See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/282407347

Feather fiber reinforced concrete

Article  in  Concrete International · June 1994

CITATIONS READS
18 1,839

2 authors:

Sameer A. Hamoush Moetaz M. El-Hawary

North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University Kuwait University
78 PUBLICATIONS   673 CITATIONS    42 PUBLICATIONS   349 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

CERL project View project

Department of Energy View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Moetaz M. El-Hawary on 12 July 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Feather,Fiber
Reinforced Concrete
I
mproving concrete properties such as strength and dura-
bility by adding fibers to the mix has become a common
practice.lm5 Recent advances in research and technology in
obtaining optimal mix designs for fiber reinforced con-
crete (FRC) have increased its use in special construction areas
such as nuclear power plants, but its commercial applications
are still limited due to FRC’s increased costs. The increased
mix cost is due mainly to the high cost of steel and glass fibers.
A FRC that uses natural fibers would be cheap and would have
a positive environmental impact.
Using vegetable and wood fibers was an early attempt at
using natural fibers in a concrete mix.6 Problems associated
with using natural fibers were addressed,6V7 and a method of
preventing deterioration of the fibers was outlined. One type
of natural fiber that seemed promising was feathers. Feath-
ers wasted in the process of food production of chickens
have increased landfill waste and are adding to our environ-
mental problems. Using these waste feathers in concrete
would contribute to cleaning the environment.
Using feathers as fiber reinforcement produces a unique
concrete mix. It is lighter in weight and stronger in flexure
than ordinary portland cement plain concrete. The literature
contains advanced research and technology on lightweight
concrete.8-‘2 Using lightweight aggregates and some addi-
tive materials are the current practice for obtaining light-
weight concrete, but this increases the cost of the mixed
concrete. Using feathers in the mix design produces cheaper
lightweight concrete. The long-term durability of the mix is
being investigated to validate the technique.
. I4 days
l 20days
n 56 days
C 75 150 225 300 375 4 5 0 110
450
Strarns mm/mm
Fig. 1 - The compressive load strain curves for concrete
without feathers.
June 1994
Experimental investigation
Feathers collected from chicken shops were washed, cleaned,
screened, and dried. They were not chemically treated.
Three volumetric ratios of 1, 2, and 3 percent of feathers
were used in this investigation. The volume of feathers was
determined by considering their density, which was deter-
mined by dividing the weight of a sample feather by its vol-
ume. The volume of the feather was determined by finding
the change in water volume when it was submerged.
Three sets of six standard 6 x 12 in. (150 x 300 mm) con-
crete cylinders were tested for each volumetric ratio. The
concrete mix was fixed at 1:2:4 with a w/c of 0.6 and Type I
portland cement. The aggregates were washed and oven
dried before they were used. Each set of cylinders was
tested on different dates. The first set was tested at 14 days,
the second set was tested at 28 days, and the last set was
tested at 56 days. For each set of cylinders, three cylinders
were tested under uniaxial compression and another three
cylinders were tested in a split tension test. Three control
specimens were tested at 14, 28, and 56 days to monitor
changes in the compressive strength and another three con-
trol cylinders were tested at 14, 28, and 56 days to monitor
changes in tensile strength.
The compressive strength of the standard cylinders was
obtained by using an MTS machine equipped with a mov-
ing head that advanced at a rate of 0.078 in. (2 mm) per
hour. The force was applied in increments of 25 kN (5.6
kip) At each increment, the deflection of a 6 in. (150 mm)
gauge attached to the cylinder’s side was recorded. The ma-
l OX feathers
n 1X feathers
l 2X feathers
I 3X feathers
-5
0
0 75 150 225 300 375 +3u
Strains mm/mm
Fig. 2 -- Comparison between the compressive strength at
28 days for all ratios tested.
33
 The same MTS machine was used to perform the split
tensile testing. The load was applied to failure at the same
rate as that of the compressive test. Only the final failure
tensile strength was recorded.
The flexural strength of feather FRC was evaluated by per-
forming tests on 6 x 6 x 30 in. (150 x 150 x 750 mm) beam
specimens at 14,28, and 56 days. Three specimens were tested
q 14dayS for each volumetric ratio. The beams were tested in flexure un-
l 26 days der two point loading. The spacing between the load points
l 5 6 days was 6 in. (150 mm). Three control beams were tested to moni-
tor the flexural strength changes for each date.
In the mix with 1 percent feathers, 0.0046 in.‘/ft” (2.6
cm3/m”) of type mighty 150 superplasticizer was added to
-5 produce a workable mix. The workability of the mix was
75 150 225 300 375 XI0
0 low compared to ordinary portland cement concrete. The
Strains mm/mm concrete mix with 2 percent feathers was harsher than that
Fig. 3 - The compressive load strain curves for concrete of the 1 percent feather mix, so more superplasticizer (0.009
in.3/ft3 [5 cm3/m3]) was added to increase the workability of
the mix. The concrete mix that contained 3 percent feathers
was very harsh and a lot more superplasticizer was added
(0.015 in3/ft3 [9 cm3/m3]). The workability was severe and a
lot of attention was focused on casting and vibrating the
specimens. The difficulty in the workability of the mixed
concrete led to limiting the investigation to the mentioned
volumetric ratios.

Results
The relationship of the compressive load versus the strain is
z . Welght of beariS shown in Fig. 1 to 3. Fig. 1 shows the change in the com-
E pressive strength over time of the concrete without feathers.
l Weight of cylinders
5
Fig. 2 shows the 28 day compressive strength of the con-
20- cretes with different feather ratios. The addition of 1 percent
of feathers resulted in a 13 percent reduction in the failure
strength. Fig. 3 shows the change in the concrete compres-
c .
sive strength with age for concrete containing 1 percent
lo- feathers. The 56 day maximum load was 3 15 kN (7 1 kip) at
00 I .o 2.0 3.0
Ratios of feathers (PerCents)
0.00325 strain, and the 28 day maximum load was 270 kN
(61 kip) at 0.00320 strain. The 14 day strength was 165 kN
Fig. 4 - The reduction in weight of the concrete with the
(37 kip) at 0.0018 strain.
The weight of each tested specimen was recorded to
check the reduction in weight of the concrete mix (Fig. 4).

1
4
At each date, the average of three specimens was used.
Fig. 5 shows the increase in the flexural strength of the
cylinders with the addition of 1 percent of feathers. The in-
crease in strength was noted at all ages of concrete tested
(14, 28, and 56 days). The concrete mix with 2 percent of
feathers revealed an increase in the flexural strength at 56
days. However, the flexural strength of the 2 percent mix
28dayS
I .

3 -
was lower at ages 14 and 28 days than that of the plain con-
0 14 days crete. By increasing the feather volume ratios, the modulus
. 56 days
of rupture decreased.
Fig. 6 shows the reduction in split tensile strength for all
ratios tested. The reduction was noted at all ages of the
tested concrete. The reduction in split tensile strength may
be explained by the decaying of the feathers and reduction
in the feather strength. Feather decay was noted by inspect-
21 ing the failure surfaces of the tested specimen. Where small
0 0 IO 2 6 30
sized feathers (less than l/2 in. [ 13 mm]) were completely
Ratios of feather (percent) dissolved in the concrete, feathers that remained hanging
Fig. 5 - Modulus of rupture versus the feather ratios. out of the failure surfaces exhibited no resistance to pull-
out. The same behavior was noted for the compressive
strength where the strength was reduced with higher
chine’s capability of shutting down at failure of the cylinder amounts of feathers. The behavior of the compressive strength
allowed a reading of deflection at failure. versus the ratios of feathers added is shown in Fig. 7.

0%” Concrete International


I^1
00 10 20 3 0
Ratios of feather (percent)
Fig. 6 - Split strength versus the ratio of feathers.
The failure surfaces of the concrete cylinders were evalu-
ated and inspected. The feathers had lost most of their
strength and decay was severe. Decaying of the feathers is
the focus of a new research project. The authors are in the
process of developing a technique to treat the feathers and
the concrete mix to prevent such decaying. If they are suc-
cessful, feather FRC may become an answer to certain envi-
ronmental and construction problems.
Conclusions
The results of the testing indicated that the new mixes had
lower values in compressive and tensile strengths than those
of plain concrete. The flexural strength was higher in the
concrete with 1 percent feathers, and the flexural strength
was higher in the concrete with 2 percent feathers at age 56
days. However, the flexural strength reduced when the
feather percentage was increased to higher than 2 percent.
The increases in the flexural strength provides promise for
the technique to be used in concrete structures under impact
loading. If the feathers were treated chemically to prevent
the short and long term decaying, both compressive and ten-
sile strength could be improved. The proposed new concrete
has some promise in obtaining a concrete mix with a higher
flexural strength and a lighter weight.
The long term problems associated with the new tech-
nique are: the durability of the concrete, the decay and re-
duction in fiber strength, the chemical reaction between the ft-
ber and concrete, and the water absorbed by the feathers due to
pipe action. These problems are being studied by the authors.
Acknowledgements
The work presented in this paper was supported by Kuwait University
grant EV 06 1.
References
1. Shah, S., and Batson, F., editors, Fiber Reinforced Concrete Proper-
ties and Applications, SP-105, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1987.
2. Swamy, R.; Jones, R.; and Chiam, T., “Shear Transfer in Steel Fiber
Reinforced Concrete,” Fiber Reinforced Concreie Properties and Applica-
tions. SP-105, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1987, pp. 565-592.
3. Fanella, David A., and Naaman, Antoine E., “Stress-Strain Properties
of Fiber Reinforced Mortar in Compression,” Proceedings, AC1 Journal,
V. 82, No. 4, Jul.-Aug. 1985, pp. 474-483.
June 1994View publication stats
q 14days
l . 28 days
I 56 days
5 ! I I
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
Ratlos of feather (percent)
Fio. 7 - Compressive strenath versus feather ratios.
4. Chapman, Ralph A., and Shah, Surendra P., “Early-Age Bond
Strength in Reinforced Concrete,” ACI Materials Journal, V. 84, No. 6,
Nov.-Dec. 1987 pp. 501-510.
5. Hishioka, K.; Yamakawa, S.; Kirakawa, K.; and Akihama, Zntema-
tional Symposium on Testing an Test Methods of Fiber Cement Compos-
ites, Sheffield, 1978.
6. Proceedings of the Second International RILEM Symposium, Vege-
table Plants and Their Fibres as Building Materialsi Chapman and Hall,
First Edition, 1990.
7. Swamy, R. N., “Natural Fibre Reinforced Cement and Concrete,” Con-
crete Technology and Design, V. 5, Blackie and Son, Ltd., London, 1988.
8. AC1 Committee 2 I 1, “Standard Practice for Selecting Proportions for
Structural Lightweight Concrete,” AC1 211.1-g I, American Concrete In-
stitute, Detroit, 1981, pp. 18-27.
9. Slate, Floyd 0.; Nilson, Arthur H.; and Mardinez, Salvador, “Me-
chanical Properties of High-Strength and Lightweight Concrete,” Pro-
ceedings, AC1 Journal, V. 83, no. 4, Jul.-Aug. 1986, pp. 606-613.
10. Wang, P. J.; Shah, S. P.; and Naaman, A. E., “Stress-Strain Chrves
of Normal and Lightweight Concrete in Compression,” Proceedings, AC1
Journal, V. 75, No. 11, 1978, pp. 603-611.
11. Hansen, J. A., “Strength of Structural Lightweight Concrete Under
Combined Stress,” Journal of the Research and Development Laborato-
ries, Portland Cement association, V. 5, No. 1, Jan. 1963, pp. 39-46.
12. Bresler, Boris, “Lightweight Aggregate Reinforced Concrete Col-
umns,” Lightweight Concrete, AC1 SP-29, American Concrete Institute,
Detroit, 1971, pp. 81-130.
Received and reviewed under Institute publication policies.
Sameer A. Hamoush is an assistant pro-
fessor of Civil Engineering at Kuwait Uni-
versity, Kuwait. He obtained his bachelor’s
degree in civil engineering from the Univer-
sity of Damascus, Syria, and his Ph.D. from
North Carolina State University.
Moetar M. El-Hawary is an assistant
professor of Civil Engineering at Kuwait
University, Kuwait. He obtained his
bachelor’s degree in civil engineering
from King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi
Arabia, and his master’s and Ph.D. from
the University of California at Davis.
35