Cement & Concrete Composites 48 (2014) 91–97

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Cement & Concrete Composites

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

Fiber synergy in Hybrid Fiber Reinforced Concrete (HyFRC) in flexure

and direct shear
N. Banthia a,1, F. Majdzadeh a,1,2, J. Wu a,1, V. Bindiganavile b,⇑
a
Department of Civil Engineering, The University of British Columbia, 2024-2324 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada
b
Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, The University of Alberta, 3-020, NREF Building, Edmonton, AB T6G 2W2, Canada

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

Article history: In most cases, fiber reinforced concrete (FRC) contains only one type of fiber. The use of two or more types
Received 2 May 2012 of fibers in a suitable combination has the potential to improve the mechanical properties of concrete,
Received in revised form 21 October 2013 and result in performance synergy. This combining of fibers, often called hybridization, is investigated
Accepted 30 October 2013
in this paper under flexure and direct shear. Along with a reference plain concrete mix, several single-
Available online 27 November 2013
fiber reinforced concrete mixes and two-fiber reinforced hybrid composite mixes were cast using diverse
fiber combinations. Two types of macro-steel fibers and a micro-cellulose fiber were examined. Flexural
Keywords:
and direct shear tests were performed and the results were analyzed to identify synergy, if any, associ-
Concrete
Fiber reinforced concrete
ated with various fiber combinations. The paper highlights the influence of load configuration on fiber
Toughness synergy.
Steel fiber Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Cellulose fiber
Hybrid composites
Strength
Energy absorption
Flexure
Direct shear

1. Introduction In order to obtain an optimal response, therefore, different types

Concrete is a brittle material with a low strain capacity. Fortu-
nately, reinforcement of concrete with short randomly distributed
fibers can address some of the concerns related to concrete brittle-
ness and its poor resistance to crack growth [1]. Yet, fracture in
concrete is a multi-scale process [2] and merits improvement to
the toughening mechanisms at various dimensional levels. The
use of conventional reinforcing bars addresses crack arrest at only
specific sections and at a single scale. While fiber reinforcement
ensures a random distribution of crack arrest zones within con-
crete, most fiber reinforced concrete (FRC) mixes are reinforced
at only a single scale, containing as they do, only one type of fiber.
A summary of the published research on concrete reinforced with
multiple fiber types is provided in Table 1. The collection of papers
reviewed conveys that the gradual and multi-scale nature of frac-
ture in concrete necessitates that a given fiber can provide rein-
forcement only at one level and within a limited range of strains.
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 780 492 9661; fax: +1 780 492 0249.
E-mail addresses: banthia@civil.ubc.ca (N. Banthia), vivek@ualberta.ca
(V. Bindiganavile).
1
Tel.: +1 604 822 9541; fax: +1 604 822 6901.
2
Now with AMEC Corporation, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
of fibers varying in constitutive response, size or function, must
be combined. The resulting fiber reinforced concrete mix is often
called hybrid FRC and abbreviated here as HyFRC.
In spite of these efforts, clearly, our understanding of what
exactly constitutes an optimal combination of fibers capable of
producing maximum synergy in performance remains quite limited.
Furthermore, most previous studies have focused on flexural load
application, and there is no available data to demonstrate the
performance of HyFRC under direct shear, where fibers are known
to be most efficient in concrete. There is also a great deal of current
interest in natural fibers such as cellulose, and its performance in
HyFRC has never been investigated. Accordingly, this study was
undertaken to combine steel and cellulose fibers in HyFRC and to
assess the response under flexure and direct shear.
2. Research significance
Fracture in concrete is a gradual, multi-scale process, occurring
at both the micro and the macro levels. For fiber reinforced
concrete, therefore, it is very limiting when only one type and
dimension of fiber is used as reinforcement. Such a reinforcement
clearly restricts crack growth at its own scale and has little or no
influence on fracture processes at other scales. For maximum

0958-9465/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2013.10.018
92 N. Banthia et al. / Cement & Concrete Composites 48 (2014) 91–97

Table 1
Sample of studies on HyFRC (P: Polypropylene; S: Steel; G: Glass; As: Asbestos; C: Carbon, PVA: Poly Vinyl Alcohol; GS: Galvanized Steel; Al: Alumina; Pe: Polyethylene; CMP:
Carbon Mesophase Pitch-based, CIP: Carbon Isotropic Pitch-based).

Reference Hybrid fibers Major findings

investigated
Walton and Majumdar [3] P, N, G, As, C Organic and inorganic fibers work together to produce improvement in both tensile and impact properties
Glavind and Aarre [4] S, P Hybridization of these two fibers increased the ultimate compressive strain of the composite
Larson and Krenchel [5] S, P After 10 years of out-door exposure, fracture energy of hybrid composite increased by approximately 40%
Feldman and Zheng [6] S, P Stiffer steel fibers improved the ultimate strength; ductile polypropylene fibers improved post-peak strain
capacity
Komlos et al. [7] S, P HyFRC with polypropylene fibers showed better post-crack responses and higher impact strengths
Qian and Stroven [8] S, P Hybrid Composites had a higher KIC but the synergy disappeared in the large displacement range
Kim et al. [9] S, P The resistance to the initiation of the first crack and the toughness improved remarkably due to
hybridization
Horiguchi and Sakai [10] S, PVA HyFRC showed greater first crack deflection for the same flexural toughness
Soroushian et al. [11] P, Pe Hybrids were beneficial in impact loading and for improving flexural strength and toughness
Mobasher and Li [12] Al, C, P Peak load increased by as much as 75% compared to composite containing only polypropylene
Stroeven et al. [13] C, S, P Hybridization improved the composite toughness and pull-out resistance of steel fibers
Ramanalingam et al. [14] PVA (micro and Hybridization provided significant increases to both ultimate load and post-peak ductility
macro), S
Sun et al. [15] S (various lengths), P, Combining various lengths of steel fibers lowers the shrinkage strains. Permeability decreased in other
PVA HyFRC
Hua et al. [16] C, P Fatigue properties of concrete were improved by using the carbon + polypropylene hybrids
Lawler et al. [17] S, P Hybridization was shown to reduced the permeability of cracked hybrid fiber reinforced mortar under load
Banthia and Sheng [18] C, S In hybrids, steel fibers contributed to strengthening and carbon fiber to toughening
Banthia and Soleimani [19] S, CMP, CIP, P Flexural toughness tests on normal strength concrete indicate CIP fiber with its greater strain capacity
produced higher performance HyFRC than the CMP fiber
Banthia and Gupta [20] S, CMP, P Very high strength matrices were investigated for flexural toughness and only in some cases synergy was
noted
Banthia and Sappakittipakorn S (various diameters) Large diameter crimped steel fibers were partially replaced with smaller diameter crimped steel fibers. This
[21] hybrid resulted in a significantly higher toughness

reinforcing efficiency, fibers of various sizes and moduli must be
combined in a rational manner, and the limited amount of work
that has been carried out in this area has for the most part consid-
ered flexural loading only. In this paper, hybrid FRC mixes carrying
various combinations of steel and cellulose fibers were studied
under flexure and direct shear, and any synergy in fiber performance
has been identified.
3. Experimental program
3.1. Materials, mixtures and specimens
Three types of fibers—two of steel and one of cellulose—as
shown in Table 2—were investigated. The Hooked-End fiber (HE),
a well known deformed fiber, has been in commercial use exten-
sively since the 1970s. The Double-Deformed fiber (DD) is a rela-
tively recent development described in detail elsewhere [22].
This fiber has two types of deformations—one of which is sacrifi-
cial, known as the ‘dead’ anchor and the other for drag enhance-
ment. The cellulose fiber (C) used was a fully purified plantation
softwood fiber. This fiber was chosen because of its small length
(2.3 mm) and because of its ability to enhance flexural toughness
at micro and meso scale crack opening displacements [23]. These
hydrophilic fibers are collated in the form of a chip and carry a sur-
face treatment applied to enhance their alkali tolerance and bond
with concrete. Upon mixing, each chip may potentially disperse
into 30,000 individual fibers. It is suggested that they absorb water
during mixing which then becomes available for internal curing
and pore refinement especially at the fiber–matrix interface [24].
In all, ten concrete mixtures—one plain and nine fiber rein-
forced concrete—were investigated (see Table 3 for details). All of
these mixtures had the same amount of sand, aggregate, water
and cement. The only difference was the amount and/or the type
of fibers and their combination. The mix proportions were as
follows: Sand = 560 kg/m3; Coarse Aggregate (14 mm maximum
size) = 1110 kg/m3; Cement = 400 kg/m3 and Water = 180 kg/m3.
An ordinary Portland cement, classified as Type GU [25], along with
a saturated surface-dry (SSD) washed river sand (fineness
modulus = 2.5) and crushed gravel were used. When appropriate,
a commercially available high range water reducing admixture
derived from a polycarboxylate ether was used to achieve ade-
quate workability.
From each mix, fifteen prism specimens, 100 mm  100 mm
 350 mm in dimension, and six cylinders, 100 mm  200 mm, were

Table 2
Fibers investigated.

Fiber Type Length (mm) Diameter (mm) Picture E (GPa) Tensile strength (MPa) Density (kg/m3)
HE Hooked-End Steel 30 0.5 212 1200 7850

DD Double Deformed Steel 30 0.5 212 1150 7850

C Cellulose Fiber 2.3 mm 16 lm 35 300 1100

Note: 25.4 mm = 1 in; 1 MPa = 0.145 ksi; 1 GPa = 145 ksi; 1 kg/m3 = 1.66 lb/yd3.
 N. Banthia et al. / Cement & Concrete Composites 48 (2014) 91–97 93

Table 3
Mixture proportions and properties.

Mixture Fiber type Compressive strength (av.) VeBe Time (22)

HE (Hooked End Steel Fiber) DD (Double Deformed Steel Fiber) C (Cellulose Fiber) MPa s
Fiber Volume Fraction (%)
1 – – – 56 2
2 0.3 – – 55 3
3 0.3 – 0.5 54 7
4 – 0.3 – 51 3
5 – 0.3 0.5 58 7
6 0.5 – – 52 4
7 0.5 – 0.5 61 9
8 – 0.5 – 49 4
9 – 0.5 0.5 46 8
10 – – 0.5 59 5

Note: 1 MPa = 0.145 ksi.

Table 4
Test program.

Flexural tests Shear tests

Specimen size 100  100  350 100  100  350
Procedure adopted ASTM C1609 and JSCE SF-4 JSCE-G 553-1999
Mixtures tested Mix 1–10 (Table 3) Mix 1–10 (Table 3)
Number of specimens 5 Per Mix 5 Per Mix

Note: 25.4 mm = 1 in.

cast upon a vibrating table. The specimens were de-molded 24 h after

casting and stored for an additional 27 days under controlled condi-
tions at 23 ± 3 °C and 100% RH. The test program is given in Table 4
and described in the following sections.

3.2. Tests on hardened concrete

The cylinders were tested as per ASTM C39 [26] to obtain com-
pressive strengths. The prism specimens were tested for flexure
and shear as per the procedures outlined below:

3.2.1. Flexural tests

The prisms were tested for flexural toughness as per ASTM
C1609 [27], Fig. 1. As seen, a special yoke, was used to support
the LVDTs, and the net mid-span deflections were recorded free
from any extraneous displacement arising from support settlement
and load point crushing.
The outcome from the ASTM C1609 test is in the form of a load
versus deflection curve, which can then be further analyzed to
obtain a measure of the energy absorbed or ‘toughness’ of the
material. The load–deflection curve was analyzed according to
the Japan Society of Civil Engineers (JSCE) method, which yields a
flexural toughness factor, FTd [28].
T b;d L
FT d ¼ 2
ð1Þ
dbd
where FTd is the flexural toughness factor at a beam displacement of
d, Tb,d is the area under the curve to a beam displacement of d, L is
the span, b is the width and d is the depth of the beam.
Given that the JSCE technique is relatively immune to human
error compared with the ASTM C1609 [29], it was adopted here.
3.2.2. Shear tests
In the context of assessing material properties of fiber rein-
forced concrete in shear, Z-shaped push-off specimens are pre-
ferred due to the associated simplicity in loading and data
analysis [30], and both steel and polypropylene fibers are reported
to significantly enhance the ultimate load-carrying capacity and
ductility of concrete in shear. However, it is also well known [31]
Fig. 1. Flexural tests ASTM C1609 and JSCE-G 552-1999.
that a large tensile stress exists at the tip of the propagating crack
in a Z-shaped push-off specimen, which implies that the crack
growth in such a test is in fact not under a pure shear mode but
rather in a mixed-mode comprising both opening and shear
modes. In response, the Japan Society of Civil Engineers (JSCE)
has proposed a test method for determining the shear strength of
fiber reinforced concrete using a ‘direct’ shear test [32]. The stress
field in this test is essentially that of ‘pure’ shear instead of a mixed
mode. Unfortunately even with this test, Mirsayah and Banthia
[33] found that in the JSCE technique, the crack often deviated from
its intended path and they suggested introducing a shallow all-
round notch in the specimen to predefine the failure plane. The
same arrangement was adopted in this study (Fig. 2). The contribu-
tion of fibers was evaluated as the shear toughness, which was the
area under the load–deflection plot to the required deflection.
4. Results and discussion
4.1. Flexure
Plots shown in Fig. 3 are of average load and deflection taken
from 5 specimen replicates for the various composites. In
94 N. Banthia et al. / Cement & Concrete Composites 48 (2014) 91–97
Fig. 2. Shear tests as per JSCE-G 553-1999 [32].
(a)
(b)
Fig. 3. Averaged load deflection curves in flexure for (a) HyFRC based on cellulose
fiber with the HE (Hooked-End) Fiber and (b) HyFRC based on cellulose fiber with
the DD (Double Deformed) fiber (Note: 25.4 mm = 1 in; 1 kN = 0.225 kip).
Fig. 3(a), composites based on the Hooked End fiber (HE) are pre-
sented and in Fig. 3(b), composites based on the Double Deformed
fiber (DD) are presented. Considering the five specimens tested for
each mix, a coefficient of variation ranging between 8% and 20%
was noted in the load value at a given deflection.
As seen in Fig. 3(a) and (b), the cellulose fiber by itself was
unable to impart any toughness (the load–deflection curves of
plain concrete and Mix 0.5C were almost identical). The likely rea-
son is the small length of the cellulose fiber that provides insignif-
icant post-crack bridging. Also, cellulose fibers are hydrophilic and
act as mini ‘reservoirs’ of water—moisture that is later available for
hydration, pore refinement and excessive bond strengthening in
the vicinity of the fiber. A well-bonded cellulose fiber presumably
fractures across a matrix crack and fails to provide post-crack
ductility [34]. The two steel fibers, on the other hand, were seen
to be very effective in enhancing toughness.
In order to further analyze the curves and understand the effec-
tiveness of fiber hybridization, flexural toughness factors, FTd, were
calculated and plotted for beam deflections (d) of 0.5 mm, 1 mm
and 1.5 mm in Fig. 4. Notice that plain and 0.5C composites depict
low toughening ability at 0.5 mm and this ability further drops to
negligible values at higher deflections.
4.2. Shear
The load–deflection plots under shear, averaged over 5 repli-
cates for composites based on the Hooked End fiber (HE) are given
in Fig. 5(a) and those based on the Double Deformed fiber (DD) are
shown in Fig. 5(b). After analyzing the five specimens tested in
each category at a given deflection, a coefficient of variation be-
tween 6% and 14% was observed in the load values.
Note from Fig. 5(a) and (b), that as in the case of flexure, the cel-
lulose fiber by itself did not impart shear toughness; the plots for
plain concrete and composite 0.5C are almost identical. The likely
reasons, once again, are the small length of the cellulose fiber, its
hydrophilic nature, which leads to inordinate bond enhancement
and consequent fiber fracture at low shear deflections. Both steel
fibers were very effective in enhancing shear performance. This is
evident from the descending parts of the curve and the large areas
these curves encompass.
The average peak loads recorded for various composites (Fig. 5)
were converted to shear strength by normalizing them with re-
spect to the cross-sectional area and the results are given in Table 5.
Whereas there was an improvement in the shear strength by pair-
ing steel fibers at 0.3% volume fraction with cellulose fibers, the
steel fibers at 0.5% by volume fraction enhanced the shear strength
more when by themselves than when hybridized with cellulose.
Also, the fiber (HE) appears to be more effective than the fiber
(DD).
In order to understand the effectiveness of fiber hybridization
especially on the energy dissipated under direct shear, the ab-
sorbed energy was computed to shear deflections of 5 mm, 10
and 20 mm and is plotted in Fig. 6. Notice, as in the case of flexure,
the plain and 0.5C composites depicted low energy absorption val-
ues at all deflection levels considered.
5. Assessment of synergy
It is critical to calculate synergy for the various hybrid mixes to
understand if indeed hybridization was successful. Mai et al. [35]
have cautioned against the use of simplistic rule-of-mixtures to
predict the effect of hybridization on toughness, for the fracture
mechanisms and the interplay between each fiber within the
matrix in such composites is not uniform. For the purpose of this
study, Synergy was evaluated based on the following formula:
PCT hybrid;aþb
Synergy ¼ 1 ð2Þ
½PCT a þ PCT b 
 N. Banthia et al. / Cement & Concrete Composites 48 (2014) 91–97 95

Fig. 4. Flexural toughness factors (FTd in MPa) computed from curves in Fig. 3(a) and (b) (Note: 25.4 mm = 1 in; 1 MPa = 0.145 ksi).

Table 5
Shear strengths.

Material Shear strength (MPa)

Plain concrete 18.79
0.3%HE 20.80
0.3%HE + 0.5%C 24.12
0.3%DD 22.05
0.3%DD + 0.5%C 23.60
0.5%HE 29.95
0.5%HE + 0.5%C 24.28
0.5%DD 24.57
0.5%DD + 0.5%C 18.84
0.5%C 18.79

Note: 1 MPa = 0.145 ksi.

(a) load–deflection plot to a deflection d, not considering the corre-

(b)
Fig. 5. Average load deflection curves in shear for (a) HyFRC based on the HE
(Hooked-End) fiber and (b) HyFRC based on the DD (Double Deformed) fiber (Note:
25.4 mm = 1 in; 1 kN = 0.225 kip).
where PCT represents the Post Crack Toughness Factor for the var-
ious mixes. In the case of flexure, it is given by the flexural tough-
ness factor to a deflection, d, (FTd), and subtracting from it the
flexural toughness factor of the plain concrete mix. Similarly, in
the case of direct shear, it is given by the area under the
sponding area associated with plain concrete. The idea behind this
approach is that a positive Synergy (>0) is realized when a hybrid
combination of fibers produces a property which is numerically
greater than the sum of the properties produced by the individual
fibers. A zero value of Synergy means that the synergy is absent,
and a negative value indicates that the hybrid in question is per-
forming poorer than the sum of its parts.
The Synergy noted in flexure is plotted in Fig. 7. Notice that in all
instances, there was an indication of positive synergy. Remarkably,
cellulose fiber, which does not add much to the flexural toughness
by itself was effective in contributing to it in the presence of steel
fibers. The Synergy, however, in all cases decreased as the beam
displacement increased from 0.5 mm to 2.0 mm. This implies that
hybridization is more effective at small crack openings. This may
be the consequence of hybridizing with cellulose fibers, which
were of smaller length and thus lost efficiency at larger crack open-
ings. When fiber (HE) is compared with fiber (DD), both appear to
be effective candidates for hybridization with cellulose. In both
cases, however, hybridization was less effective at higher dosage
rates. Also, consistently, the fiber (DD) was less effective than the
fiber (HE).
The Synergy noted in shear (based on total shear energy to 5, 10
and 20 mm shear deflection) is plotted in Fig. 8. A positive synergy
in shear was seen in fiber (DD) at 0.3% and fiber (HE) at 0.5% when
hybridized with 0.5% of cellulose fiber, and not in the other combi-
nations. Also, the Synergy in shear, when positive, was not as high
as that in the case of flexure (Fig. 7). Significantly, unlike with
96 N. Banthia et al. / Cement & Concrete Composites 48 (2014) 91–97

A B C D E F G H I J A B C D E F G H I J A B C D E F G H I J

Fig. 6. Absorbed shear energy values to various deflection values computed from curves in Fig. 5(A) and (B) (Note: 25.4 Mm = 1 in; 1 N-M = 0.738 Lb-Ft).

Fig. 7. Synergy in flexure based on JSCE FTd Values (d = beam displacement) (Note: Fig. 8. Synergy in shear based on energy absorption to 5, 10 and 20 mm deflection.
25.4 mm = 1 in).

flexure, Synergy in shear increased with an increase in the beam
deformation. This is most likely because the dowel action of the
fiber is not diminished by larger crack opening in Mode II fracture
unlike with Mode I crack opening.
The performance of the steel fibers in concrete under flexure
and direct shear is better understood through the pullout of indi-
vidual fibers from plain concrete. As shown by Armelin [36], for
an aligned fiber, i.e. when the tensile load is along the longitudinal
axis of the fiber, the Hooked End fiber (HE) and the Double
Deformed fiber (DD) dissipate an identical amount of energy dur-
ing the pullout process. Thus, for mixes reinforced with either fiber
(HE) or fiber (DD) alone, the difference in flexural toughness was
not exceptional (see Mix B vs. Mix D or Mix F vs. Mix H in
Fig. 4). However, as shown by Banthia and Armelin [22], there
was a significant difference in the stiffness of the pullout response,
with the HE fiber–matrix bond being considerably stiffer than for
the DD fiber. Adding a second fiber, in this case the cellulose micro-
fiber, likely improves the fiber–matrix bond and this manifests
more significantly for the already stiffer HE fiber and hence leads
to a superior synergy for the HE-Cellulose combination. On the
other hand, as it was also noted by Banthia and Armelin [22], the
DD fiber sustained higher pullout resistance for larger crack
opening than the HE fiber. Under direct shear, where the deforma-
tions are greater than in case of the flexural test, this manifests into
a superior shear toughness for the DD fiber. While the Cellulose
fiber once again adds to the stiffness of the macrofiber–matrix
interface, it aids in the shear resistance of the DD fiber + Cellulose
fiber hybrid. Thus, we note a better performance for Mix D com-
pared with Mix F, and similarly for Mix H compared with Mix B,
as seen in Fig. 6. However, upon adding cellulose fiber, it appears
that the dowel action of the steel fiber is significantly superior in
case of the Double Deformed (DD) fiber. The synergy is therefore
better for this fiber, especially at a low dosage of 0.3% by volume.
There likely occurs a beneficiation in the microfiber-paste inter-
face due to the presence of the microfiber. According to Banthia
and Dubeau [37], there is a reduction in shrinkage in the hydrating
cement paste due to microfibers. Also, [38] noted a shift in the
pore-size distribution towards a mean pore size 10 times smaller
in hydrated cement paste that contained microfibers. Furthermore,
microfibers may act as seeding agents that promote hydration.
Taken together, these effects likely lead to a densification of the
macrofiber-paste interface. Understandably however, due to the
respective fiber dimension, these mechanisms – shrinkage reduc-
tion, pore-size refinement and seeding – are not reciprocated by
a macrofiber in a microfiber-reinforced system. In all probability,
 N. Banthia et al. / Cement & Concrete Composites 48 (2014) 91–97
therefore, the synergy recorded here between cellulose microfibers
and the steel macrofibers is not reciprocal.
6. Concluding remarks
The performance of steel fiber reinforced concrete is different
under different load configurations. Besides, hybridization with
additional fibers can further alter the fiber efficiency depending
upon the type of loading. Based on the toughness measurements
and the quantification of Synergy, the chief findings were as
follows:
i. In mixes reinforced with a single fiber, the Hooked-End fiber
(HE) was significantly better in shear than the Double
Deformed fiber (DD). The cellulose fiber, on the other hand,
did not impart toughness under either mode of loading.
ii. For those hybrid composites examined under flexure, there
was a positive Synergy between steel and cellulose fibers in
all instances. Interestingly, the cellulose fiber, which by itself
did not change the toughness of plain concrete, was an effec-
tive contributor to toughness in the presence of a steel fiber.
The Synergy was seen to diminish with an increase in the
deflection, presumably owing to the loss of cellulose fiber
efficiency at larger crack openings. Of the two steel fibers,
the Hooked End fiber (HE) was the more efficient.
iii. When examined under direct shear, Synergy was not uni-
formly positive across all fiber types and combinations. For
those combinations wherein a positive Synergy was wit-
nessed, it was seen to increase with shear deformation. In
contrast to the performance of the two steel fibers when
present all by themselves, the Double Deformed fiber (DD)
was seen to elicit greater Synergy in combination with cellu-
lose fibers.
Unit conversion
25.4 mm 1 in
1 kN 0.225 kip
1 N-m 0.738 lb-ft
1 MPa 0.145 ksi
1 GPa 145 ksi
1 kg 2.20 lb
1 kg/m3 1.66 lb/yd3
1 m/s 3.28 ft/s
1J 0.737 lbf-ft
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank the Natural Sciences and Engi-
neering Research Council of Canada for continued financial
support.
References
[1] Bentur A, Mindess S. Fiber reinforced cementitious composites. 2nd ed. Taylor
and Francis; 2007 [601 pp.].
[2] Van Mier JGM. Fracture processes of concrete: assessment of material
parameters for fracture models. CRC Press; 1997 [448 pp.].
[3] Walton PL, Majumdar AJ. Cement-based composites with mixtures of different
types of fibers. Composites 1975(September):209–16.
97
[4] Glavind M, Aarre T. High-strength concrete with increased fracture-toughness.
Mater Res Soc Symp Proc 1991;211:39–46.
[5] Larson ES, Krenchel H. Durability of FRC-materials. Mater Res Soc Symp Proc
1991;211:119–24.
[6] Feldman D, Zheng Z. Synthetic fibers for fiber concrete composites. Mater Res
Soc Symp Proc 1993;305:123–8.
[7] Komlos K, Babal B, Nurnbergerova T. Hybrid fiber-reinforced concrete under
repeated loading. Nucl Eng Des 1995;156:195–200.
[8] Qian CX, Stroeven P. Development of hybrid polypropylene-steel fiber-
reinforced concrete. Cem Concr Res 2000;30:63–9.
[9] Kim NW, Saeki N, Horiguchi T. Crack and strength properties of hybrid fiber
reinforced concrete at early ages. Trans Jpn Concr Inst 1999;21:241–6.
[10] Horiguchi T, Sakai K. Hybrid effects of fiber-reinforced concrete on fracture
toughness. In: Third ACI Int. Conf. (SP-172), Malaysia; 1997. p. 535–48.
[11] Soroushian P, Tlili A, Alhozaimy A, Khan A. Development and characterization
of hybrid polyethylene fiber reinforced cement composites. ACI Mater J
1993;90(2):182–90.
[12] Mobasher B, Li CY. Mechanical properties of hybrid cement-based composites.
ACI Mater J 1996;93(3):284–92.
[13] Stroeven P, Shui Z, Qian C, Cheng Y. Properties of carbon-steel and
polypropylene-steel hybrid fiber concrete in low-volume fraction range. In:
Fifth ACI/CANMET Conf. in Concrete Technology, SP-200; 2001. p. 713–32.
[14] Ramanalingam N, Paramasivam P, Mansur MA, Maalej M. Flexural behaviour
of hybrid fiber-reinforced cement composites containing high-volume fly ash.
ACI SP 199 2001:147–62.
[15] Sun W, Chen H, Luo X, Qian H. The effect of hybrid fibers and expansive agent
on the shrinkage and permeability of high-performance concrete. Cem Concr
Res 2001;31:595–601.
[16] Hua Y, Qi HB, Jiang ZQ, Huang SZ, Zhang SB. Study on the bending fatigue
damage of the carbon and the polypropylene hybrid fiber reinforced concrete.
Key Eng Mater 2000;183(I):571–6.
[17] Lawler J, Zampini D, Shah SP. Permeability of cracked hybrid fiber reinforced
mortar under load. ACI Mater J 2002(July–August):379–85.
[18] Banthia N, Sheng J. Micro-reinforced cementitious materials. Mater Res Soc
Symp Proc 1991;211:25–32.
[19] Banthia N, Soleimani SM. Flexural response of hybrid fiber reinforced
cementitious composites. ACI Mater J 2005;102(5):382–9.
[20] Banthia N, Gupta R. Hybrid fiber reinforced concrete: fiber synergy in high
strength matrices. RILEM, Mater Struct 2004;37(274):707–16.
[21] Banthia N, Sappakittipakorn M. Toughness enhancement in steel fiber
reinforced concrete through fiber hybridization. Cem Concr Res
2007;37(9):1366–72.
[22] Banthia N, Armelin HS. A novel double anchored fiber for shotcrete. Can J Civil
Eng 2002;29(1):58–63.
[23] Peters SJ, Rushing TS, Landis EN, Cummins TK. Nanocellulose and
microcellulose fibers for concrete. J Transport Res Board 2010;2142:25–8.
[24] Soroushian P, Ravanbaksh S. Control of plastic shrinkage cracking with
specialty cellulose fibers. ACI Mater J 1998;95(4):429–35.
[25] CAN/CSA A3000. Cementitious Materials Compendium. Canadian Standards
Association; 2008.
[26] ASTM C39. Standard test method for compressive strength of cylindrical
concrete specimen, vol. 04.02. West Conshohocken (PA): American Society of
Testing and Materials; 1998 [p. 17–21].
[27] ASTM C1609/C1609M-07. Standard test method for flexural performance of
fiber-reinforced concrete (using beam with third-point loading). American
Society of Testing and Materials; 2007 [p. 1–8].
[28] JSCE-G 552-1999. Test method for bending strength and bending toughness of
steel fiber reinforced concrete. Standard Specification for Concrete Structures,
Test Methods and Specifications, JSCE; 2005. 362pp.
[29] Islam ST. Study of some parameters affecting the measured flexural toughness
of fiber reinforced concrete, MA Sc. thesis, The University of British Columbia;
2012.
[30] Khaloo AR, Nakseok K. Influence of concrete and fiber characteristics on
behavior of steel fiber reinforced concrete under direct shear. ACI Mater J
1997;94(6):592–601.
[31] Higashiyama H, Banthia N. Correlating flexural and shear toughness of
lightweight fiber reinforced concrete. ACI Mater J 2008;105(3):251–7.
[32] JSCE-G 553-1999. Test method for shear strength of steel fiber reinforced
concrete. Standard Specifications for Concrete Structures, Test Methods and
Specifications, JSCE; 2005. 362pp.
[33] Mirsayah AA, Banthia N. Shear strength of steel fiber-reinforced concrete. ACI
Mater J 2002;99(5):473–9.
[34] Bentur A, Akers SAS. The microstructure and ageing of cellulose fiber
reinforced cement composites cured in a normal environment. Int J Cem
Compos Lightweight Concr 1989;11(2):99–109.
[35] Mai YW, Andonian R, Cotterell B. On polypropylene-cellulose fiber-cement
hybrid composite. Advances in Composite Materials, Paris; 1980. p. 1687–99.
[36] Armelin HS. Rebound and toughening mechanisms in steel fiber reinforced
dry-mix shotcrete, PhD thesis, The University of British Columbia; 1997. 285 p.
[37] Banthia N, Dubeau S. Carbon and steel microfiber-reinforced cement-based
composites for thin repairs. ASCE J Mater Civil Eng 1994;6(1):88–99.
[38] Sappakittipakorn M, Banthia N, Jiang Z. Cryoporometry based pore refinement
in cementitious composites. Ind Concr J 2010;84(6):17–24.