Construction and Building Materials 161 (2018) 37–44

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Flexural performance and toughness of hybrid steel and polypropylene

fibre reinforced geopolymer
Piti Sukontasukkul a,⇑, Phattharachai Pongsopha a, Prinya Chindaprasirt b, Smith Songpiriyakij c
a
Construction and Building Materials Research Center, Department of Civil Engineering, King Mongkut’s University of Technology North Bangkok, Thailand
b
Sustainable Infrastructure Research and Development Center, Department of Civil Engineering, Khon Kaen University, Thailand
c
Associate Professor, College of Industrial Technology, King Mongkut’s University of Technology North Bangkok, Thailand

h i g h l i g h t s

For a hybrid system, steel fibres provide positive effects on the properties PFRG.

Higher first peak load and post peak response were observed in hybrid FRG.

Both toughness and equivalent flexural strength improve with the percentage of steel fibres.

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

Article history: In this study, the effects of steel and polypropylene fibre hybridization on the flexural performance of
Received 20 March 2017 fibre-reinforced geopolymer were investigated. Fibre reinforcement has emerged as a way to improve
Received in revised form 4 October 2017 the brittleness of geopolymer. There are currently several types of fibres available on the market.
Accepted 21 November 2017
When polypropylene fibre is used, it usually yields a large drop in strength immediately after the first
Available online 6 December 2017
crack, as well as a lower post-peak response, owing to its high flexibility and low stiffness. To resolve
these issues, a hybrid system is introduced using fibre with high strength and stiffness such as steel fibre.
Keywords:
In the present study, two hybridization systems are investigated: replacement and addition systems. For
Geopolymer
Hybrid fibre reinforced geopolymer
a replacement system, the polypropylene fibre is replaced gradually with steel fibre at a rate of 0.2% by
Flexural performance volume. For an addition system, the steel fibre is added into the mixture at the same rate. The results
Toughness and residual strength indicate that the hybridization of steel fibre can improve the flexural response, toughness, and residual
Polypropylene fibre strength of polypropylene fibre reinforced geopolymer to different degrees. Both the load dropping
Steel fibre and second peak are found to improve almost instantaneously. The toughness and residual strength also
increase gradually with an increase in steel fibre content.
Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction cement results in the highest carbon emissions with an emission

Global warming is a major environmental problem, the main
cause of which is the emission of greenhouse gases such as carbon
dioxide, hydro fluorocarbons, and methane into the atmosphere.
The accumulation of these gases increases the greenhouse effect
and causes a rise in the earth’s surface temperature, changes to
the climate system, and natural disasters of greater severity.
In the construction industry, cement manufacturing alone emits
about 13,500 million tons of carbon dioxide per year, which
accounts for about 7% of the total carbon dioxide emissions glob-
ally [1]. Of all the common ingredients in a concrete mixture,
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: piti.s@eng.kmutnb.ac.th (P. Sukontasukkul), prinya@kku.ac.th
(P. Chindaprasirt), smith.s@cit.kmutnb.ac.th (S. Songpiriyakij).
factor of about 700–900 kg per ton. In an attempt to reduce the
CO2 emissions of concrete, many studies have targeted lowering
the cement content in concrete mixtures by partially or totally
replacing the cement with a mineral admixture or industrial by-
product such as fly ash, slag, or silica fume.
Geopolymer was first introduced in 1984 [2] as a cementitious
material that contains no Portland cement. The CO2 emissions of
geopolymer are far less than those of conventional cement [3,4].
Geopolymer can be manufactured using any raw materials con-
taining silica (SiO2) and alumina (Al2O3) as major compositions
reacting with a concentrated alkaline solution, and having thermal
energy to accelerate the reactions [5,6], for example, fly ash, blast
furnace slag, metakaolin, or rice husk ash. The properties of
geopolymer also depend on the curing condition. In general,
high-temperature curing is recommended for geopolymer [7]

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.11.122
0950-0618/Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
38 P. Sukontasukkul et al. / Construction and Building Materials 161 (2018) 37–44
because the heat can accelerate the geopolymerization reactions
and promote an early gain in strength. Mermerdasß et al. [8] con-
cluded that the curing temperature and duration are both signifi-
cant factors in the activation of geopolymer. A curing
temperature of 60 °C is considered the optimum temperature
when applying a curing duration of 19–24 h depending on the type
and content of the binder.
The mechanical properties of geopolymer have been found to be
quite similar to those of hardened cement in that the material
exhibits excellent compressive strength but is poor in tensile
strength (brittle). For conventional concrete, to improve the brittle-
ness, small fibres are randomly mixed into the concrete mixture,
which is called fibre reinforced concrete (FRC). For plain concrete,
once a crack begins under loading, the crack will propagate quickly
and cause a rapid loss in load carrying capacity. For FRC, on the
other hand, the fibre distributed among the matrix will intercept
the crack, causing it to slow down and even come to rest. This
effect is the so-called crack bridging effect, which improves the
toughness of the concrete and maintains the ability to carry a load
after the first crack appears.
In the case of geopolymer, the use of fibre to improve the brit-
tleness is comparatively new compared to conventional concrete.
There have been a few studies carried out in the area of fibre rein-
forced geopolymer (FRG). For example, Genesa et al. [9] studied the
basic properties of steel fibre reinforced geopolymer (SFRG) with
fibre volume fractions varying from 0.25 to 1.0% and a concrete
strength of 40 MPa. They found increases in both compressive
and splitting tensile strengths of about 8.51% and 61.63%, respec-
tively, in SFRG with the fibre volume fraction at 1%.
Reed et al. [10] carried out tests on polypropylene FRG at three
different proportions of 0%, 0.05%, and 0.15% by weight and under
two types of curing (ambient and oven). Their results showed an
increased compressive strength at a 0.05% weight fraction ratio
but a decrease at 0.15%. Shaikh [11] compared the flexural beha-
viours of steel fibre reinforced concrete (SFRC) and SFRG, and con-
cluded that both SFRC and SFRG exhibit similar deflection
hardening behaviours, although SFRG was shown to behave in a
more ductile manner with larger deflections at peak load.
In terms of fracture properties, Alomayri et al. [12] investigated
the mechanical and fracture properties of geopolymer mixed with
cotton fibre at 0.3–1.0% by weight. They found the optimum cotton
fibre content is around 0.5% by weight, which provides the highest
flexural strength and fracture toughness of about 11.7 MPa and
pffiffiffiffiffi
1.12 MPa. m, respectively.
Deepa Raj et al. [13] also studied the fracture properties of steel
FRG using a three-point bending test on notched beams. The
notched beams had a b/W ratio of 0.40 and fibre volume fractions
of 0.25%, 0.50%, and 0.75%. The effect of the fibres was found to
enhance the fracture properties of geopolymer such as the fracture
energy and fracture toughness by 10–40% as compared to plain
geopolymer.
Karmar and Kumar [14] investigated the effects of a hybrid fibre
between steel and micro polypropylene fibre on properties includ-
ing the compressive, flexural, and splitting tensile strengths. The
fibre combination used was steel fibre at 0.5% by volume with
the addition of micro polypropylene fibre at 10–50% of the steel
fibre volume. Their results showed that the optimum volume frac-
tions of micro PP fibre was 20% for compressive strength and 30%
for flexural strength.
Table 1
Chemical composition of fly ash and silica fume.
SiO2 Al2O3
Fly Ash 36.02 20.58
Silica Fume 88.30 1.17
In theory, a hybrid system is a combination of two or more
types of fibre in an FRC mixture with an objective of using the
strength of one type of fibre to supplement the weaknesses of
the other [15]. There are two basic systems in hybrid FRC, replace-
ment and addition. A replacement system is when one type of fibre
is replaced with another type of fibre; in this case, the fibre volume
fraction will remain constant. An addition system is when a sup-
plement fibre is added to the base fibre; in this case, the fibre vol-
ume fraction will increase with the additional volume.
Briefly, polypropylene (PP) fibre was first invented to provide
resistance to non-loading cracks in concrete. However, with
advanced technologies in material science, a number of synthetic
fibre types available on the market are capable of enhancing the
toughness and maintaining the residual load carrying capacity
(after cracking) in concrete. However, polypropylene fibre does
have certain drawbacks owing to its low stiffness and flexibility.
When subjecting to loading, and immediately after the first crack-
ing, the load carrying capacity of PP-FRC tends to drop sharply until
the individual fibres are stretched to a certain point, at which the
load then increases again [15,16]. These are two of the weaknesses
of PP fibre that require improvement, and a hybrid system might
provide a solution.
This study therefore aims to investigate the flexural perfor-
mance of hybrid fibre reinforced geopolymer (HyFRG) applying
steel and polypropylene fibre. Both are macro-type fibre designed
specifically to enhance the mechanical strength and toughness of
concrete. Polypropylene fibre is used as the base, while steel fibre
is used as a supplement. Steel fibre is used to replace or add to the
polypropylene base FRC at an incremental rate of 0.2% of volume
fraction. The flexural performance is achieved in accordance with
ASTM 1609. The results in terms of failure mode, toughness, and
equivalent flexural strength are calculated and discussed.
2. Experimental procedure
2.1. Materials
The materials used as a binder phase consist of fly ash and silica
fume. The fly ash is obtained from an electricity power plant in
Lampang province, Thailand, and has a particle size of about 1–
100 lm (Table 1) and the silica fume is a by-product from the
industrial production of silicon and ferro-silicon alloy, and has a
particle size of about 0.03–0.3 lm (Table 1). The chemical solutions
consist of a sodium hydroxide solution (NaOH) prepared using
hydroxide pellets mixed with water at a constant concentration
of 14 M and a sodium silicate solution (Na2OSiO3) with specific
gravity of 1.60 at 20 °C. Two types of macro fibre were used: steel
and polypropylene, the properties and shapes of which are as
shown in Table 2. A chemical admixture, superplasticizer type F
(ASTM C494-81), was also used in the mix to ease the mixing
procedure.
2.2. Mix proportions
Prior to determining the mixture proportion, a pre-test was car-
ried out to determine the optimum sodium hydroxide solution
concentration that provides the greatest compressive strength of
the geopolymer mortar, the results of which are shown in Fig. 1.
Fe2O3 CaO SO3 LOI
15.91 18.75 2.24 0.07
4.76 0.48 1.05 –
 P. Sukontasukkul et al. / Construction and Building Materials 161 (2018) 37–44 39

Table 2
Fibre properties.

Material Shape Length (mm) Shape Tensile Strength (MPa)

Section l/d
Steel 60 Circle 85 1000

Polypropylene 58 Square 52 450

The mixture proportions of both single and hybrid FRG systems

are as shown in Table 3. For the hybrid replacement specimens, the
polypropylene fibres are replaced with steel fibres at 0.2% volume
increment until full replacement is achieved. For the specimens
added to the hybrid, steel fibres are added to PFRG at an incremen-
tal rate of 0.2% until the total volume fraction reaches 2%.

2.3. Specimen preparation

First, a sodium hydroxide solution at a concentration of 14 and a

Fig. 1. Pre-test Results to Determine the Optimum NaOH Concentration.
It can be seen that the geopolymer with a NaOH solution concen-
tration of 14 M provides the greatest compressive strength com-
pared to the other concentrations.
More details on the mixture proportion of a plain geopolymer
mixture are as follows:
sodium silicate solution at a sodium-silicate solution to sodium-
hydroxide solution ratio of 2.5% by weight were prepared. The
solutions obtained are then mixed with fly ash and silica fume in
a pan mixer. Finally, the fibres are added into the fresh mix.
The fresh geopolymer is cast into moulds by dividing it into two
or three layers and compacting each layer with steel rods 60 times,
and applying vibration for 3 min on a vibrating table. The top sur-
face is levelled using a smooth trowel after compaction. After 24 h
the specimens are de-moulded, wrapped with plastic sheets to pre-
vent moisture loss, and cured at room temperature for up to 28
days.
2.4. Test programs

Fly ash to silica fume ratio of 90:10 by weight.

Percentage of binder (fly ash + silica fume) to total weight of
0.65%.

Sodium hydroxide solution (NaOH) concentration of 14 M.

Sodium silicate solution (Na2OSiO3) to sodium hydroxide solu-
tion (NaOH) ratio of 2.5 by weight.

Fine aggregate weight of 1613 kg with paste to fine aggregate of
1:2.75 by weight.
Two tests were carried out: a compressive test (ASTM C39), and
a flexural performance and toughness test (ASTM C1609) (Fig. 3).

Compression Test: This test was carried out according to ASTM
C39 (compressive strength test method for cylindrical con-
crete). Prior to the test, the specimen was polished at the both
top and bottom surfaces, and the dimensions and weight were

Table 3
Mixture proportion.

Type Designation Mixture Proportion (kg/m3)

Fly Ash Silica Fume Na2OSiO2 NaOH solution River Sand Steel Fibre PP Fibre
Single fibre Plain Geopolymer 343 38 147 59 1613 – –
0.5SFRG 343 38 147 59 1613 39.0 –
1.0SFRG 343 38 147 59 1613 78.0 –
0.5PFRG 343 38 147 59 1613 – 4.5
1.0PFRG 343 38 147 59 1613 – 9.0
Hybrid fibre (Replacement) r-HyFRG 1.0PFRG (repeat) 343 38 147 59 1613 – 9.0
0.8P/0.2S-HyFRG 343 38 147 59 1613 15.6 7.2
0.6P/0.4S-HyFRG 343 38 147 59 1613 31.2 5.4
0.4P/0.6S-HyFRG 343 38 147 59 1613 46.8 3.6
0.2P/0.8S-HyFRG 343 38 147 59 1613 62.4 1.8
1.0SFRG (repeat) 343 38 147 59 1613 78.0 –
Hybrid fibre (Addition) a-HyFRG 1.0PFRG (repeat) 343 38 147 59 1613 – 9.0
1.0P/0.2S-HyFRG 343 38 147 59 1613 15.6 9.0
1.0P/0.4S-HyFRG 343 38 147 59 1613 31.2 9.0
1.0P/0.6S-HyFRG 343 38 147 59 1613 46.8 9.0
1.0P/0.8S-HyFRG 343 38 147 59 1613 62.4 9.0
1.0P/1.0S-HyFRG 343 38 147 59 1613 78.0 9.0
40 P. Sukontasukkul et al. / Construction and Building Materials 161 (2018) 37–44
Fig. 2. Flexural Test Setup (ASTM C1609).
measured. The specimen was tested using a 1500 kN Universal
Testing Machine (UTM). Two dial gauges were used as shown in
Fig. 1 to measure the load-deformation response.

Flexural Test: This test was carried out according to ASTM
C1609 (flexural performance of fibre-reinforced concrete), [16]
which is the standard for measuring the toughness of a fibre
reinforced composite material. Prior to the test, the dimensions
and weight of the specimen were measured. The specimen was
then put onto the support rig, as shown in Fig. 2. Two LVDTs
were used to measure the deflection.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Compressive strength
The results with regard to the compressive strength of single-
type FRG are as shown in Fig. 3. The compressive strength of plain
geopolymer is about 40 MPa. With steel fibres, the compressive
strength increases to about 56.6 and 61.7 MPa for 0.5% and 1.0% vol-
ume fractions, respectively. The compressive strength increases
with the increasing fibre content for the steel fibre. For the PFRG,
the compressive strength for 0.5% PFRG is found to be higher than
that of plain geopolymer. The large increase in compressive strength
of both types of FRG is perhaps due to the effect of silica fume added
to the geopolymer mixture, which is able to increase the bond
strength between the fibre and geopolymer matrix. This finding
agrees with the results reported by Al-Majidi et al. [17]. In their
study, a significant increase in compressive strength was found in
SFRG when 10% un-densified silica fume was added to SFRG.
Fig. 3. Compressive Strength of Single FRG.
For PFRG, however, as the fibre content increased to 1%, the
compressive strength was found to decrease markedly from 47 to
35 MPa. This is believed to be the result of poor compaction and
high voids inside the material. Polypropylene fibre is a highly flex-
ible material, and at a high-volume fraction, the compaction
becomes quite difficult and causes the geopolymer matrix to
become loose and porous.
In the case of a hybrid FRG, for the replacement type (r-HyFRG),
when the base fibre (1.0% polypropylene) is replaced by steel fibre
at a 0.2% increment in volume fraction, the results show an
increase in compressive strength with an increase in percentage
of steel fibre replacement. The strength of the hybrid FRG begins
to increase immediately after the steel fibres are added into the
mixture. The greatest strength of this type of hybrid FRG is 56.8
MPa with 0.2% polypropylene +0.8% steel fibre. However, it should
be noted that the compressive strengths of all r-HyFRG samples are
lower than that of 1.0% steel FRG (Fig. 4).
For the addition hybrid FRG (a-HyFRG), the results of adding
steel fibres into the base 1.0% PFRG at 0.2% up to 1.0% (with 0.2%
increments) are shown in Fig. 5. Similar to the replacement, the
compressive strength of a-HyFRG also shows an increasing trend
with the additional percentage of steel fibre applied.
Figs. 6 and 7 show the effects of steel fibre replacement and
addition on the compressive strength of HyFRG in terms of the
increasing percentage and rate per volume fraction. The increasing
percentage is a comparison between the strength of the hybrid
FRGs and that of 1% PFRG. For the r-HyFRG, the increasing percent-
age falls between 14% and 71%, whereas the a-HyFRG provides a
higher increase in percentage from 11% up to 106%. This higher
Fig. 4. Compressive Strength of r-HyFRG.
Fig. 5. Compressive Strength of a-HyFRG.
 P. Sukontasukkul et al. / Construction and Building Materials 161 (2018) 37–44
Fig. 6. Percentage Difference between Each Type of HyFRG Compared with 1.0%
PFRG.
Fig. 7. Rate of Compressive Strength Increase per Volume Fraction of Steel Fibre
Addition or Replacement.
increase in percentage is, in fact, due to the increasing fibre con-
tent, which provides the geopolymer with a greater chance to
intercept cracks and slow down the crack propagation.
Fig. 8. Typical Flexural Responses of Single-Type (a) Polypropylene and (b) Steel FRG.
41
The rate of strength increase per volume fraction of steel fibre
(Fig. 7) also confirms this finding. The rates of strength increase
for the replacement HyFRG were found to be at almost a constant
rate of about 24–27 MPa/%Vf. This is because the total fibre volume
fraction is kept constant at 1.0%. In contrast, for the addition
HyFRG, the rates are not constant but increase with the increase
in steel fibre content, ranging from about 19 to 41 MPa/%Vf. This
is because the total fibre volume fraction increases with the addi-
tional steel fibre. The increasing rate indicates that the effect the
addition system on the compressive strength is more pronounced
than that of the replacement system.
3.2. Flexural performance
3.2.1. Flexural response
In this study, the flexural performance was determined accord-
ing to ASTM C1609. The results are discussed in terms of flexural
response, toughness, and residual strength. Theoretically, for fibre
reinforced cementitious materials, the toughness or area under
load-deflection (deformation) curve is considered a more appropri-
ate method of presenting the fibre performance than single param-
eters such as the compressive strength, flexural strength, or
modulus of rupture.
The flexural responses of FRG under a flexural load are shown in
Figs. 8–10. For all FRG types, the typical responses can be described
as follows. Initially, the load increases in direct proportional to the
increasing deflection. Immediately after the first crack, a sharp
drop in load occurs. After that, the load is increased again owing
to the effect of fibre bridging across the crack. A graph of this
region is called a ‘‘post-peak response,” and is believed to be the
region that truly represents the performance of the fibres.
Table 4 lists information on the first peak load, second peak
load, and percentage of load drop for each type of FRG. Although
the fibres are primarily intended to improve the toughness, an
increase in flexural strength is observed in this study. Both the first
and second peak loads of SFRG and PFRG are higher than those of
plain geopolymer. A comparison among the types of FRG shows
that SFRG exhibit higher first and second peak loads than PFRG.
In most cases, regardless of the fibre type, the second peaks are
found to be higher than the first peak, which indicates that the
ability of the fibres to carry a load beyond the matrix cracking is
higher than with a plain geopolymer matrix. A similar finding on
42 P. Sukontasukkul et al. / Construction and Building Materials 161 (2018) 37–44

(a) Replacement (b) Addion

Fig. 9. Flexural Responses of (a) r-HyFRG and (b) a-HyFRG.

the increase in strength of SFRG was also reported by Genesa et al.
[18]. In their study, the compressive strength, splitting tensile
strength, and modulus of rupture were found to increase by about
8.5, 61.6, and 24.0%, respectively when 1% steel fibre were added
into the geopolymer mixture. Deepa Raj et al. [13] carried out a
Fig. 10. Toughness of Single-Type FRG.
fracture test on SFRG and found an increase in both the first peak
and ultimate strength occurs with an increase in steel fibre volume
fraction from 0.25 to 0.75%.
The fibre type and content also have a strong influence on the
percentage of load drop. For polypropylene FRG, because the PP
fibres are highly flexible with low stiffness, a significant drop in
load is often observed (Fig. 8a, Table 4). A maximum drop of
around 75% has been observed in 0.5% PFRG. The percentage of
drop decreases with an increase in fibre content. For steel fibres,
owing to the high strength and stiffness, the load is able to increase
more quickly than when polypropylene fibres are added (Fig. 8b).
The percentage of drop for SFRG falls at around 12–15%.
For the Hybrid FRG, the flexural responses are as shown in Fig. 9
and Table 5. The hybridization of steel fibre either through replace-
ment or addition affects the flexural responses during every stage.
At an early stage (pre-peak), the effect of the steel fibre causes an
increase in the first peak load. Immediately after the first cracking,
the steel fibres improve the percentage of load drop. The second
peak was also found to increase with the percentage of steel fibres
applied.
Considering the first peak load, and comparing between the
replacement and addition systems, the replacement system
appears to show clearer effects of steel fibre than the addition sys-
tem because the increase in peak load for the addition system is

Table 4
Comparison between First and Second Peaks of Single-Type FRG.

Type First Peak (kN) Load Dropping Second Peak load

kN % kN %
Plain geopolymer 7.88 – –
0.5PFRG 8.00 2.04 74.5% 2.95 63%
1PFRG 8.74 3.83 56.2% 14.31 64%
2PFRG 12.24 6.23 49.1% 26.43 116%
0.5SFRG 10.99 9.24 15.9% 22.63 106%
1SFRG 12.86 11.26 12.4% 36.06 180%
2SFRG 16.57 14.09 15.0% 41.89 153%
 P. Sukontasukkul et al. / Construction and Building Materials 161 (2018) 37–44 43

Table 5
Comparison between First and Second Peaks of Hybrid-Type FRG.

Hybrid type Fibre proportion 1st Peak (kN) Load Dropping 2nd Peak (kN)
kN %
Replacement 1PFRG 8.7 3.8 56.2% 14.3
0.8P/0.2S-HyFRG 10.5 7.9 24.9% 20.5
0.6P/0.4S-HyFRG 11.4 9.0 20.9% 24.3
0.4P/0.6S-HyFRG 11.6 9.5 17.9% 28.7
0.2P/0.8S-HyFRG 12.5 11.2 10.2% 30.8
1SFRG 12.9 11.3 12.4% 36.1
Addition 1PFGR 8.7 3.8 56.2% 14.3
1.0P/0.2S-HyFRG 9.0 8.4 13.6% 19.1
1.0P/0.4S-HyFRG 10.3 7.8 18.4% 20.7
1.0P/0.6S-HyFRG 11.1 10.0 10.3% 28.8
1.0P/0.8S-HyFRG 11.3 10.9 3.8% 28.0
1.0P/1.0S-HyFRG 11.5 10.4 9.9% 30.3

Table 6
Toughness and Equivalent Flexural Strength.

Hybrid Type Fibre proportion L/600 L/150

Toughness (N-m) Toughness (N-m) Equivalent Flexural Strength (%)
Single Plain 0.3 0.3 1.7
0.5PFRG 1.2 5.0 31.1
1.0PFRG 2.4 16.0 84.9
0.5SFRG 4.7 31.7 144.3
1.0SFRG 5.8 44.1 171.4
Replacement Hybrid 0.8P/0.2S-HyFRG 4.5 22.6 108.0
0.6P/0.4S-HyFRG 5.3 32.7 143.8
0.4P/0.6S-HyFRG 5.6 38.7 163.5
0.2P/0.8S-HyFRG 6.6 42.3 169.2
Addition Hybrid 1.0P/0.2S-HyFRG 5.1 26.1 145.6
1.0P/0.4S-HyFRG 5.9 32.6 159.2
1.0P/0.6S-HyFRG 5.9 39.3 176.3
1.0P/0.8S-HyFRG 7.4 44.7 197.6
1.0P/1.0S-HyFRG 6.5 45.9 199.1

obviously the direct result of the increasing fibre volume fraction. value of 1SFRG because the total fibre volume fraction is controlled
However, for the replacement system, in which the total volume at 1.0%. However, for a-HyFRG, the increase in total fibre content
fraction remains constant at 1.0%, the increase in first peak load affects the flexural performance differently. The addition of steel
is clearly a reflection of the effectiveness of the steel fibre alone. fibre into a smaller amount of fibre content is likely to improve
the toughness gradually, but in higher fibre content, a difficulty
in mixing and a non-uniform distribution of the fibres can cause
3.2.2. Toughness and equivalent flexural strength a negative effect on the performance of the FRG.
The toughness and residual strength are calculated according to The equivalent flexural strength (EFS) indicates the ability of a
ASTM C1609. Toughness is the area under the load deflection specimen to carry a load after the first cracking occurs, and is
curve; it indicates the amount of energy the specimen is able to somewhat related to the post-peak response of a specimen. For
absorb under loading up to a certain deflection. In general, two single-type FRG, PFRG exhibits an EFS of about 31%–85%, whereas
toughness values are determined at 2 different deflections: L/600
and L/150. The equivalent flexural strength refers to the load carry-
ing capacity of the specimen after first cracking as a percentage of
the first peak load. The results from our study are given in Table 6
and Figs. 10–12.
For single-type FRG, regardless of the fibre type, the toughness
is found to increase with the increase in fibre content (Fig. 10). A
similar finding was also reported by Deepa Raj et al. [13], who
showed that the fracture toughness and fracture energy of SFRG
were found to increase with the increase in fibre volume fraction.
When comparing between the two types of fibres, the steel fibres
provide a higher toughness than polypropylene fibres at the same
volume fraction owing to better post peak performance.
The results of the toughness of HyFRG are shown in Figs. 11 and
12. Regardless of the hybrid type considered, the toughness was
found to increase with the percentage of replacement or addition
of steel fibre, although the rate of increase has a tendency to slow
down with a high steel fibre content. In the case of the r-HyFRG,
the toughness with a large deflection (L/150) never exceeds the Fig. 11. Toughness of r-HyFRG.
44 P. Sukontasukkul et al. / Construction and Building Materials 161 (2018) 37–44
Fig. 12. Toughness of a-HyFRG.
Fig. 13. Equivalent Flexural Strength.
SFRG exhibits an EFS well above 100% (Fig. 13). The higher EFS of
SFRG is a direct result of the better post peak response and higher
second (post-peak).
For a hybrid FRG, the replacement or addition of steel fibres
improves the EFS gradually and in proportional to the increase in
steel fibre content. The r-HyFRG yields an EFS of 108%–169%,
whereas the a-HyFRG yield an EFS of about 146%–199%. This indi-
cates the ability of steel fibre hybridization to improve the post-
peak response of FRG. A comparison between the replacement
and addition hybrid systems shows that the latter appears to be
more effective in increasing the EFS under a small fibre content.
However, as the total fibre content increases closer to 2%, the effec-
tiveness begins to slow down, as seen through the increase of only
1% when the total fibre volume fraction increases from 1.8% to
2.0%.
4. Conclusions
For single-type FRC, both the compressive strength and flexural
strength were found to increase with an increase in fibre content
(except for 1% polypropylene FRG under compression, in which
the strength was found to decrease). The increase in strength is
contributed mainly by the effect of fibre bridging across the cracks,
and the increase in bond strength, owing to the addition of silica
fumes into the geopolymer mixture.
For a hybrid system, the existence of steel fibre either by
replacement or addition provides positive effects on the properties
of PFRG at different degrees.
For the flexural response, at the higher first peak load, a
decrease in percentage of load drop and a higher post (second)
peak were observed. In terms of the flexural performance, both
the toughness and equivalent flexural strength were also shown
to improve with the percentage of steel fibre incorporated into
the mixture.
A comparison between replacement and addition shows that
the replacement system seems to yield better results than the
addition system for the same fibre content. In addition, the
improvement appears to decrease when the total fibre content
increases above a volume fraction of 1%. The high fibre content
can cause difficulty in mixing, which leads to poor compaction,
non-uniform distribution of fibres, and increase in void volume.
Although the hybrid system is able to solve some of the weak-
nesses of PFRG, caution must be taken regarding the selection of a
hybrid system and the total fibre content.
Acknowledgements
This project was funded by KMUTNB and the Office of Higher
Education Commission (Contract No. KMUTNB-NRU-59-10). The
authors would like to thank SR. Fibre Co., Ltd. for providing the
steel fibres, and all of the senior students involved in this project.
References
[1] http://www.scribd.com/doc/57134261, Energy ministry, Bangkok, Thailand
(10 Aug 2013).
[2] J. Daviddovits, Mineral polymers and methods of making them, US Patent no, 4,
1984, 472, p. 199.
[3] J. Davidovits, Global warming impact on the cement and aggregates industries,
World Resour. Rev. 6 (2) (1994) 263–278.
[4] P. Duxson, A. Fernández-Jiménez, J.L. Provis, G.C. Lukey, A. Palomo, J.S.J. van
Deventer, Geopolymer technology: the current state of the art, J. Mater. Sci. 42
(2007) 2917–2933.
[5] P. Paisitsrisawat, U. Rattanasak, Effect of silica fume on properties of fluidizer
bed combustion (FBC) fly ash geopolymer, J. Indus. Technol. 9 (1) (2013). in
Thai.
[6] J. Davidovits, Geopolymers – Inorganic polymeric new materials, J. Therm.
Anal. 37 (8) (1991) 1633–1656.
[7] D. Hardjito, S.E. Wallah, D.M.J. Sumajouw, B.V. Rangan, On the development of
fly ash-based geopolymer concrete, ACI Mater. J. 101 (6) (2004) 467–472.
[8] K. Mermerdasß, Z. Algın, S.M. Oleiwi, D.E. Nassani, Optimization of lightweight
GGBFS and FA geopolymer mortars by response surface method, Constr. Build.
Mater. 139 (2017) 159–171.
[9] N. Ganesan, P.V. Indira, A. Santhakumar, Engineering properties of steel fibre
reinforced geopolymer concrete, Adv. Concr. Constr. 1 (4) (2013) 305–318.
[10] M. Reed, W. Lokuge, W. Karunasena, Fibre-reinforced geopolymer concrete
with ambient curing for in situ applications, J. Mater. Sci. 49 (2014) 4297–
4304.
[11] F.U.A. Shaikh, Deflection hardening behaviour of short fibre reinforced fly ash
based geopolymer composites, Mater. Design 50 (2013) 674–682.
[12] T. Alomayri, F.U.A. Shaikh, I.M. Low, Characterisation of cotton fibre-reinforced
geopolymer composites, Compos. Part B 50 (2013) 1–6.
[13] S. Deepa Raj, R. Abraham, N. Ganesan, Divya Sasi, Fracture properties of fibre
reinforced geopolymer concrete, Int. J. Sci. Eng. Res. 4 (5) (2013) 75–80.
[14] N. Khamar, R.V. Kumar, Properties of hybrid fibre reinforced geopolymer
concrete under ambient curing, Int. J. Sci. Res. (IJSR) 4 (8) (2015) 729–734.
[15] P. Sukontasukkul, Tensile behaviour of hybrid fibre reinforced concrete, Adv.
Cem. Res. (ACR) 16 (3) (2004) 115–122.
[16] P. Sukontasukkul, W. Pomchiengpin, Post-crack (or post-peak) flexural
response and toughness of fiber reinforced concrete after exposure to high
temperature, Constr. Build. Mater. (JCBM) 24 (2010) 1967–1974.
[17] M.H. Al-Majidi, A. Lampropoulos, A.B. Cundy, Steel fibre reinforced
geopolymer concrete (SFRGC) with improved microstructure and enhanced
fibre-matrix interfacial properties, Constr. Build. Mater. 139 (2017) 286–307.
[18] N. Ganesan, P.V. Indira, A. Santhakumarb, Engineering properties of steel fibre
reinforced geopolymer concrete, Adv. Concr. Constr. 1 (4) (2013) 305–318.