with analytical results (finite element analysis and strut-and-tie computations) showed that the
addition of steel fibers could be beneficial. In particular, the use steel reinforced concrete
(SFRC) could enhance performance and reduce the amount of bursting and confinement mild
steel reinforcement required in these zones.

Consideration of both S1 Specimens test results and S2 Specimens test results showed the
following:
• Adding 0.5% steel fibers to the concrete mix without adding nonprestressed
reinforcement in the local and general anchorage zones resulted in test specimens having
load capacities that ranged from 77% to 134% of the load capacity of test specimens with
plain concrete and 100% of the local zone reinforcement recommended by the anchorage
manufacturer and 100% of the general zone reinforcement recommended by the
approximate design method of the AASHTO code.
• Even though the addition of 0.5% steel fibers did add up to 37% increase in strength to
test specimens, steel spirals and steel ties are needed to prevent sudden failure due to

Structures Congress 2009

 Structures 2009: Don't Mess with Structural Engineers © 2009 ASCE 279

punching shear at the anchors (in the local zone) and to prevent sudden failure due to
bursting tension in the general zones.
• With 0.5% fibers by volume, 50% of steel spirals (recommended by PT anchor
manufacturers) and 40% of steel ties (based upon AASHTO design guidelines) , the load
capacities of the anchorage zone test specimens were from 92% to 1.59% the load
capacity of the plain specimens (no fibers) with the recommend local and general zone
reinforcement.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Texas at Arlington on 01/20/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

• In addition, to improving the strength of the specimens, the addition of fibers (steel and
steel with polypropylene fibers) resulted in smaller and fewer cracks developing on the
surface of the test specimens. Thus, the use of fibers in PT anchorage zones may
contribute to improvements in the durability of structural elements.

The proposed equation for computing the bursting force was developed based upon finite
element analysis results and takes into consideration the b/h ratio and the percentage of fibers in
the concrete. Depending upon the b/h ratio and the percentage of steel fibers used in the
concrete, the anchorage zone bursting forces computed by the proposed equation may be 15% to
77% less than bursting force values computed by the AASHTO code. More tests are needed to
verify the applicability of the new equation for fiber percentages greater than 0.5% fiber by
volume. Based upon load test results, it was found that the addition of 0.5 percent steel fibers by
volume to a post-tensioned concrete anchorage zone with an anchor plate width to transverse
section depth ratio equal to 0.22 and 0.33 could lead to a 40 percent or more reduction in mild
steel reinforcement (steel spiral and ties).

REFERENCES
[1] American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design
Specification, Customary U. S. Units, 4th edition, AASHTO: Washington, D.C, 2007.
[2] Breen, J.E., Burdet, O., Roberts, C., Sanders, D., and Wollmann, G., Anchorage Zone Reinforcement for
Post-Tensioned Concrete Girders, National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 356,
Washington D.C., 1994, pp. 204.
[3] Haroon, S. A., Application of Fiber Reinforced Concrete in the End Zones of Precast Prestressed Bridge
Girders, Ph.D. Dissertation, Florida State University, FAMU-FSU College of Engineering, 2003.
[4] Johnson, S., Analytical Modeling of Fiber Reinforced Post-Tensioned Concrete Anchorage Zones, Master’s
Thesis, Florida State University, 2006.
[5] Khajuria, A., Bohra, K. and Balaguru, P., “Long-Tern Durability of Synthetic Fibers in Concrete”, SP 126-
46, American Concrete Institute.
[6] Tan, K. H., Paramasivam, P., and Tan, K.C., ”Instantaneous and Long-Term Deflections of Steel Fiber
Reinforced Concrete Beams”, ACI Structural Journal, July/August 1994, pp. 384-393.
[7] Vondran, G. L., “Application of Steel Fiber Reinforced Concrete”, Concrete International, November
1991, pp. 44-49.

View publication stats Structures Congress 2009