Structures 2009: Don't Mess with Structural Engineers © 2009 ASCE 1058

Shear Strength of Steel Fiber Reinforced Prestressed Concrete

Beams

Authors:

Jae-Sung Cho, doctoral student, University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, TX, 76019,
jae.cho@mavs.uta.edu
Joe Lundy, Director of Structural Product Design, Hanson Pipe & Precast, Inc., Grand Prairie,
TX, 75050, Joe.Lundy@hanson.biz
Shih-Ho Chao, Assistant Professor, University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, TX, 76019
shchao@uta.edu

ABSTRACT
Due to the increasing evidence from previous research results, the 2008 ACI Building Code
allows engineers to use steel fiber reinforced concrete (SFRC) to replace the conventional shear
reinforcement (i.e. steel stirrups) even if the design shear force is greater than half of the concrete
shear strength. Though the new ACI provisions, marked a significant transfer from research to
practice, beams constructed of steel fiber reinforced concrete are required to have a minimum
amount of steel fibers of 0.75% in volume (100 pounds per cubic yards) and compressive
strength not greater than 6 ksi. The ACI provisions are primarily formulated on experimental
studies on non-prestressed concrete beams and majority of them had a cylinder compressive
strength less than 6 ksi. However, in a prestressed concrete beam, the beneficial effect from
prestressing forces could further relax the minimum required fiber volume fraction thus make the
use of SFRC more economical. Further, concrete compressive strengths much higher than 6 ksi
are commonly used in prestressed concrete beams to reduce the creep related issues as well as to
provide larger loading capacity. Therefore, the current ACI requirements will hinder the use of
SFRC in structures with prestressed concrete members made of high strength concrete.
This paper presents preliminary shear test results of large scale prestressed concrete beams
constructed of steel fiber reinforced concrete.

INTRODUCTION
Shear failure in plain concrete members is brittle in nature and consequently predisposes
structures to sudden collapse without any advance warning. One measure to protect concrete
members from brittle shear failure under excessive loads is to use fiber reinforced concrete
(FRC). Numerous research [e.g. Narayanan and Darwish, 1987; Adebar et al., 1997; Casanova
and Rossi, 1999; Kwak et al., 2002; Cucchiara et al., 2004] has been conducted on the shear
behavior of FRC over the past decades and the general conclusion is that, with proper mixture
design and with fibers selected for the appropriate material properties, FRC is capable of
considerably increasing performance in terms of shear strength and ductility when compared to
plain concrete [ACI Committee 544, 2002].
Despite the increasing evidence from previous research results, the American Concrete
Institute did not allow steel fiber reinforced concrete (SFRC) as an alternative for conventional
Structures 2009: Don't Mess with Structural Engineers © 2009 ASCE 1059

shear reinforcement (i.e. steel stirrups) until the 2008 ACI Building Code [Section 11.4.6, ACI
318-08, 2008]: “……when  0.5vc  vu   vc , steel fibers can be used to replace the minimum
shear reinforcement for flexural members (prestressed and nonprestressed) constructed of steel
fiber-reinforced concrete with f c compressive strength not exceeding 6 ksi, depth not greater than
24 inches, and shear stress vu not greater than  2 f c ”. A steel fiber volume fraction of 0.75%
(i.e., 100 lb steel fibers per cubic yard concrete) has been recommended as the minimum amount
that needs to be used [Section 5.6.6.2 ACI 318-08, 2008].
It should be noted that although this ACI provision applies to prestressed concrete, a major
structural material used in a significant array of structural applications, all prior investigation
results that lead to this new provision were based on experimental tests on nonprestressed beams
[Parra-Montesinos, 2006]. Due to the enhanced concrete shear strength coming from prestress, a
minimum amount fiber volume less than 0.75% is highly probable for prestressed members. This
in turn reduces the initial material costs and will provide an incentive for practicing engineers to
use this type of material. In addition, while complete replacement of transverse shear
reinforcement by steel fibers in typical reinforced concrete beams may not be the common case,
(i.e. vu   vc in typical reinforced concrete member), total replacement by steel fibers is very
likely in most common design problems involving prestressed beams. This is due to fact that the
minimum amount shear reinforcement generally prevails across the spectrum of typical
prestressed beams (  0.5vc  vu   vc ) [Naaman, 2004]. The elimination of stirrups will further
reduce the labor and construction costs.
Experimental results on the shear performance of steel fibers reinforced prestressed concrete
beams are very limited, and the majority of them are on small specimens (with a depth about 10
inches) [e.g. Padmarajaiah and Ramaswamy, 2001; Tan et al., 1995; Thomas and Ramaswamy,
2006]. As a consequence, the objective of this preliminary study is to conduct shear tests on large
scale steel fiber reinforced prestressed concrete (SFRPC) beams, to investigate the efficacy and
benefits mentioned above. The test results will define the contribution of steel fibers to the shear
resistance of SFRPC beams as well as verify and extend the use of the 2008 ACI provisions.

EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
Two large scale prestressed beams (one with plain concrete, and the other with 0.75% steel
hooked fibers) with a height of 24 inches and average compressive strength of 9.2 ksi were
designed as shown in Figure 1(a). It is noted that concrete compressive strengths at this level are
commonly used in prestressed concrete beams to reduce the creep related issues as well as to
provide larger loading capacity.
Both beams had the same geometry, where the longer span of the specimen was to be
reinforced by stirrups in order to insure that the shear failure occurs at the shear span under
investigation. The shear span to depth ratio was 3.0 (a = 63 in., dp = 21 in.). A total of six 0.5-
inch diameter prestressing strands (ASTM A416, Grade 270, stress relieved) were used in each
beam. Initial prestressing of 189 ksi was applied to each strand, which in turn gave an average
initial prestress of 380 psi in the beams. Additional nonprestressed mild steel (Grade 60) was
used to prevent premature flexural failure. This led to a total longitudinal reinforcement ratio of
1.6%. The concrete mixtures, with an average aggregate size of 1/2 inch, were prepared and cast
by professional workers at local precaster. The steel fibers used had hooked ends, aspect ratio of
80 (length = 2.4 in. and diameter = 0.03 in.), and a tensile strength of 152 ksi.
Structures 2009: Don't Mess with Structural Engineers © 2009 ASCE 1060

Experimental tests were conducted approximately six months after the beams were cast.
Load was monotonically applied through a hydraulic cylinder mounted on a steel reaction frame
(Figure 1(b)) in 5 kip increments up to the first visible cracking then in 10-20 kip increments up
to failure.

(a)

(b)
FIGURE 1 – (a) GEOMETRY OF THE LARGE-SCALE SFRPC BEAM TESTED IN THE PRELIMINARY
STUDY (UNIT: INCH); SHEAR SPAN TO DEPTH RATIO = 3.0; (b) TEST SETUP

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

A comparison of the total load and shear stress (in terms of f c ) versus displacement results
between conventional prestressed concrete (PC) and steel fiber reinforced prestressed concrete
Structures 2009: Don't Mess with Structural Engineers © 2009 ASCE 1061

(SFRPC) beams is shown in Figure 2. It is seen that the shear strength of the PC beam was
considerably enhanced by addition of steel fibers. The ultimate shear strength of the SFRPC
beam ( 5.6 f c ) is 2.2 times of the PC beam ( 2.5 f c ). Figure 2 also shows a higher ductility in
shear of the SFRPC beam compared to the plain concrete PC beam. It is noted that the
performance of SFRPC in shear was promising: a shear stress capacity of 5.6 f c and an average
concrete compressive strength, f c , of 9.2 ksi, both of which are significantly greater than the
limitation given by the ACI code. It is observed in the preliminary study that the load leading to
first cracking in the SFRPC beam is approximately two times of that in conventional PC beam,
thus indicating a better serviceability performance can be expected by using SFRC (see Figures 3
and 4).

350 6

300
5
First Cracking
250
4

f c
Load P (kips)

200

Shear Stress
3
150 Note: Shear Force V = 0.65P

2
100 SFRPC ( Vf =0 .75%)
PC (Control)
1
50

0 0
0 -0.5 -1 -1.5 -2 -2.5

Displacement under Loading Point (in.)

FIGURE 2 – LOAD AND SHEAR STRESS VERSUS DISPLACEMENT RESPONSES OF CONVENTIONAL

PC AND SFRPC BEAMS

Shear Behavior of PC Beam

Figure 3 shows the behavior of the test PC beam from first cracking up to failure. Figure 3(a)
indicates that the first visible flexural cracking occurred at a load of 85 kips (corresponding shear
force is 55.3 kips), which is slightly higher than the expected cracking load of 76 kips calculated
according to a modulus of rupture of 7.5 f c and effective prestress fpe = 150 ksi. The initiation
of primary flexure-shear was noticed at a load of 110 kips (shear force = 71.5 kips), as shown in
Figure 3(b).
It should be noted that the expected shear strength Vci, given in ACI (ACI Committee 318,
2008) Equation (11-10) and shown in below, is corresponding to the formation of the primary
flexure-shear crack rather than the ultimate strength [ACI Committee 318, 1965].

Vi M cre
Vci  0.6 f cbw d p  Vd  (1)
M max
Structures 2009: Don't Mess with Structural Engineers © 2009 ASCE 1062

where bw is beam width; dp is the distance from extreme compression fiber to centroid of
prestressing steel (= 21 in.); Vd is shear force at section (at the section the loading was applied)
due to unfactored dead load; Vi is factored shear force at section due to externally applied loads
occurring simultaneously with Mmax; Mcre is the moment causing flexural cracking at section due
to externally applied loads, ( I / yt )(6 f c  f pe  f d ) ; Mmax is the maximum factored moment at
section due to externally applied loads; yt is the distance from centroidal axis of gross section,
neglecting reinforcement, to tension face.
Vci calculated based on (1) is 67.1 kips which is slightly less than the observed shear force
(71.5 kips, or shear stress = 1.9 f c ). The percentage of longitudinal reinforcement ratio (1.6%)
used could have resulted in the higher shear force at which the primary flexure-shear crack
initiated [e.g. Hawkins and Kuchma, 2007].
It is also observed from Figure 3(b) that, due to the vertical compressive stress resulted from
the applied load, the primary flexure-shear crack deviated from its original path in the vicinity of
Point A and became flatter. Upon increased loading, this primary flexure-shear crack kept
extending beyond the loading point until crushing of the compression zone. The ultimate shear
force was 95.7 kips, which corresponding to a shear strength of 2.5 f c (see Figure 3(c)).
Figure 3(d) shows that a substantial crack slip resulted from the crushing of concrete in the
reduced compression zone.

Shear Behavior of SFRPC Beam

Figure 4 shows the behavior of SFRPC beam from first cracking load up to the loading right
before failure. As can be seen in Figure 4(a), compared to the PC beam, the first cracking was
significantly postponed due to the presence of steel fibers. While the primary flexure-shear crack
in SFRPC beam has an angle close to that of the PC beam, it deviated from the original path
(Point B in Figure 4(b)) much earlier than the one in the PC beam. This is due to the fact that,
higher stresses were required for the crack initiation and propagation in SFRPC beam, therefore
the principle stress state at Point B when the crack was approaching in the SFRPC beam is close
to that at Point A in the PC beam.
This premature deviation of primary flexure-shear crack led to a much larger compression
zone at the end of the crack in SFRPC beam, thus being able to engage arch action as the primary
shear transfer mechanism. It is noted that, as shown in the test, arch action cannot be engaged for
the conventional PC beam having a large shear span to depth ratio such as the one used in this
study [Fenwick and Paulay, 1968]. The larger compression zone, together with the higher
compressive strains at failure of SFRC materials [ACI Committee 544, 2002; Bencardino et al.,
2008], led to a concrete arch with greater strength and ductility under compression (see Figure
4(c)), as demonstrated in the load versus displacement response shown in Figure 2.
The failure occurred at a load of 327 kips (shear force = 212.6 kips, or shear stress = 5.6 f c )
due to instability of the crushed compression zone and a major splitting crack along the arch, as
shown in Figure 5(a). By comparing Figure 4(b) with Figure 5(a), it can be clearly seen that
shear failure was not caused by the primary flexure-shear crack but a new crack induced by the
failure of a compression strut. Figure 5(b) shows a close-up of the crushed compression zone,
which led to a significant slip of the shear crack. Contrary to PC beam (see Figure 3(d)), it can
also be seen that SFRPC beam exhibited much ductile behavior at the crushed compression zone.
Structures 2009: Don't Mess with Structural Engineers © 2009 ASCE 1063

PC at first cracking
(P = 85 kips; V = 55.3 kips)

(a)
Initiation of primary flexure-shear
crack (P = 110 kips; V = 71.5 kips)

A
Point where the primary
flexure-shear crack deviates

(b)

PC at ultimate
(P = 147 kips; V = 95.7 kips)

(c)

Width of Compression Zone

(d)

FIGURE 3 – FIRST CRACKING AND ULTIMATE SHEAR FAILURE OF PC BEAMS (NO SHEAR
REINFORCEMENT AT SHEAR SPAN)
Structures 2009: Don't Mess with Structural Engineers © 2009 ASCE 1064

SFRPC at first cracking

(P = 170 kips; V = 110.5 kips)

(a)

SFRPC at imminent failure

(P = 300 kips; V = 195 kips)

Point where the primary

B flexure-shear crack deviates

(b)

Cracking of compression zone

(c)

FIGURE 4 – FIRST CRACKING AND CRACK DISTRIBUTION AT IMMINENT SHEAR FAILURE OF

SFRPC BEAMS (0.75% STEEL HOOKED FIBER; NO SHEAR REINFORCEMENT AT SHEAR SPAN)
Structures 2009: Don't Mess with Structural Engineers © 2009 ASCE 1065

SFRPC at failure
(P = 327 kips; V= 212.6 kips)

Arch action and corresponding

splitting crack leads to failure

Primary flexure-shear crack

(a)

Width of Compression
Zone (End of Arch)

(b)
FIGURE 5 – ULTIMATE FAILURE BEHAVIOR OF SFRPC BEAMS (0.75% STEEL HOOKED FIBER;
NO SHEAR REINFORCEMENT AT SHEAR SPAN)

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

An investigation on the shear behavior of large scale steel fiber reinforced prestressed
concrete beam with moderate initial prestressing stress (380 psi) was conducted in this study.
The minimum amount of steel fiber (0.75% by volume) required by ACI 318-08 was used in the
beam, which had a concrete compressive strength (9.2 ksi) considerably higher than the allowed
value (6 ksi) specified in the ACI code. No shear reinforcement (stirrups) was used in the shear
span. A control specimen, with plain concrete and no shear reinforcement in the shear span was
also constructed for comparison purposes. The tests were performed under monotonic loading
applied at the location led to a shear span to depth ratio of 3.0 for both beams.
Experimental results showed that SFRPC beam had significantly better performance, in terms
of shear strength ( 5.6 f c ) and ductility, even with a high concrete compressive strength. Further
examination indicated that the enhanced behavior in shear of SFRPC beam was due to the
activation of arch action as the primary shear resisting mechanism. The attained high shear
strength also suggests a minimum amount fiber volume less than 0.75% is probable for replacing
conventional shear reinforcement in prestressed members.
The preliminary results are most encouraging and further investigation on the SFRPC
performance is on-going at the University of Texas at Arlington.
Structures 2009: Don't Mess with Structural Engineers © 2009 ASCE 1066

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Materials and specimens tested in this investigation were prepared and constructed by Hanson
Pipe & Precast at Grand Prairie, Texas. Their help is gratefully acknowledged.

REFERENCES

[1] ACI Committee 318, “Commentary on Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete (ACI 318-63),”
Report of ACI Committee 318, Standard Building Code, Publication SP-10, American Concrete Institute,
Detroit. 1965.
[2] ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete and Commentary (ACI 318-
08/ACI 318R-08),” American Concrete Institute, Detroit. 2008.
[3] ACI Committee 544, “State of the Art Report on Fiber Reinforced Concrete,” Report 544-1R-96 (Reapproved
2002),” ACI Committee 544, Fiber Reinforced Concrete, 2002.
[4] Adebar, P., Mindess, S., St.-Pierre, D., and Olund, B., “Shear Tests of Fiber Concrete Beams without Stirrups,”
ACI Structural Journal, V. 94, No. 1, Jam.-Feb., 1997, pp. 68-76.
[5] Bencardino, F., Rizzuti, L, Spadea, G., and Swamy, R. N., “Stress-Strain Behavior of Steel Fiber-Reinforced
Concrete in Compression,” Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 20, No. 3, March, 2008, pp.
255-263.
[6] Casanova, P. and Rossi, P., “High-Strength Concrete Beams Submitted to Shear: Steel Fibers versus Stirrups,”
Structural Applications of Fiber Reinforced Concrete, SP-182, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills,
MI, 1999, pp. 53-68.
[7] Cucchiara, C., Mendola, L. L., and Papia, M., “Effectiveness of Stirrups and Steel Fibres as Shear
Reinforcement,” Cement and Concrete Composites, V. 26, No. 7, Oct., 2004, pp. 777-786.
[8] Fenwick, R. C. and Paulay, T., “Mechanisms of Shear Resistance of Concrete Beams,” Journal of the Structural
Division, ASCE, Vol. 94, No. ST10, 1968, pp. 2235-2350.
[9] Hawkins, N. M., and Kuchma, D. A., “Application of LRFD Bridge Design Specifications to High-Strength
Structural Concrete: Shear Provisions,” NCHRP Report 579, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.
C., 2007.
[10] Kwak, Y.-K, Eberhard, M. O., Kim, W.-S., and Kim, J., “Shear Strength of Steel Fiber-Reinforced Concrete
Beams Without Stirrups,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 99, No. 4, July-Aug., 2002, pp. 530-538.
[11] Naaman, A. E., Prestressed Concrete Analysis and Design—Fundamentals, Second Edition, Techno Press 3000,
2004, 1072 pp.
[12] Narayanan R. and Darwish, I. Y. S., “Use of Steel Fibers as Shear Reinforcement,” ACI Structural Journal, V.
84, No. 3, May-June, 1987, pp. 216-227.
[13] Padmarajaiah, S. K. and Ramaswamy, A., “Behavior of Fiber-Reinforced Prestressed and Reinforced High-
Strength Concrete Beams Subjected to Shear,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 98, No. 5, Sep.-Oct., 2001. pp. 752-
761.
[14] Parra-Montesinos, G., “Shear Strength of Beams with Deformed Steel Fibers,” Concrete International, V. 28,
No. 11, Nov., 2006, pp. 57-66.
[15] Tan, K. H., Paramasivam, P., and Murugappan, K., “Steel Fiber as Shear Reinforcement in Partially Prestressed
Beams,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 92, No. 6, Nov.-Dec., 1995, pp. 643-652.
[16] Thomas. J. and Ramaswamy, A., “Shear Strength of Prestressed Concrete T-Beams with Steel Fibers over
Partial/Full Depth,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 103, No. 3, May-June, 2006, pp. 427-435.