Cement and Concrete Research 34 (2004) 1357 – 1364

Comparative evaluation of steel mesh, steel fibre and high-performance

polypropylene fibre reinforced shotcrete in panel test
O. Cengiz, L. Turanli*
Department of Civil Engineering, Middle East Technical University, METU 06531 Ankara, Turkey
Received 10 May 2001; accepted 19 December 2003

Abstract

In this study, experimental investigations were performed on steel mesh (SM), steel fibre (SF) and high-performance polypropylene fibre
(HPPF) reinforced shotcrete (HPPFRS) panels to evaluate performance characteristics such as toughness, flexural ductility, energy absorption
and load capacity. The panel tests, in accordance with European specification for sprayed concrete (EFNARC), were made on 18 prismatic
specimens having the same mix designs and were cured for 28 days but reinforced with various fibres. In addition, the rebound characteristics
of these mixes were determined to compare the actual in situ fibre contents.
Test results show that all reinforcements, including HPPFs that are low-modulus fibres, greatly improved the flexural ductility, toughness,
and load-carrying capacity of the brittle matrix. It was seen that there was a positive synergy effect between steel and polypropylene fibre in
hybrid fibre usage from a performance point of view. According to results, it can be concluded that a hybrid polypropylene-SF can be used
alternatively instead of SM and monosteel fibre as a reinforcement in shotcrete applications to get better efficiency in mechanical properties
of composite.
D 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Concrete; Composite; Fibre reinforcement; Fracture toughness; Panel test

1. Introduction difficult, time consuming, hazardous and expensive. In

addition, lining quality can be poor, i.e., no uniform bond
Shotcrete can be defined as ‘‘Mortar or concrete pneu- between shotcrete and rock, forming low-quality shadow
matically projected at high velocity on to a surface’’ [1]. areas behind the wire, and badly placed reinforcement due to
Steel-fibre reinforced shotcrete/concrete (SFRS/C) contains irregular mesh positions, etc. By contrast, fibres eliminate
discontinuous discrete steel fibres (SFs) as a reinforcement. the need for conventional concrete reinforcing steel, welded
Since the early 1970s, when the first experimental work was wire mesh or the chain-link mesh, and this alone results in a
undertaken with SFRS/C, it has been the subject of many significant enhancement of the ease of shotcrete placement.
field and laboratory studies [2– 4] and is the focus of many In addition, fibres impart toughness or energy-absorption
current investigations [5– 7]. In addition, it has been used capability to hardened shotcrete, resulting in improved
extensively in most parts of the world for a wide variety of deformability [11]. Additionally, SF-reinforced shotcrete
applications including new construction, in the repair and (SFRS), having high ductility, provides homogeneous fibre
rehabilitation of older and deteriorated structures, in slope reinforcement and strong bond to the surface [8].
stabilization, as retaining walls for large excavations, and for It is important to compare the behaviour of SM-reinforced
tunnel lining, etc. [8 –10]. Especially in underground con- shotcrete (SMRS) with that of SFRS from a performance
struction, it has become more common to use SF reinforce- characteristic point of view. In addition, new materials like
ment instead of steel-mesh reinforcement. In steel-mesh synthetic fibres have been also investigated to compare with
applications, the installation of steel mesh (SM) can be steel fibre in shotcrete/concrete [12 –17].
Synthetic fibres, e.g., high-performance polypropylene
fibre (HPPF), which has been used to prevent plastic
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +90-312-210-2429; fax: +90-312-210-
shrinkage cracks in fresh concrete, can be used at high
1262. addition rates to improve hardened concrete properties like
E-mail address: [email protected] (L. Turanli). toughness, flexural ductility, ultimate load capacity, etc.

0008-8846/$ – see front matter D 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.cemconres.2003.12.024
1358 O. Cengiz, L. Turanli / Cement and Concrete Research 34 (2004) 1357–1364

Toughness is the amount of energy that is absorbed Table 2

Sieve analysis of coarse aggregate in shotcrete
before and after fracture. Ductility and high-fracture strains
are also important characteristics of fibre-reinforced shot- Sieve number Cumulative percent passing
cretes (FRS) because the main reason for incorporating Coarse aggregate
fibres in concrete and shotcrete is to impart ductility to an 1 1/2 in. (37.5 mm) 100
otherwise brittle material. In addition, fibre reinforcement 1 in. (25.0 mm) 100
improves the energy absorption and crack resistance of 3/4 in. (19.0 mm) 100
1/2 in. (12.5 mm) 98.1
shotcrete [11]. With an increasing load on the composite,
3/8 in. (9.5 mm) 64.9
fibres will tend to transfer the additional stress to the matrix No. 4 (4.75 mm) 2.7
through bond stresses until they fail or pull out [18]. In this No. 8 (2.36 mm) 0
way, they enable shotcrete to continue to carry load after
cracking, the so-called postcracking behaviour [8].
2.2. Concrete mixtures
This study shows that the use of HPPF reinforcement in
shotcrete, with a sufficient fibre content, can greatly im-
Concrete mixes having 0.41 water/cement ratio and 2.5%
prove flexural ductility, toughness, and ultimate load capac-
air content values were prepared and sprayed into moulds.
ity and, therefore, it can be used with SF reinforcement,
The concrete mix proportions used in this experimental
especially in tunnel applications.
study are given in Table 3.

2.3. Experimental study

2. Materials and experimental work
In the design of SMRS, the steel mesh (diameter: 8 mm;
2.1. Materials
intervals: 150 mm; and weight: 23.5 kg/m3) was used as a
reinforcement. In the SFRS panels, the SF contents were 35
2.1.1. Cement
and 50 kg/m3, with a fibre length of 30 mm and a diameter of
An ordinary Turkish Portland Cement (PC 42.5,
0.6 mm. The volume percentages occupied by these fibres
corresponding to ASTM Type I) was used for the production
were 0.45% and 0.64% of 1 m3 of shotcrete, respectively. The
of concrete mixtures.
fibre had flattened ends with a round shaft and had an aspect
ratio of 50. In high-performance polypropylene fibre rein-
2.1.2. Aggregates
forced shotcrete (HPPRS) panels, the fibre contents were 7
A natural river sand having a particle size between 0 and
and 10 kg/m3, with a fibre length of 30 mm and a nominal
1 mm in 13% and a crushed stone having a particle size
filament diameter of 0.9 mm. The volume percentages
between 0 and 5 mm in 57% were used as fine aggregates.
occupied by these fibres were 0.78% and 1.1% of 1 m3 of
A sieve analysis of the fine aggregates in shotcrete is shown
shotcrete, respectively. In the hybrid panels, the SF and HPPF
in Table 1. In addition, the crushed stone having a particle
reinforcement contents were 30 and 5 kg/m3, corresponding
size between 5 and 12 mm was used as coarse aggregate in
to 0.38% and 0.55% volume percent, respectively.
30%. Table 2 shows the sieve analysis of the coarse
To investigate the toughness behaviour and the energy
aggregates.
absorption of FRS, well-known beam and panel tests have
been developed. Panel tests are generally considered to
2.1.3. Admixtures
better represent the relative behaviour of different FRSs in
The following admixtures were used in the shotcrete:
linings [15,16]. Panel-based performance assessment is
desirable because panels fail through a combination of stress
– Micro silica (a pozzolanic admixture)
actions that reflect the behaviour of an in situ lining more
– A high range water reducing admixture
closely than other mechanical tests [5,16]. In addition,
– An accelerating admixture added at the nozzle

Table 3
Table 1 Base concrete mix proportions (kg/m3)
Sieve analysis of fine aggregates in shotcrete
Materials Saturated surface dry Dry
Sieve number Cumulative percent passing
Cement 500 500
Fine aggregate (0 – 1) Fine aggregate (0 – 5) Water 205 245
3/8 in. (9.5 mm) 100 100 Aggregate
No. 4 (4.75 mm) 100 95.7 (F.A.-1) 218 213
No. 8 (2.36 mm) 98.4 62.7 (F.A.-2) 906 880
No. 16 (1.18 mm) 95.3 37.5 (C.A.) 490 482
No. 30 (600 Am) 87.8 24.8 Admixture (microsilica) 25 25
No. 50 (300 Am) 34.3 2.8 High water reducing admixture 10 10
No. 100 (150 Am) 11.3 2.0 Accelerator added at nozzle 7.0% by mass of cement
 O. Cengiz, L. Turanli / Cement and Concrete Research 34 (2004) 1357–1364 1359

Fig. 1. Set-up for EFNARC Panel Test (dimensions in mm).

according to Bernard [5], although the actual behaviour and 3. Test results and discussions
load capacity of a continuous lining differs from that of
panels tested with simple support conditions, statically The load – deformation curves (Figs. 2 and 3) were
determinate and simple support conditions are more suitable obtained as an average of the results of the tests performed
for the purpose of routine performance assessment than rigid on six groups having three panels each: SMRS, SFRS 35
modes of restraint in panel tests due to ease of calculations. and 50 HPPFRS 7 and 10, and mix of SFRS 30 + HPPRS 5
In this study, EFNARC panel test [19], in which square panels.
EFNARC panels tested with simple support conditions, was Then, the energy– deformation curves (Figs. 4 and 5) were
used to provide a relative measure of shotcrete mix perfor- found by integrating the area under these curves, giving the
mance involving a mode of loading that approximates in situ absorbed energy as a function of the panel deflection [19].
conditions. The average results for the first-peak load, the maximum load
As can be seen from Fig. 1, a test panel of 600  and the energy absorption, in Joules, for a deflection of 25
600  100 mm was simply supported on its four edges by mm for shotcrete panels can be seen in Table 4.
a rigid metallic frame. A centre point load was applied using The criterion for the evaluation of the material toughness
a 400 kN Universal Testing Machine through a contact of the panel test is the energy absorption class (Table 5; [19]).
surface of 100  100 mm. The rate of deformation at the For tunnel repair jobs, the SNCF (French railway company)
midpoint was nearly 1.5 mm/min. The panels were stored in specifies energy absorption of 500 J for a deflection of 25
water for 28 days immediately before testing and kept moist mm [8,20].
during testing. EFNARC specifies that the prepared panels As seen from Figs. 2 and 4, and Table 4, the first-peak and
shall be stored in water for a minimum of 3 days [19]. ultimate loads of SFRS 50 are the highest loads; but after the

Fig. 2. Comparison of the load – deflection curves for SMRS, SFRS 35 and SFRS 50 panels at the age of 28 days.
1360 O. Cengiz, L. Turanli / Cement and Concrete Research 34 (2004) 1357–1364

Fig. 3. Comparison of the load – deflection curves for HPPRS 7, HPPRS 10 and mix of SFRS 30 + HPPRS 5 panels at the age of 28 days.

Fig. 4. Comparison of the energy – deflection curves for SMRS, SFRS 35 and SFRS50 panels at the age of 28 days.

peak load, the load-carrying capacity of SFRS 50 drops deflection of 9 mm. However, its energy absorption up to the
faster than SMRS and indicates a very unstable zone. On the deflection of 25 mm is 1.5 times that of SFRS 50.
other hand, in the unstable zone, SMRS shows better load- The main reason of SMRS panel having higher energy
carrying capacity and energy absorption than others. In absorption capacity than SFRS panel is that the bond and the
addition, for SMRS, after the first-peak load, there is a friction stresses between the SM and the shotcrete matrix are
decrease in load-carrying capacity up to a deflection of 2.5 much greater than that between the SFs and the shotcrete
mm; but after that, the load capacity increases and reaches its matrix. The SM has enough bond length that enables it to
ultimate value, which is smaller than that of SFRS 50, at a show strain hardening in the plastic zone after yielding point.
In other words, the section of the curve of SMRS panels in the
inelastic zone (the section between points of a deflection of
Table 4 2.5 and 9 mm) shows increases in deformation with increases
Comparison of the average values of first-peak load (kN), ultimate load
(kN) and energy absorption (J) to a deflection of 25 mm
Types of First-peak Ultimate Energy absorption
shotcretes load (kN) load (kN) at 25 mm (J) Table 5
Energy absorption requirements according to EFNARC
SMRS 67.5 72.5 1308
SFRS 35 65.0 65.0 664 Toughness class Energy absorption for
SFRS 50 75.0 75.0 846 deflection up to 25 mm (J)
HPPRS 7 70.0 70.0 716 a 500
HPPRS 10 50.0 50.0 751 b 700
MIX 35 65.0 65.0 965 c 1000
 O. Cengiz, L. Turanli / Cement and Concrete Research 34 (2004) 1357–1364 1361

Fig. 5. Comparison of the energy – deflection curves for HPPRS 7, HPPRS 10 and mix of SFRS 30 + HPPRS 5 panels at the age of 28 days.

in load. This event causes the increase of the load-carrying the HPPRS 10 and SFRS 30 + HPPRS 5 hybrid panels; but
and energy absorption capacities of SMRS panel. after the peak load, the load-carrying capacity of HPPRS 7
On the other hand, in SFRS panels, after reaching their falls significantly, just like that of SFRS 50, and indicates a
ultimate loads, there are noted significant decreases in load- very unstable zone. On the other hand, in the unstable zone
carrying capacities. After the first cracking of the matrix, the HPPRS 10 shows better load carrying and energy absorption
composite carried the increasing loads by the pullout resis- capacity than HPPRS 7. Comparing the HPPRS 7 with
tance of the fibres due to the fact that the matrix has very low HPPRS 10, the energy absorption of HPPRS 10 is slightly
tensile strength. With an increasing load, the fibres trans- greater than that of HPPRS 7. This situation is different than
ferred the additional stresses to the matrix through bond that of the SFRS, where an increase in fibre content
stresses, and additional cracking was observed in the matrix increased the ultimate load and energy absorption capacity.
because these bond stresses were smaller than the bond In HPPRS, an increase in the fibre content decreased the
strength of the fibres. This process of multiple cracking ultimate load capacity, but the energy absorption did not
continued until the accumulated local debonding caused show much increase. Additionally, the results for HPPRS 7
fibre pullout. Slipping off fibres from shotcrete matrix are better than that of SFRS 35 but slightly inferior to SFRS
prevents SFs from absorbing the tensile forces present. 50. It should be noted that although the fibre content of
While the width of the cracks was increasing, they did not HPPRS is lower than that of SFRS 35 and SFRS 50, in mass
show plastic deformation with strain hardening, and this basis, it is higher in volumetric basis.
decreased the degree of toughness and ductility of the In comparison of the HPPRS 5 + SFRS 30 hybrid panels
composite. with SFRS 35, it can be seen that their ultimate loads are
Apart from these observations, it can be said that an nearly equal, but the effect of the addition of HPP fibres
increase in fibre content for an optimum value enhances the provides a softening in the load deflection curve. The area
load-carrying and energy absorption capacities for SFRS. under the curve is much larger than that of SFRS 35 and,
As can be seen from Figs. 3 and 5 and Table 4, the first- correspondingly, the ductility and energy absorption up to a
peak and ultimate loads of HPPRS 7 are higher than that of deflection of 25 mm of the hybrid mix shotcrete is nearly

Table 6
Comparison of average fibre quantities after shooting for shotcrete mixes
Types Core weight Fibre weight Core volume Concrete weight Fibre content Fibre amount Fibre rebound
(A) [g] (B) [g] (E) [cm3] (C) [gr] (D) [%] ( F) [kg/m3] ( G) [%]
SFRS 35 1745 14.6 785.4 1730.4 0.84 18.6 46.86
SFRS 50 1785 22.2 785.4 1762.8 1.26 28.3 43.40
HPPRS 7 1758 4.8 785.4 1753.2 0.27 6.1 12.86
HPPRS 10 1748 7.0 785.4 1740.9 0.40 9.0 10.30
MIX 35a 1755 18.2 785.4 1736.8 1.04 23.2b 33.86
C = Concrete weight (g): C = A B.
Calculation of the fibre content (%): D = (B/C)  100.
Calculation of the actual fibre amount (kg/m3): F = B/E.
Calculation of the fibre rebound (%): For example, for SFRS 35, the theoretical fibre amount is 35 kg/m3. The actual fibre quantity F = 18.60 kg/m3 (as shown
in the table). The fibre rebound (%): G = 35 18.60/35 = 46.86%.
a
MIX 35 = 5 kg/m3 HPPF + 30 kg/m3 SF
b
4.1 kg/m3 HPPF + 19.1 kg/m3 SF-1 = 23.2 kg/m3
1362 O. Cengiz, L. Turanli / Cement and Concrete Research 34 (2004) 1357–1364

1.5 times that of SFRS 35. It should be also noted that

although the fibre content of the hybrid mix shotcrete is
equal to that of SFRS 35 in mass basis, it is higher in
volumetric basis.
One of the probable reasons of HPPRS panels showing
better performance than SFRS panels is that they have
higher fibre content than SFRS panels in volumetric basis;
that is, an increase in fibre content for an optimum value
increased the load-carrying and energy absorption capaci-
ties. In addition, it was observed that although the homo-
geneously distributed HPP fibres have very low Young’s
modulus, nearly 3500 MPa, and they are expected to have
little effect on crack propagation, they showed better
adherence and bond, being geometrically engineered to
anchor mechanically with high friction stresses to the
shotcrete.
Shotcrete was applied traditionally using dry-mix process Fig. 7. Failure pattern of the SF30 + HPP 5 after the panel test.
in this study. The drawbacks of this process include a dusty
shooting environment and excessively high material From this table, by comparing the fibre rebound percen-
rebounds, which, in the case of fibrous mixes, consist tages, it can be seen that the rebound percentage of SFs is
essentially of coarse aggregates and fibres [21]. Rebound nearly four times greater than that of HPP fibre. The fibre
of fibres during shooting of shotcrete mixes at the tunnel site rebound percentage of hybrid mix is lower than that of
decreases the fibre content in them, causing adverse effects SFRS 35 due to the usage of HPPF instead of SF. According
on mechanical and economical properties. to results, confirming other studies [15], HPP fibre usage
The rebound characteristics of the FRS panels, i.e., their highly reduces rebound because HPPFs with very low
actual in situ fibre contents, were determined according to specific gravity, nearly 0.91, are more convenient to mix
the following procedure. First, the cores in dimensions of and to shoot with shotcrete.
10  10 cm in diameter and height were taken from the Figs. 6, 7 and 8 show the failure mode of the panels. The
shotcrete panels having dimensions of 50  50  20 cm. SMRS panels failed mainly in a punching shear mode and
They were weighted and then crushed under a huge load. also showed evidence of a flexural failure mode due to the
Subsequently, SF and PP fibres in crushed core specimens concrete having some tensile strength with strong friction
were accumulated by magnetism and by hand, and after that, and bond between the SM and concrete matrix, thus
they were weighted. Finally, the fibre content (%), fibre increasing the punching shear capacity, relatively in little
quantity (kg/m3) in FRS and fibre rebound percent (%) were amount, although not having shear reinforcement. On the
tabulated (Table 6). other hand, the mix of steel fibre and HPPF panels, and of
steel-fibre reinforced shotcrete panels with HPPRS panels
failed mainly in a flexural mode with some punching shear.
As the load increased, the underside of the panels developed

Fig. 6. Failure pattern of SMRS panel after the panel test. Fig. 8. Failure pattern of the HPPRS 7 after the panel test.
 O. Cengiz, L. Turanli / Cement and Concrete Research 34 (2004) 1357–1364 1363

a series of cracks, radiating outward to the edges from the performance characteristics point of view for HPPRS
centrally loaded area. The failure is caused predominantly nearly at about 7 kg/m3 fibre content because an excess
by the damage from the radial cracks. The fibres that are of fibres may also have adverse effects on strength due to
regularly distributed, mainly two or three, dimensionally in the introduction of additional defects during the process-
the panel, can work partly as shear reinforcement by ing stage.
increasing the shear capacity with ductility. 4. Comparing the results of HPPRS 7 with SFRS 35, it
Apart from these observations, by comparing Figs. 4 and appears that there may be an optimum point at which it
5 with Table 5, it can be noted that: may be possible to use HPP fibre instead of SF.
5. This research shows that there is a positive synergy
– SMRS achieved Class b (700 J) at a deflection of 8 mm and effect between steel and polypropylene fibre on load
exceeded Class c (1000 J) at deflections of 17 and 25 mm. carrying capacity, ductility and toughness. Using HPP
– SFRS 50 achieved Class a (500 J) at a deflection of 8 mm fibre with steel fibre in FRS greatly enhanced the
and exceeded Class b (700 J) at deflections of 15 and 25 performance. It can be concluded that hybrid fibre
mm. system is more efficient than monofibre system from a
– SFRS 35 achieved Class a (500 J) at a deflection of 13 performance point of view, if fibres are used in proper
mm and was in the same class at a 25-mm deflection. amounts.
– HPPRS 7 achieved Class a (500 J) at a deflection of 12 6. All shotcretes reached the toughness class of a (500 J) at
mm and exceeded Class b (700 J) at deflections of 23 and a deflection of 25 mm, which is specified by SNCF [20]
25 mm. for tunnel repair jobs.
– HPPRS 10 achieved Class a (500 J) at a deflection of 14
mm and exceeded Class b (700 J) at deflections of 21 and
25 mm. Acknowledgements
– The mix of HPPRS 5 and SFRS 30 achieved Class a (500
J) at a deflection of 10 mm and exceeded Class b (700 J) The authors would like to thank the construction
at deflections of 15 and 25 mm. company of Astaldi-Bayindir JV and the admixture
company of Yapi Kimya Sanayi A.S. for providing support
for our experimental study.
4. Conclusions

The experimental investigation was performed on steel References

mesh, steel fibre, HPPF and a mix of SF + HPPFRS panels to
evaluate performance characteristics such as toughness, [1] American Concrete Institute (ACI) 506R-85.
flexural ductility behaviour, energy absorption and load [2] V. Ramakrishnnnan, W.V. Coyle, L.F. Dahl, K.E. Shrader, A compa-
rative evaluations of fiber shotcretes, Concr. Int. Design Constr. 3 (1)
capacity. In addition, the rebound characteristics of these (1981 January) 70 – 74.
mixes were determined to compare the fibre amounts after [3] D.R. Morgan, D.N. Mowat, A comparative evaluation of plain, mesh
shooting. and steel fibre reinforced shotcrete, ACI SP 81-15 (1984) 307 – 324.
As a result of this investigation, the following conclu- [4] D.R. Morgan, Steel fibre shotcrete: a laboratory study, Concr. Int.
sions are derived: Design Constr. 3 (1) (1981 January) 70 – 74.
[5] S.E. Bernard, Flexural behaviour in square steel fibre reinforced
concrete slabs, Proceedings of CONSEC’98 Conference, Tromso,
1. The addition of HPP fibre that is low modulus to the Norway, (1998 June 21 – 24).
shotcrete enhanced toughness, flexural ductility, energy [6] S.E. Bernard, The behaviour of round steel fibre reinforced concrete
absorption and load capacity with punching; shear panels under point loads, Mat. Struct. 33 (2000 April) 181 – 188.
[7] Y. Ding, W. Kusterle, Comparative study of steel fibre-reinforced
capacity also significantly increased.
concrete and steel mesh-reinforced concrete at early ages in panel
2. By comparing the rebound characteristics of the fibres, it tests, Cem. Concr. Res. 29 (11) (1999) 1827 – 1834.
can be concluded that using HPP fibre in shotcrete is [8] M. Vandewalle, Tunnelling the World, Bekaert S.A., Belgium, 1997.
very advantageous because it does not only cause an [9] H.C. Henager, Steel fibrous shotcrete: a summary of the state of-the-
increase in performance of shotcrete but also a reduction art, Concr. Int. Design Constr. 3 (1) (1981 January) 55 – 58.
the loss of fibres due to rebound. Reduction in rebound [10] D.R. Morgan, A. Fekete, Steel fibre reinforced shotcrete for under-
ground support, Indian J. Rock Mech. Tunn. Technol. 4 (1) (1998
has also significant financial implications. By increasing March) 1 – 41.
the fibre loss reduction (fibres as the most expensive [11] D.R. Morgan, L. Chen, D. Beaupre, Toughness of fibre reinforced
component of the shotcrete mix), HPPFs also improve shotcrete, ASCE Shotcr. Undergr. Support VII (1995) 66 – 87 (Telfs,
the economical attractiveness of FRS. Austria).
3. An increase in the HPP fibre content from 7 to 10 kg/m3 [12] D.R. Morgan, N. McAskill, B.W. Richardson, R.C. Zellers, A com-
parative evaluation of plain, polypropylene fibre, steel fibre and wire
did not impart a huge increase in toughness and, in mesh reinforced shotcrete, Transp. Res. Rec. 1226 (1989) 78 – 87
contrast to SF, caused a decrease in first-peak load. (Washington, D.C.).
Therefore, there may be an optimum value from a [13] D.R. Morgan, L. Rich, High volume synthetic fibre reinforced shot-
1364 O. Cengiz, L. Turanli / Cement and Concrete Research 34 (2004) 1357–1364

crete, First Annual Synthetic Fibre Reinforced Concrete Symposium, [18] P.K. Mehta, P.J.M. Monteiro, Concrete, Microstructure, Properties,
Orlando, FL, (1998 January 16) 115 – 132. and Materials, 2nd ed., The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 1993,
[14] D.R. Morgan, R. Heere, N. McAskill, C. Chan, System ductility of p. 405.
mesh and fibre reinforced shotcrete, Seminar on Advances in Shot- [19] European Federation of Producers and Applications of Specialist
crete Technology, American Concrete Ýnstitute Spring Convention, Products for Structures, European Specification for Sprayed Concrete,
Chicago, (1999 March 17) 36. EFNARC, Loughborough University, 1996, pp. 8 – 10.
[15] D.R. Morgan, R. Heere, N. McAskill, C. Chan, Comparative eval- [20] Plate Test, Realized by French Railway Company (SNCF), together
uation of system ductility of mesh and fibre reinforced shotcrete, with the Alpes Essais Laboratory of Grenoble (a slab test developed to
ASCE Shotcr. Undergr. Support, (1999 April 11 – 15) 216 – 239 characterize SFRC).
(Sao Paulo). [21] N. Banthia, J.-F. Trottier, D. Wood, D. Beaupre, Influence of fiber
[16] S.E. Bernard, Measurement of post-cracking performance in fibre geometry in steel fiber reinforced dry-mix shotcrete, Concr. Int. De-
reinforced shotcrete, Australian Shotcrete Conference, October 8 – 9, sign Constr., (1992 March) 24 – 28.
Sydney, Australia, (1998) 16.
[17] C.X. Qian, P. Stroeven, Development of hybrid polypropylene-steel
fibre-reinforced concrete, Cem. Concr. Res. 30 (2000) 63 – 69.