Materials and Structures (2009) 42:12611281
DOI 10.1617/s11527-009-9529-4
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Fibre reinforced concrete: new design perspectives
Marco di Prisco Giovanni Plizzari Lucie Vandewalle
Received: 11 July 2007 / Accepted: 11 June 2009 / Published online: 10 September 2009

RILEM 2009
Abstract Although the use of Fibre Reinforced
Concrete (FRC) for structural applications is contin-
uously increasing, it is still limited with respect to its
potentials, mainly due to the lack of International
Building Codes for FRC structural elements. Within
fib (Federation Internationale du Beton), the Special
Activity Group 5 is preparing a New fib Model Code
that aims to update the previous CEB-FIP Model
Code 90, published in 1993, that can be considered as
the reference document for Eurocode 2. The New
Model Code includes several innovations and
addresses among other topics, new materials for
structural design. In this respect, FRC will be
introduced. The Technical Groups fib TG 8.3 Fibre
reinforced concrete and fib TG 8.6 Ultra high
performance FRC are preparing some sections of
the New Model Code, including regular and high
performance FRC. This paper aims to briefly explain
M. di Prisco (&)
Department of Structural Engineering, Politecnico di
Milano, Piazza Leonardo da Vinci 32, 20133 Milan, Italy
e-mail: marco.diprisco@polimi.it
G. Plizzari
Department of Civil Engineering, Architecture, Land
and Environment, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy
e-mail: plizzari@ing.unibs.it
L. Vandewalle
Department of Civil Engineering, K. U. Leuven,
Heverlee, Belgium
e-mail: lucie.vandewalle@bwk.kuleuven.be
the main concepts behind the structural rules for FRC
structural design.
Keywords Fibre Reinforced Concrete

Constitutive laws
Safety factors

Characteristic length
Structural behavior

Redundancy
Structural design
1 Introduction
Fibre Reinforced Concrete (FRC) is a composite
material that is characterized by an enhanced post-
cracking tensile residual strength, also defined as
toughness in the following, due to the fibre rein-
forcement mechanisms provided by fibres bridging
the crack surfaces.
To enhance concrete toughness for structural
applications, high-modulus fibres can be used to
substitute, partially or totally, conventional reinforce-
ment. Other types of fibres, having usually a low
modulus and a small size (length of few millimetres
and diameter of few microns) can be used to reduce
shrinkage cracking and to enhance fire resistance.
Hybrid system of fibres (HyFRC) is a more recent
development in fibre reinforced cement-based tech-
nology, based on the purpose of optimizing several
material performances [14]. In a HyFRC, two or more
different types of fibres can be properly combined to
produce a composite, whose mechanical and physical
1262
performances take benefits from each type of fibres and
from a possible synergistic response.
Since fibres can be considered as a smeared
reinforcement, FRC can be properly used to assure
a more favourable crack distribution and to limit
crack width at Serviceability Limit States (SLS).
Fibres can also be used as partial substitution of
conventional reinforcement (rebars or welded mesh)
and, in some structures, they can totally substitute
rebars. These structures are, in general, characterized
by a high degree of structural redundancy and
represent a type of applications where fibres can be
a more effective reinforcement system, since a cost
saving can be achieved.
During the last three decades, a wide research has
been performed on material properties of FRC, both
at fresh and hardened state [14]. Research on
structural response of FRC elements was mainly
developed during the last fifteen years. As a conse-
quence, there is still a lack of international Building
Codes for structural design of FRC elements and this
may explain the limited utilisation of FRC among
practitioners, even though a number of design
guidelines were recently developed. In fact, clear
and simple design rules from Building Codes are
strongly required by designers, who hardly accept to
voluntary assume responsibilities by adopting guide-
lines or, even worse, research results available in
scientific papers.
Early design considerations were produced by ACI
544 [5] and even in ACI 318 [6] some new rules were
just introduced with reference to minimum shear
Fig. 1 Typical Load (P) (a)
deformation (d) curve for P P
FRC: post-cracking
softening (a) and hardening
(b) behaviour P P
Materials and Structures (2009) 42:12611281
reinforcement, while RILEM TC162-TDF produced
design guidelines for typical structural elements [7,
8]. Afterwards, recommendations were produced by
other Countries, as France [9], Sweden [10], Ger-
many [11], Austria [12] and Italy [13].
Due to a better knowledge of FRC and the recent
developments worldwide of guidelines for structural
design, the fib Special Activity Group 5 (SAG 5),
who is preparing the new fib Model Code, decided to
introduce some sections on FRC. Working Groups
TG 8.3 (Fibre Reinforced Concrete) and TG 8.6
(Ultra High Performance Fibre Reinforced Con-
crete) of fib are preparing these sections of the new
fib Model Code concerning FRC design rules for
providing a guidance to engineers to properly (and
safely) design FRC structural elements both at
serviceability (SLSs) and ultimate limit states
(ULSs), based on the state-of-the-art knowledge.
This paper aims to present some principles gov-
erning structural design of FRC elements made of
regular concrete that were mainly introduced by fib
TG 8.3: the main concepts were derived from some
national guidelines for FRC structural design [11, 13]
and from the guidelines proposed by RILEM TC162-
TDF [7, 8]. The principles discussed herein are
mainly related to Steel Fibre Reinforced Concrete
(SFRC) having a softening post-cracking behaviour
in uniaxial tension (Fig. 1a), even though they can be
extended to hardening materials (Fig. 1b). Since
hardening behaviour is mainly obtained with a very
high performance concrete matrix and high fibre
contents, fib TG 8.3 is cooperating with TG 8.6 for
(b)
P P
Materials and Structures (2009) 42:12611281 1263

the design rules concerning Ultra High Performance
Fibre Reinforced Concrete.
2 FRC classification
Classification is an important requirement for struc-
tural materials. When referring to regular concrete,
designers choose its strength, workability or exposi-
tion classes that have to be provided by concrete
producers. When using FRC, compressive strength is
not particularly influenced by the presence of fibres
(up to a volume fraction of 1%); therefore, the
classification for plain concrete can be also adopted
for FRC. It is well known that fibres reduce
workability of fresh concrete, but workability classes
for plain concrete can also be adopted for FRC. Some
studies are still needed for exposition classes since
fibres may reduce the crack width [14]; therefore, for
the exposition classes described in the EN 206 [15],
different rules may be adopted in FRC structures
(smaller concrete covers for instance).
Since fibre reinforcement mechanisms are mainly
activated after cracking of the concrete matrix, fibres
have marginal influence in the behaviour of
uncracked elements. Therefore, concrete tensile
strength is related to the matrix strength and is not
influenced by fibres.
The residual (post-cracking) tensile strength,
which represents an important design parameter for
FRC structures, is the mechanical property more
influenced by fibre reinforcement.
Due to the well known difficulties in performing
uniaxial tensile tests [16], bending tests with small
notched beams are best candidates to be a standard
test method for the FRC classification. Since bending
behaviour is markedly different from uniaxial-tension
behaviour, it may happen that softening materials in
tension present a hardening behaviour in bending [17]
(Fig. 2). In fact, in bending tests, the linear variability

pc

cc
STRESS

HPFRCC typical
(Strain-hardening and
multiple cracking)

FRC typical;
Matrix strain-softening

HPFRCC cc STRAIN pc
(or elongation)
Tensile Strain Hardening:
V f (V fcri ) tension

DFRCC

FRC Deflection Hardening:

COMPOSITES (V fcri ) bending V f (V fcri ) tension

MOR
fr
Tensile Strain Softening:
V f < (V fcri ) tension
f cc
(Deflection-hardening
LOAD

and multiple cracking)

Deflection Softening:
V f < (V fcri ) bending
Matrix Deflection-softening

c u
DEFLECTION

Fig. 2 Softening and hardening concepts for the classification of FRC [17]
1264 Materials and Structures (2009) 42:12611281

of the strain profile along the uncracked cross section
favours a more stable propagation of the cracks, thus
often inducing a significant hardening in bending even
if, in uniaxial tension, the material shows a softening
behaviour after cracking of the concrete matrix.
Material classification for FRC is based on nom-
inal properties that characterize its post-cracking
tensile strength. These properties are determined
from bending tests according to EN 14651 [18] but
other type of tests (with beam or plate specimens) can
be accepted, if correlation factors with the parameters
of EN 14651 can be demonstrated.
Post-cracking strength in hardening or softening
materials varies with the increasing of deformation or
crack opening. Since the residual strength varies with
the imposed deflection (or crack mouth opening
displacement) in the specimen, at least two deforma-
tion values should be considered: the first one should
be significant for SLS verifications, while the second
one should be significant for ULS verifications.
Actually, European standard EN 14651 (2005)
requires four different values of the residual strength
(fR1, fR2, fR3, fR4; Fig. 3), corresponding to different
values of the Crack Mouth Opening Displacement
(CMOD = 0.5, 1.5, 2.5 and 3.5 mm, respectively) of
the notched specimen. For structural design the use of
four different values may be an obstacle for the
acceptance of the FRC design formulation. Therefore,
it was assumed that fR1 and fR3 can characterize the
FRC residual strength for SLS and ULS analysis,
respectively.
To further simplify the classification, material
behaviour at ULS can be related to the behaviour at
SLS using the fR3/fR1 ratio. Therefore, FRC toughness
can be classified by using a couple of parameters: the
first one is a number representing the fR1 class, while
the second one is a letter representing the fR3/fR1 ratio
(Fig. 4).
The strength classes for fR1k (characteristic value
of fR1) are defined by the following values:

Fig. 3 Typical curve of the N

nominal stress versus fL
[MPa]
CMOD for FRC

f R1
f R2

f R3
f R4

CMOD [mm]

CMOD1 = 0.5 CMOD2 = 1.5 CMOD3 = 2.5 CMOD4 = 3.5

Fig. 4 Typical example of 5 N

FRC classification fR1k =2.2 MPa
[MPa] fR3k /fR1k = 0.82 2b
fR3k =1.8 MPa
4

3 d
c
fR1k
2 b
fR3k
a
CMOD 1

CMOD 2

CMOD 3

CMOD 4

0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
CMOD [mm]
Materials and Structures (2009) 42:12611281
1:0; 1:5; 2:0; 2:5; 3:0; 4:0; 5:0; 6:0; 7:0; 8:0 MPa)
The fR3k/fR1k ratio can be represented with letters
a, b, c, d, corresponding to the values:
a if 0:5  fR3k =fR1k \0:8
b if 0:8  fR3k =fR1k \1:1
c if 1:1  fR3k =fR1k \1:4
d if 1:4  fR3k =fR1k
This classification properly represents the most
common cases of softening FRCs, but it can also be
adopted for hardening FRCs.
By using the proposed classification, a material
having, for example, fR1k = 2.2 MPa and
fR3k = 1.8 MPa is classified as 2b (Fig. 4).
Since brittleness must be avoided in structural
behaviour, fibre reinforcement can be used as a
substitution (even partially) of conventional rein-
forcement (at ULS), if the following relationships are
fulfilled:
fR1k =fLk [ 0:4 1 very high dispersion for both residual parameters
fR3k =fR1k [ 0:5 2
where fLk is the characteristic value of the nominal
strength, corresponding to the peak load (or the
highest load value in the interval 00.05 mm),
determined from the beam test required by EN
14651 (Fig. 3).
3 Partial safety factors
As already mentioned, FRC often presents a post-
cracking softening behaviour. In design context, the
main difference between FRC and traditional RC
elements is due to the presence of a distributed
reinforcement (fibres) that provides a residual post
cracking strength to FRC (Fig. 2).
In the uncracked phase, FRC can be assumed as a
homogenous and isotropic material. However, after
cracking, available research shows that the FRC
residual strength depends significantly on the number
of fibres crossing the active cracks and on their
orientation [21, 44]. Since fibre distribution and
orientation are affected by several factors of difficult
control (flowability, viscosity, filling ability), the
scatter of the residual strength parameters can be
significant. To assume that fibres have a homogeneous
1265
and isotropic reinforcement contribution, which is an
useful assumption for design purposes, safety factors
need to be used that take into account relevant aspects
like cast conditions, structure size and geometry. To
show how large the scattering can be in the real
applications, five case-studies of FRC are analyzed in
the following.
The first case-study, represented in Fig. 5, is a top
slab made of Self Compacting SFRC (Vf = 0.34%;
hooked-ends, low-carbon, fibre length lf = 60 mm,
fibre diameter, df = 0.9 mm). This slab is cast over
hollow core elements [19], simply supported on
foundation beams resting on piles (Fig. 5a, b, i) to
build an industrial pavement designed to support
significant dynamic loads (distributed loads of
40 kN/m2, Fig. 5a). The SFRC was pumped and the
tests adopted to control the whole production process
showed an acceptable scattering on the cubic com-
pressive strength, Rc, (variation coefficient &8%,
Fig. 5c), a reasonable dispersion on the peak flexural-
tensile strength, flf, (var. coeff. &14%, Fig. 5e), but a
(26.8% for feq(00.6), Fig. 5f, and 34.6% for feq(0.63),
Fig. 5g), being feq(00.6) (similar to fR1) and feq(0.63)
(similar to fR3) determined according to UNI 11039 [20].
A second case study [21] refers to a simply
supported SFRC beam characterized by a cross
section of 300 9 300 mm (Fig. 6a). The beam is
prefabricated and the fibre content is 50 kg/m3
(Vf = 0.64%). No longitudinal reinforcement is
introduced in this beam, since it serves as a reference
beam for other post-tensioned beams. Low-carbon
hooked-ends steel fibres were used (lf = 60 mm;
df = 0.8 mm). The more controlled casting proce-
dure allowed the producer to guarantee a smaller
variation in the material properties characterized
according to UNI 11039 [20]. The variation was 11%
and 22% for serviceability (feq(00.6)) and ultimate
(feq(0.63)) residual strength parameters, respectively
(Table 1). These variations are similar to other
investigations related to prefabricated productions.
It was verified that the increase of fibre content
contributes for a more homogeneous dispersion.
FRC is a cementitious composite to be considered
as a homogeneous material; therefore, the specimens
used to characterize its behaviour should have a
volume that can be representative of the FRC real
application, since volume dimension affects the
heterogeneity grade, which is a measure of the
1266 Materials and Structures (2009) 42:12611281

Fig. 5 Industrial pavement

[19]: a industrial pavement
before FRC topping cast;
b design sketch;
c dispersion and average
curve for nominal bending
strength versus CTOD;
d test set-up for notched
specimens according to
UNI 11039 [20];
e dispersion of compressive
strength (Rc); f dispersion
for first cracking nominal
strength; g residual strength
at SLSfeq(00.6); h residual
strength at ULSfeq(0.63);
i schematic representation
of the structure that forces
FRC post-cracking residual
behaviour towards average
instead of characteristic
behaviour

topological variability. This concept is easily under-
standable by evaluating the number of fibres in
certain regions, as shown in Fig. 6d, by adopting a
representative volume equal to 100 mm side cube,
and considering a single cross section at right angle
with the longitudinal direction. Although the number
of fibres can significantly change in the different
regions, by enlarging the size of the representative
volume the variation coefficient related to the number
of fibres in the fractured area can be reduced.
A change of casting and handling procedure as
well as a change of the mixer imposed by the larger
cast volume can drastically improve mechanical
characteristics in bending, as it is highlighted in the
third example. The thin curve in Fig. 6b represents
the average response computed on the basis of
seventeen tests carried out during the production of
the retaining structures shown in Figs. 7 and 8 [22,
23] (Table 2), consisting of post-tensioned SFRC
framed panels used to stabilize a critical slope. The
Materials and Structures (2009) 42:12611281
Fig. 5 continued
mix design to produce the beams of the previous
case-study was also used to build the framed panels.
However, when compared to the results obtained in
previous case-study, the tests carried out for quality
control purposes in this third case-study have pro-
vided higher peak strength values and smaller
variation coefficient, as Fig. 6b (thin line) and 7
evidence. To improve fibre reinforcement effective-
ness, it is also possible to use thin slabs with the aim
of increasing the favourable fibre orientation effect,
passing from a 3D to a 2D random distribution. The
thin slab used in precast roofing systems, shown in
Fig. 9, aims to benefit from this favourable effect
[24]. In this fourth case-study, a nominal thickness of
only 25 mm highlights one of the most important
1267
advantages offered by this material, that it does not
require a minimum cover to protect fibres which can
be assimilated to smeared reinforcement.
The fibres used were straight steel fibres with a
diameter of 0.16 mm and a length of 13 mm: the fibre
content was 100 kg/m3. The cementitious composite
was characterized by an average cubic compressive
strength of 116 MPa. In these thin elements conven-
tional reinforcement is not an effective reinforcement
(apart the use of pre-stress wires) and is too
susceptible to corrosion phenomena. Therefore, the
use of fibre reinforcement is quite appropriate but, in
general, FRC should present a hardening response in
bending. The representativeness of standard beam
specimens, with a cross section of 150 9 150 mm,
1268 Materials and Structures (2009) 42:12611281

Fig. 6 SFRC beams [21]: (a) 300 1250 1000 1250

a geometry and set-up
adopted for beam tests;
b average curve of the
nominal stress versus Crack

300

300
Tip Opening Displacement
(CTOD) and dispersion of
the prismatic notched beam
250 3000 250
tests made of the same mix
and tested according to UNI 3500
11039 [20] (Fig. 5d); c load
versus displacement of the (b) (c)
full size beams; d fibre
number computed in nine
regions 100 9 100 mm of
the cracked cross section for
the three tested beams

(d)

Table 1 Bending strengths

Test fIf (MPa) fpeak (MPa) feq(00.6) (MPa) feq(0.63) (MPa)
of the specimens tested
according to UNI 11039 S0A 3.899 6.18 5.559 2.879
[20] and cast during beam
production (Fig. 6; [21]): S0B 4.350 6.80 6.063 3.890
first cracking strength (fIf), S0C 4.736 6.64 5.600 4.014
peak strength (fpeak), S1A 4.334 7.02 6.216 4.545
average strengths computed
S1B 4.231 4.98 4.623 2.496
in 00.6 mm (feq(0-0.6)) and
0.63 (feq(0.63)) crack S1C 4.195 6.28 5.602 3.661
opening ranges S2A 4.575 6.53 5.825 3.672
S2B 5.003 5.57 4.920 2.409
S2C 4.131 5.27 4.650 2.809
Average 4.384 6.142 5.451 3.375
Variation coeff. (%) 7.69 11.61 10.79 22.19
Materials and Structures (2009) 42:12611281
Fig. 7 Retaining structures tests: average curve of nominal
stress rN versus CTOD and dispersion of the characterization
tests on the notched beam [22, 23]
Fig. 8 Retaining structure: a general view of the slope; b, c
the single prefabricated panel respectively in the final location
and during handling [23]
for the characterization of the behaviour of this type
of elements is, however, too questionable [18]. At the
same time, fibre dispersion and orientation are
strongly affected by casting procedure that, in thin
elements, is different from that used in standard
specimens. Furthermore, standard specimens are
notched and it is difficult to guarantee the hardening
behaviour of the material (in statistical terms) by their
1269
response. In fact, the notch favours a stable crack
propagation and significantly modifies the first-
cracking process, especially if the fibre content is
not high enough to change the mechanical behaviour
at the peak; moreover, often fibres cumulate in the
bottom of the specimen and a notch could subtract a
significant bending resource to the specimen. For all
these reasons, an unnotched prismatic specimen, cast
with the same procedure used for the structure and of
the same thickness, is preferred. The specimen is
tested by means of a four point bending set-up that
favours a crack propagation starting from the weakest
cross section between the load points. The transducer
applied between two points of the bottom surface of
the specimen measures the relative displacement
between these points (COD); the real concrete
deformability is obtained by taking into account the
distance between the axis of the transducer and the
bottom surface of the specimen, according to a plane
section kinematic approach. This type of thin spec-
imen can be better representative of the behaviour of
thin FRC structures; therefore it can be named
structural specimen as first suggested in the Italian
guidelines on Steel Fibre Reinforced Concrete [25].
The example proposed in Fig. 9 can be used to
better understand the behaviour of thin elements. This
example is composed of three thin plates 25 mm thick,
1.2 m wide and 2.5 m long that were tested in bending
according to a four point bending set-up (Fig. 9d, e).
The material was first characterized by means of
standard specimens (Fig. 9a). Afterwards, 14 pris-
matic specimens were extracted from a fourth plate,
sawn at right angle with respect to the longitudinal axis
of the plate. The specimens were 600 mm long and
150 mm wide. Therefore, the longitudinal stress
induced by bending were also at right angles with
respect to the longitudinal stresses induced by bending
in the large plates. Anyway, it should be noticed that
casting procedures were not repeatable and, therefore,
the formworks were randomly filled (usually starting
from the middle region to the borders). Other speci-
mens sawn and tested parallel to the plate longitudinal
axis showed similar results. The comparison between
the average curves rNCTOD obtained from the
standard notched specimen and curves rNCOD
obtained from unnotched structural specimen high-
lights a significant difference in terms of peak strength
and toughness; the large variation of the residual
strength at ULS, feq2, (41%; Table 3) in the range
1270 Materials and Structures (2009) 42:12611281

Table 2 Bending post-

Test j (gg) fIf (MPa) feq(00.6) (MPa) feq(0.63) (MPa)
cracking strengths obtained
according to UNI 11039 NB1t2 38 5.37 4.55 2.64
[20] and cast during
retaining structure NB2t2 38 5.94 7.67 4.53
production (Fig. 8ac): age NB2t1 35 5.16 6.23 3.03
first cracking strength NB2t2 35 5.13 8.39 4.99
(fIf), peak strength (fpeak),
NB3t1 49 5.03 9.30 6.00
average strengths computed
in 00.6 mm (feq(00.6)) and NB3t2 32 5.16 8.50 5.69
0.63 (feq(0.63)) crack NB3t3 32 5.87 5.91 3.74
opening ranges NB4t1 46 6.51 7.93 5.56
NB4t2 34 5.99 8.88 5.07
NB4t3 34 6.38 8.70 4.97
NB5t1 58 5.81 8.93 4.96
NB5t2 44 6.06 7.82 4.37
NB6t1 69 7.22 8.83 3.80
NB6t2 42 6.00 7.86 5.01
NB7t1 40 6.06 8.45 3.31
NB7t2 83 5.96 7.81 4.98
Average 5.94 8.39 4.87
Variation coeff. (%) 10 6.3 15.1

2.43.6 mm, mainly reflects the random fibre orienta-
tion [26] and a rough casting procedure: it was the first
attempt of slab casting and no specialized features
were considered to reduce the possible scattering.
Moreover, while the CTOD in a notched specimen
only represents the width of a single crack induced in a
notched cross section, the displacement recorded by
the transducer applied to the bottom surface of the
structural specimen (COD) is the result of the crack
propagation process of several cracks formed in the
gage length of the transducer (200 mm; Fig. 9b).
Furthermore, due to the diffuse crack pattern that
generally occurs in this type of FRC structural
specimens, beside the relative displacement of the
crack edges, the COD includes also the strain of the
uncracked concrete between cracks.
Finally, the bending behaviour of the thin plates,
tested according to a four point bending set-up
(Fig. 9d, e), is shown in Fig. 9f. The global response
of two plates exhibits an average peak strength of
12 MPa and a corresponding strain of 0.005, close to
the average response shown by the unnotched
specimens.
Only the third plate exhibited a reduced ductility,
probably caused by the casting procedure adopted. In
fact, this plate was the last to be cast by means of the
same bucket. A possible accumulation of steel fibres
in the bottom of the bucket could cause a reduction of
fibre content in the last plate: in fact, the bucket was
progressively emptied by its bottom.
The last observation concerns the standard devi-
ation related to the global response of the structure. In
the first case-study, the hollow core structure forces
the top slab to have a similar bottom tensile strain and
this implies that the different regions characterized by
a size comparable to that of the representative volume
are forced to work as parallel springs (Fig. 5i; [22,
27]). This implies that the global response was close
to the average mechanical behaviour of the standard
specimens rather than to the characteristic one.
Furthermore, the standard deviation of the global
response is smaller than that exhibited by standard
specimens due to stress redistribution. Both the small
beam (Fig. 6b, c) and the full-scale plate (Fig. 9c, f)
responses confirm this evidence. The third full size
thin plate (Fig. 9f) is the only exception, even if this
case was probably affected by a reduced fibre content
in the plate. A similar trend was reported by Cominoli
[28] in the tests he carried out on ground slabs
3 9 3 m and 150 mm thick, made of concrete C30/
37 and reinforced with a volume fraction of 0.38% of
hooked-end steel fibres having a length of 50 mm and
a diameter of 0.75 mm. The slabs were supported on
steel springs with a spacing of about 400 mm to
Materials and Structures (2009) 42:12611281 1271

(a) 16 (d)
N UNI test average
[MPa]

12

0
0 1 2 3 4 5
CTODm [mm]

long top 1
(b) (long top 2) (e)

long bottom 1
vert B1 (long bottom 2) vert C1
(vert B2) (vert C2)

*measures in mm
vert B (1)
(c) 25 (f) 8
N vert D (1)
[MPa] vert B (2)
20 vert D (2)
6 vert B (3)
vert D (3)
Load [kN]

15

4
10

5 2
20C
20C average
0
0 1 2 3 0
COD [mm] 0 40 80 120
Average Deflection[mm]

Fig. 9 High Performance FRC thin plates [24]: a notched bottom transducers 1, 2 in Fig. 9b); d, e geometry and set-up of
beam tests according to UNI 11039 [20]; b geometry of the the tests on thin full scale plates; f load versus average
unnotched structural specimens; c nominal stress rN versus deflection measured in the middle section and close to the
average relative displacement at the bottom fibre (longitudinal loading points; g, h, i photographs during and after testing

reproduce a Winkler soil. The results shown in mechanism, and the ability of the structure to provide
Fig. 10a and c confirm that the dispersion of the a stress redistribution, demonstrated by the significant
mechanical response of six notched beam tests difference between maximum load and cracking load
(carried out according to UNI 11039 [20]), is much (Pcr, Fig. 10c).
larger than the scatter obtained in the three full size On the basis of the previous considerations, the choice
SFRC slabs on elastic supports. of the safety coefficients should take into account:
Table 4 includes the values of the scatter of the
the representativeness of the specimens used to
residual strength parameters (feq(00.6) and feq(0.63))
characterize the mechanical response of the
obtained in the notched beam tests and the scatter of
material, in relation to the structure considered;
the maximum load of the slabs. The smaller scatter of
the number of specimens used for mechanical
the maximum load is mainly related to two main
characterization;
variables: the fractured volume involved in the failure
1272 Materials and Structures (2009) 42:12611281

Fig. 9 continued

Table 3 Panel thickness and main experimental results from four point bending tests on structural specimen [24]
No. Test Thickness Max. load fIf fIf.av feq1 feq1.av (MPa) feq2 feq2.av(MPa)
(h) (mm) (kN) (MPa) (MPa) (std) (MPa) (std) (MPa) (std)

1 B1 27 5.90 12.94 11.05 (1.51) 18.71 14.09 (2.41) 23.78 12.14 (4.98)
2 B2 26 4.56 12.42 16.67
3 B3 25 4.34 11.85 16.67 19.31
4 B4 24 2.39 9.70 11.52 8.47
5 B5 25 3.10 9.80 13.52 12.73
6 B7 25 3.24 10.93 13.84 12.79
7 B8 25 3.03 12.40 13.83 9.48
8 B9 25 3.70 10.80 15.59 14.03
9 B10 26 3.17 11.38 12.30 10.56
10 B11 23 3.11 12.43 16.14
11 B12 25 2.67 11.10 11.59 8.82
12 B13 26 2.54 7.40 10.51 6.97
13 B14 25 3.10 11.94 14.51 11.02
14 B15 26 3.04 9.66 11.88 7.66
feq1 is the average nominal strength in COD range 0.30.5 mm; feq2 is the average nominal strength in COD range 2.43.6 mm

the stress redistribution capacity of the structure
under consideration;
the fractured volume involved in the failure
mechanism.
In the new Model Code, these aspects are simplified
by considering a unified partial safety factor for cracked
FRC in tension (cF) equal to 1.5 for massive structures,
where the representative volume of the standard beam
required by EN14651 [18] can be regarded as a reliable
size. For all the other cases, like thin walled structures or
ultra high performance materials, where the casting flow
can significantly affect the mechanical response of the
material and make the standard specimen unreliable for
the mechanical characterization (due to fibre orientation
and dispersion), different specimens are required. In
order to obtain a more reliable material characterization,
Materials and Structures (2009) 42:12611281 1273

(a) (b)
5
N
[MPa] 4

average
1

0
0 1 2 3
CTODm [mm]
(c) 350
(d)
P
[kN] 300
250

200

150

100 Slab P20 50/0,75 Vf=0,38 %

Pcr
Slab P21 50/0,75 Vf=0,38 %
50
Slab P22 50/0,75 Vf=0,38 %
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
[mm]

Fig. 10 Slabs supported by distributed steel springs: a, b results from bending tests on standard specimens according to UNI 11039
[20]; c load versus deflection curve of the three slabs; d general view of the slab during handling procedure [28]

Table 4 Experimental results from bending tests on standard fFtsd:red fFtsd =K fFtud:red fFtud =K 3a; b
specimens and from tests on full-scale slabs on grade [28]
where fFtsd and fFtud are the design values of the
Specimen Thickness Max. load Scatter (%)
(mm) (kN)
residual post cracking strength at service and at
ultimate conditions, respectively (see Sect. 4).
Slabs 150 301.4 2.30 Coefficient K plays the same role of g factor in the
291.4 equation proposed by ISO 2394/98 and first proposed
288.2 for SFRC structures by UNI 11188 [25]. In these
Beams 150 feq(00.6) feq(0.63) Standards, by considering a log-normal model of
18.0 23.1 random distribution of strength, and adding the
UNI 11039 parameters: feq(00.6),av = 2.83 MPa, feq(0.63),av = uncertainties referring to the geometry and to the
3.00 MPa, feq(00.6),k = 1.95 MPa, feq(0.63),k = 1.81 MPa design model of the cross section, respectively, the
partial safety factor is evaluated as:

these should be thinner specimens, notched or unnot- eabdr kdF

cF 4
ched, able to better represent the effective structural g
behaviour by simulating the real casting conditions [29, with
30]. In these special cases when standard specimens are q
used a coefficient K is introduced, affecting both the dr d2F d2g d2m 5
local and the global mechanical response. A value of 1.1
for global behaviour and 1.5 for local behaviour are where dF s=fm is the variation coefficient of SFRC
proposed at the serviceability and ultimate limit states, tensile strength (ratio between standard deviation and
according to the equations: mean value); dg ; dm are the variation coefficients of
1274
geometry and model adopted (both assumed
dg = dm = 0.05 [25]); b fm  fmin =s is the reli-
ability index (assumed b = 3.8 [25]); a is the
sensitivity value of the material on the section
resistance (assumed a = 0.8 [25]); k = (fm - fk)/s
is the coefficient representative of the characteristic
value at 5% fractile (assumed 1.645 [25]); g is the
conversion factor assumed g = 0.9 ([25]) that takes
into account the representativeness of the mechanical
parameter used to identify the mechanical character-
istics of the composite in the casting.
For structural purpose, in UNI 11188 the limitation
dF B 0.30 is assumed and the actual value of dF is
suggested to be deduced from qualification tests. In
any case, dF should not be lower than 0.10.
Following the same procedure, a different choice
for the values of the coefficients can be proposed. In
fact, by adopting a log-normal model of random
distribution, it is possible to assume a smaller value for
k coefficient depending on the variation coefficient.
The variation coefficient has to be assumed equal for
both SLS and ULS; it generally ranges between 0.10
(SLS) and 0.35 (ULS). A value equal to 0.25 can be
assumed as a reasonable value and, in a log normal
distribution, is associated to a k value close to 1.4.
In massive FRC structures, coefficient a can be set
equal to 0.7 instead of 0.8, because FRC is generally
coupled with conventional reinforcement or it is used
in structures where large volumes are involved in the
failure mechanism and the structures are character-
ized by a significant redundancy. The conversion
factor g, that takes into account the representativeness
of the nominal specimen according to EN14651 [18]
can be reduced to 0.85 in order to take into account
that, often, the reference volume can be relatively
small for large macro-fibres or the casting procedure
could be not realistic with reference to fibre disper-
sion and orientation. This effect is more pronounced
Table 5 Parameters suggested and related safety coefficients for massive and thin-walled structures
Structure Check Test dF
Massive Global EN14651 0.25
Local EN14651 0.25
Thin-walled Global EN14651 0.25
Local EN14651 0.25
Global Structural 0.25
Local Structural 0.25
Materials and Structures (2009) 42:12611281
for local check and, as a consequence, g is reduced to
0.8. b-coefficient can be set equal to 3 because its
value, coupled to the high variation coefficient
selected (equal to 0.25), involves a minimum value
always larger than 0.25 fm. In the case studies
investigated, no minimum strength fmin lower than
0.25 fm was measured.
When a local check has to be carried out, the main
difference can be related to the a coefficient, because
no other mechanism can be considered and, therefore,
the traditional value 0.8, conventionally assumed for
RC structures, is recommended, while the coefficient
b can be increased from 3 to 4 to consider even the
lack of fibres!
For thin walled structures or ultra high perfor-
mance materials, a coefficient g = 0.8 for global
check can be introduced, and 0.75 for local check,
because the representativeness of the standard spec-
imen has to be regarded as significantly less reliable.
Moreover, to consider that, in some cases, no
conventional reinforcement is used, a coefficient can
be assumed equal to the traditional value 0.8, while
the same values chosen for massive structures can be
introduced with reference to b. If a local check has to
be performed, a coefficient b = 4 (that means plain
concrete, because dF is assumed 0.25!) is suggested
and, therefore, the associated safety coefficient cF**
becomes equal to 1.5 cF. If a structural specimen
able to reproduce the casting procedure as in the
structure is used, the coefficient g can be set equal to 1
(or prudentially 0.9), thus justifying reduced safety
coefficients. The safety coefficients for the various
cases discussed are specified in Table 5.
In automatic casting procedure and for self com-
pacting FRC, the orientation factor could be much
better controlled [26, 30] and the material could be
treated as an orthotropic material with a better fibre
efficiency and a further reduction of the safety
a b g k cF
0.7 3 0.85 1.4 1.43
0.8 4 0.80 1.4 2.02
0.8 3 0.80 1.4 1.64
0.8 4 0.75 1.4 2.16
0.8 3 1 (0.9) 1.4 1.31 (1.46)
0.8 4 1 (0.9) 1.4 1.61 (1.79)
Materials and Structures (2009) 42:12611281
coefficients since smaller variation coefficients dF can
be taken into account.
An alternative characterization test refers to the
use of ASTM round plate resting on three supports as
reference nominal test [31, 32]. This test reduces the
scattering because the volume involved in the failure
mechanism is higher and the three radial cracks
propagate along three different directions, which
generally form at internal angles of about 120. In
this way, any fibre orientation is generally averaged
and the material can be better treated as a homoge-
neous isotropic material. If a slab has to be designed,
this nominal test could be more representative and,
therefore, a value g = 0.9 could be assumed since the
failure mechanism involves the formation of yield
lines oriented in several directions.
The last important question concerns with the lack
of knowledge of the heterogeneity grade in redundant
structures able to redistribute stresses. For these
structures, the stable propagation is controlled by
structural redundancy and the dispersion in the
structure response is relatively small, if compared
with that of the material strength (see Figs. 6b, c and
10a, c). The homogeneity assumption for the material
and the consequent characteristic post-cracking
strength value, as determined from beam specimens,
often becomes too conservative because the stable
crack propagation allows a multiple crack propagation
and the large fractured area implies a structure
response mainly governed by the average values of
the material properties rather than by the character-
istic values [33, 34]. To take into account this material
resource, a model coefficient cRd can be adopted:
( )
1   1 Xk;i
Rd
R Xd;i ; ad;i
R
; ad;i 6 connect continuous mechanics governed by stress
cR d cRd cm;i
where R{
} is a specific function related to the
considered mechanical model (i.e. bending, shear,
etc.); cRd is a partial factor covering uncertainties of
the assumed model; Xd,i is the design value of the
material property; ad,i is the nominal value of the
geometrical parameters involved in the model by
considering the tolerances; cm is the partial factor for
the material property.
The coefficient cRd can be smaller than unity, when
considering the favourable effect of material hetero-
geneity, and can be computed on the basis of suitable
finite element computations [34] or according to
1275
simpler assumptions suggested in relation to specific
cases [13].
4 Constitutive laws in uniaxial tension
The FRC post-cracking tensile behaviour is modelled
in mode I crack propagation by a stress-crack opening
law. Two simplified stress-crack opening constitutive
laws may be deduced from the bending test results in
order to simulate a rigid-plastic behaviour or a linear
post-cracking behaviour (hardening or softening), as
schematically shown in Fig. 11. In this figure fFts
represents the serviceability residual strength, defined
as the post-cracking strength for a crack opening
value representative of the SLS analysis, and fFtu is
the residual strength representative of the ULS
analysis. In Fig. 11 wu is the crack opening corre-
sponding to the ULS considered, while the crack
opening associated to fFts is set equal to zero.
When considering softening materials, the definition
of a stressstrain law is based on the identification of a
crack width and on the corresponding structural char-
acteristic length, lcs, of the structural element. This basic
concept was first introduced by Bazant, with the
designation of crack band width [35, 36], then extended
and refined in the context of its use in kinematic models
[3739] and finally its genesis was related to the intrinsic
characteristics of the material [40, 41].
Under the framework of the simulation of concrete
fracture initiation and propagation by smeared crack
models, the lcs is used to assure results that are not
dependent on the finite element mesh refinement
[4245]. In this context, lcs represents a bridge to
strain (re) constitutive relationships, as it is common
in smeared crack models, and fracture mechanics
Fig. 11 Simplified constitutive laws: stresscrack opening
(continuous and dashed lines refer to softening and hardening
materials, respectively)
1276
governed by stresscrack opening (rw), as it is
common in discrete crack models, firstly proposed by
Hillerborg et al. [46] in concrete mechanics
framework.
The introduction of the lcs allows the designer to
define the strain as:
e w=cs 7 Therefore, the identification of crack openings is not
In elements with conventional reinforcement (re-
bars), the characteristic length, lcs, may be evaluated
as:
cs minfsrm ; yg 8 where the bending response is partially hardening and
being: srm the mean value of the crack spacing; y the
distance between the neutral axis and the tensile the
most stretched fibres of the tensile zone of the cross
section, evaluated in the cracked phase by assuming
neglecting the peak-tensile strength of uncracked
FRC, and for a load configuration corresponding to
SLS.
The ultimate tensile strength fFtu in the linear
model depends on the required ductility that is related
to the allowed crack width. The ultimate crack width
can be calculated as:
wu lcs eFu 9 account (Fig. 12a), and fFtu results from the assump-
by assuming eFu equal to 2% for a neutral axis
crossing the cross section and 1% for a neutral axis
external to the cross section.
In sections without traditional reinforcement under
bending, under combined tensileflexural or under
combined compressiveflexural forces, with result-
ing force external to the section, the simplified
expression
(a) (b)
x
y M
= w i1 /l cs
Fig. 12 Simplified models adopted to compute: a the ultimate
tensile strength in uniaxial tension (fFtu) by means of a rigid-
plastic model and the residual nominal bending strength (fR3);
Materials and Structures (2009) 42:12611281
yh 10
can be assumed due to the very reduced extension of
the compressed region. The same assumption can be
taken for slabs.
Tensile strain hardening materials are characterized
by the occurrence of diffuse crack patterns [47].
necessary since a conventional stressstrain law may
be directly adopted, by dividing the relative displace-
ment by the gauge length of the displacement trans-
ducer, if a bending test is carried out. Any situation
partially softening has to be split in a pre-peak
continuous response and in a post-peak softening
response. A softening response after the peak does not
imply any multi-localization and, therefore, it has to be
considered as a localized behaviour, thus requiring the
characteristic length approach.
4.1 Rigid-plastic model
The rigid-plastic model identifies a unique reference
value, fFtu, based on the ultimate behaviour. The
rigid-plastic model takes the static equivalence into
tion that the whole compressive force is concentrated
in the top fibre of the section. The value of fFtu is
computed as:
fR3
fFTu 11
3
Equation 11 is obtained by rotational equilibrium at
ULS, by assuming wu = CMOD3 (Fig. 13a), and a
= E x (c) f Fts
C
M
f Fts 0.5 f R3 - 0.2 f R1
b the tensile strength (fFts) by means of a elasto-plastic model;
c fFtu for the linear model by means of a rigid-linear model
Materials and Structures (2009) 42:12611281
Fig. 13 a Typical results
from a bending test on a
softening material and
b linear post-cracking
constitutive law
constant stress block along the section, as shown in
Fig. 12a. The residual strength parameter fR3 of Eq. 11
is obtained from rotational equilibrium, by assuming a
linear elastic stress distribution along the notched cross
section, as in the pre-peak condition, for a crack
opening displacement corresponding to the ULS:
3FCMOD3
L
fR3 12
2b h2sp
being F(CMOD3) the force at CMOD3 (Fig. 13a), L,
b and hsp the span length, the width and the depth of
the net notched cross section of the beam specimen.
4.2 Linear post-cracking model
The linear post-cracking model is characterized by
the fFts and fFtu parameters. Both parameters have to
be defined through residual values of flexural strength
by using the following equations [4850]:
fFTs 0:45fR1 13
wu
fFTu fFTs  fFTs  0:5fR3 0:2fR1  0
CMOD3
14
Equation 14 defines fFtu as the residual strength
associated to an ultimate crack opening wu that does
not necessarily coincide with CMOD3, and it is
obtained by considering a linear constitutive law
between points with abscissa CMOD1 and CMOD3,
up to the point with abscissa wu (Fig. 13).
The residual strength parameter fR1 of Eqs. 13 and
14 is obtained from rotational equilibrium, by assum-
ing a linear elastic stress distribution along the
notched cross section, as in the pre-peak condition,
1277
for a crack opening displacement corresponding to the
SLS:
3FCMOD1
L
fR1 15
2b h2sp
being FCMOD1 the force at CMOD1 (Fig. 13a).
The strength value fFts corresponding to the crack
opening CMOD1 is determined from equilibrium,
with the assumption that the compressive stress
distribution is linear (Fig. 12b) and that the tensile
behaviour is elasto-plastic until a crack opening
displacement corresponding to the SLS.
The variability introduced in the results by elastic
modulus is regarded as negligible and a common
value is assumed.
The stress value corresponding to crack opening
CMOD3 is determined from equilibrium, with the
assumption that the compressive stress resultant is
applied on the extrados chord (Fig. 12c) and that the
tensile behaviour is rigid-linear.
Once the linear stress-crack opening relationship
is identified, by introducing the characteristic length
it is possible to deduce the design relationship
stressstrain, as shown in Fig. 14 with reference to
softening [48] and hardening materials. It should be
underlined that, in order to be consistent with
Eurocodes assumptions, the tensile strength of plain
concrete should be neglected for softening materi-
als. On the contrary, when a F.E. approach is
adopted, the first abrupt post-peak branch, corre-
sponding to unstable fracture propagation and
connected to localization of a single crack, could
be useful for reproducing strain localization in the
structure [34].
1278
Fig. 14 Stressstrain
relations for softening (a)
and hardening (b) FRC
5 Basic aspects for design
Fibre reinforcement is especially suitable for stati-
cally indeterminate structures of high stress distribu-
tion capacity. In structures where both localized and
diffuse stresses are present, which is the usual case, a
reinforcement system composed of rebars and fibres
may represent an optimized reinforcement solution.
In structural elements, where fibres aim to
substitute (even partially) conventional reinforce-
ment, some restrictions on the minimum residual
strength are applied (Eqs. 1, 2). The residual strength
becomes significant in structures characterized by a
high degree of redundancy, where a remarkable stress
redistribution occurs. For this reason, in structures
without rebars, where fibres completely substitute
conventional reinforcement, a minimum level of
redundancy of the structural member is required.
On the contrary, in structures with rebars, where
cu
Asl
su
Fu
Fig. 15 ULS for bending moment and axial force: use of the simplified stressstrain relationship (k e g coefficient in accordance
with current codes)
Materials and Structures (2009) 42:12611281
fibres provide an additional reinforcement, ductility is
generally provided by conventional reinforcement
that plays a major contribution to the tensile strength.
For hardening FRCs (in uniaxial tension), fibres can
be used as the only reinforcement (without rebars)
also in statically determined structural elements. In
structures made of linear elements without traditional
reinforcement, ductility requires that FRC has a
hardening behaviour in tension.
In any case, the maximum load of the FRC
structure (Pu) should be bP1, being P1 the load at
cracking initiation and b a coefficient higher than 1.
In addition, a minimum structural ductility (ratio
between the ultimate displacement, du, and the
displacement at cracking initiation, dc), should be
guaranteed.
As an example, when referring to bending, ULS is
reached when one of the following conditions is
obtained (Fig. 15):
f cd f cd
x x
f Fts / F NSd
y
M Rd
hardening softening f Ftu / F
Materials and Structures (2009) 42:12611281
attainment of the maximum compressive strain in
the FRC, ecu;
attainment of the maximum tensile strain in the
steel (if present), esu;
attainment of the maximum tensile strain in the
FRC, eFu.
For a design axial force (NSd ), the ultimate bending
moment (MRd ) can be evaluated by means of the
translation and rotation equilibrium equations under
the assumption of a plane section.
The fundamental hypotheses for the ULS analysis
of FRC sections are:
sections remain plane;
perfect bond conditions are assumed between
steel bars and surrounding concrete;
the tensile stresses in FRC are derived from the
design stress/strain relationship (Fig. 14);
for the compressive stresses, the equations used
for plain concrete can be also applied for FRC.
The evaluation of the ultimate bending moment
can be done with reference to the strain and stress
distributions shown in Fig. 15 that correspond to the
FRC stress/strain relationships and the constitutive
laws for rebars (if present) in accordance with the
current codes.
Fibres in a beam represent an additional distrib-
uted reinforcement that enhances shear resisting
mechanisms both in elements with and without
transverse reinforcement.
The use of the minimum amount of conventional
shear reinforcement (stirrups) can be prevented if the
following condition is fulfilled [51]:
p In any case, although the level of knowledge on
fck
fFtuk  16
20
being fck the characteristic value of the concrete
compressive strength and fFtuk the characteristic value
of fFtu. This condition allows to reduce the crack width
growth and favours the diffusion of inclined crack
pattern and, as a consequence, can ensure a sufficient
member ductility. When a great amount of longitudi-
nal reinforcement in the compressive zone is present,
adequate stirrups reinforcement shall be applied in
order to avoid buckling of the compressed rebars.
Besides the structural resistance at ULS, a signif-
icant contribution can be provided by FRC at SLS
conditions. In fact, fibre reinforcement may reduce
1279
the crack width and increase the tension stiffening of
concrete between cracks. Crack control is particularly
important for durability issues. In structures with
rebars, a reduced minimum concrete cover is
expected when fibre reinforcement is present.
6 Concluding remarks
A very important milestone within the research of
FRC is the implementation of this material in the
coming fib Model Code that, in the next future, will
lead to a probable development of structural rules in
FRC elements in Eurocodes or in national codes. In
fact, new structural materials are easily used by
designers only when design rules are present in
building codes.
The main advantages from FRC come from the
presence of a reinforcement (fibres) distributed in the
structural element that enhances the resistance to
diffused tensile stresses and guarantees a reinforce-
ment even in the large concrete covers, often
necessary for fire resistance or durability issues, or
in the corners of the structural elements.
Fibre reinforcement goes into the structural ele-
ment together with the concrete, thus avoiding costs
for handling and placing the reinforcement. Further-
more, fibres require a smaller storage area (normally
a tank) with respect to conventional reinforcement
(rebars or welded mesh).
Besides the resistance to ULSs, fibre reinforce-
ment can significantly enhance structural behaviour
at service conditions, by limiting cracking pheno-
mena or structural deformation.
FRC tremendously increased during the last 10 years,
further research is needed to verify and optimize the
proposed design rules, to investigate the long term
behaviour of different FRCs and other open issues.
Furthermore, a new generation of FRCs will soon
enter into the market. They are based on a cocktail
of different fibre types (for material and/or geometry)
to contemporary enhance different structural perfor-
mances (Hybrid systems of fibres).
Acknowledgements A special acknowledgement goes to
Prof. Joost Walraven for the fruitful discussions and to Prof.
Falkner who shared its large design experience. The Authors
are also grateful to all the members of fib Task Groups TG 8.3
and TG 8.6 for the constructive discussions during the several
1280
meetings where many ideas presented in this paper took a
definitive shape.
References
1. Rossi P, Chanvillard G (eds) (2000) Fibre Reinforced
Concretes. In: RILEM Proceedings of the 5th RILEM
Symposium (BEFIB 2000), PRO15, BEFIB 2000. RILEM
Publications S.A.R.L., Bagneux, France
2. di Prisco M, Felicetti R, Plizzari G (eds) (2004) Fibre-
Reinforced Concrete. In: RILEM Proceedings of the 6th
RILEM Symposium (BEFIB 2004), PRO39, BEFIB 2004.
RILEM Publications S.A.R.L., Bagneux, France
3. Reinhardt HW, Naaman AE (eds) (2007) High Perfor-
mance Fibre Reinforced Cement Composites (HPFRCC5).
Rilem Publication S.A.R.L., PRO53
4. Gettu R (ed) (2008) Fibre Reinforced Concrete: design and
applications, BEFIB 2008, Bagneux, France, RILEM
Publications S.A.R.L., PRO60
5. ACI Committee 544 (1996) Design considerations for steel
Fiber Reinforced Concrete, ACI 544.4R-88. American
Concrete Institute, ACI Farmington Hills
6. ACI Committee 318 (2008) Building code and commen-
tary, Report ACI 318-08/318R-08. American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills
7. Vandewalle L et al (2002) Recommendation of Rilem
TC162-TDF: test and design methods for steel fibre rein-
forced concrete: design of steel fibre reinforced concrete
using the rw method: principles and applications. Mater
Struct 35:262278
8. Vandewalle L et al (2003) Recommendation of Rilem
TC162-TDF: test and design methods for steel fibre rein-
forced concrete: re-design method (final recommenda-
tion). Mater Struct 36:560567
9. AFGC-SETRA (2002) Ultra High Performance Fibre-
Reinforced Concretes, Interim recommendations. AFGC
Publication, France
10. Stalfiberbetong (1995) rekommendationer for konstruction,
utforande och provning Betongrapport n.4. Svenska Bet-
ongforeningen, Betongrapport
11. Deutscher Ausschuss fur Stahlbeton (DAfStb) (2007)
Guidelines for steel fiber reinforced concrete23th
Draftrichtlinie StahlfaserbetonDIN 1045 Annex parts
14, August 2007
12. Faserbeton R (2002) Osterreichische Vereinigung fur
Beton-und Bautechnik. OBBV, Wien
13. CNR-DT 204 (2006) Guidelines for design, construction
and production control of fiber reinforced concrete struc-
tures. National Research Council of Italy, Italy
14. Vandewalle L (2000) Cracking behaviour of concrete
beams reinforced with a combination of ordinary rein-
forcement and steel fibers. Mater Struct 33(227):164170
15. UNI EN 206-1 (2006) Concretepart 1: specification,
performance, production and conformity. CEN, Brussels
16. Hordijk DA (1991) Local approach to fatigue of concrete.
Dissertation, Delft University of Technology
17. Naaman AE, Reinhardt HW (2003) High performance fiber
reinforced cement compositesHPFRCC4. In: RILEM
Proceedings, PRO 30, RILEM Publications S.A.R.L.,
Bagneaux, France
Materials and Structures (2009) 42:12611281
18. EN 14651 (2004) Test method for metallic fibre concrete
measuring the flexural tensile strength (limit of propor-
tionality, residual). Varenna, Italy
19. di Prisco M, Colombo M, Dozio D, Mauri M (2006) SFRC
ground slab: an experience on hollow core slabs. In: Pro-
ceedings of the 16th national conference (CTE 06),
Parma, 2006, pp. 965978 (in Italian)
20. UNI 11039 (2003) Concrete reinforced with steel fibres.
Part II: test method for the determination of first cracking
strength and ductility indexes. Italian Board for Standard-
ization, Italy
21. di Prisco M, Dozio D (2008) Post-tensioned SFRC beams
in Fibre Reinforced Concrete: design and applications. In:
di Prisco et al (eds) Proceedings of the 8th RILEM Sym-
posium (BEFIB 08). RILEM Publications S.A.R.L., Bag-
neux, France, pp 899910
22. di Prisco C, di Prisco M, Mauri M, Scola M (2006) A new
design for stabilizing ground slopes. In: Proceedings of the
2nd fib congress, Napoli (Italy), June 58, 2006, ID 4-1 on
CD-ROM
23. di Prisco M, di Prisco C, Dozio D, Galli A, Lapolla S
(2008) Assessment and control of a SFRC retaining
structure: mechanical issues. In: Binda et al (eds) On site
assessment of concrete, masonry and timber structures.
Proceedings of the international conference (SACOMA-
TIS). RILEM Publications S.A.R.L., Bagneux, France,
PRO 59, Varenna, vol 1, pp 539604
24. di Prisco M, Lamperti M, Lapolla S, Khurana RS (2008)
HPFRCC thin plates for precast roofing. In: Proceedings of
second international symposium on ultra high performance
concrete, Kassel, Germany, 2008, pp 675682
25. UNI 11188 (2004) Design, production and control of Steel
Fibre Reinforced structural elements. Italian Board of
Standardization, Italy
26. Ferrara L, Dozio D, di Prisco M (2007) On the connections
between fresh state behavior, fiber dispersion and tough-
ness properties of steel fiber reinforced concrete. In:
Reinhardt HW, Naaman AE (eds) High Performance Fiber
Reinforced Cement Composites (HPFRCC5). Proceedings
of the 5th international RILEM Workshop, Mainz, Ger-
many, PRO 53. RILEM Publication SARL, pp 249258
27. di Prisco M, Colombo M (2006) FRC and HPFRC com-
posites: from constitutive behaviour to structural applica-
tions, in Measuring, monitoring, and modelling concrete
properties. In: Konsta-Gdoutos MS (ed) Proceedings of the
international symposium dedicated to Prof. S. P. Shah,
Alexandroupolis (Greece). Springer, Dordrecht, pp 5968
28. Cominoli L (2007) Studio sul calcestruzzo fibrorinforzato
per applicazioni industriali: dalle proprieta del materiale al
comportamento strutturale, Ph.D. Thesis, University of
Brescia (ISBN 978-88-96225-10-3), 431 pp
29. Stahli P, van Mier JGM (2007) Manufacturing, fibre
anisotropy and fracture of hybrid fibre concrete. Eng Fract
Mech 74:223242
30. Stahli P, Custer R, van Mier JGM (2008) On flow prop-
erties, fibre distribution, fibre orientation and flexural
behaviour of FRC. Mater Struct 41(1):189196
31. Lambrechts AN (2004) The variation of steel fibre rein-
forced concrete characteristics. Study on toughness results
20022003. In: di Prisco et al (eds) Fiber Reinforced
Concrete: from theory to practice. International workshop
Materials and Structures (2009) 42:12611281
on advances in Fiber Reinforced Concrete. Starrylink Ed-
itrice, Brescia, Italy, pp 135148
32. Minelli F, Plizzari G (2007) Fiber reinforced concrete char-
acterization: round panel vs. beam test toward a harmoniza-
tion. In: Proceedings of 3rd central European congress on
Concrete Engineering, Visegrad, Hungary. September 1718.
Publishing Company of Budapest University of Technology
Hungary, Budapest, 2007, pp 213220
33. di Prisco M, Failla C, Plizzari GA, Toniolo G (2004)
Italian guidelines on SFRC. In: di Prisco M et al (eds)
Fiber-Reinforced Concrete: from theory to practice. Star-
rylink, Bergamo, pp 3972
34. Dozio D (2008) SFRC structures: identification of the
uniaxial tension characteristic constitutive law. Department
of Structural Engineering, Politecnico di Milano, Milano
35. Bazant ZP, Oh BH (1983) Crack band theory for fracture
of concrete. Mater Struct 16(93):155177
36. Bazant ZP, Cedolin L (1983) Finite element modeling of
crack band propagation. ASCE J Struct Eng 109(1):6992
37. Bazant ZP, Pijaudier-Cabot G (1988) Non-local continuum
damage, localization instability and convergence. ASME J
Appl Mech 55:287293
38. Bazant ZP, Novak D (2003) Stochastic models for defor-
mation and failure of quasibrittle structures: recent
advances and new directions. In Bicanic N et al (eds)
Computational modelling of concrete structures. Swets &
Zeitlinger, Lisse, pp 583598
39. de Borst R, Mulhaus HB, Pamin J, Sluys LJ (1992)
Computational modeling of localization of deformation. In:
Owen DRJ et al (eds) Proceedings on computational
plasticity fundamentals and applications, part II. Pineridge
Press, Swansea, pp 483508
40. Fokwa D, Berthaud Y (1993) Heterogeneous materials:
experimental analysis of localization and the influence of
size of the heterogeneities on the behaviour in tension.
Mater Struct 26:136143
41. di Prisco M, Felicetti R, Gambarova PG (1999) On the
evaluation of the characteristic length in high strength
concrete. In: Azizinamini A, Darwin D, French C (eds)
High strength concrete. ASCE, Kona, Hawaii, pp 377390
42. Ferrara L, di Prisco M (2001) Mode I fracture behavior in
concrete: non-local damage modeling. ASCE J Eng Mech
127(7):678692
1281
43. Kooiman AG (2000) Modelling steel fibre reinforced
concrete for structural design. PhD thesis, Technical Uni-
versity Delft, Optima Grafische Communicatie, Rotterdam
44. Barros JAO, Cunha VMCF, Ribeiro AF, Antunes JAB
(2005) Post-cracking behaviour of steel fibre reinforced
concrete. Mater Struct 38(275):4756
45. di Prisco M, Iorio F, Plizzari G (2003) HPSFRC pre-
stressed roof elements. In: Schnutgen B, Vandewalle L
(eds) Test ad design methods for steel fibre reinforced
concretebackground ad experiences. PRO 31, RILEM,
Bochum, Germany, pp 161188
46. Hillerborg A, Modeer M, Peterson PE (1976) Analysis of
crack formation and crack growth by means of fracture
mechanics and finite elements. Cement Concr Res 6:
773782
47. JSCE (2008) Recommendations for design and construc-
tion of high performance fiber reinforced cement com-
posites with multiple fine cracks (HPFRCC). In: Rokugo K
(ed) Concrete engineering series, p 82
48. di Prisco M, Felicetti R, Lamperti M, Menotti G (2004) On
size effect in tension of SFRC thin plates. In: Li VC et al
(eds) Fracture mechanics of concrete structures. BL Sch-
mick and AD Pollington, USA, pp 10751082
49. di Prisco M, Ferrara L, Colombo M, Mauri M (2004) On
the identification of SFRC costitutive law in uniaxial ten-
sion. In: di Prisco et al (eds) Fiber Reinforced Concrete.
Proceedings of 6th RILEM symposium (BEFIB 04), PRO
39. RILEM Publications S.A.R.L., Bagneaux, France,
pp 827836
50. Colombo M (2006) FRC bending behaviour: a damage
model for high temperatures. PhD thesis, Department of
Structural Engineering, Politecnico di Milano, StarryLink,
Brescia, Italy
51. Minelli F, Plizzari G, Vecchio FJ (2007) Influence of steel
fibers on full-scale RC beams under shear loading. In: High
performance concrete, brick-masonry and environmental
aspects. Sixth international conference of fracture
mechanics of concrete and concrete structures FRAM-
COS6. Taylor & Francis Group (UK), London/Catania, 3,
pp 15231531