Feasibility of crack free reinforced concrete bridge deck from materials composition perspective: a state of the art review

Abstract

Early age cracking on bridge deck has been the subject of many studies for years. Cracking is a major concern because it leads to premature deterioration of structures. Millions of dollars spent to repair the cracked bridge decks each year. To design an appropriate mixture for crack free bridge deck, it is important to study previous researches. This paper presents a comprehensive literature review of the performance of different materials compositions as well as methods have been used to reduce and control bridge deck cracks. Different material compositions and methods are discussed in terms of their performances as well as advantages and disadvantages.

Keywords

bridge deck / crack / fiber / shrinkage / shrinkage reducing admixture

1 Introduction

Traditionally, concrete structures designers only interested about the strength of concrete; but nowadays they know that durability of concrete is also playing an important role on design of concrete structures. In other words, service life is one of the main factors in design of new concrete structures [1].

It has been well established that concrete cracks and it cannot be prevented, but it can be reduced and controlled. Early age cracking on bridge deck is one of the main concerns because it leads to premature deterioration (e.g., corrosion) of structures. Shrinkage cracking is a common issue (even for new constructions) particularly for structures with high surface to volume ratio such as bridge deck. For instance, the Valley of Fire and Echo Wash bridges in Lake Mead National recreation area (USA) showed early-age cracking within six months of their construction completions. There were 133 and 91 cracks on the top and underside of the Valley of Fire bridge deck, respectively. For the Echo Wash bridge deck, they were even more, 150 cracks on the topside and 105 cracks on the underside. The width of cracks ranged from 0.025 to 1.14 mm and they were from 0.25 to 6.9 m long [2].

The additional cost at the initial stage of construction (such as fibers and shrinkage reducing admixtures (SRA)) to avoid cracking is relatively small compared with repair expenses that is also more difficult to perform, thus it would be better to prevent deterioration from the beginning. For example, the annual cost of deck treatment (to seal deck cracks with Methacrylate) is approximately $50 million for California Department of transportation (Caltrans) alone, but those decks could be fixed with spending only $2 million more in time of construction [3].

Understanding the shrinkage mechanism is the first step to find a remedy for this issue. Three most common shrinkage types of concrete that have been studied by numerous researchers are autogenous, plastic, and drying shrinkage. Autogeneous shrinkage happens because of cement hydration process (shrinkage without water loss). When the rate of loss of water from the surface exceeds the rate of bleed of water, plastic shrinkage occurs and drying shrinkage happens because of the moisture loss [1].

Saadeghvaziri and Hadidi [4] did a comprehensive review on cause and control of bridge deck cracking in terms of materials compositions and mix design that will be discussed in details in the following section.

This study compiles 81 published studies (from 1968 to 2014 [5–67]) that used fibers and SRAs to reduce early age cracking on bridge deck. Table A1 shows different types of shrinkage as well as boundary condition of specimens that have been studied by each study. The fibers and SRAs proportions and properties can be found on Table A2. The following section presents more details about the effect of fibers and SRAs on shrinkage of concrete.

2 Materials, mix design, weather, and construction parameters

The following section discusses effects of material compositions and concrete mix design as well as ambient and construction factors on cracking of bridge decks. First, effects of conventional materials in concrete (aggregate, cement, and water) as well as some fresh properties will be discussed and afterwards effect of fibers and SRA will be reviewed in more details. Furthermore, how weather and construction factors can affect the cracks will be scrutinized.

2.1 Materials and mix design

Previous researches showed that using largest possible size and low shrinkage aggregate [68–70] with maximizing aggregate volume [71,72] in concrete mix will reduce cracking. Babaei and Purvis [69] suggested using high specific gravity for coarse and fine aggregate with absorption less than 0.5% and 1.5%, respectively. Many studies observed that Type II cement reduces cracking because of low early thermal gradient [69,70]. The higher amount of cement (higher drying shrinkage and temperature rise during hydration) in concrete mix leads to the higher risk of cracking [70–73]. The maximum acceptable cement content (390 to 445 kg/m³) have been suggested by different studies [69,72]. Several studies [68,71–73] also reported less cracking with reduction in water cement ratio (maximum 0.40 to 0.48). Some researchers [68,69,73,74] reported with reducing slump (maximum 60 to 70 mm) and increase in air content (minimum 6%) [73,75] less cracks observed. In terms of admixtures, Krauss and Rogalla [70] test results showed that retarders reduce deck cracking. Some studies observed that use of silica fume [70,73] and calcium chloride and triethanolamine [70] increase risk of cracks.

2.2 Fiber

Two most common fibers used in concrete are steel and synthetic fibers. This section explains about the effect of steel fibers on bridge deck cracking that follows by synthetic fibers.

2.2.1 Steel fiber

The mechanical properties, free shrinkage, and restrained shrinkage of steel fiber concrete discussed below.

2.2.1.1 Mechanical properties

Paillere et al. [11] used 0.8% by volume of hooked steel fibers and observed that the 7th and 28th day compressive strengths were lowered about 15 and 10 percent, respectively compared with the control specimen. In terms of splitting tensile strength, Shah and Weiss [48] reported no significant difference between fiber reinforced concrete (FRC) and the control specimen. Shah and Weiss [48] also observed that the maximum increase in elastic modulus was only 2% higher for the FRC at different age irrespective of the fiber volume in the mixture.

2.2.1.2 Free shrinkage

Swamy and Stavrides [7] tested the lightweight aggregate concrete with 51 mm steel fiber mixes (both 0.5% and 1% volume fraction) and reported a reduction of free shrinkage around 6% at 100 days for 0.5% of straight fibers, but it decreased to 21% and 14% for 1% of straight and crimped fibers, respectively. Grzybowski and Shah [12], Altoubat and Lange [33], and Shah and Weiss [48] observed no significant difference on drying shrinkage between FRC and the control specimen.

2.2.1.3 Restrained shrinkage

Swamy and Stavrides [7] observed that the rings with 0.5% and 1% steel fibers (both straight and crimped) showed no visible surface cracks even after 50 and 250 days, respectively. However, the control specimen cracked on the 14th day with a crack width of 1.0 mm. Grzybowski and Shah [12] reported the average crack width of 1 mm for the control specimen, whereas for a FRC specimen (0.25% steel fiber), it was around one-fifth the value of the control specimen. Nanni et al. [18] observed no significant difference in cracking time between the control specimen and FRC specimens, but they reported less cracking for the FRC specimen. Banthia et al. [17] and Balagura [20] also reported reduction in crack area and width for the FRC panels.

Banthia and Yan [22] found that the fibers with a higher aspect ratio (length/ diameter) are generally more effective in controlling cracks. They also introduced a new parameter, S_f, which appears to be a better indication of fiber performance in controlling shrinkage (S_f: the fiber surface area in a unit volume of the composite). Mesbah and Buyle-Bodin [27] found that fibers are more efficient in decreasing width of crack compared to reducing free shrinkage. Sun et al. [30] reported that the effect of fiber on drying shrinkage was depending on the elastic modulus of the fiber besides its size and volume fraction.

Altoubat and Lange [33] observed that the steel fiber delayed the fracture of restrained concrete, and the delay was depending on water to cement ratio (w/cm). For example, the fracture was delayed by 45, 21, and 14% for the mixtures with w/cm of 0.32, 0.4, and 0.5, respectively. Voigt et al. [42] used crimped, profiled, flat end, and hooked end steel fibers with different length from 20 to 50 mm in concrete. The fiber flat end 30 mm showed the best-performing reinforcement, concerning age of first crack and maximum crack width. The cracking age increased from 22 to 27 days for fiber volume of 0.125 to 0.5 compared with 15 days for the control specimen. Shah and Weiss [48] reported the stress developing prior to visible cracking is similar for both FRC and the control specimen. The age of visible cracking is slightly delayed by the inclusion of randomly distributed steel fibers presumably due to the fibers ability to arrest cracking before the crack propagates across the specimen. Kwon et al. [56] observed a 0.8 mm crack width at 15 days for the control specimen, but it decreased to 0.1mm at the same age for the FRC.

2.2.2 Synthetic fiber

The following section discusses how synthetic fibers affect plastic, free, and restrained shrinkage of concrete.

2.2.2.1 Plastic Shrinkage

Soroushian et al. [19] reported that polypropylene (PP) fibers reduce the total plastic shrinkage crack area and maximum crack width at 0.1 percent fiber volume fraction. On the average, 19 mm fibers had 13%, 57%, and 55% less crack areas than 13 mm fibers at 0.05%, 0.1%, and 0.2% fiber volume fractions, respectively. The maximum crack widths with 19 mm fibers were, on the average, 47%, 33%, and 36% less than those for 13 mm fibers at 0.05. 0.1 and 0.2 percent fiber volume fractions, respectively. Ramakrishnan [31] found 92% crack reduction with using only 0.5% fibers. With 1% of synergy fibers, the crack reduction was 98%. There was absolutely no plastic shrinkage cracking when 2% of fibers were used. Bayasi and McIntyre [36] reported that 0.1% fiber is enough to eliminate plastic shrinkage cracks for the mix with 5% silica fume, but when silica fume increased to 10% in the mix, at least 0.3% fiber is needed to have no cracks. Najm and Balaguru [37] reported that PP fibers contribute to the reduction of plastic shrinkage cracking of cement mortar even at low volume fractions. Their results also revealed that longer fibers were more effective than short fibers in reducing cracks. Qi et al. [40] reported that with increasing fiber volumes, plastic shrinkage cracks have smaller widths. Naaman et al. [43] concluded that effect of volume fraction of fiber is more important than length of fiber and fiber with diameter smaller than 40 micron; aspect ratio above 200; and volume fraction 0.2 to 0.4% will eliminate plastic shrinkage. Banthia and Rishi [50] found that PP fibers are highly effective in controlling plastic shrinkage cracking in concrete. In general, fibers reduced the total crack area, maximum crack width and the number of cracks. With increasing fiber volume fraction, effectiveness of fiber reinforcement increases. They found that longer fibers were more effective in reducing crack areas and crack widths. Finally, fibrillated fibers were more effective in controlling shrinkage cracking than their comparable monofilament counterparts. Sivakumar and Santhanam [53] reported up to 90% reduction in plastic shrinkage cracks with using 0.5% fibers. Boghossian and Wegner [57] test results showed that 0.1% flax fibers in mix reduced the total projected area of cracks on the surface by 95% and 90% of maximum crack widths were less than 0.18 mm. With increasing the fiber volume to 0.3%, these reductions were 99.5% and 98.5%, respectively.

2.2.2.2 Free shrinkage

Grzybowski and Shah [12] and Sarigaphuti et al. [16] reported that addition of PP fibers does not significantly change the drying shrinkage. Altoubat and Lange [33] found that the addition of PP slightly increased the free shrinkage of the concrete. Brown et al. [54] results showed that FRC mixtures (PP) exhibited slightly less free shrinkage than the control specimen. Kawashima and Shah [66] tests revealed that the cellulose fibers did not affect drying shrinkage of concrete.

2.2.2.3 Restrained shrinkage

Balagura [20] results showed that PP fibers with higher aspect ratio showed best performance in terms of crack reduction. In contrast, the cellulose fiber, which was coarser than the other fiber types, showed no effect on crack reduction. The addition of fibers reduced both total crack area and the number of large cracks. Synthetic fibers even with 0.1% contribute to crack reduction in concrete. Microfibers (pulp) are more effective in mortar, whereas the longer fibers are more effective in concrete. Their results also showed that lower fiber modulus and higher aspect ratio performs better in terms of crack reduction. Banthia and Yan [28] found that the fibers reduced both the shrinkage cracking and crack widths. They also reported that the fibers with a higher aspect ratio (length/ diameter) are generally more effective in controlling cracking

Sun et al. [30] results also showed that the drying shrinkage of FRC is function of the elastic modulus of the fiber besides its size and volume fraction. Wang et al. [32] used 0.1% fibers that reduce the total crack areas by 30 to 40% compared with cement paste without fiber. The average crack widths reduced about 20% when compared with the cement paste without fiber. When polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) fibers are used, the total crack area in the paste decreased around 50%. A fiber with a large aspect ratio and rough surface texture showed a higher resistance to crack propagation. Altoubat and Lange [33] results showed that the PP fiber crimped, PP 50 mm is efficient to reduce the crack width even more than 50%.

Kwon et al. [56] reported that the self-compacting concrete (SCC) reinforced with 1% PP fiber reduced the crack width to half that of plain SCC. Hwang and Khayat [58] used fibers in SCC and found that on average, the increase in synthetic fiber volume from 0 to 0.25% and 0.25% to 0.50% lead to a 40% increase in the elapsed time before crack initiation due to restrained shrinkage. Padron and Zollo [13] results revealed that the use of 19 mm long PP fibers and 10 mm long acrylic fibers will reduce both shrinkage and the total crack area. Najm and Balaguru [37] found that even 9 kg/m³ polyolefin fibers is sufficient to limit the maximum crack width to the 0.18 mm recommended by ACI Committee 224 [76] for surfaces exposed to deicing salts. Passuello et al. [61] reported that the addition of fibers does not significantly change the cracking time, but does reduce the crack width by about 70% in the case of macrofibers, and by almost 90% with microfibers. Kawashima and Shah [66] results confirm that the fiber significantly reduce the crack width and continued to carry stress after cracking.

2.3 Shrinkage reducer admixture (SRA)

SRA reduces surface tension of water at the interface between water and cement matrix of concrete [77]. The mechanical properties, fracture toughness, stress-strain behavior, flow test, and pore-size distribution of concrete with SRA will be discussed in the following section as well as autogenous, plastic, free, and restrained shrinkage.

2.3.1 General properties

Shah [15] found that the addition of SRA reduces the volume of macropores (pores between 50 nm and 10 μm) in comparison with the control specimen. Saliba et al. [64] observed that the percentage of pores with diameters ranging from 0.3 to 1 μm was lower in concrete with the SRA. This confirms that the beneficial effect of the SRA is due to the redistribution of the porous structure and decreasing the percentage of larger pores.

In terms of flowability, Shah [15], Weiss et al. [25], Brown et al. [54], and Yoo et al. [67] reported that the SRAs slightly increase flow of concrete. Shah [24] found that the SRA did not influence the slump, but Mora et al. [60] test results revealed that the SRA reduced the slump in the high strength concrete.

Shah [24] found that the stress-strain behavior of concrete with and without SRA is comparable; however, Yoo et al. [67] reported strain at peak load were slightly reduced by adding SRA. In terms of interfacial transition zone, Yoo et al. [67] results showed with increasing SRA, more porous zone between the fiber and the matrix was obtained.

Some researchers, (Shah [24] Weiss et al. [25] Cheung and Leung [65]) results showed that adding SRA didn’t affect the compressive strength of concrete. Weiss et al. [25] reported that the addition of 2% SRA to high strength concrete produced a slight retarding effect as well as 16% reduction in 28-day compressive strength. Brown et al. [54] also added 2% SRA to their mix and reported 14% and 19% reduction in compressive strength for 3- and 91-day, respectively. Mora et al. [60] and Yoo et al. [67] also reported less than 20% reduction on compressive strength with using SRA. Only Shah [15] observed compressive strength reduction up to 30% for both 2 and 4% SRA. In terms of effect of SRA on concrete mix with different w/cm, Saliba et al. [64] observed a 4%–7% and 8%–14% reduction in compressive strength for concrete mixtures with w/cm = 0.65 and 0.43, respectively. This reduction can be attributed to increase of average pore diameter with adding the SRA to mix.

In terms of splitting tensile strength, Shah [15] reported no significant difference for splitting tensile strength at 28-day with adding SRA; however, Brown et al. [54] found 40% and 10% reduction on splitting tensile strength for 3- and 91-day, respectively.

Shah [24], See et al. [39], and Yoo et al. [67] reported that SRA did not affect modulus of elasticity and even some times slightly increased, but Brown et al. [54] and Saliba et al. [64] found that SRA decreased the modulus of elasticity.

Fracture toughness plays an important role on cracking of concrete, since the aim of this review is to reduce cracks, it is important to evaluate effect of SRA on this factor. Higher values of critical crack tip opening displacement indicate ductile behavior and delay cracking of the concrete. Shah [24] results revealed that using SRA increased stress intensity factor 50% and 20% for concrete mixes with 1% and 2% SRA, respectively for 7-day, but stress intensity factor was comparable at 28 days . They also reported that critical crack tip opening displacement for mix with 1% SRA showed higher values compared with the control specimen. For mix with 2% SRA results were comparable with that of the control specimen up to 7 days but were lower at 28 days.

Weiss et al. [25] found that the critical stress intensity factor increases until approximately 7 days after which a plateau is reached, after that comparable results are obtained with and without the use of SRA. Yoo et al. [67] results revealed that the strains at first crack and ultimate strengths were decreased by adding SRA. The highest strain at first crack strength was obtained for the control specimen was about 25% and 35% higher than mixes with1 and 2% SRA, respectively.

2.3.2 Autogenous shrinkage

Rongbing and Jian [44] reported 15, 29, and 48% reduction in autogenous shrinkage for mixes with 1%, 2%, and 3% SRA, respectively compared with the control specimen. Sant et al. [63] results showed that the addition of the 1.5% SRA results in 60% reduction in autogenous shrinkage at 7 days as compared to the control specimen. Saliba et al. [64] found that the addition of 1% SRA reduced shrinkage by 14% and 20% for w/cm of 0.43 and 0.65, respectively. Cheung and Leung [65] reported similar results to previous studies that the autogenous shrinkage reduced for mixes with SRA.

2.3.3 Plastic shrinkage

Lura et al. [55] experimental results showed that the addition of SRA reduces the width of plastic cracks in mortars. Saliba et al. [64] found that the plastic shrinkage is reduced by 25% when SRA is added to the concrete mix.

2.3.4 Free shrinkage

Shah [15] reported 27 to 53%, 22 to 24%, and 24 to 53% reduction in free shrinkage for mixes with 1%, 2%, and 3% SRA, respectively compared with the control specimen. Shah [24] found that mixes with 1% and 2% SRA decreased free shrinkage around 32% and 45%, respectively as compared to the control specimen at 50 days. Weiss et al. [25] results revealed that using 1 and 2% SRA reduced free shrinkage of normal strength concrete around 25 and 45%, respectively, but reduction for high strength concrete were 30% and 42%, respectively at 50 days as compared to the control specimen.

Rongbing and Jian [44] measured free shrinkage for mixes with 1%, 2%, and 3% SRA at 28, 60, and 90 days. Results showed that free drying shrinkage-reducing rate were 28%, 36%, and 53% for mixes with 1%, 2%, and 3% SRA, respectively at 28 days. The shrinkage-reducing rate decreased slightly for 60 days as following 23, 31, and 52% for mixes with 1%, 2%, and 3% SRA, respectively. SRA was less effective for 90 days results that 22%, 28%, and 44% reduction observed for addition of 1%, 2%, and 3% SRA to mix, respectively.

Brown et al. [54] observed 62% reduction on shrinkage with adding 2% SRA to mix at 28 days. Hwang and Khayat [58] reported that the increase of SRA to 8 l/m³ resulted in 37% lower drying shrinkage than the control specimen. Saliba et al. [64] reported 56 and 33% reduction in shrinkage at 7 and 70 days, respectively for mix with w/cm = 0.65% and 1% SRA. Reduction values decreased to 31 and 25% for mix with w/cm = 0.43% and 1% SRA, respectively. Cheung and Leung [65] found shrinkage reduction was 44% with using 12.5 L/m³ compared with the control specimen.

2.3.5 Restrained shrinkage and cracking

Shah et al. [15] used 2% SRA and observed 32% to 76% reduction for maximum crack width, and 32% to 81% for average crack width. Shah et al. [24] reported that the first crack in the control specimen and mix with 1% SRA was observed between 10 and 15 days; however, using only 2% SRA increased the age of first crack to 48 days. Weiss et al. [25] found that with adding 1% and 2% SRA increased age of the first crack from 10 to 11.7 and 47.5 days, respectively for normal strength concrete. In terms of high strength concrete, age of the first crack increased to 4.8 and 11.7 days for mix with1 and 2% SRA compared with 3.2 day for mix without SRA. See et al. [39] also used 1% SRA in normal strength and reported that the time at cracking was delayed to 32 days from 17 days; however, for high strength concrete 1% SRA increased the age of the first crack from 5 to 19 days. Brown et al. [54] observed no crack on ring specimens with using 2% SRA; however, for mix without any SRA the average age of the first cracks was 38 days. Hwang and Khayat [58] used 8 L/m³ SRA on SCC mix and reported that the time before cracking increased to 13.3 and 20.7 days compared with 8.8 days for the control specimen. Loser and Leemann [59] reported 28 and 40% reduction in shrinkage of SCC with using 1% and 2% SRA, respectively. Mora-Ruacho et al. [60] found that using 1.6% SRA reduced the final crack opening of about one-fourth of the control specimen. Passuello et al. [61] observed that the addition of SRA delayed the time of cracking, reducing the crack width by 40%.

2.4 Combination of fiber and SRA

There are just limited studies that used both fiber and SRA together and this section covers these studies. Hwang and Khayat [58] used both synthetic fibers and SRA and reported no significant effect on workability. In terms of drying shrinkage, mix with both fibers and SRA had around 38% less drying shrinkage compared with mix with only fibers. The elapsed time before cracking of mix with both fibers and SRA was 2.5 to 4 times of mix with fibers alone.

Passuello et al. [61] reported that adding SRA to the FRC (synthetic fibers) mix showed similar shrinkage and cracking time compared with the mix with only SRA. But regarding the opening of the crack width, FRC mix with SRA showed better performance compared with the FRC and SRA mix separately. Cheung and Leung [65] used steel fibers with SRA and sulfoaluminate cement (SAC) on a high strength concrete with two different w/cm ratios. Results of their study revealed that in terms of reducing shrinkage the SAC is more effective for mix with higher w/cm ratio whereas SRA is more effective for mix with lower w/cm ratio.

In summary, using optimized mix along with fiber and SRA showed promising results in terms of controlling and reducing shrinkage cracks. Caltrans had successful experience on building crack-less bridge decks with considering the three aforementioned parameters [3].

2.5 Weather and construction conditions

Previous studies [73,75,78] have shown that hot and cold weather as well as low levels of humidity and high wind speed increase cracking. Almost all studies reported that the curing plays an important role in reducing cracks. Some research [71,74,79] showed that pour length, sequence, and rate may have some effects on deck cracks. PCA report [68] and Krauss and Rogalla [70] reported that evening and nighttime casting can reduce the extent of cracking. It has been observed that early finishing reduces cracking as well [70].

Several studies [68,70,74,78,80] have found that decks on steel girders have more cracks compared to deck on concrete girders (concrete girders have lower temperature gradients). More cracks have been observed on continuous spans compared to simple spans [70,75,78] and less crack reported for thicker decks [70–72,78,79]. With increasing in bar size, cracking increases [69,73,81] and Krauss and Rogalla [70] recommend use of maximum 13 mm bars with maximum spacing of 15 cm in decks. Previous researches [70,78] found that decks with epoxy bars had more cracks.

3 Recommendation for the practical design

The following section lists suggestions for achieving less crack decks in practice:

• Using largest possible size and low shrinkage aggregate [68–70]

• Maximizing aggregate volume [71,72]

• Using high specific gravity coarse and fine aggregate with absorption less than 0.5 and 1.5%, respectively [69]

• Using Type II cement [69,70]

• Lower cement content (less than 400 kg/m³) [70–73]

• Lower water cement ratio (less than 0.45) [68,71–73]

• Using SRA (1%‒2%)

• Using both steel and synthetic fibers (less than 1%)

• Higher air content (minimum 6%) [72,73]

• Lower slump (maximum 70 mm) [68,69]

• Maximum concrete placement temperature of 27°C [68]

• Minimum ambient temperature of 7°C [75]

• Concrete temperature of at least 5°C ‒10°C cooler that ambient temperature [70]

• Temperature difference of at least 12°C for at least 24 h [69]

• Place simple span bridges one span per placement [79]

• For long span divide deck longitudinally and place each stripe at one time [79]

• On continuous beams, place middle spans first [79]

• Place complete deck at one time [79]

• Place in high levels of humidity condition [75,78]

• Place in Low wind speed condition [75,78]

• Place in the evening and nighttime [68,70]

• Extended curing time (14 days for type II cement) [80]

• Early finishing [70]

• Casting deck on concrete girders instead of steel girders [68,70,74,78,80]

• Using simple span deck [70,75,78]

• Using thicker possible decks [70–72,78,79]

• Using smaller bar size (less than 13 mm) with maximum spacing of 15 cm [69,73,81]

4 Conclusions

Early age cracking of bridge deck has been one of the foremost concerns for years. This paper synthesizes the current information on different material compositions and methods to reduce and control the bridge deck cracking so that researchers can work toward developing guidelines to address this issue. The following conclusion can be drawn based on literature review.

• Mix with larger aggregate and maximum aggregate volume as well as lower cement content and water cement ratio showed the lowest shrinkage.

• Using steel fibers decreased the compressive strength of concrete.

• Steel fibers didn’t affect the splitting tensile strength and modulus of elasticity of concrete.

• Using steel fibers either decreased or had no effect on the free shrinkage of concrete.

• Steel fibers reduced both restrained shrinkage of concrete and width of cracks.

• Synthetic fibers were effective on decreasing both the plastic shrinkage of concrete and width of cracks.

• No significant difference observed on the free shrinkage of concrete when synthetic fibers used.

• Using synthetic fibers increased the time of first crack and decreased the width of cracks

• Using SRA increased the flow of concrete.

• Concrete with SRA showed lower compressive strength compared with concrete without SRA.

• SRA had either no effect or decreased the splitting tensile strength and modulus of elasticity.

• SRA increased the stress intensity factor of until around 7 days and after that it became comparable with the control specimens without SRA.

• SRA significantly reduced both autogenous and plastic shrinkage of concrete.

• Using SRA was effective in decreasing the free and restrained shrinkage of concrete as well as crack width.

• More studies required to evaluate effect of combination of fiber and SRA on general behavior and shrinkage of concrete.

• Combination of fiber and SRA was more effective on reducing the crack width opening.

• SAC showed better performance (reducing shrinkage) for mix with higher w/cm ratio.

• SRA is more effective than SAC for mix with lower w/cm ratio in terms of decreasing the shrinkage.

• Using optimized mix with fibers and SRA showed promising results in terms of controlling and reducing shrinkage cracks in practice.

References

[1] Mehta P K, Monteiro P J. Concrete: Microstructure, Properties, and Materials. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2006

[2] Bentz D P, Stutzman P, Sakulich A, Weiss W J. Study of early-age bridge deck cracking in Nevada and Wyoming. 2012

[3] Maggenti R, Knapp C, Sonny F. Controlling Shrinkage Cracking in Bridge Decks. American Concrete Institute, Spring Convention, Reno, NV, 2014

[4] Saadeghvaziri M, Hadidi R. Cause and control of transverse cracking in concrete bridge decks. No. FHWA-NJ-2002–019, 2002

[5] Ravina D, Shalon R. Plastic shrinkage cracking. ACI Journal Proceedings, 1968, 65(4): 282–292

[6] Wittmann F H. On the action of capillary pressure in fresh concrete. Cement and Concrete Research, 1976, 6(1): 49–56

[7] Swamy R N, Stavrides H. Influence of fiber reinforcement on restrained shrinkage and cracking. ACI Journal proceedings, 1979, 76(3): 443–460

[8] Kraai P. A proposed test to determine the cracking potential due to drying shrinkage of concrete. Concrete Construction, 1985, 30(9): 775–778

[9] Krenchel H, Shah S P. Restrained shrinkage tests with PP-fiber reinforced concrete. ACI Special Publications, 1987, 105: 141–158

[10] Shaeles C, Hover K. Influence of mix proportions and construction operations on plastic shrinkage cracking in thin slabs. ACI Materials Journal, 1988, 85(6): 495–504

[11] Paillere A, Buil M, Serrano J. Effect of fiber addition on the autogenous shrinkage of silica fume. ACI Materials Journal, 1989, 86(2): 139–144

[12] Grzybowski M, Shah S P. Shrinkage cracking of fiber reinforced concrete. ACI Materials Journal, 1990, 87(2): 138–148

[13] Padron I, Zollo R F. Effect of synthetic fibers on volume stability and cracking of portland cement concrete and mortar. ACI Materials Journal, 1990, 87(4): 327–332

[14] Cohen M D, Olek J, Dolch W L. Mechanism of plastic shrinkage cracking in portland cement and portland cement-silica fume paste and mortar. Cement and Concrete Research, 1990, 20(1): 103–119

[15] Shah S P, Krguller M E, Sarigaphuti M. Effects of shrinkage-reducing admixtures on restrained shrinkage cracking of concrete. ACI Materials Journal, 1992, 89(3): 289–295

[16] Sargaphuti M, Shah S P, Vinson K D. Shrinkage cracking and durability characteristics of cellulose fiber reinforced concrete. ACI Materials Journal, 1993, 90(4): 309–318

[17] Banthia N, Azzabi M, Pigeon M. Restrained shrinkage cracking in fibre-reinforced cementitious composites. Materials and Structures, 1993, 26(7): 405–413

[18] Nanni A, Dennis A L, McGillis M T. Plastic shrinkage cracking of restrained fiber-reinforced concrete. Transportation Research Record, 1993, 1382: 69–72

[19] Soroushian P, Alhozajiny Faiz Mirza A. Plastic shrinkage cracking of polypropylene fiber reinforced concrete. ACI Materials Journal, 1993, 92(5): 553–560

[20] Balaguru P. Contribution of fibers to crack reduction of cement composites during the initial and final setting period. ACI Materials Journal, 1994, 91(3): 280–288

[21] Bloom R, Bentur A. Free and restrained shrinkage of normal and high-strength concretes. ACI Materials Journal, 1995, 92(2): 211–217

[22] Banthia N, Yan C, Mindess S. Restrained shrinkage cracking in fiber reinforced concrete: a novel test technique. Cement and Concrete Research, 1996, 26(1): 9–14

[23] Wiegrink K, Marikunte S, Shah S P. Shrinkage cracking of high-strength concrete. ACI Materials Journal, 1996, 93(5): 409–415

[24] Shah S, Marikunte S, Yang W, Aldea C. Control of cracking with shrinkage-reducing admixtures. Transportation Research Record. Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1997, 1574(1): 25– 36

[25] Weiss J, Yang W, Shah S P. Shrinkage cracking of restrained concrete slabs. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 1998, 124(7): 765–774

[26] Almusallam A A, Maslehuddin M, Abdul-Waris M, Khan M M. Effect of mix proportions on plastic shrinkage cracking of concrete in hot environments. Construction & Building Materials, 1998, 12(6): 353–358

[27] Mesbah H A, Buyle-Bodin F. Efficiency of polypropylene and metallic fibres on control of shrinkage and cracking of recycled aggregate mortars. Construction & Building Materials, 1999, 13(8): 439–447

[28] Banthia N, Yan C. Shrinkage cracking in polyolefin fiber-reinforced concrete. ACI Materials Journal, 2000, 97(4): 432–437

[29] Mora J, Gettu R, Olazabal C, Martin M A, Aguado A. Effect of the incorporation of fibers on the plastic shrinkage of concrete. In Proceedings of the RILEM symposium on fibre-reinforced concretes. 2000, 705–714

[30] Sun W, Chen H, Luo X, Qian H. The effect of hybrid fibers and expansive agent on the shrinkage and permeability of high-performance concrete. Cement and Concrete Research, 2001, 31(4): 595–601

[31] Ramakrishnan V. Concrete plastic shrinkage-reduction potential of synergy fibers. Transportation Research Record. Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2001, 1775(1): 106–117

[32] Wang K, Shah S P, Phuaksuk P. Plastic Shrinkage Cracking in Concrete Materials? Influence of fly ash and fibers. ACI Materials Journal, 2001, 98(6): 458–464

[33] Altoubat S A, Lange D A. Creep, shrinkage, and cracking of restrained concrete at early age. ACI Materials Journal, 2001, 98(4): 323–331

[34] Hammer T A. Effect of silica fume on the plastic shrinkage and pore water pressure of high-strength concretes. Materials and Structures, 2001, 34(5): 273–278

[35] Lura P, van Breugel K, Maruyama I. Effect of curing temperature and type of cement on early-age shrinkage of high-performance concrete. Cement and Concrete Research, 2001, 31(12): 1867–1872

[36] Bayasi Z, McIntyre M. Application of fibrillated polypropylene fibers for restraint of plastic shrinkage cracking in silica fume concrete. ACI Materials Journal, 2002, 99(4): 337–344

[37] Najm H, Balaguru P. Effect of large-diameter polymeric fibers on shrinkage cracking of cement composites. ACI Materials Journal, 2002, 99(4): 345–351

[38] Weiss W J, Shah S P. Restrained shrinkage cracking: the role of shrinkage reducing admixtures and specimen geometry. Materials and Structures, 2002, 35(2): 85–91

[39] See H T, Attiogbe E K, Miltenberger M A. Shrinkage cracking characteristics of concrete using ring specimens. ACI Materials Journal, 2003, 100(3): 239–245

[40] Qi C, Weiss J, Olek J. Characterization of plastic shrinkage cracking in fiber reinforced concrete using image analysis and a modified Weibull function. Materials and Structures, 2003, 36(6): 386–395

[41] Lura P, Jensen O M, van Breugel K. Autogenous shrinkage in high-performance cement paste: An evaluation of basic mechanisms. Cement and Concrete Research, 2003, 33(2): 223–232

[42] Voigt, T., Van K. Bui, and Shah, S.P. Drying shrinkage of concrete reinforced with fibers and welded-wire fabric. ACI Materials Journal, 2004, 101(3): 233–241

[43] Naaman A E, Wongtanakitcharoen T, Hauser G. Influence of different fibers on plastic shrinkage cracking of concrete. ACI Materials Journal, 2005, 102(1): 49–58

[44] Rongbing B, Jian S. Synthesis and evaluation of shrinkage-reducing admixture for cementitious materials. Cement and Concrete Research, 2005, 35(3): 445–448

[45] Collepardi M, Borsoi A, Collepardi S, Ogoumah Olagot J J, Troli R. Effects of shrinkage reducing admixture in shrinkage compensating concrete under non-wet curing conditions. Cement and Concrete Composites, 2005, 27(6): 704–708

[46] Hossain A B, Weiss J. The role of specimen geometry and boundary conditions on stress development and cracking in the restrained ring test. Cement and Concrete Research, 2006, 36(1): 189–199

[47] Turcry P, Loukili A. Evaluation of plastic shrinkage cracking of self-consolidating concrete. ACI Materials Journal, 2006, 103(4): 272–279

[48] Shah H R, Weiss J. Quantifying shrinkage cracking in fiber reinforced concrete using the ring test. Materials and Structures, 2006, 39(9): 887–899

[49] Turcry P, Loukili A, Haidar K, Pijaudier-Cabot G, Belarbi A. Cracking tendency of self-compacting concrete subjected to restrained shrinkage: experimental study and modeling. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 2006, 18(1): 46–54

[50] Banthia N, Gupta R. Influence of polypropylene fiber geometry on plastic shrinkage cracking in concrete. Cement and Concrete Research, 2006, 36(7): 1263–1267

[51] Carlswärd J. Shrinkage cracking of steel fibre reinforced self compacting concrete overlays: Test methods and theoretical modeling. Luleå University of Technology, Sweden, 2006

[52] Turatsinze A, Granju J L, Bonnet S. Positive synergy between steel-fibres and rubber aggregates: Effect on the resistance of cement-based mortars to shrinkage cracking. Cement and Concrete Research, 2006, 36(9): 1692–1697

[53] Sivakumar A, Santhanam M. A quantitative study on the plastic shrinkage cracking in high strength hybrid fibre reinforced concrete. Cement and Concrete Composites, 2007, 29(7): 575–581

[54] Brown M D, Cuyler A S, Greg Sellers J, Folliard K J, Breen J E. Use of alternative materials to reduce shrinkage cracking in bridge decks. ACI Materials Journal, 2007, 104(6): 629–637

[55] Lura P, Pease B, Mazzotta G B, Rajabipour F, Weiss J. Influence of shrinkage-reducing admixtures on development of plastic shrinkage cracks. ACI Materials Journal, 2007, 104(2): 187–194

[56] Kwon S H, Ferron R P, Akkaya Y, Shah S P. Cracking of fiber-reinforced self-compacting concrete due to restrained shrinkage. International Journal of Concrete Structures and Materials, 2007, 1(1): 3–9

[57] Boghossian E, Wegner L D. Use of flax fibres to reduce plastic shrinkage cracking in concrete. Cement and Concrete Composites, 2008, 30(10): 929–937

[58] Hwang S D, Khayat K H. Effect of mixture composition on restrained shrinkage cracking of self-consolidating concrete used in repair. ACI Materials Journal, 2008, 105(5): 499–509

[59] Loser R, Leemann A. Shrinkage and restrained shrinkage cracking of self-compacting concrete compared to conventionally vibrated concrete. Materials and Structures, 2009, 42(1): 71–82

[60] Mora-Ruacho J, Gettu R, Aguado A. Influence of shrinkage-reducing admixtures on the reduction of plastic shrinkage cracking in concrete. Cement and Concrete Research, 2009, 39(3): 141–146

[61] Passuello A, Moriconi G, Shah S P. Cracking behavior of concrete with shrinkage reducing admixtures and PVA fibers. Cement and Concrete Composites, 2009, 31(10): 699–704

[62] Pelisser F, Neto A B D S S, Rovere H L L, Pinto R C D A. Effect of the addition of synthetic fibers to concrete thin slabs on plastic shrinkage cracking. Construction & Building Materials, 2010, 24(11): 2171–2176

[63] Sant G, Lothenbach B, Juilland P, Le Saout G, Weiss J, Scrivener K. The origin of early age expansions induced in cementitious materials containing shrinkage reducing admixtures. Cement and Concrete Research, 2011, 41(3): 218–229

[64] Saliba J, Rozière E, Grondin F, Loukili A. Influence of shrinkage-reducing admixtures on plastic and long-term shrinkage. Cement and Concrete Composites, 2011, 33(2): 209–217

[65] Cheung A K F, Leung C K Y. Shrinkage reduction of high strength fiber reinforced cementitious composites (HSFRCC) with various water-to-binder ratios. Cement and Concrete Composites, 2011, 33(6): 661–667

[66] Kawashima S, Shah S P. Early-age autogenous and drying shrinkage behavior of cellulose fiber-reinforced cementitious materials. Cement and Concrete Composites, 2011, 33(2): 201–208

[67] Yoo D Y, Kang S T, Lee J H, Yoon Y S. Effect of shrinkage reducing admixture on tensile and flexural behaviors of UHPFRC considering fiber distribution characteristics. Cement and Concrete Research, 2013, 54: 180–190

[68] Portland Cement Association. Final Report – Durability of Bridge Decks – A cooperative Study. Skokie, Illinois, 1970

[69] Babaei K, Purvis R L. Premature cracking of concrete bridge decks: Cause and methods of prevention. In: Proceedingsof the 4th International Bridge Engineering Conference, 1996

[70] Krauss P D, Rogalla E A. Transverse Cracking in Newly Constructed Bridge Decks. NCHRP Report 380, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 1996

[71] Kochanski T, Parry J, Pruess D, Schuchardt L, Ziehr J J. Premature Cracking of Bridge Decks Study. Wisconsin Dept. of Transportation, Madison, Wisconsin, 1990

[72] French C, Eppers L, Le Q, Hajjar J F. Transverse cracking in concrete bridge decks. Transportation Research Record. 1999, 1668(Nov): 21–29

[73] Schmitt T R, Darwin D. Effect of material properties on cracking in bridge decks. Journal of Bridge Engineering, 1999, 4(1): 8–13

[74] Issa M A. Investigation of cracking in concrete bridge decks at early ages. Journal of Bridge Engineering, 1999, 4(2): 116–124

[75] Cheng T T H, Johnston D W. Incidence Assessment of Transverse Cracking in Concrete Bridge Decks: Construction and Materials Considerations. Rep. No. FHWA/NC/85002, 1, Dep. of Civ. Engrg., North Carolina State University, Raleigh, N C, 1985

[76] ACI Committee. 224R–01. Control of Cracking in Concrete Structures. Farmington Hills, MI: American Concrete Institute, 2001

[77] Balogh A. New admixture combats concrete shrinkage. Concrete Construction, 1996, 41(7): 546–551

[78] Meyers C. Survey of Cracking on Underside of Classes B-1 and B-2 Concrete Bridge Decks in District 4. Investigation 82–2, Division of Material and Research, Missouri Highway and Transportation Department, Jefferson City, Mo, 1982

[79] Ramey G E, Wolff A R, Wright R L. Structural design actions to mitigate bridge deck cracking. Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction, 1997, 2(3): 118–124

[80] Frosch R J, Radabaugh R D, Blackman D T. Investigation of Transverse Deck Cracking. ASCE Structures Congress, Denver, April, 2002

[81] Dakhil F H, Cady P D, Carrier R E. Cracking of fresh concrete as related to reinforcement. ACI Structural Journal, 1975, 72(8): 421–428

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg