You are on page 1of 9

Construction and Building Materials 106 (2016) 575–583

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials
journal homepage:

Improving performance of light weight concrete with brick chips using
low cost steel wire fiber
Md. Abul Bashar Emon a,⇑, Tanvir Manzur a, Nur Yazdani b
Department of Civil Engineering, Bangladesh University of Engineering & Technology, Dhaka, Bangladesh
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Texas at Arlington, TX 76019, USA

h i g h l i g h t s 

GI wire fiber can be used as a low-cost alternative to steel fibers in concrete. 
Optimum GI fiber content is 2–2.5% by weight for conventional brick chip concrete. 
Considerable cost saving can be achieved by using GI fiber instead of steel fiber.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Brick chips, produced from burnt clay, are quite common in Bangladesh and other countries of the south-
Received 17 July 2015 east region of Asia and have been used as coarse aggregate for many years. These brick chips are consid-
Received in revised form 2 December 2015 ered as light weight aggregate (LWA) because of their light weight and porous structure. Brick chips con-
Accepted 22 December 2015
crete is a form of light weight aggregate concrete (LWAC) and has lower mechanical properties and
higher brittleness than conventional normal weight concrete. Improving this aspect of LWAC with brick
chips is of great importance since brick chips are very popular in the country due to low cost and wide
availability. Therefore, a comprehensive investigation has been made in this study on the improvement of
Light weight aggregate (LWA)
Brick chip aggregate
strength and ductility of concrete having brick chips as coarse aggregate using locally produced low cost
Galvanized iron fiber lightly galvanized mild steel wire fiber (commonly known as GI wire fiber in this region) as an alternative
Fiber reinforced concrete (FRC) to conventional steel fibers. Steel fibers are not available in local markets in many countries of this region
Low-cost such as Bangladesh and importing is quite expensive. Compressive and splitting tensile strength of test
Ductility cylinders as well as load–deflection and cracking behavior of test beams with variable fiber contents have
Crack been evaluated. Marked improvement has been noticed for compressive and tensile strength of concrete
Load-deflection through GI wire fibers addition. Ultimate strength and toughness showed maximum increment up to
thirty percent for a certain range of fiber content. Moreover, fiber inclusion has enhanced resistance
against crack formation and propagation which is evident from crack width, crack spacing with respect
to loads applied and crack patterns. Results of the experiments and cost comparison reveal that GI fiber
can be adopted as a viable low cost alternative to steel fibers for performance enhancement of brick chips
Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction ingredients of concrete is inexpensive, readily available as well as
concrete work is relatively simple to execute and maintenance
Concrete is the most widely used construction material free. However, the major limitation of concrete is the lack of duc-
throughout the globe. Especially in the developing regions of the tility. In Bangladesh, this limitation is even more pronounced due
world, construction of infrastructure constitutes the major share to poor construction practice and lack of quality control. In addi-
of the total development work. And concrete is an indispensible tion to that, a vast region of the country falls in an active seismic
part of these development works in countries like Bangladesh as zone which calls for the structures to be more resilient and ductile.
Furthermore, extensive use of brick chips (crushed burnt clay
bricks), which is a form of light weight aggregate (LWA), as coarse
⇑ Corresponding author. aggregate in concrete in this south-east region of Asia has posed
E-mail addresses: (Md. Abul Bashar Emon), tmanzur. some additional concerns to ponder; as light weight aggregate con- (T. Manzur), (N. Yazdani).
0950-0618/Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

A number of literatures are also portion etc. fraction) and high (above 2% vol. fatigue life. experiments were conducted with light weight aggregate (LWA). However. ing results when compared with steel fiber reinforced LWAC. improvement in compressive strength was about 18% [34]. aggregate type. comparison.11].576 Md. fraction). Compressive. generally known as nonetheless. and nano-fiber within cement mortar and on compressive strength properties of fiber reinforced concrete. resulting in less steel congestion and improved and strengths. a fibers is that steel fiber reinforcement can lead to significant thorough literature review fails to reveal any significant study on increases in the post-cracking behavior or toughness of the com- FRC with brick chips aggregate.5% volume fraction (1. 5% of smooth/straight steel fibers [25]. Since. it has been found that fiber reinforc- results or database to comprehend the behavior of FRC produced ing reduces both potential of cracking and crack width. Majority of the previous researches in FRC have this enhancement depends on various factors like dispersion been conducted for concrete with normal weight aggregate like and alignment of fibers. In this context. by weight) of steel fiber for the same three types of aggregates. enhanced tensile strength and toughness in compression. steel fiber is.). on brick aggregate concrete as a LWAC. splitting tensile and flexural strength SFRC. and having oil palm shell. concrete [2–7]. an issue in popularizing them. ican Concrete Institute is also gradually promoting SFRC in build- Considerable number of studies have been carried out by incor.9. Such additional cost for steel fibers can be steel fiber content varied from 0% to 2% by volume (0–7% by wt. The ACI 318 Building Code has introduced GI fiber is relatively low in strength and more flexible as compared steel fibers in shear design provisions. it has been toughness. ductility. Performance of steel fiber in concrete to in large increases in direct tensile strength. majority of studies for many tion of beams and slabs. impact resistance [9. especially from brick aggregate. the increase in available for fiber-reinforcing in various LWAC where pumice. It is now well established that adding discrete. Undoubtedly.12. / Construction and Building Materials 106 (2016) 575–583 crete (LWAC) is expected to have higher brittleness and lower known as steel fiber reinforced concrete (SFRC). oil strength can be much smaller. respectively. popularly known to fiber content into three classes such as low (below 1% vol.15. fiber reinforced composites are categorized according manufactured lightly galvanized mild steel wire. 8% [35] cost comparison also reveals that GI fiber can be a good option of and 18% [36]. fiber reinforcing technique is yet to be comprehensively applied tributed steel fibers can improve concrete mechanical properties. fiber fraction. ous other types of concrete like concrete with different types of gated.15]. but GI wire fiber is normally straight cut from wires. The Amer- the prime focus of the civil engineers and researchers. early 1960s [3]. they can passively contribute to augmentation of FRC (fiber reinforced concrete). brick chips are used in early hydration stages [27. Oh [20] studied the mechanical A major constraint of using steel fiber in a country like Bangladesh behavior of reinforced concrete beams containing steel fibers. SFRC Therefore. with 0.10. Since initiation. Later on crete reinforcing material is in the budding phase and behavior of effect of steel fiber reinforcement has been investigated for vari- GI Fiber Reinforced Concrete (GFRC) is yet to be properly investi. Moreover. In the uted to the confining effect of fibers and the countering effect to field of FRC. better flex. GFRC with an aim to comparing performance of GI wire fiber as Although researchers observed performance augmentation in an alternative to steel fiber in concrete with brick chips as coarse most of the cases. randomly dis. Research with GI wire as a suitable con. Because of its mechanical properties than normal weight concrete (NWC) [1]. However. GI wire is locally produced and is available ment. Moreover. tive to steel fibers. durability. and impact resistance has been well estab. in this region. improving this aspect of LWAC with brick chips has has great potential for use in construction industries. use of steel fiber could be a years were confined to the investigation of plain SFRC beams promising solution to relative poor performance of brick chips con. performance enhancement of concrete made pared to concrete without fiber [29]. Again. have been utilized as LWA [1. and be considered as the initial progress in this context. Abul Bashar Emon et al. mix pro- stone chips as coarse aggregate. has improved ductility. One major advantage of steel palm shell etc. with brick chips needs an exclusive attention since use of brick The history of research on modern SFRC stretches back to chips as coarse aggregate is very popular particularly for construc. The is its relative high cost. high performance concrete etc. fibers from locally Generally. observed that increase in tensile strength is quite variable since lished [8. constructability [33]. as high as 133% for improve mechanical properties. A experienced compressive strength increment of 8% [34]. compressive strength [18. Moreover. natural fiber. ing structural applications by including it in their Codes [23]. Investigation on the effects crete. However. The experiments exhibited promis. toughness. of minimum shear reinforcement in SFRC (ACI [23]). It has also been shown that steel fibers effectively reduce at a relatively low price. allowing the elimination to typical steel fibers [16]. It is. pumice and expanded clay as LWA. as GI (Galvanized Iron) wire. the front runner as a suitable rein. the degree of enhancement has been found dif- aggregate. Background comprehensive investigation is necessary before recommending fiber reinforcement for concrete having a new type of LWA. The study by Oh [20] found marked increase in flexural countries [16]. With this as backdrop. bers eventually followed [30–32].17–22]. a thorough investigation on performance of brick chips of fiber reinforcement on conventional reinforced concrete mem- concrete reinforced with suitable fibers is of immense importance.4% cutting the cost of steel fiber in Bangladesh. therefore.7% by weight) of steel fiber of GFRC has been investigated.13]. the lateral tension. Thus. porating various types of fibers such as steel fiber.14. For randomly distributed fibers. glass fiber. Concrete with these fibers. . Steel fibers are available in various shapes reinforcements. with 1% volume content (3. Fibers aligned with tensile stresses may result forcing material [4. For example. can provide a viable low cost alterna. Therefore.19. especially for Bangladesh and other developing fraction). by far. such as tensile strength. fiber Fiber content and attributes usually do not have direct influence polymer. The composite material resulted GI wire fiber as a substitute of conventional steel fiber is another from incorporation of steel fiber within concrete is commonly aspect that makes this study distinctive. This phenomenon can be attrib- ural performance and energy absorption capacity [8–10]. Concrete with crushed stone chips were also made for ferent for concrete having different types of LWA. moderate (1–2% vol.28]. the bursting pressures in the anchorage zones of post-tensioned GI wire fiber is different from conventional steel fiber in both concrete bridge members and reduce the need for secondary shapes and properties.26]. respectively. 11% [35] and 27% [36]. the present study can such as tensile strength.24]. evident that a 2. without main steel reinforcement. There are no authentic research posites [4. Steel fiber for use in FRC is not available in local strength and ductility and also reported significant improvement markets in many of these countries and importing can be quite in crack control in SFRC when used alongside main reinforce- expensive. As a result of reduced crack massively in concrete works due to ease of availability and relative propagation. SFRC is known to have much better durability com- low cost. fatigue life.

Each beam was 150 mm (6 in. Minimum and maximum ACI permitted 70 reinforcement ratios for the beams were found to be 0. flexural analysis and load–deflec. slump can be workable enough for proper compaction [1]. mm as a simply supported beam. 0 0. fine aggregate wire was taken to be 37.08 0.) diameter was chosen and suitable length for the portioned with a conventional volumetric ratio of 1:1.04 0. Time versus Table 1 Mix proportions and slump values of test concrete. Oven-dry rodded unit weight and absorption capacity of brick aggregate was found to be 1040 kg/m3 and – Compressive strength of cylindrical concrete specimens. 3. Monteiro [4]. mance of GFRC as fiber reinforced LWAC. FRC with a zero 500. ultimate load.1. respectively.3. Design and fabrication of test members 0. in the form of compressive/tensile strengths and ductility.5:3 for cement. GI wire from laboratory testing is shown in Fig.1.03 in. Strain.015. respectively. Fiber content was varied from 1 to 3. it was used in the exper- iments as fine aggregate. 100.8 ksi).5 2 2. due to all pervasive use of the sand in this region.5 GFRC-2 GFRC-2. wt. 30 Lower_FA 20 Upper_CA 3.44) (0. kg/m3 389 389 389 389 389 389 389 FA. Grading limits as specified in ASTM C 33 – Flexural/ductility analysis of reinforced concrete beams. Experimental program out admixture.).24 in. 1.1 Rectangular reinforced concrete beams.) wide.1 1 10 100 were placed at the bottom at the points of support so that the beam can deflect Sieve opening.5 GFRC-3 GFRC-3.42) as fine aggregate. Testing methodology Lower_CA 10 Stone chips The beams were subjected to third point loading as shown in Fig. 3. Yield and ultimate strength of the steel was found to be 524 MPa (74. mm/mm including one control mix (without any GI wire) and six mixes (with different frac- tion of GI wire) with brick chips as coarse aggregate.7 mm (0.1.5 ksi) and 592 MPa (85. GI wire fiber dependent on small scale mixing and casting methods. 3.) and d0 = 31 mm (1. The effective span length for the test beams was 1.). But traditional slump test does not give a fair indica- tion of workability of fiber reinforced concrete [10.5 3 3.5 in) [20].45 was used without any super- 544. respectively.5 mm (1. which furnished 36% of the max- imum reinforcement ratio. 200 mm (8 in. with ACI provisions [23].87) (1. Addition of GI fiber reduced slump value of concrete mix as expected from pre- vious works with various other types of fibers [39. Abul Bashar Emon et al. 2. and toughness.76 in. Never- 3. Percent Finer 60 Two Ø10 mm (#3) bars were provided at bottom. deflection and crack patterns at various loading burnt clay bricks and stone chips as coarse aggregate and locally available Sylhet stages.2. In Bangladesh.5% by plasticizer. 80 The beams were reinforced with longitudinal reinforcement at the bottom and two binder rods were placed at the top. where concrete mix is pro- GI wire of 0. / Construction and Building Materials 106 (2016) 575–583 577 3.5 (vol.58) (0.) deep.40]. respectively. Ø8 mm (#2) two-leg vertical 40 Brick chips stirrups were provided with 150 mm (6 in. 1. a slump of 50 mm is enough for LWAC. stone chips – Splitting tensile strength of cylindrical concrete specimens. ASTM A820/A820M [38]).02) Slump (mm) – 50 40 28 16 8 0 0 . kg/m3 260 260 260 260 260 260 260 Fiber. and fine aggregates are presented in Fig. Some minor adjustments to the code requirements were made for 90 concrete cover issues because of the small beam dimensions. was applied with the movement rate of the platform being 5 mm/min. 300. but all the GFRC mixes have slump value under this limit. To avoid premature shear failure of the beams during 50 Sylhet sand loading and handling and to ensure a flexural failure. Mix propor- 400. Gradation curve of coarse and fine aggregates.3R [37]. with seven separate mix-proportions.3%. The target strength was selected as 18 MPa (2500 psi) considering the weight in order to keep the fiber content low enough to maintain workability with- typical lower bound design strength of beams and slabs in this region. Typical Stress–strain curve for GI wire from testing (Inset: GI wire fiber). tion on weight basis and corresponding slump values are presented in Table 1. Test materials theless.35 m (54 in.5ksi).1. For ductility evaluation.73) (0.0028 and 0. This mix-design was adopted for the study. The beams 0 were mounted on a platform and two steel blocks with semi-circular upper end 0.02 0.1. Details of the beam fabrication and design are illustrated in Fig. conventional main reinforcements in the form of longitudinal reinforcement and stirrups were provided along with GI wire 200.5 Mix proportions Cement. were designed in accordance Fig. respectively. 3.2.%) (0) (0. The following experiments were performed: sand (Fineness Modulus = 2. 3. Md. Gradation curves from sieve analysis for brick chips. within the limit of 30–100 as specified in different codes and standards (ACI Commonly practiced water/cement ratio of 0.) center to center spacing throughout the Upper_FA span. kg/m3 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 CA. a majority of construction work is 3. Similar phenomenon was also experienced in the present study where compaction was performed with a vibrator and the workability was found to be moderately satisfactory. Steel reinforcements For the construction of test beams. The resulting aspect ratio of 54 falls and coarse aggregate.29) (0. Concrete tion behavior of test specimens were studied to determine various parameters. A constant deflection-controlled loading Fig. Loads were applied at each of the third points by a Tinius Olsen Universal Testing Machine.39] and even. Typical stress–strain curve of The objective of the experiments conducted herein was to assess the perfor. Concrete Ingredients Control GFRC-1 GFRC-1. such Ordinary Portland cement was used with 19 mm (¾ in.% 0 1 1. Average elongation was around 20% at rupture. 14. are also shown in the figure and it is evident that the coarse aggregate perfectly falls within the range but the fine aggregate is coarser than the range stipulated. Two more mixes were done with stone chips and GI wire fiber to compare the results with previous studies.06 0. According to Mehta and 600. Average yield and ultimate strengths of the wire were measured as 340 MPa (49ksi) and 500 MPa (72. with an effective depth to the steel centroid of 169 mm 100 (6.) downgraded crushed as first cracking load.3. fibers. 2.

MPa Splitting tensile strength.14 2.97 18. Deflec- tion and cracks of the beam were monitored with a video extensometer continu- ously.5% and 1% by volume fraction (1.68 2. A maximum increase of 33% was observed for both stone and brick chip concrete. MPa 20 15 75 mm 450 mm 450 mm 450 mm 75 mm 10 5 h=200mm Ø8 mm stirrup @ 150 mm c/c 0 Control 1% 1.04 22.64 22.08 20.01 20.24 2.73 21.57 2.94 20.13 16.53 16.62 2. Abul Bashar Emon et al. Test setup for beam flexure.35 22.05 22.33 1.27 2.39 19.92 .62 1. / Construction and Building Materials 106 (2016) 575–583 P/2 P/2 25 Compressive strength.93 20.5% GFRC 19.14 20.16 1.53 18.49 2. Compressive strength.55 2.62 1. Fig. 3.84 2.5% GFRC 19.11 1.5% GFRC 21. 4. 4.68 2.45 20.49 3.05 1.11 2.52 20.50% 3% 3.02 2.44 3.49 2.25 20.79 2. Compressive strength of normal concrete and GFRC.62 23.31 21.64 18.60 19. Change of deflection and crack width with time was measured by methods of Digital Image Correlation (DIC).14 23.45 20. Individual results have been presented in Table 2 and aver- age results are shown in Fig.60 2.53 3.33 1. [36] found that steel fiber addition of 0.10 2.61 2. More- over. Fig.27 23. 4 displays the overall setup for beam testing.40 3.03 17.0% GFRC 20.89 21.18 2.75 2.34 17.01 2. Campione et al.77 20.47 3.55 3.40 22.42 2.02 16.24 2.39 21.47 21. respec- Fig. load was continuously monitored and data was saved through a data logger.67 2.81 15. MPa Brick chips Stone chips Brick chips Stone chips Individual Average Individual Average Individual Average Individual Average Control 16.85 21.68 1.67 2.77 21.12 2.52 18.62 2.36 2.55 2.51 2. other works on steel fiber incorporation in LWAC reported Table 2 Results of compressive strength and splitting tensile strength test.97 23.99 2.36 22.62 2% GFRC 24.47 22.93 2.61 3.22 3.53 18.44 2.20 21.30 2.12 2.35 3.84 22. 5.17 24.35 2.77 23. Results and discussion The compressive strengths of various control and GFRC test cylinders were determined according to ASTM standard (ASTM C39/C39M-14a) [41].4% weight fraction) increased compressive strength by 22% and 29%.01 21.18 3. Schematic diagram for details of test beams.12 2.35 3.02 1.7% and 3.78 1% GFRC 23.02 20.50% Ø10 mm bars Brick Chips Stone chips b=150mm Fig.82 3.35 2.01 2. tively for monotonic loading for LWAC with expanded clay.578 Md.14 20. Three samples per each concrete mix were tested.03 20.50% 2% 2. 5.14 2. Both brick chip and stone chip con- crete exhibited increment in strength due to fiber addition but no definite relationship between strength and fiber content can be drawn.

5 10 0. 60 sponding load–deflection curves. Micro-crack and macro-crack loads were determined from the recorded continuous load–deflection data and corre. Table 3 Test matrix. Ultimate strength is the maximum load recorded. 7–11. 7–11 demonstrate that all the 10 curves for the same fiber content are almost identical. mm control concrete. Thus. terms used in the table are explained below.5% GFRC (BC) samples.5 30 Control sample-1 Control sample-2 1. A test matrix 10 is provided in Table 3. Load–deflection curve for 2% GFRC (BC) samples.5% < Vf 6 1%) volume fraction of steel fiber in LWAC 30 1. / Construction and Building Materials 106 (2016) 575–583 579 4. Splitting tensile strength of normal concrete and GFRC. with a linear elastic Fig. From previous studies 40 [14. which implies that randomness of fiber dispersion did not vary the result 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 significantly. 22% [43].5% sample-2 respectively. the results from the cur- rent experiment with GI wire fiber is comparable and even better 80 regarding the previous results with conventional steel fiber.5% GFRC 3% GFRC 3. Concrete Control 1% GFRC 1. Table 4 summarizes the test results.36. Fig. 2% sample-2 20 lized to assess flexural capacity as well as ductility and toughness. 70 Split tensile strengths of control concrete and GFRC were deter- mined at 28 days according to ASTM standard (ASTM C496/ 60 C496M-11) [45]. Therefore. Load–deflection curve for control samples (BC).50% 3% 3.5%) and low (0.5% sample 3 The beams were tested as described in Section 2.3.5% sample-1 can provide a maximum increase of 16–61% and 19–116%. 9. Several Fig. 20 1. compressive strength increment up to 30% [42]. The load corresponding to the macro-crack is the ‘‘macro- 70 crack load”.46] it is found that addition of very low (Vf 6 0. 7. Toughness 50 Load.5 50 Load. results can be assumed to be reliable since close results were obtained for all tested samples in each set. 30 2% sample-1 Load–deflection curves under flexural loading are generally uti.5 70 Spling Tensile strength. Toughness calculated up to macro-cracking point is the macro-crack toughness. Fig. 8. mm form of each load–deflection curve is similar.0 Control 1% 1. 1. 2% sample-3 Load–deflection curves in Figs. 12 for comparison of performances of GFRC with respect to Deflection. 6.0 60 2. kN for brick chip concrete (LWAC). The Deflection. mm Fig.5% GFRC Coarse aggregate BC BC BC BC BC BC BC SC SC No of samples 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 .0 20 Control sample-3 0. Md.50% 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 Brick chips Stone chips Deflection. MPa 3.50% 2% 2.0 40 1. The load deflection curves derived from the tests for brick chips concrete are presented in Figs. Load–deflection curve for 1. kN was calculated by integrating continuous load–deflection data 40 from the data logger using trapezoidal rule of numerical integra- tion.5% GFRC 3% GFRC 3. 6 presents the results from the tests. Abul Bashar Emon et al. Mean 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 load deflection curve for different concrete mixes is shown in Fig. Macro-crack is the ini- tiation of sudden widening of cracks without much increase in 80 load.43. kN 2. A max- imum increase of 53% is observed for stone chips concrete and 44% 50 Load.35. Micro-crack means the very first initiation of cracking which is noted by a sudden small decrease in loading where the load was supposed to steadily rise in the elastic zone. 21% [35] and 20% [44] with good workability.0 80 3.5% GFRC 2% GFRC 2.

It is obvious that number of cracks reduced with Load. 30 3% sample 2 For simplicity of construction and representing actual construc- 3. mm For 2%. And hence. Deflection. For example.5% GFRC supports although flexural cracks near mid-span are also present.5% performed better than other 40 mixes in controlling crack width. GFRC curves also show slight strain hardening up to a certain strain. Load–deflection curve for 3 & 3. However. The curve for the control sample is located below all the GFRC curves. Furthermore. kN increasing fiber content. but. energy absorption rather than crack spacing for 70 loads in excess of this range of loading is of more significance.5% sample-1 adopted for the prediction of the response.5% GFRC cracks tend to disappear.5% fiber contents. Abul Bashar Emon et al. Fig.5–2. For comparison curves seem to reach higher values than others and therefore give with SFRC.5%. Fig. 12 clearly shows that addition of GI wire fiber increased conform to these crack patterns manifested in the tests. 17 . toughness and ultimate strengths. diagonal shear-flexure 1. 11. concrete 3. In addition to this. which 50 indicates that fiber addition deterred crack growth. 2–2.580 Md.5% GFRC (BC) samples. 3% GFRC For specimens with 1 and 1. increases in 0 10 20 30 40 50 various parameters with respect to control samples are plotted in Deflection. 12. cracks. mm Fig.5% GFRC brick chip concrete as concrete with stone chips. The reason is that SFRC for Fig. For the control specimen. Average curves for seven different mix-designs (BC). Failure modes presented in Table 4 region.5% sample 1 20 tion practices. whereas the toughness increment 80 peaks in the 1. It is obvious that the behavior pattern better. The interesting aspect of the crack pat- Control 40 1% GFRC terns is that with increasing fiber content. Linear regression formula proposed by Rjoub [47] was 30 2. the trends (corresponding R values are provided with the graphs). flexural cracks close to mid- 0 span become the wider cracks as opposed to the cracks of the con- 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 trol sample. Load–deflection curve for 2. crack formation for GFRC is less than control samples since spacing of cracks are larger.5% and 3% fiber contents.5% GFRC diagonal cracks are manifested. capacities of the beams.5% GFRC lie 3% sample 1 closely below the bundle and not shown in the figure for clarity. but the fiber effect is not very discernible this trend indicates that fiber reinforcing has been as effective on as all the curves lie in a very close range. Changes in crack spacing and width were also studied.5% sample-2 showed better strength compared to predicted strength and such 20 difference between experimental and predicted strength is found 2.5% sample 2 placement and compaction became increasingly difficult due to 10 decreased workability in mixes with higher fiber content. the most 30 2% GFRC prominent cracks are the diagonal shear-flexure cracks near the 20 2. kN shown in Table 4 in order to compare with the experimental 40 results. 0 To further understand the contribution of fibers. Deflection. SFRC samples have considerably steeper slopes than that of control concrete showed strain hardening after macro-crack but GFRC samples did which indicates higher stiffness of GFRC. Table 4 clearly shows increments in macro- 60 crack strength. Moreover. it is observed that the curves of GFRC is quite similar with some differences. Crack pattern of the samples were also observed. 70 crack width results are plotted in Fig. mm load graphs. This is due to the fact that not exhibit this phenomenon.5% sample-3 to be comparable with results from previous comparative studies 10 [47–49]. 13. Load vs. 15 shows average crack spacing vs. no plasticizer was used. which is absent 50 in the control samples.5% GFRC (BC) samples. This 0 affected various performances of GFRC concrete with higher fiber 0 10 20 30 40 50 contents like 3% and 3. 14 which gives a clear idea 60 about the effectiveness of fibers in reducing crack width. 17. This intriguing phenomenon can be ascribed to the fact that fiber reinforcement adds to the shear strength of concrete as portion prior to crack formation followed by a plastic deformation pointed out in ACI 318 [23]. / Construction and Building Materials 106 (2016) 575–583 80 after formation of micro cracks in the tension zone. Fig. It is clear that the curves for GFRC samples are above that of the control sample up to about 50 kN load. there will usually be plastic deformation and excessive crack- 80 ing. Curves of 3% and 3. both GFRC and SFRC from previous research [20] have an impression that this range of fiber content performs relatively been presented in Fig. 10. predicted ultimate load is Load. for this range of loading. wire fibers con- tinue to transfer loads across the cracks and enhance both stiffness 70 and flexural capacity. 16 shows 60 the crack patterns of the specimens when the load is close to the 50 ultimate load. both flexural and 10 3. For loads beyond about 50 kN.5–2% fiber content range. It is evident that macro-crack and ultimate strength increments peak for fiber content of 2–2. diagonal cracks are gradually rendered absent and failure is predominantly governed by flexural Fig. 2. Experimental results 2. This indicates that Fig. It is also appar- Load. Best fit second degree curves were chosen to represent Fig. And therefore.5%. kN ent that fiber content of 1.

682 design chosen in this study shows that GI wire fiber.0 308 289. Concrete Sample Average Micro.5 3 3. Average Macro. 25 GI wire bends easily but steel fiber requires more energy to bend. kN Ultimate Load. / Construction and Building Materials 106 (2016) 575–583 581 Table 4 Summary of flexural tests on test beams with brick chips.2 66.0% GFRC 1 Not discernible 68.4137 20 erties. Ultimate Load. Macro-crack Average Ultimate Average Predicted Failure ID crack load.69 Flexural 2 376 81 Flexural 3 251 72 Flexural 3. Cost comparison Macro-crack strength increment 5 Cost analysis of materials for GFRC and SFRC with the mix Ultimate strength increment R² = 0.5% GFRC 1 Not discernible 69. kN Toughness.9 72 71.5 1 1. weight percent cost reduction of almost 14% [16].3 77 76.5 2 2. if used as a 0 substitute of steel fiber.5% GFRC 10 100 0 0 0 0. mm Load. Load vs. Various parameter increment trends (for GFRC with BC).7815 10 Toughness increment 4. mm 2% GFRC 50 500 1. 800 80 3.1.5 4 of concrete when fiber dosage is 1% on weight basis.5% GFRC 1 44 65 321 327. crack width (for GFRC with BC).m Toughness. kN 400 1% GFRC 40 Control Control 30 1% GFRC 300 1. Load. 13. can save BDT 1380 ($17.4 305 260 61 60 49. kN crack load.6 51. Abul Bashar Emon et al. 15.4 50. .8 57.13 Shear/ flexural 2 250 59 Shear/ flexural 3 270 60 Shear/ flexural 1% GFRC 1 33. 14. Average crack spacing vs.5% GFRC 1 Not discernible 68.69 Shear/ flexural 2 232 69 Shear/ flexural 3 334 73 Shear/ flexural 2% GFRC 1 Not discernible 68.8 51. reduction in cost increases proportionately. Fig.6 372 324 76 73.2 283 286. Load (for GFRC with BC).50% GFRC Load. 15 R² = 0.3 52. mode m kN kN Control 1 23.0 69 68.25 Shear/ flexural 2 320 70 Shear/ flexural 3 282 71 Shear/ flexural 1.2 283 303. N.13 Flexural 2 270 75 Flexural 3.5 3 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 Crack width. which means a Fibre content. GFRC does not show significant strain hardening prop- R² = 0. Nonetheless.14 Flexural 2 289 68 Flexural was made with high strength steel (steel fiber having yield 35 strength of 1303 MPa and ultimate strength of 1784 MPa) whereas 30 GFRC in current research was made with mild steel (having yield strength of 524 MPa and ultimate strength of 592 MPa).2 245 283 70 70 50.5% GFRC 20 2% GFRC 200 2.7 54.50% GFRC 600 3% GFRC 60 Crack spacing.5 2 2. With higher dosage of fiber.50% GFRC 700 70 2.3 Flexural 2 320 70 Flexural 3 279 75 Flexural 2. Percent increment As a result. Moreover.5 1 1. N.2) per cubic meter 0. Fig.0 70 72. GI fiber appears to be an effective means of increasing performance of concrete. Md. kN Fig.

30 3. splitting tensile strength and flexural capacity were toughness etc. Compressive mechanical properties i. No additional admixture or special attention is Bangladesh. Comparison of brick brick chips and locally available GI wire was used as low cost alter. espe- pressive strength can be increased by about thirty percent with cially for large concrete members. 17.5% GFRC (SC) 4.5% GFRC (Brick chips) 3% GFRC (Brick chips) Fig. It can provide significant compressive strength. 16. The following conclusions can be made based on the findings from this study: In fine. considering overall performance. However. In such cases. mm 5. kN from the test results.5% (approx. sile strength test results show a much higher enhancement.6–0.5% GFRC (Brick chips) 2% GFRC (Brick chips) 2. if not more. tion brings about comparable enhancement. / Construction and Building Materials 106 (2016) 575–583 Control (Brick chips) 1% GFRC (Brick chips) 1. GI wire fiber as concrete reinforcement can be used as a viable use in conventional concrete mixes with burnt clay brick chips as low-cost alternative to steel fibers in developing countries like coarse aggregate. Fig. which indicates that fibers 0 delay the formation of cracks as well as resist crack 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 propagation. Deflecon. Fiber content was limited to low volume frac. this strength increment is dependent on fiber orientation in the concrete matrix. 60 3. Various flexural properties of concrete can be enhanced in the 50 range of 15–30% with the addition of GI wire fibers. Crack widths in concrete can be remarkably reduced due to GI 3% GFRC (SC) fiber addition. necessary for this concrete mix but this fiber addition may impart tensile strength and flexural enhancements to concrete with significant performance enhancement which will. decreased workability and difficulty in concrete placement. flexural toughness and ultimate load. 6. crack widths of the GFRC sam- 20 Control (Oh 1992) ples were found to be significantly smaller than that of normal concrete. Crack patterns at ultimate loads for various test specimens. compressive and tensile strength. Crack spacing is also observed to be larger in GFRC 10 3. admixture may become necessary. On the other hand. ensure a durable structure.582 Md. splitting ten. 80 the order of around forty-five percent due to GI wire fibers 70 incorporation. 0. Addition of GI fiber arrested shear-flexure from forming which validated that fiber reinforcement improves shear resistance in 5. Result of compressive strength test indicates that concrete com. in the long run. For the same load. These properties include the first-crack 40 load.75% vol.e. fractions) by weight should be suitable for 1. in tion considering both cost and ease of mixing process.5% SFRC (Oh 1992) during the initial cracking stages. fiber content of 2–2. as observed Load. investigated. Conclusions concrete. utilization of the addition of GI wire fibers. strength. Load–deflection curves for GFRC and SFRC (SC). brick chip aggregates. aggregate concrete with other LWAC also shows that fiber addi- native for steel fiber. Abul Bashar Emon et al. Crack patterns show significant reduction in crack formation and propagation due to fiber addition to concrete matrices. Increased wire volume may lead to 2. of . GFRC produces similar load–deflection behavior as SFRC when Steel fiber reinforcing technique was applied to LWAC with stone chips is used as coarse aggregate.

1016/j. JSCE-VIFCEA Joint Seminar [37] ACI 544. 27 (6) (2005) 881–890.>.Z. International conference: Innovation in concrete structures: design application of steel fiber reinforced concrete in Taiwan. 154–170.doi.1943-5533. G. Analysis of reinforced fibrous concrete beams. Sci. Durability design consideration and in: Proc. ASCE 118 (10) (1992) 2821–2835.2004. Mater. PA.doi. Eng. http://dx. 108–116. J.doi. L. Libre. S. heartfelt thanks go to crack and temperature resistance of lightweight concrete. Stress-strain behavior of steel reinforced lightweight aggregate concrete. F. 2005. Concr.05. USA. Swamy. Yazdani.A. 83 (3) (2002) 660–686.B. Doherty.. Strength enhancement of cement mortar with carbon properties of oil palm shell lightweight concrete. Mater. Some characteristics of high strength fiber [18] F. PA. Oh. [24] C.Sc.07. Naaman. BUET [249(8)]. MI.x. Aydin. Mahmud. [12] G. [38] ASTM A820/A820M:2011. Williams. Al-Ta’an. 25 (2) (2003) fiber-reinforced concrete in J.J. proportioning. characterization of very high performance fiber reinforced concrete beams.doi.1007/s12205- (2005) 3357–3363. Cucchiara.conbuildmat.026. Henager. Gupta. Constr. M.2005. M. 1999.M. Duzgun. Sci. Mater. Eng. Y. Contribution of hybrid fibers on the properties of the high strength lightweight concrete having good workability. 35 (5) (2005) 913–917. K. J. concrete subjected to high temperatures.doi. reinforced concrete. West Conshohocken. Appl. 2008. Morino. Res. J. reinforced concrete beams made with steel fiber concrete.2013. ACI-SP-Detroit (1982). R.M. [21] D. Arabian J. L.L. http://dx. Build.J.E. Effect of different fibers on the mechanical properties of scribd. Large volume high performance applications of fibers in civil 0733-9445(1992) 118:10(2821). Pub. Balendran. [19] M.doi. H.010.1016/j. P. Manzur.035.1016/S0958-9465(02)00016-1. 108 (5) (2011) 553–561. Concr. Ceram. Dvorkin. K. M. G. Concr. Am.doi.1551-2916. pp. N. N. Adv.W.G. Steel–concrete bond in [8] P. UK. Eng. pumice. R. McGraw-Hill. Eng. financial.K. 8–9 December 2005.1061/(ASCE) [3] V. Department of Civil Engineering. Hong. [45] ASTM C496/C496M: 2011. Scotland. 313. PP(CTP). Mater. Chang. K. International conference: Sustainable construction materials and [1] M. Mendola. Eng. American Concrete Institute. Tensile strength and durability characteristics of lightweight fiber reinforced concrete under monotonic and cyclic actions. J. http://dx. Building code requirements for structural concrete. L. MI. MI. P. http://dx. [9] N. Zhu. H. G. Mater. http://dx. Struct. ACI SP105 (1987) 517–563. Haroon.0000372. Yang. Pearson Education (Malaysia) [31] C. Dvorkin. engstruct. Concr. http://dx. CP 69/74. Influence of steel fiber and compression (ASCE)0733-9445(1992) 118:10(2821). Polym. Growth of cement hydration products on single walled with fiber reinforced concrete.H. doi. N. 2014. Effect of steel fibers on the mechanical [7] T. Hannant. Shear testing of steel fiber- (01)00109-3. Mechanical properties aggregates. http://dx. Papia.12988/ces. Bencardino. [41] ASTM C39/C39M:2014. engineering. Campione. Y.doi. J. C.W.. Mater. Cem. Engineered steel fibers with optimal properties for with regard to any content of this article. Manzur. 19 (5) (2015) 1405–1412. [32] R.doi. Farmington Hills. Explosive spalling cylindrical concrete specimens. Guerrini. Concrete technology.I. 2007. with steel fibers (M. American Concrete Institute.1016/j. J. J. M. Zhao. Chanh. and on Concrete Engineering. ACI Mater. W. J. 33 (2B) (2008) Struct. Flexural behavior and design of reinforced fiber concrete members. Ou. [30] R. USA.1111/j.conbuildmat. reinforcement of cement composites. http://dx.H. of cylindrical concrete specimens. Soc.1016/j.1061/ [49] S. ACI Struct. State-of-the-art report on fiber reinforced Cem. T. A. Mehta. (1B) (2009) 57–79. Abu Hijab. Soroushian. pp. Steel fiber reinforced concrete. Build. Concr. mixing. Soroushian. pp.B.3141/ and (1981) 395– Materials.doi. Johnston. Bridge Eng. Gul. Mechanical properties of steel fiber-reinforced. 20 (3) (2008) 207–213. Microstructure.1016/S0958-9465(97)00023-1. Canbaz.doi.A. [33] S. reinforcement on deflection of high strength concrete beams. Compos. Rosati.I. Kwak. 108. Banthia. Lightweight aggregate concrete fiber technologies. Moment capacity of steel fiber reinforced concrete beams. J. Thomas Telford. Tsai. Post-tensioned anchorage zone enhancement [5] J. Cem.12. University of Technology.M. M. 59 (27) KSCE J. Optimum mix ratio for nanotubes in cement mortar. M. Environ.F. reinforcement–A N. Effect of steel fiber on the mechanical [6] T.D. 34 (4) (2001) 201–210. Suqa. Influence of polypropylene fiber geometry on plastic shrinkage cracking in concrete. Nagamani. ASTM International. http://dx. Board 2142 (2010) 102– 3926–3932. in: Proc. Leung. Res.C. 6 (5) (2013) 225–237.2005. Compos. Standard specification for steel fibers for fiber- Building Research Establishment current paper.1061/(ASCE)1084-0702(2006) 11:5(566).doi. Shafigh. Yazdani. J. Mater. K.doi. 3rd ed. Vietnam. 209–219. R. . Compressive behavior of steel-fiber-reinforced concrete with a high reinforcing index. 21 (7) (2007) 1486–1491.1007/ of hybrid fiber reinforced lightweight aggregate concrete made with natural BF02480589. Arabian J.L. West Conshohocken. Ramadoss. Mechanical properties of steel fiber 727. 85 (4) (1988) 254–261. K. [22] Y. http://dx. Abul Bashar Emon et al. Contemp. Ho Chi Minh City finishing steel fiber reinforced concrete. USA. Constr. USA. Mahoutian. http://dx. http://dx.doi. S. 34 (2) (2005) 413–422. loading. 11 (5) (2006) 566–572. New York. [47] M. thesis). 36 (7) (2006) 1263–1267. Ltd.cemconres.doi. 1 (3) (2003) 241–252. Concrete Laboratory and Strength of Materials Laboratory. Build. Emon. Production and mechanical http://dx. Effects of alkali-resistant glass fiber reinforcement on and Research (CASR). ASCE 102 (1) (1976) 178–188. http://dx.14359/10525. ASTM International. L.2006. Properties of steel fiber reinforced concrete under cyclic (1997) 611–624. Technol. J. http://dx. Struct. [25] A. ASTM International. References http://dx.doi. American Concrete Institute.A. Craig. W. K. Flexural strength of lightweight and normal concrete beams [20] B.2009. Guide for specifying. Brooks. Campione. Spadea. [15] R.14359/17890.1016/S0958-9465(01) 00038-5.N. concrete containing fly ASCE J. BUET Compos. Li. C. [40] C. 2006.F. Liu. Standard test method for compressive strength of [13] G. Struct.07.K. Sci. Transp. Mater. L.010. Zhou. Jordan. Civil Eng. Musmar.1016/j. Monteiro.T. [34] P. Deformation and ultimate strength in flexure of 10. USA. Tensile strength of steel fiber reinforced concrete. lightweight concrete. S. P. Cem.03055.L. R.1002/app. Haque. Mahmud. Wafa. 37 (12) (2002) 1361–1367. professional. reinforced lightweight concrete beams without web reinforcement. Standard test method for splitting tensile strength Bangladesh University of Engineering & Technology. Civil Eng. J. / Construction and Building Materials 106 (2016) 575–583 583 Disclosure statement [23] ACI 318:2014. reinforced concrete. <http://www.Y.071. Durability enhancements in concrete with fiber reinforcement.V. carbon nanotubes.S. West Conshohocken. [11] L. Thesis). UW Milwaukee CBU. for their unyielding support throughout the research work. org/10. Chen. 34 and construction. in: Proc. This work was supported by Committee for Advanced Studies [27] F.matlet. PA. [16] M. http://dx. Farmington Hills. Topcu. http://dx. Concr. [36] reinforced lightweight concrete with pumice stone or expanded clay [14] N.. Eng. and residual mechanical properties of fiber-toughened high-performance USA. Properties. Md. [2] A. Zhao. Neville. Swamy.V. 1999. 24 (2) (2012) 207– Res. University of Jordan.doi.1016/j.doi. Pte. Chan.T. F. Nadeem. 014-0721-x.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2008) 20:3(255). Rizzuti. 1974.Sc. http://dx. [17] ACI 544. Steel fiber reinforced mortar and Li.H.H. http://dx. 255–263. Sci.06. 37 (2012) 452–461. M. Papia.E. Tsai. (M. Eng. 36 (4) (2006) 723– [42] G. M. 25 (2011) 2458–2464. [35] O.P. Constr.14359/3069. high performance fiber-reinforced concrete.A. 78 (5) [4] P. Flexural analysis of reinforced concrete beams containing steel fibers. [46] O. Steel fiber reinforced concrete. ACI Struct.1016/S0360-1323 [44] T. http://dx. Basics of concrete science. Makar. Jumaat. 307–319. Peng. Mahmoud. B.071.2263. properties of natural lightweight aggregate concrete.1061/(ASCE)MT. W.A. 19 (4) (1997) 307– strength and ductility of normal and lightweight high strength concrete. Design 32 (7) (2011) nanotubes: early results and potential. Cem.J. Civil Eng. P. Kim.K.B.cemconres. Shekarchi. http://dx. Farmington Hills. Bian. pp.doi. placing. http://dx. Kayali.doi.14359/51683212. O. Naaman. Cassar.H.doi. D.cemconres.A. Hassanpour. Shafigh. [28] N.M. [43] J. N. A. Study of strength and ductility of Galvanized Iron wire J. Liu. [29] N. University of Dundee. a review of Authors hereby declare that they do not have any competing mechanical properties in fiber reinforced concrete. Lett. [10] J.B.doi. Banthia. Chang.doi.2006. 24 (2) (2002) 223–227. or personal interests from other parties http://dx. Acknowledgements [26] B. And. Cem. Pub. J.N. Y. [48] W.1016/j. Influence of steel fibers on high-strength.N. Liu. Sci.014.doi.01. 92 (6) (2009) 1303–1310. C. Ashour. [39] I. 559–568. Kang. http://dx. Hwang. ACI Mater. Miraglia.