ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL
Title no. 103-S58
Steel Fiber Concrete Slabs on Ground: A Structural Matter
by Luca G. Sorelli, Alberto Meda, and Giovanni A. Plizzari
An extensive experimental investigation with the aim of studying
the structural behavior of slabs on ground made of steel fiber-
reinforced concrete (SFRC) is presented in this paper. Several full-
scale slabs reinforced with different volume fractions of steel fibers
having different geometries were tested under a point load in the
slab center. A hybrid combination of short and long fibers was also
considered to optimize structural behavior. Experimental results
show that steel fibers significantly enhance the bearing capacity
and the ductility of slabs on ground.
The nonlinear behavior of these SFRC structures is well captured
by performing nonlinear fracture mechanics analyses where the
constitutive relations of cracked concrete under tension were
experimentally determined. Finally, from an extensive parametric
study, design abaci and a simplified analytical equation for predicting
the minimum thickness of SFRC slabs on ground are proposed.
Keywords: pavement; reinforced concrete; slabs on ground.
INTRODUCTION
In the last decades, the use of steel fiber-reinforced
concrete (SFRC) has significantly increased in industrial
pavements, roads, parking areas, and airport runways as an
effective alternative to conventional reinforcement (that is,
reinforcing bars or welded mesh). Because heavy concentrated
loads from industrial machinery and shelves may cause
intensive cracking and excessive deformation of pavements,
a diffused fiber reinforcement may help the structural behavior.
Many of these pavements are slabs on ground that are
statically undetermined structures. For this reason, even at
relatively low volume fractions (<1%), steel fibers effectively
increase the ultimate load and can be used as partial (or total)
substitution of conventional reinforcement (reinforcing bars or
welded mesh) of slabs on ground. Fiber reinforcement also
provides a better control of the crack development to improve
the structural durability and to reduce the number of joints.1-3
Moreover, fiber reinforcement enhances the impact and fatigue
resistance of concrete structures and reduces labor costs due to
the amount of time saved in the placement of the reinforcement.
At present, design rules for SFRC structures are not
present in the main international building codes, even though
ACI Committee 544, RILEM Technical Committee 162-TDF,
and the Italian Board of Standardization have recently proposed
recommendations or design guidelines.4-6 Because these guide-
lines are under development, designers often work under the
usual assumption of elastic behavior of a concrete slab on an
elastic subgrade, according to the Westergaard theory.7 This
assumption is markedly restrictive for SFRC slabs and leads
to a significant underestimation of the actual bearing capacity of
the slab.8 In fact, a linear elastic approach cannot properly
take into account the beneficial effects of fiber reinforcement
which become effective only after cracking of the concrete
matrix when SFRC behavior is significantly nonlinear8,9
(Fig. 1). As a consequence, more appropriate methods based
on the yield line theory have been proposed to predict the
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2006
TECHNICAL PAPER
ultimate load.10 The upper bound method of limit analysis,
which assumes a flexural mode of failure and perfect plasticity,
however, is not a straightforward application of the SFRC
structures with low volume fractions of steel fibers (Vf < 1%)
due the softening behavior of the material (Fig. 1). If a
nonstandard form of the yield line theory is formulated by
assuming an average post-cracking strength, the collapse
load is still underestimated.11
The finite element (FE) method based on nonlinear fracture
mechanics (NLFM)12 appears to be the most accurate tool
for analyzing SFRC slabs on ground because it allows a
reproduction of the actual collapse mechanism and the
development of a new design approach.13
Because a limited number of experiments are currently
available in the literature,8,14,15 several full-scale tests on FRC
slabs were carried out in an extensive research program to
validate the NLFM approach. The experimental model aims
to simulate a zone of pavement included between joints where
one or more concentrated loads may be applied at any point.
Because part of a load close to a joint is transferred to the
adjacent slabs,16 however, it was found that the load placed in
the center of a single slab is particularly significant for design.
For the sake of clarity, it should be noted that other important
phenomena (such as the curling effect) present in concrete
pavement are not considered herein.
A further goal of the research concerns the possibility of
enhancing structural performance by combining steel fibers
of different dimensions and geometries (hybrid fiber reinforced
concrete [HyFRC]). In fact, fibers start activating after
cracking (not visible microcracks) of the concrete matrix.
Because fibers of different sizes become efficient at different
stages of the cracking process, however, a hybrid combination
of short and long steel fibers may enhance the concrete
Fig. 1Different fiber activation with respect to crack
development in tensile test.20
ACI Structural Journal, V. 103, No. 4, July-August 2006.
MS No. 05-026 received December 17, 2005, and reviewed under Institute publication
policies. Copyright 2006, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including
the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent
discussion including authors closure, if any, will be published in the May-June 2007
ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by January 1, 2007.
551
Luca G. Sorelli is investigating ultra-high-performance concrete (UHPC) structural
implications by micromechanics and chemo-plasticity approaches at Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass. He received his doctorate from the University
of Brescia, Brescia, Italy.

Alberto Meda is an Associate Professor of structural engineering, Department of

Engineering Design and Technology, University of Bergamo, Bergamo, Italy. He
received his degree in environmental engineering from the Milan University of
Technology, Milan, Italy, in 1994. His research interests include concrete fracture
mechanics, fiber-reinforced concrete, and fire design of reinforced concrete structures.

ACI member Giovanni A. Plizzari is a Professor of structural engineering, Department

of Civil Engineering, University of Brescia. His research interests include material
properties and structural applications of high-performance concrete, fiber-reinforced
concrete, concrete pavements, fatigue and fracture of concrete, and steel-to-concrete
interaction in reinforced concrete structures.

Table 1Composition of concrete matrix

Mixture component Quantity
Cement 42.5R (ENV 197-1) 345 kg/m3 (21.54) lb/ft3
Water 190 kg/m3 (11.86) lb/ft3 Fig. 2Test setup for: (a) slab on ground; (b) small beams;
High-range water-reducing admixture (c) deformed FE meshed for numerical simulation of slab;
0.38%vol
(melamine-based) and (d) notched beams under bending.
Aggregate (0 to 4 mm) 621 kg/m3 (38.77) lb/ft3
Aggregate (4 to 15 mm) 450 kg/m3 (28.09) lb/ft3 there is still a lack of design rules for steel fiber reinforced
Aggregate (8 to 15 mm) 450 kg/m3 (28.09) lb/ft3 concrete slabs in building codes. Due to this lack, conventional
design methods, based on the elastic theory, are used for fiber
Table 2Geometrical and mechanical properties reinforced slabs whose behavior is significantly nonlinear.
of steel fibers The behavior of slabs on ground with steel fibers was experi-
mentally studied by performing full-scale tests; a design
Fiber Lf , approach based on nonlinear fracture mechanics is also proposed.
code mm (in.) f , mm (in.) Lf /f fft , MPa (ksi) Fiber shape
To enhance the structural response, the use of HyFRC
50/1.0(a) 50 (1.97) 1.00 (0.0394) 50.0 1100 (159.5) systems, combining shorter and longer steel fibers, was also
considered.
50/1.0(b) 50 (1.97) 1.00 (0.0394) 50.0 1100 (159.5)

30/0.6 30 (1.18) 0.60 (0.0236) 50.0 1100 (159.5) EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM

Full-scale slabs on ground were tested under a point load
20/0.4 20 (0.79) 0.40 (0.0157) 50.0 1100 (159.5)
in the center. The experimental model aimed to reproduce a
12/0.18 12 (0.47) 0.18 (0.0071) 66.6 1800 (261.1) square portion of pavement, limited by joints, with a side (L)
of 3 m (118.11 in.) and a thickness (s) of 0.15 m (5.91 in.).
Table 3Volume fractions of steel reinforcement Additional tensile and bending tests were carried out to identify
(steel fibers or welded mesh) the fracture behavior of SFRC. The slab tests presented in
this paper are part of an extensive research campaign whose
Steel fibers
Vf,tot,
results are published elsewhere.18,21
50/1.0 30/0.6 20.04 12/0.18
Slab no. %vol %vol %vol %vol %vol
S0 0.00 Materials
S1 0.38 0.38 The concrete matrix was made with cement CEM II/A-LL
42.5R (UNI-ENV 197-1) and natural river gravel with a
S3 0.38(a) 0.19 0.57
rounded shape and a maximum diameter of 15 mm (0.59 in.);
S4 (a) 0.38
0.38 its composition is summarized in Table 1.
S5 0.38 0.38 Five different types of fibers were considered in this
S8 0.38(b) 0.38 research, as reported in Table 2 where geometrical and
S11 0.57 (a) 0.57 mechanical properties of fibers are shown; the fiber code is
(b) conventionally defined by the fiber length and the fiber
S14 0.38 0.19 0.57
diameter (Lf /f , in millimeter unit). Two straight shorter
fibers (12/0.18 and 20/0.4) and three longer fibers with
toughness at small crack opening displacements17-19 (Fig. 1). hooked ends (30/0.6, 50/1.0(a), and 50/1.0(b)) were adopted.
Moreover, due to the better control of the cracking process, All the fibers have a rounded shaft, an aspect ratio ranging
shorter fibers reduce the material permeability20 and HyFRC between 50 and 66, and a Young modulus of approximately
appears to be a promising application for pavements 210 GPa (30456.9 ksi).
subjected to aggressive environments. Seven SFRC slabs (S1, S3, S4, S5, S8, S11, and S14), with
a volume fraction Vf of fiber smaller than 0.6% and a reference
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE slab made of plain concrete (S0) are reported in this paper
Whereas the structural behavior of plain concrete and (Table 3). Figure 2(a) shows the slab with a hydraulic jack
conventionally reinforced slabs on ground is well known, placed in its center.

552 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2006

Table 4Mechanical properties of concrete
fct , fc,cube, Ec, Ec,core,
Slab no. MPa (psi) MPa (psi) MPa (ksi) MPa (ksi)
S1 2.01 (292) 35.3 (5120) NA 24,463 (3548)
S3 2.18 (316) 33.9 (4917) NA 22,486 (3261)
S4 1.79 (260) 35.3 (5120) NA 23,446 (3400)
S5 NA 36.1 (5236) NA 24,786 (3595)
S6 1.84 (267) 35.9 (5207) 21,438 (3109) 20,989 (3044)
S8 1.40 (203) 30.4 (4409) 24,790 (3595) 19,964 (2895)
S11 1.63 (236) 33.1 (4801) 21,486 (3116) 17,335 (2517)
S14 NA 32.3 (4685) NA NA
Note: NA = data not available.

Table 4 reports the mechanical properties of concrete of
the different slabs, as determined on the day of the test; in
particular, Table 4 shows the tensile strength fct from cylinders
(c = 80 mm [3.15 in.], L = 250 mm [9.84 in.]), the compressive
strength from cubes fc,cube of 150 mm side (5.91 in.); the
Youngs modulus as determined from both compression
tests on cylinders Ec (c = 80 mm [3.15 in.]; L = 200 mm
[7.87 in.]) and from core specimens Ec,core (c = 76 mm
[2.99 in.]; L = 150 mm [5.91 in.]) drilled out from the slab
(after the test). The slump of the fresh concrete was always
greater than 150 mm (5.91 in.).
Fracture properties were determined from six notched beams
(150 x 150 x 600 mm [5.91 x 5.91 x 23.62 in.]) tested under
four-point bending according to the Italian Standard22
(Fig. 2(b)). The notch was placed at midspan and had a depth
of 45 mm (1.77 in.) (Fig. 2(b), (d)). These tests were carried out
with a closed loop hydraulic testing machine by using the crack
mouth opening displacement (CMOD) as a control parameter,
which was measured by means of a clip gauge positioned
astride the notch. Additional linear variable differential
transformers (LVDTs) were used to measure the crack tip
opening displacement (CTOD) and the vertical displacement at
the beam midspan and under the load points (Fig. 2(b)).
Test setup and instrumentation
The slabs were loaded by a hydraulic jack placed in the
center by using the load frame shown in Fig. 2(a); the
average loading rate was 2.5 kN/min (0.56 kips/min).
To reproduce a Winkler soil, 64 steel supports were placed
under the slab at centers of 375 mm (14.76 in.) in both directions
(Fig. 3(a)). These supports are steel plates on a square base
having a side of 100 mm (3.94 in.; Fig. 3(b)). Previous
numerical simulations showed that the experimental subgrade
provides a good approximation of a continuous Winkler
soil.16 Because of the curling of the concrete slabs due to
shrinkage and the thermal effect, a layer of high-strength
mortar a few millimeters thick was placed on each spring to
ensure the contact with the bottom face of the slab. The
average spring stiffness was determined by compression
tests performed on each spring with results approximately
equal to 11.0 kN/mm (2.47 kips/mm). By considering the
influence area of each spring (375 x 375 mm [14.76 x
14.76 in.]), the average Winkler constant kw was equal to
0.0785 N/mm3 (289.2 lb/in.3), which corresponds to a
uniform graded sand soil according to ACI classification.23
During the tests, the vertical displacements of 12 points on
the top surface of the slab were continuously monitored;
furthermore, four inductive transducers were placed on the
bottom surface of the slab to detect the width of possible
(a)
Fig. 3(a) Positioning of slab on uniform grid of steel
supports; and (b) three-dimensional view of steel support.
cracks (that were expected to form along the medial lines of
the slabs; Fig. 2(a)).
Experimental results
Experimental results are initially presented in terms of
vertical load versus the deflection of the slab center. The
curves are plotted up to the collapse only. The structural
response of reference Slab S0 and the Slabs S1, S5, S4, and
S8, reinforced by an equal volume fraction (Vf = 0.38%) of
fibers having different geometries but the same aspect ratio
(50/1.0(a), 50/1.0(b), and 30/0.6), is compared in Fig. 4(a).
Beyond the first cracking point, which can be conventionally
assumed in correspondence of the loss of linearity that occurs
between a load level of 100 kN (22.48 kips) and 150 kN
(33.72 kips), the fracture behavior of the SFRC slabs is
remarkably different from the plain concrete slab. The
steel fibers effectively enhance the bearing capacity of the
slab up to a maximum load higher than 260 kN (58.45 kips);
moreover, fiber reinforcement assures a ductile failure while
the reference slab (made of plain concrete) showed a brittle
failure when a maximum load equal to 177 kN (26.30 kips)
was reached.
Slabs S1 and S5, reinforced with fibers 30/0.6, performed
slightly better than the Slabs S4 and S8, reinforced with
longer fibers (50/10(a) and 50/10(b)).
The effect of the fiber content on the structural response
is shown in Fig. 4(b), which compares the response of Slabs S4
and S11. These slabs were reinforced with 30 kg/m3 (1.87 lb/ft2;
Vf = 0.38%) and 45 kg/m3 (2.81 lb/ft2; Vf = 0.57%) of
fibers 50/10(a), respectively. The experimental curves show that
the higher fiber content slightly increases the structural ductility
while the ultimate load does not seem significantly influenced.

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2006 553


Fig. 4(a) Experimental load-displacement curve for slabs
with fiber content of 30 kg/m3 (Vf = 0.38%); and (b) with
different contents of Fiber 50/1.0(a).
Fig. 5(a) Experimental load-displacement curve; and
(b) experimental load-crack opening displacement curve for
slabs with same volume fraction (Vf = 0.57%) with fiber
having one or two different geometries.
Figure 5(a) shows the curves obtained from all the slabs
with a volume fraction of fibers equal to 0.57%; the reference
Slab S0 (of plain concrete) is also shown. In particular, Slab S11
is made of a single type of fibers (50/1.0(a)) while Slabs S3 and
S14 are made of a combination of longer and shorter fibers
(refer to Table 3). Although slabs with hybrid fibers have
slightly higher maximum loads, the main contribution of this
554
Fig. 6Final crack patterns of slabs.
Fig. 7Bilinear approximation of stress versus crack-opening
curve of cracked concrete.
reinforcement concerns the crack opening (measured on the
slab side at the bottom of a median line) that is significantly
smaller than in Slabs S11, which has a single type of fiber
(Fig. 5(b)). This can be explained by the better efficiency of
shorter fibers to bridge smaller cracks delaying their
coalescence in localized and large cracks.19
The steel fibers did not substantially affect the final crack
patterns of the slabs which are characterized by four major
cracks started from the slab center and developed along the
median lines or, in a few cases, along the diagonals (Fig. 6).
NUMERICAL MODELING
Numerical analyses based on NLFM were performed by
adopting MERLIN24; the experimental crack patterns shown
in Fig. 6 justify a discrete crack approach with the cracks
located along the median or the diagonal lines. Interface
elements in predefined discrete cracks initially connect the
linear elastic subdomains (as rigid links) and start activating
(that is, the crack starts opening) when the normal tensile
stress (at the interface) reaches the tensile strength of the
material. Afterwards, the crack propagates and cohesive
stresses are transmitted between the crack faces according to
a stress-crack opening (-w) law (which is given as input for
the interface elements).
Inverse analyses25 of the bending tests were performed to
determine the best fitting softening law of cracked concrete
(-w) that was assumed as bilinear (Fig. 7) where the steeper
branch can be associated with (unconnected) microcracking
ahead of the stress-free crack whereas the second part represents
the aggregate interlocking or the fiber bridging.
The beam was modeled by triangular plain stress elements
(Fig. 2(d)) with Youngs modulus Ec experimentally
determined from the cylindrical specimens and Poissons
ratio assumed equal to 0.15.
The material parameters identified from the bending tests
are summarized in Table 5; as typical examples, the numerical
and experimental load-displacement curves for the materials
used in Slabs S4 and S8 are compared in Fig. 8. These material
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2006
 Fig. 9Conventional assumption of experimental collapse
load for slab on ground.

Table 5Fracture properties of concrete

Slab Ec,core, ct, w1, 1, wcr , GF ,
no. MPa (ksi) MPa (psi) mm (in.) MPa (psi) mm (in.) N/mm (lb/yd)

S1 24,463 3.1 0.025 0.93 13.00 6.08

Fig. 8Comparison between numerical (dotted) and (3547.9) (450) (0.00098) (135) (0.51181) (1.250)
experimental load-CTOD curves as obtained from bending S3 22,486 3.3 0.019 1.23 20.00 12.33
(3261.2) (479) (0.00075) (178) (0.78740) (2.535)
tests on SFRC used for: (a) Slab S4; and (b) Slab S8.
23,446 3.3 0.023 0.88 20.00 8.84
S4 (3400.4) (479) (0.00091) (128) (0.78740) (1.817)
parameters fct, 1, w1, and wcr were adopted for the numerical S5
24,786 3.0 0.028 1.20 10.00 6.04
(3594.8) (435) (0.00110) (174) (0.39370) (1.242)
simulations of the slab specimens.
20,989 3.0 0.035 0.75 0.25 0.15
The slab was modeled by 4432 four-node tetrahedral S6
(3044.1) (435) (0.00138) (109) (0.00984) (0.031)
elements for the elastic subdomains linked by 576 interface 19,964 3.5 0.022 0.67 20.00 6.74
elements (Fig. 2(c)), along the cracks. The elastic soil S8 (2895.4) (508) (0.00087) (97) (0.78740) (1.386)
(Winkler soil) was modeled by 616 linear elastic truss 17,355 3.3 0.020 0.90 26.00 11.73
S11 (2517.0)
elements, simulating bidirectional springs connected to the (479) (0.00079) (131) (1.02362) (2.411)
slab bottom nodes, and with global stiffness equal to the S14 *
3.1 0.026 1.02 18.00 9.22
experimental value (kw = 0.0785 kN/mm3 [289.2 lb/in.3]). (450) (0.00102) (148) (0.70866) (0.031)
*
Although no-tension springs were used in the tests, only a Assumed equal to 20 GPA (2900.7 ksi).
reduced area of the slab corner was observed to uplift during
the experiments. Table 6Experimental and numerical collapse
loads for tested slabs
Numerical results
The failure of a SFRC slab on ground is neither sudden nor Fu,exp , Fu,num , F u, num F u, exp
Slab -,%
err = --------------------------------
catastrophic and the slab continues to carry further load even no. kN (kips) kN (kips) F u, exp
after a collapse mechanism occurs. The ultimate load was S0 177.0 (39.79) 174.0 (39.12) 1.7
conventionally defined as corresponding to a sudden change S1 265.0 (59.58) 240.5 (54.07) 9.2
of the monitored displacements (Fig. 9) that evidence the S3 274.9 (61.80) 236.0 (53.06) 14.2
formation of a collapse mechanism (fully developed crack S4 238.6 (53.64) 245.3 (55.15) 2.8
surface along the medians or the diagonals, depending on the S5 252.3 (56.72) 247.0 (55.53) 2.1
ratio between the slab and the soil stiffness). S8 246.2 (55.35) 215.4 (48.43) 12.5
The numerical and experimental load-displacement curves
S11 231.9 (52.14) 255.7 (57.49) 10.3
are compared in Fig. 10 (the displacement is measured on the
S14 273.0 (61.38) 244.7 (55.01) 10.7
top surface of the slab center). In addition, the numerical
development of the crack pattern is displayed. The cracks
begin to develop on both the median and the diagonal
surfaces and the slab collapse occurs when two cracks (either As a further comparison, Fig. 11(a) shows the numerical
the median or the diagonal ones) develop up to the slab and experimental displacements monitored on Slab S5 at the
border. It can be noticed that, in all cases, the overall structural maximum load; the model response is stiffer because of the
behavior is well captured by the numerical analyses based on numerical assumption of bilateral behavior of the spring
NLFM. These results further confirm the opportunity of supports, whereas tractions cannot be transmitted by the
using an NLFM approach to analyze SFRC structures. experimental springs. As previously mentioned, however, only
Table 6 reports the values of the maximum load obtained a small slab portion is subjected to uplift at collapse. The
from both the experiments and the numerical analyses: one comparison between the numerical and the experimental crack
should note that the numerical predictions are in good agreement opening, measured at the bottom surface of Slab S5, is displayed
with the experimental values (the average discrepancy is in Fig. 11(b); once again, a good agreement between the
approximately 7.9% with a maximum of 14.2%). numerical and the experimental response was noted.

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2006 555

 Fig. 10Numerical (dotted lines) and experimental load versus center
displacement of slab.

Design abaci based on nonlinear fracture mechanics

A parametric study, based on approximately 1000 FE
simulations, has been carried out to develop design abaci for
FRC slabs on ground,13 by considering the following variables:
subgrade modulus kw (0.03, 0.06, 0.09, 0.12, 0.15, 0.18, and
0.21 kN/mm3 [110.5, 221.0, 331.6, 442.1, 552.6, 663.1, and
773.7 lb/in.3]), slab thickness s (150, 200, 250, 300, and
350 mm [5.91, 7.87, 9.84, 11.81, and 13.78 in.]), loading area
a (400, 14,400 mm2 [0.62, 223.20 in.2]), concrete compressive
strength fc (25, 30, and 40 MPa [3.6, 4.4, and 5.8 ksi]) and
fiber content Vf (0, 20, 30, 40, 50 kg/m3 [0, 1.25, 1.87, 2.50,
and 3.12 lb/ft3]). To identify the material properties, needed as
input for the NLFM analyses, the 15 materials considered in
the parametric study were cast and tested under tensile and
bending tests and, eventually, the -w laws of cracked
concrete were determined by performing inverse analyses.
Figure 12 shows a typical abacus that, once the soil stiffness
and the design load is known, easily provides the minimum
slab thickness. This aims to help professional engineers,
whose offices often are not equipped with NLFM programs,
to powerfully apply NLFM in practice.13

Simplified model
Fig. 11(a) Numerical and experimental vertical displacements To further simplify the design approach, the numerical
along diagonal of Slab S5 at collapse; and (b) curve load curves of the abaci could be approximated by closed-form
versus crack opening displacement for Slab S5. equations, which also provide the minimum slab thickness

556 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2006

Fig. 12Design abacus from NLFM model (circled lines) and
prediction with proposed simplified equation (dashed lines).

once the design load and the material and soil properties
are known.
By considering the main geometrical and mechanical
parameters governing the slab behavior, the load-carrying
capacity of FRC slabs on ground can be written in the Fig. 13(a) Typical load-CTOD curve determination from
following form Italian Standard; and (b) crack opening ranges used for
calculation of equivalent strength.22
1 2 3 4 5
A
F u = c 1 -----L- B k w f If f res + c 2 (1)
2
L

where AL is the loading area; B is the slab stiffness defined as

3
Ec t
------------------------
2
-
12 ( 1 )

where t is the slab thickness and is the Poissons ratio

(assumed equal to 0.18); fIf is the first cracking strength and
fres is an average residual strength that should represent the
post-cracking behavior of SFRC for smaller crack openings.
The latter two parameters are defined by the Italian
Standard22 as (in Fig. 13, fres is indicated as feq(0-0.6) for
smaller crack opening and feq(0.6-3) for larger crack opening)
P If s
f If = ------------------------
b ( h a0 )
2 loads calculated by the FE analyses and the ones predicted
CTOD 0 + 0.6
F(w)
------------ dw
W
CTOD 0
f res = ------------------------------------------------
0.6
where PIf is the (total) first-crack load, b is the beam width, h is
the beam depth, and a0 is the notch length.22 The International
Standards on SFRC characterization usually provide residual
strength values corresponding to both smaller and larger
crack openings. The latter is useless in slabs on ground because
the collapse occurs with small crack openings (Fig. 5(b)).
The unknown parameters i and ci of Eq. (1) were
determined by adopting the least square method, which
minimizes the square of the differences between the collapse
Fig. 14Correlation between collapse loads predicted with
NLFM model and with proposed approximated equation.
(2a)
by Eq. (1). In addition, for the sake of safety, it is imposed
that the approximated maximum load is always smaller
than the corresponding value determined by means of FE
analyses based on NLFM. Although this additional condition
reduces the accuracy of the approximated solution, it is
(2b) better used in structural design to obtain a safer evaluation
of the minimum thickness. Hence, the equation parameters
involving the best fitting analytical curve are determined by:
c1 = 1.894 105 mm0.466 N0.661 (1.5642 104 in.0.466
lb0.661); c2 = 1.316 106 N (2.959 105 lb); 1 = 0.012;
2 = 0.091; 3 = 0.062; 4 = 0.111; and 4 = 0.074.
The comparison between the minimum thickness calculated
by NLFM analyses and by Eq. (3) is shown in Fig. 12; note
the satisfactory agreement that is characterized by a correlation
coefficient of 0.94 (Fig. 14). The mean absolute value of the
prediction error is approximately 29.7% with a standard
deviation of 16.9%.

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2006 557

 From Eq. (2), the minimum slab thickness can be easily REFERENCES
determined (within the variable ranges here adopted), as a 1. Balugaru, P., and Shah, S. P., Fiber-Reinforced Cement, Composites,
function of the design parameters, in a closed form McGraw-Hill, 1992, 530 pp.
2. ACI Committee 325, Guide for Construction of Concrete Pavements
and Bases (ACI 325.9R-91 [Reapproved 1997]), American Concrete Institute,
3.648 0.087 Farmington Hills, Mich., 1991, 27 pp.
( FS F u c 2 ) L
s = k ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- (3) 3. di Prisco, R.; Felicetti, R.; and Plizzari, G. A., eds., Proceedings of the
0.043 0.333 0.227 0.406 0.271
AL Ec k w f If f res 6th RILEM Symposium on Fibre Reinforced Concretes (FRC), RILEM PRO
39, Bagneaux, France, 2004, 1514 pp.
4. di Prisco, M., and Plizzari, G. A., eds., Proceedings of the Interna-
where k is a constant equal to 1.261 1019 mm1.700 N2.412 tional Workshop Fiber Reinforced Concrete: From Theory to Practice,
(1.128 1015 in.1.700 lb2.412) and FS is the factor of Bergamo, Italy, Starrylink, Sept. 24-25, 2004, 222 pp.
5. ACI Committee 544, Design Considerations for Steel Fiber Reinforced
safety. Figure 12 shows the values of the minimum slab Concrete, ACI Structural Journal, V. 85, No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 1988, pp. 563-580.
thickness by using the abacus with NLFM (s = 230 mm 6. RILEM TC 162 TDF, Part 1: Test and Design Method for Steel Fiber
[9.06 in.]) and with Eq. (3) (s = 260 mm [10.24 in.]) for an Reinforced ConcreteRecommendations, Part 2: - Method, Materials
ultimate load of 600 kN (134.89 kips). and Structures/Materiaux et Constructions, V. 33, 2000, pp. 3-5.
7. Westergaard, H. M., Stresses in Concrete Pavements Computed by
Theoretical Analysis, Public Roads, V. 7, No. 2, 1926, pp. 25-35.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
8. Falkner, H.; Huang, Z.; and Teutsch, M., Comparative Study of Plain
The results presented herein lead to the following and Steel Fiber- Reinforced Concrete Ground Slabs, Concrete International,
concluding remarks: V. 17, No. 1, Jan. 1995, pp. 45-51.
A relatively low content of steel fibers effectively 9. Meyerhof, G. G., Load-Carrying Capacity of Concrete Pavements,
enhances the load-carrying capacity of slabs on ground Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundation, ASCE, V. 88, No. 3, 1962,
and makes the structural response more ductile; volume pp. 89-115.
10. British Concrete Society, Concrete Industrial Ground Floors: A
fraction of steel fibers higher than 0.38% slightly Guide to Design and Construction, Technical Report No. 34, 3rd Edition,
improve the ultimate load but remarkably enhance the 2003, 140 pp.
slab ductility; 11. Meda, A., Yield Line Method for SFRC Slab on Grade Design, Studies
The analyses of FRC slabs based on NLFM predict the and Researches, Milan University of Technology, V. 24, 2003, pp. 223-239.
slab response with appreciable accuracy. Extensive 12. Hillerborg, A.; Modeer, M.; and Petersson, P. E., Analysis of Crack
Formation and Crack Growth in Concrete by Means of Fracture Mechanics
parametric studies based on NLFM determine abaci and Finite Elements, Cement and Concrete Research, V. 6, 1976, pp. 773-782.
useful for design; 13. Meda, A., and Plizzari, G. A., New Design Approach for Steel
A simplified closed-form equation is proposed to provide Fiber-Reinforced Concrete Slabs-on-Ground Based on Fracture Mechanics,
an approximated value of the minimum slab thickness ACI Structural Journal, V. 101, No. 3, May-June 2004, pp. 298-303.
by considering the main physical parameters governing 14. Beckett, D., A Comparison of Thickness Design Methods for Concrete
Industrial Ground Floors, 4th International Colloquium on Industrial
the structural behavior of slabs on ground; and Floors, Jan. 12-16, 1999.
Preliminary results showed higher energy dissipation at 15. Kukreja, C. B., Ultimate Strength of Fiber-Reinforced Concrete
small crack openings for hybrid systems of fibers Slabs, Proceedings of the International Symposium on Fiber-Reinforced
(cocktail of fibers having different lengths) and encourage Concrete, Madras, India, Dec. 16-19, 1987, pp. 237-255.
further research on this topic. 16. Belletti, B.; Cerioni, R.; and Plizzari, G. A., Fracture in SFRC Slabs
on Grade, BEFIB 2004, M. di Prisco, R. Felicetti, and G. A. Plizzari, eds.,
Proceedings of the 6th RILEM Symposium on Fibre Reinforced Concretes
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS (FRC), RILEM PRO 39, Varenna, Italy, Sept. 20-22, 2004, pp. 723-732.
The research project was financed by Officine Maccaferri S.p.A., Bologna, 17. Banthia, N.; Yan, C.; and Bindiganavile, V., Development and
Italy, whose support is gratefully acknowledged. The authors are indebted Application of High-Performance Hybrid Fiber-Reinforced Concrete,
to V. E. Saouma for his kind agreement to use the finite element software Proceedings of the 5th RILEM International Symposium on Fiber-Reinforced
MERLIN. A special acknowledgment goes to engineers P. Martinelli and Concrete BEFIB, RILEM Bagneux, France, 2000, pp. 471-480.
L. Cominoli for their assistance in carrying out the experiments and in the 18. Sorelli, L. G., ed., Some Studies on the Assessment of the Toughness
data reduction. This research project was supported jointly by the Italian of Steel Fiber Reinforced Concrete with Emphasis on Hybrid Fiber Systems,
Ministry of University and Research (MIUR) within the project, Fiber Department of Civil Engineering of the University of Brescia, Brescia,
Reinforced Concrete for Strong, Durable, and Cost-Saving Structures and Italy, 2000, 370 pp.
Infrastructures (2004-2006).
19. Sorelli, L.; Meda, A.; and Plizzari, G. A., Bending and Uniaxial
Tensile Tests on Concrete Reinforced with Hybrid Steel Fibers, Journal of
NOTATION Materials in Civil Engineering, ASCE, V. 17, No. 5, 2005, pp. 519-527.
a0 = notch length of beam for fracture test 20. Lawler, J. S.; Zampini, D.; and Shah, S. P., Permeability of Cracked
b = width of beam for fracture test Hybrid Fiber-Reinforced Mortar Under Load, ACI Materials Journal,
Ec = Youngs modulus of concrete V. 99, No. 4, July-Aug. 2002, pp. 379-385.
Ec,core = Youngs modulus measured from concrete cylindrical cores 21. Plizzari, G. A., Experimental Study of Fracture Behavior of Concrete
Es = Youngs modulus of steel fiber Reinforced with Steel Fibers, Research Report for Officine Maccaferri,
fc,cube = concrete compressive strength measured from cubes Bologna, Italy, 2004. (in Italian)
fct = concrete tensile strength 22. UNI-11039, Steel Fibre Reinforced ConcretePart I: Definitions,
fct,core = concrete tensile strength measured on cylindrical cores Classification Specification and ConformityPart II: Test Method for
fft = steel tensile strength Measuring First Crack Strength and Ductility Indexes, Italian Board for
GF = specific fracture energy Standardization, 2003.
h = depth of beam for fracture test 23. ACI Committee 360, Design of Slabs on Grade (ACI 360R-92),
kw = subgrade modulus American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 1992, 57 pp.
L = side of the square slab 24. Reich, R. W.; Cervenka, J.; and Saouma, V. E., MERLIN, a Three-
Lf = fiber length Dimensional Finite Element Program Based on a Mixed-Iterative Solution
s = span of beam for fracture test Strategy for Problems in Elasticity, Plasticity, and Linear and Nonlinear
t = slab thickness Fracture Mechanics, EPRI: Palo Alto, Calif., 1994.
w = crack opening displacement (COD) 25. Roelfstra, P. E., and Wittmann, F. H., Numerical Method to Link
c = diameter of concrete cylinder Strain Softening with Failure of Concrete, Fracture Toughness and Fracture
f = fiber diameter Energy of Concrete, F. H. Wittmann, ed., Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1986,
= Poissons ratio pp. 163-175.

558 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2006

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.