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

net/publication/348431752

Flexural and impact performance of functionally graded reinforced

cementitious composite (FGRCC) panels

Article  in  Structures · January 2021

DOI: 10.1016/j.istruc.2020.12.042

CITATIONS READS

0 39

3 authors:

Amirhosein Sahraei Moghadam Fereydoon Omidinasab

Babol Noshirvani University of Technology Lorestan University
12 PUBLICATIONS   9 CITATIONS    30 PUBLICATIONS   46 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

A. Dalvand
Lorestan University
49 PUBLICATIONS   663 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Experimental study of mechanical properties and impact resistance of multi-layer slabs made with (HPSCC) reinforced with steel and nylon fibers View project

Seismic response evaluation of the RC elevated water tank with fluid-structure interaction and earthquake ensemble View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Amirhosein Sahraei Moghadam on 13 January 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Structures 29 (2021) 1723–1733

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/structures

Flexural and impact performance of functionally graded reinforced

cementitious composite (FGRCC) panels
Amirhosein Sahraei Moghadam a, Fereydoon Omidinasab b, *, Ahmad Dalvand b
a
Faculty of Civil Engineering, Babol Noshirvani University of Technology, Babol, Iran
b
Faculty of Engineering, Lorestan University, Khorramabad, Iran

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The purpose of this study was to investigate the flexural and impact behavior of functionally graded reinforced
FGRCC panel cementitious composite (FGRCC) panels. For this reason, steel and nylon fibers were used for panel reinforce­
Hybrid steel/nylon fiber ment. Although, all the panels had a fixed volume of 1% fibers, they were different in the manner of fibers
Flexural behavior
distribution. The panels developed in this study include 3 models: plain cementitious composite (PCC) panels,
Impact behavior
uniformly distributed fiber reinforced cementitious composite (RCC) panels, and non-uniformly distributed fiber
reinforced cementitious composite (FGRCC) panels. In FGRCC panels, fibers were placed such that inner layer
has less fibers compared to the surrounding layers. The results of this research indicates the beneficial effect of
the steel fibers to improve flexural and impact performance of panels, in comparison with the nylon fibers.
Moreover, the non-uniform distribution of fibers in the FGRCC panels outperformed RCC panels, in both flexural
and impact tests. Flexural and impact energy absorption of fiber reinforced panels showed that the effect of fibers
on improvement of the impact performance was more considerable compared to their effect on the flexural
performance enhancement.

1. Introduction
Concrete is a brittle material against impact and flexural loads [1–3].
Reinforcement of concrete with different types of fibers to improve their
performance under impact and flexural loads, goes back several decades
[4]. The most commonly used fibers to improve the resistance of con­
crete are steel fibers [5]. Moreover, nylon fibers can improve the per­
formance of concrete by controlling the cracks propagation created in
concrete [6]. Many studies have been performed to clarify the effect of
different types of fibers to improve the performance of concrete under
flexural and impact loads [7–9]. Many of these studies reported the
positive effect of fibers on flexural and impact resistance of concrete
[10–13].
However, the functionally graded reinforced concrete has rarely
been investigated [4]. The functionally graded materials (FGM) have
been proposed as a new composite for the improvement of material
performance through altering the properties [14]. This concept has also
been used for the improvement performance of the fiber reinforced
concrete, and it is called functionally graded reinforced concrete (FGRC)
[15].
Mastali et al. [4] by comparing the impact resistance of fiber
reinforced concrete (RC) slabs and functionally graded fiber reinforced
concrete (FGRC) slabs under drop weight impact load concluded that the
FGRC slabs had a better performance, in comparison with the RC slabs.
This study stated that FGRC slabs due to planar distribution of fibers
could absorb more energy compared to RC slabs. Moghadam et al. [16]
studied the performance of RC and FGRC slabs under projectile impact
load with high velocity. They reported that the use of fibers with non-
uniform distribution could increase the impact resistance of FGRC
slabs and decrease the penetration depth of projectiles in these slabs, in
comparison with the RC slabs. Moreover, behavior of functionally
graded fiber reinforced cementitious panels under high-velocity pro­
jectile impact, was investigated by Quek et al. [17]. This research
showed that FGRC panels had a better impact resistance, compared to
plain cementitious panels. When the projectile velocity exceeded 0.3
km/sec, FGRC panels remained intact, whereas the plain cementitious
panels disintegrated into several pieces. Dias et al. [18] investigated the
performance of FGRC panels in their experimential study. They reported
that they utilized less fiber by using the functionally graded fibers
without any significant effects on the rupture modulus of panels.
On the other hand, previous findings demonstrated that using com­
posite multi-layers as functionally graded reinforced concrete cross

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: ah.sahraei73@gmail.com (A. Sahraei Moghadam), omidinasab.f@lu.ac.ir (F. Omidinasab), dalvand.a@lu.ac.ir (A. Dalvand).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2020.12.042
Received 23 August 2020; Received in revised form 7 December 2020; Accepted 17 December 2020
2352-0124/© 2020 Institution of Structural Engineers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A. Sahraei Moghadam et al. Structures 29 (2021) 1723–1733

section under bending has potential capability of achieve flexural per­ 100
formance of entirely reinforced concrete with high fiber contents
[19–20]. The flexural performance of RC and FGRC beams were

Percentage passing (%)

80
compared by Ghasemi et al. [20]. The results of this research showed
that beams reinforced with steel and polypropylene fibers in two sepa­
60
rate layers (FGRC) had a better flexural performance than beams rein­
forced with these fibers in the entire cross-section (RC). Moreover,
40
Mastali et al. [4] by testing the RC and FGRC beams under flexural force
demonstrated that using functionally graded reinforced concrete led to
20
25% increase in load carrying capacity, compared to entirely reinforced
cross section with the same amount of fiber.
This study focuses on presenting an experimental program to assess 0
impact and flexural performance of functionally graded reinforced 0.1 1
Particle size (mm)
10 100
cementitious composite (FGRCC) panels. Regarding this target, to
evaluate the efficiency of FGRCC panels under impact and flexural loads, Fig. 1. Particle size distribution curves for aggregates.
10 types of panels were tested. One type was the plain cementitious
composite panels, which is considered as a default model and is utilized
for controlling purposes, three types contained 1% fibers with a uniform Table 2
distribution (RCC panels), and six types contained 1% fibers with a non- Mix proportion.
uniform distribution (FGRCC panels). Drop weight impact and flexural Mix proportion (kg/m3 ) f ’c (MPa)
tests were conducted on RC and FGRCC panels. The focus of this paper
Sand Cement W/C Water SP
was on the effects of fibers and their manner of distribution on the
impact and flexural performance of cementitious composite panels. 0–1.19 (mm) 1.19–2.38 (mm)

Finally, the flexural and impact energy absorption of the panels were 301.8 704.2 1006 0.38 382.3 4.8 74.5
compared.

rotating. Based on ASTM C39 [22], compressive strength test was per­
2. Experimental procedure formed on 3 cylindrical samples, measuring 15 cm in diameter and 30
cm high. The obtained average compressive strength of the samples
2.1. Materials were 74.5 MPa, as shown in Table 2.

The binder material of the mix design was the Portland type 2
cement, in accordance with ASTM C150 [21]. The panels made in this
study were reinforced by means of steel and nylon fibers. The pictures
and characteristics of the utilized fibers are shown in Table 1. Stone
material used in this study was fine aggregates. The unit weight and
fineness modulus of the fine aggregates were 2.6 g/cm3 and 3.6,
respectively. It is worth mentioning that all fine aggregates passed the
No. 8 sieve. Fig. 1 shows the aggregate grading curve. The poly­
carboxylate superplasticizer called Dezobuild D10 was used to increase
the concrete workability.
2.2. Mix proportion
Table 2 presents the mix proportion. All the specimens were made by
means of a same self-compacting mix design, while they were different
in types and volume of fibers. The process of making specimens started
via mixing of the dry cement and sand, for 2 min. Then, 90% of the water
was added to the mixing machine, and then the remaining water which
was mixed with the SP was added to the concrete mixture. In the final
step, the steel and nylon fibers were gradually added to the concrete
mixture to avoid balling of fibers, while the mechanical mixer was
2.3. Rheological properties of mix proportion
To study the rheological properties of the mix design and influence of
the steel and nylon fibers on the concrete workability, J-ring, V-funnel,
U-box, and L-box tests were performed. Rheological properties tests
results are displayed in Table 3. These tests were conducted on 3 samples
of each mix design. Fig. 2 shows the picture of the J-ring test. Two pa­
rameters in the J-ring test, including slump rate and flow time are very
important [23]. The T50 parameter, the slump time at 50 cm, was
measured in the J-ring test. Table 3 presents the J-ring test results. The
mix design can be considered self-compacting, if the slump flow is more
than 60 cm in it [24]. The slump flow for the control mix (F-0) was 73
cm. This result showed the self-compacting feature of the mix design
used in this study. The findings of this test exhibited that the steel and
nylon fibers could decrease the flowability of the self-compacting con­
crete. Compared with the control mixture, addition of 1% steel and
nylon fibers to the concrete decreased the slump flow as much as 16%
and 6%, respectively. While 1% combination of these fibers can decrease
this parameter as much as 14%. In accordance with these results, in­
fluence of steel fibers in decreasing the flowability of concrete was more
considerable compared to nylon fibers. Similar results have been

Table 1
Specifications of steel and nylon fibers.
Fiber Length (cm) Diameter (cm) Width (cm) L/D Density (kg/m3 ) E (GPa) Tensile strength (MPa) Picture of fibers

Steel 5 0.08 – 62.5 7850 200 1100

Nylon 4.2 – 0.3 22.6 920 2.2 377

1724
A. Sahraei Moghadam et al. Structures 29 (2021) 1723–1733

Table 3 presents the obtained results from L-box and U-box tests. Like previous
Results of rheological properties tests. fresh self-compacting concrete tests, the conclusions of L-box and U-box
Mix Fiber volume Flow slump U-box L-box V- tests also showed that the negative influence of steel fibers on the
design (%) (H1 -H2 ) (H2 /H1 ) funnel workability of concrete was more considerable than the influence of
Steel Nylon D T50 (Sec)
(cm) (Sec) nylon fibers. The height difference of concrete in two vertical sections of
(cm) the U-box and the ratio of concrete heights in the vertical and horizontal
F-0 0 0 73 1.66 12 0.94 3.21
sections of the L-box for the control mixture (F-0) were 12 cm and 0.94,
S-F- 0 0.5 68 1.74 16 0.81 4.12 respectively. These results indicated the high filling capacity of the
0.5 mixture used in this research. The obtained results of these tests revealed
S-F-1 0 1 61 1.82 18 0.79 5.97 the negative influence of fibers on filling capacity. The results of U-box
N-F- 0.5 0 71 1.73 13 0.88 4.92
test for the S-F-1 and N-F-1 mixtures were 18 and 14 cm, and the results
0.5
N-F-1 1 0 69 1.78 14 0.84 4.01 of L-box test for these mixtures were 0.79 and 0.84, respectively. These
S-N-F- 0.25 0.25 67 1.76 15 0.88 4.11 results also exhibited that the negative influence of steel fibers on the
0.5 filling capacity of the self-compacting concrete was more considerable
S-N-F- 0.5 0.5 63 1.81 17 0.80 5.36 than the nylon fibers.
1

2.4. Details of panel specimens

In this study 10 different types of cementitious composite panels

were developed. The overall thickness of the panels was 7.5 cm and the
surface area of the panels were 60 cm by 60 cm. Panels were reinforced
with steel, nylon, and combined steel-nylon fibers. All the panels were
reinforced by means of a fixed volume of 1% fiber, but they were
different in terms of type, composition, and manner of fiber distribution.
Fig. 3 and Table 4 show the detailed information concerning the char­
acteristics of panels made in the present study. These panels include 3
models: plain cementitious composite (PCC) panels, uniformly distrib­
uted fiber reinforced cementitious composite (RCC) panels, and func­
tionally graded fiber reinforced cementitious composite (FGRCC)
panels. Functionally graded fiber distribution was in a way that there
was more amount of fibers in the surrounding layers and less amount of
fibers in the inner layer of panels, although the volume of total fibers
used in every panel was the same. Fig. 4 exhibits the panels used in this
Fig. 2. J-ring test. study.
In the process of making FGRCC panels with three-layer arrange­
reported in previous researches. Mastali and Dalvand [24] reported the ment, concrete of each layer was laid in a separate step. The time be­
decrease of slump flow of concrete because of the adding steel fibers. tween casting the concrete of each layer was approximately 10 min.
Moreover, the influence of steel fibers on workability of self-compacting All the panel specimens were stored for one day at 25 ℃ temperature
concrete was studied by Khaloo et al. [25]. The responses of this study and a relative humidity of 85%. Then, they were kept in water for curing
exhibited that the workability of the concrete reinforced by 1.5% steel at 20 ℃ for 28 days.
fibers was decreased 20%, when it was checked against concrete without
fibers. 3. Experimental test procedure
This study investigated the flow velocity of the self-compacting
concrete. For this reason, the T50 and TV parameters were studied as 3.1. Drop weight impact test
they are influential parameters in studying the flow velocity of concrete
[26]. The results of these parameters are shown in Table 3. In accor­ In this test, the impact resistance of cementitious composite panels
dance with these results, steel fibers have considerable negative influ­
ence on the flow velocity of the self-compacting concrete, while the
nylon fibers have fewer negative influence on this property. The addi­
tion of 1% steel fibers, nylon fibers, and a combination of these fibers to
the mixtures increased the T50 parameter as much as 10%, 7%, and 9%,
respectively (in comparison with the F-0 (control mixture)). In addition,
TV parameter was increased due to the adding steel, nylon, and com­
bined of these fibers. 1% steel fibers increased the TV parameter from
3.21 sec in F-0 (control mixture) to 5.97 sec in S-F-1 mixture, while 1%
nylon fibers increased this parameter to 4.01 sec in N-F-1 mixture. These
findings exhibited that the negative influence of steel fibers on flow
velocity of concrete was more pronounced compared to the effect of
nylon fibers. Former experiments have stated the negative effect of
various types of fibers on the flow velocity of self-compacting concrete
[27].
In addition, to study passing and filling ability, the L-box and U-box
tests were performed. The ratio of concrete heights in the vertical and
horizontal sections and the height differences of concrete in two vertical
sections were measured in L-box and U-box tests, respectively. Table 3
Fig. 3. Details of FGRCC panels.

1725
A. Sahraei Moghadam et al. Structures 29 (2021) 1723–1733

Table 4
Characteristics of cementitious composite panel specimens.
No. Panel ID Group Fiber volume in surrounding layers (%) Fiber volume in inner layer (%) Volume of total fibers (%) Dimensions of panels (cm3 )
Steel Nylon Steel Nylon

1 PCC Control 0 0 0 0 0 60 × 60 × 7.5

2 SF RCC 1 0 1 0 1 60 × 60 × 7.5
3 NF RCC 0 1 0 1 1 60 × 60 × 7.5
4 SNF RCC 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 1 60 × 60 × 7.5
5 FG-SF1 FGRCC 1.2 0 0.6 0 1 60 × 60 × 7.5
6 FG-NF1 FGRCC 0 1.2 0 0.6 1 60 × 60 × 7.5
7 FG-SNF1 FGRCC 0.6 0.6 0.3 0.3 1 60 × 60 × 7.5
8 FG-SF2 FGRCC 1.5 0 0 0 1 60 × 60 × 7.5
9 FG-NF2 FGRCC 0 1.5 0 0 1 60 × 60 × 7.5
10 FG-SNF2 FGRCC 0.75 0.75 0 0 1 60 × 60 × 7.5

Fig. 4. Cementitious composite panels.

Fig. 5. Test setup of drop weight impact.

1726
A. Sahraei Moghadam et al.
was investigated under drop weight impact. The self-explanatory Fig. 5
shows the experimental setup for the drop weight impact test. The in­
strument shown in Fig. 5 uses a steel ball weighing 5.8 kg. The steel ball
is connected to the machine by means of a steel cable and pulley. By
means of a steel cable, the ball goes up as high as 1.5 m and dropped on
the panel. This will continue until the panels experience rupture. In
order to guarantee that the ball would hit the panel center, the tester
used a structure for directing the ball, which included a PVC pipe. This
test has recorded the number of blows required for developing the first
visible crack and for the rupture of panels. The energy of each blow was
calculated by means of Eqs. (1–3).
gt2
H= (1)
2 FL3
V = gt (2)
WV2
U= (3)
2g
where Eq. (1), H is the height of the fall equal to 150 cm, g is the
gravitational acceleration of the earth equal to 9820 mm/sec2 , and t is
the time of the fall at each blow. Where Eq. (2), V is the hammer velocity
when dealing with the panel. Also where Eq. (3), U and W are the impact
energy per blow and the hammer weight, respectively. According to the
2 was calculated by means of Eq. (6).
available information and Eq. (1), 1500 mm= 9810t2 and hence the time
of the fall at each blow was t = 0.553 sec. According to Eq. (2), the
hammer velocity upon impact was V = 5424.93 mm/sec. Based on the
obtained data and the Eq. (3), the impact energy per blow was obtained
2 where δtb , Aδtb , δtb , L, b, and d are the deflection that is equal to 1/150
to be U = 58×(5424.93
2×9810
)
= 86999.6 N.mm = 87kN.mm. The absorbed en­
ergy of the panels was calculated by multiplying the number of blows
per energy of each blow (87 kN.mm). In the previous studies, the impact
resistance of concrete panels was investigated by means of the same
method as in the present study [4,28].
3.2. Flexural test
In accordance with the ASTM C1609 [29], the flexural test was
Fig. 6. Flexural test setup.
1727
Structures 29 (2021) 1723–1733
performed on RCC and FGRCC panels. Fig. 6 shows the details of flexural
test. The bending load was measured by means of a 100-kN load cell, and
the deflections of mid-span of panels were measured by LVDTs. The
LVDTs accuracy was ± 1% of full range (10 cm). The flexural resistances
of panels were calculated on the basis of Eq. (4).
3FL
σf = (4)
2b.d2
where σ f , F, L, b, and d are the flexural strength, applied flexural force,
span length, width, and height of panels, respectively. Moreover, the
flexural modulus of elasticity of the panel was calculated on the basis of
Eq. (5).
Ef = (5)
48Iy
where Ef is flexural modulus of elasticity, F is flexural force in elastic
area, L is the span length, I is the 2nd moment of inertia of the panel
section, and y is the panel deflection in elastic area. The flexural energy
absorption was computed through computing the area under the flexural
load–deflection curves. In addition, the limit of proportionality param­
eter was determine. The flexural toughness indices of panels were
calculated based on the JSCE (Japan Society of Civil Engineering) [30]
proposed method. In accordance with this method, flexural toughness
fe =
Aδtb L
(6)
δtb bd 2
span length, flexural toughness up to the deflection of δtb , the span
length, the width, and the height of panel, respectively. In addition, the
flexural toughness parameters were computed based on ASTM C1018
[31]. In accordance with this method, the area under the flexural
load–deflection curves was calculated up to four specific points,
including δ, 3 δ, 5.5 δ, and 10.5 δ points. δ is the deflection corre­
sponding to the point of the first crack. The toughness indices of I5, I10,
and I20 were calculated by using Eqs. (7–9).
A. Sahraei Moghadam et al. Structures 29 (2021) 1723–1733

Aδ crack resistance, in comparison with the case of PCC panel. These re­
I5 = (7)
A3δ sults indicate that the effects of nylon fibers were negligible, in com­
parison with the influences of steel fibers. In addition, the non-uniform
I10 =
Aδ
(8) distribution of nylon fibers in the FGRCC panels could not increase the
A5.5δ first-crack resistance of panels. Results showed that in the FG-NF1 and
FG-NF2, FGRCC panels which were reinforced with 1% non-uniformly
Aδ
I20 = (9) distributed nylon fibers, the first cracks were developed after receiving
A10.5δ
7.67 and 8.33 blows, respectively. This performance is almost similar to
the performance of the RCC panels reinforced with 1% uniformly
where Aδ , A3δ , A5.5δ , and A10.5δ are area under the flexural
distributed nylon fibers (NF) and those of fiber-free panels. Concerning
load–displacement curve up to the δ (deflection corresponding to the
the panels containing the combination of the steel and nylon fibers, one
point of the first crack), 3δ, 5.5δ, and 10.5δ, respectively. Based on
could witness that the No. of blows for developing the first crack were
toughness indices, R5,10 and R10,20 parameters which illustrates the re­
increased. The first-crack resistance of the panels containing hybrid fiber
sidual resistance after the initial crack propagation were calculated
in the FG-SNF2 panel, containing 0.5% steel fibers and 0.5% nylon fibers
using Eqs. (10 and 11).
with the non-uniform distribution, reached its highest value among the
R5,10 = 20(I10 − I5 ) (10) hybrid fiber reinforced panels (139.67 blows).

R10,20 = 10(I20 − I10 ) (11) 4.1.2. Failure resistance

4. Tests results
4.1. Impact behavior
Table 5 shows the results of the drop weight impact test. In this test,
the focus was on the parameters of first-crack resistance, failure resis­
tance, and the absorbed energy up to the moment when the first crack
starts to propagate and up to the destruction.
4.1.1. First crack resistance
Results of this parameter showed the significant increase on the
resistance of the first-crack for the panels which were reinforced with
steel fibers. Under the best conditions, the first-crack resistance of the
FG-SF1 panel increased 39.3 times than that of the control panel (PCC).
Results of the first crack resistance indicated that the FGRCC panels
reinforced with non-uniformly distributed fibers had a similar perfor­
mance to that of RCC panels reinforced with uniformly distributed fibers
in terms of first-crack resistance. Among the FGRCC panel, the FG-SF1
(panel reinforced with 1% non-uniformly distributed steel fibers) with
the 262 blows first-crack resistance had the best performance. Compared
to the first-crack resistance of the SF panel (panel reinforced with 1%
uniformly distributed steel fibers), the resistance of the FG-SF1 panel
was not significantly different. The nylon fibers did not have any in­
fluences on the first-crack resistance. Like the plain cementitious com­
posite panel, for the panels reinforced with nylon fibers, the cracks start
to propagate during the first blows. Under the best conditions, adding
1% nylon fibers to the NF panel can lead to 1.55 increase in the first-
Table 5
Obtained results from drop weight impact test.
Panel First crack Failure N2 -N1 Absorbed energy
ID resistance (N1 ) resistance (N2 ) (kJ)
First Failure
crack
Table 5 presents the number of blows for panel destruction. These
results showed that both the plain cementitious composite panel and
those containing nylon fibers were destroyed by few blows after the first
crack development. As for the PCC (fiber-free panel) and the NF (con­
taining 1% nylon fibers), the average number of blows between the first-
crack resistance and the failure resistance were 3.33 and 4 blows,
respectively. This showed that the nylon fibers did not have significant
influences on the failure resistance of panels. Moreover, the FGRCC
panels containing non-uniformly distributed nylon fibers (FG-NF1 and
FG-NF2) failed after receiving 11.67 blows. Therefore, the non-uniform
distribution of nylon fibers in the FGRCC panels could not increase the
failure resistance. Unlike the panels containing nylon fibers, those
containing steel fibers showed proper performance under drop weight
impact load. After the first crack development, these panels required
numerous blows for their destruction. Steel fibers by bridging action on
the cracks developed at the surface of panels could be considerably
increased the impact resistance of panels. Uniform utilization of 1% steel
fibers to the SF panel can increase the average required number for
destruction from 10 blows in the control specimen (PCC) to 839 blows.
For the FGRCC panels containing steel fibers, the increased failure
resistance was more considerable than that of RCC panels containing
steel fibers. The average required number of blows for failure in the FG-
SF2 (FGRCC panel reinforced with 1% non-uniformly distributed steel
fibers) was increased from 839 blows in the SF (RCC panel reinforced
with 1% uniformly distributed steel fibers) to 1003.67 blows. This result
shows the influence of fiber distribution on the failure resistance of
panels. This result may be due to the increased volume of fibers in the
surrounding layers and the planar arrangement of fibers in layers [4],
and this is schematically shown in Fig. 7. The drop weight impact test
indicated that the plain and nylon reinforced cementitious composite
panels reached their failures by fragmentation, while the panels rein­
forced with steel fibers were not fragmented and their failures were
reached when the cracks propagate on the surface of panels. Fig. 8 shows
how failure occurred in the panels without fibers and those containing
steel and nylon fibers. Fig. 9 presents the failure resistance of panels.

PCC 6.67 10 3.33 0.58 0.87 4.1.3. Impact energy absorption

SF 257.67 839 581.33 22.42 72.99 Table 5 presents the absorbed energy of the panels up to the moment
NF 10.33 14.33 4 0.9 1.25
of the first crack and failure development in terms of kJ. These results
SNF 114.33 380.67 424.33 9.95 33.12
FG-SF1 262 971.67 709.67 22.79 84.54 indicated the considerable difference between the energy absorption of
FG- 7.67 11.67 4 0.67 1.02 the panels reinforced with steel fibers and that of non-fibrous panels or
NF1 those reinforced with nylon fibers. The reason is the high ductility
FG- 112.67 504.67 392 9.8 43.91 developed in the panels due to the presence of steel fibers which can
SNF1
FG-SF2 248.67 1003.67 755 21.63 87.32
form a bridge on the developed cracks [32]. Moreover, the manner of
FG- 8.33 11.67 3.34 0.72 1.02 steel fibers distribution could affect the energy absorption of panels. The
NF2 non-uniform distribution of fibers in the FGRCC panels can lead to more
FG- 139.67 564 266.34 12.15 49.07 energy absorption in cementitious composite panels. Among the panel
SNF2
specimens, the FG-SF2 had the highest energy absorption since it

1728
A. Sahraei Moghadam et al. Structures 29 (2021) 1723–1733

Fig. 7. Distribution of fibers as: (a) Randomly; (b) Planar.

Fig. 8. Failure mode of the cementitious composite panels under drop weight impact.

Fig. 10. Statistic correlation between first crack absorbed energy and failure
absorbed energy.
Fig. 9. The failure resistance of panels under drop weight impact.

panels. Fig. 10 shows how first-crack absorbed energy is related to the

contained non-uniform distribution of steel fibers. The energy absorp­
failure absorbed energy. Coefficient of determination equal to 0.97
tion of FG-SF2 panel was 100.37 times greater compared to that of the
suggests a good agreement between the aforementioned absorbed
control panel, and this indicated the significant influences of steel fibers
energies.
on the energy absorption of panels. The absorbed energy of FG-SF2
panel was 1.2 times higher than that of SF panel, although both
panels contained 1% fixed volume of steel fibers and their difference was
4.2. Flexural behavior
attributed to the manner of fibers distribution. Unlike the panels rein­
forced with steel fibers, those reinforced with nylon fibers had an energy
The three-point flexural test was performed on cementitious com­
absorption almost similar to that of fiber-free panels. These results
posite panels and some parameters comprises flexural strength, flexural
showed that the nylon fibers did not have considerable influence on the
modulus of elasticity, limit of proportionality, energy absorption, and
energy absorption of cementitious composite panels. Moreover, the
flexural toughness were investigated. Fig. 11 shows the load–displace­
FGRCC panels containing non-uniformly distributed nylon fibers (FG-
ment curves obtained from flexural test.
NF1 and FG-NF2) had a low energy absorption similar to that of the RCC
panel containing uniformly distributed nylon fibers (NF). The afore­
4.2.1. Flexural strength
mentioned findings indicate that the non-uniform distribution of nylon
Flexural resistance of panels was computed in terms of MPa. Table 6
fibers does not have considerable influence on the absorbed energy of
presents the results of this parameter. In comparison with the control

1729
A. Sahraei Moghadam et al.
Fig. 11. Flexural responses of cementitious composite panels reinforced with
(a) nylon, (b) steel, and (c) combined steel and nylon fibers.
1730
Structures 29 (2021) 1723–1733
panel (PCC), the tabulated results in Table 6 recommends the significant
increase of the flexural resistance for the panels reinforced with steel
fibers and the negligible increase the flexural resistance for the panels
reinforced with nylon fibers. The flexural test showed that the steel fi­
bers by bridging action on the cracks developed in the tension zone of
panels could improve the brittle performance of plain cementitious
composite panels. In comparison to the control panel, adding 1% steel
fibers to SF (RCC panel reinforced with 1% uniformly distributed steel
fibers) can enhance the flexural resistance up to 44%, while adding 1%
nylon fibers to the NF (RCC panel containing 1% uniformly distributed
nylon fibers) can enhance the flexural resistance up to 4%. In addition,
flexural resistance of SNF, the panel containing 1% combination of steel
and nylon fibers, was increased as much as 35%, in comparison with the
control panel. The comparison of FGRCC and RCC panels in terms of
their flexural strength showed that different manner of fibers distribu­
tion can affect the flexural resistance of panels. In comparison with the
SF (RCC panel), the flexural strength of FG-SF1 and FG-SF2 (FGRCC
panels) increased up to 39% and 82%, respectively. It is worth
mentioning that these panels contained 1% fixed volume of steel fibers,
hence, the reported difference is due to the distribution manner of fiber.
In addition, the non-uniform distribution of fibers increased the flexural
resistance of the panels containing nylon fibers and those containing
combined steel-nylon fibers. The flexural strength of FG-NF1 and FG-
NF2 (FGRCC panels containing 1% nylon fibers) were increased up to
13% and 19%, respectively, in comparison with the NF (RCC panel
containing 1% nylon fibers). Also, compared to the S0.5–N0.5 (RCC
panel containing 1% combined steel-nylon fibers), the flexural resis­
tance of FG-SNF1 and FG-SNF2 (FGRCC panels containing 1% combined
steel-nylon fibers) were increased up to 10% and 25%, respectively. This
is due to the increased volume of fibers below the neutral axis of panels.
In the FGRCC panels, the volume of fiber was increased in the tension
zone of the panels, and this increased the flexural resistance of these
panels, in comparison with the RCC panels. Fig. 12 exhibits the flexural
strength of panels.
4.2.2. Flexural energy absorption
The area under the flexural load–deflection curves represents the
flexural energy absorption capacity of the panels. Table 6 presents the
results of the flexural energy absorption capacity. Results showed that
the panels made of plain cementitious composite and the panels rein­
forced with nylon fibers had brittle performance under flexural force.
These panels quickly reached the rupture step with low absorbed en­
ergy. This fact can be seen in the load- deflection curves obtained from
flexural test (Fig. 11a). Unlike nylon fibers, the steel fibers can enhance
the brittle performance of plain cementitious composite panels under
flexural force. After the first crack creation, panels reinforced with steel
fibers gradually reached their rupture step with high energy absorptions.
This is attributed to the bridging action of steel fibers on the developed
cracks. Fig. 13 shows the bridging action of the combined steel-nylon
fibers on the cracks developed in tensile area of the panels. Adding
1% steel fibers could increase the energy absorption from 14.6 j in the
control panel to 144.6 j in the SF panel. Furthermore, the energy ab­
sorption of FG-SF1 and FG-SF2 specimens, FGRCC panels containing 1%
steel fibers with non-uniform distribution, were 299.35 j and 401.1 j,
respectively. These results indicated the significant effect of the manner
of fiber distribution on the energy absorption under flexure. Adding 1%
nylon fibers (with uniform distribution) to the NF panel can increase the
absorbed energy up to 2.1%, in comparison with the control panel.
While implementation of the same volume of this fibers (with non-
uniform distribution) in the FG-NF1 and FG-NF2 panels can lead to
5.8% and 22.1% increase in energy absorption, respectively, compared
to the control panel. These findings also, suggests the significant effect of
the manner of fiber distribution on the energy absorption capacity of
panels. Based on the aforementioned results, it can be concluded that
fibers systematic distribution in sections of panels which are under the
maximum stress can considerably improve their flexural absorbed
A. Sahraei Moghadam et al. Structures 29 (2021) 1723–1733

Table 6
Obtained results from flexural test.
Panel ID Flexural strength (MPa) Limit of proportionality (kN) Flexural modulus of elasticity (GPa) Flexural absorbed energy (J)

PCC 2.63 11.9 1.48 14.6

SF 3.79 16.48 3.64 144.6
NF 2.73 12.25 1.61 14.9
SNF 3.54 13.14 2.9 91.9
FG-SF1 5.26 20.01 4.86 299.35
FG-NF1 3.08 14.13 1.96 15.44
FG-SNF1 3.9 16.02 3.11 148.2
FG-SF2 6.9 29.58 4.95 401.1
FG-NF2 3.26 15.02 1.97 17.82
FG-SNF2 4.42 20.16 3.62 123.4

composite suggests the considerable influence of steel fibers in

Fig. 12. The flexural strength of panels.
energy. Moreover, in the panels reinforced with a combination of steel
and nylon fibers the energy absorption was increased in comparison
with the control panel. This increase was caused by the steel fibers, and
that the nylon fibers did not have significant effect on the energy
absorption.
4.2.3. Limit of proportionality and flexural modulus of elasticity
Table 6 shows the results of limit of proportionality as well as the
flexural modulus of elasticity which, in overall, indicate the flexural
behavior of panels at pre-cracking step. Comparing the results of panels
made of plain cementitious composite and fiber reinforced cementitious
improving the behavior of panels at pre-cracking step, in comparison
with nylon fibers. Adding 1% steel, nylon and combination of these fi­
bers could increase the limit of proportionality from 11.9 kN in the
control specimen to 16.48 kN, 12.25 kN, and 13.14 kN, respectively.
Comparing the results of RCC and FGRCC panels containing the similar
volume of fibers recommends that the manner of fibers distribution can
affect the flexural behavior of panels at pre-cracking step. In comparison
with the control panel, adding 1% uniformly distributed steel fibers to
SF panel increased the flexural modulus of elasticity as much as 146%.
While the flexural modulus of elasticity in FG-SF1 and FG-SF2, panels
containing 1% non-uniformly distributed steel fibers, were increased up
to 228% and 234%, respectively, in comparison to the control panel.
These results showed the FGRCC panels had a better flexural perfor­
mance compared to RCC panels at the pre-cracking step. Comparing the
effect of fibers on flexural behavior improvement at pre-cracking and
post-cracking steps recommends that the effect of fibers on flexural
behavior improvement at post-cracking step was more considerable. In
both pre-cracking and post-cracking steps the FG-SF2 panel had the best
performance. The limit of proportionality and flexural modulus of
elasticity of this panel were increased 2.49 and 3.34 times, respectively,
as compared to control panel. While the flexural absorbed energy of this
panel was increased 27.47 times, as compared to control panel.
4.2.4. Flexural toughness
Table 7 presents the flexural toughness parameters for 10 types of
cementitious composite panels under flexural test. These results indi­
cated that the steel fibers can considerably increase the flexural tough­
ness of cementitious composite panels. There were considerable
differences between the toughness indices of steel fibers reinforced
panels and those of fiber-free panels and nylon fibers reinforced panels.

Fig. 13. Bridging-action of the combined steel-nylon fibers on flexural cracks.

1731
A. Sahraei Moghadam et al. Structures 29 (2021) 1723–1733

Table 7
Flexural toughness parameters of cementitious composite panels.
Panel ID JSCE ASTM C1018

Aδtb (J) f e (MPa) I5 I10 I20 I10 /I5 I20 /I10 R5,10 R10,20

PCC 014.6 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0 0

SF 30.3 2.02 4.06 7.26 19.31 1.79 4.76 64 120.5
NF 014.9 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0 0
SNF 30.5 2.04 5.27 11.33 31.85 2.15 6.04 121.2 205.2
FG-SF1 44.9 3 3.96 7.88 21.44 1.99 5.41 78.4 135.6
FG-NF1 015.4 1.03 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0 0
FG-SNF1 31 2.07 6.24 12.3 25.76 1.97 4.13 121.2 134.6
FG-SF2 53.6 3.58 8.74 16.59 25.9 1.90 2.96 157 93.1
FG-NF2 017.8 1.19 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0 0
FG-SNF2 34.9 2.33 5.38 10.6 20.61 1.97 3.83 104.4 100.1

The flexural toughness index (fe ) of SF panel, reinforced with 1% steel

fibers, was increased as much as 108%, while this index for NF panel,
reinforced with 1% nylon fibers, was increased as much as 2%, in
comparison to the control panel. The flexural toughness parameters for
the FGRCC panels increased, as compared to the RCC panels. In com­
parison with the SF (RCC panel), the flexural toughness index (fe ) of FG-
SF1 and FG-SF2 (FGRCC panels) increased 49% and 77%, respectively.
Moreover, parameter R5,10 increased from 64 in SF panel to 78.4 and 157
in FG-SF1, and FG-SF2 panels, respectively, while these panels con­
taining the equal volume of steel fibers. The results of the flexural
toughness index (fe ) are exhibited in Fig. 14.

5. Comparison of flexural and impact energy absorption

In this section of the paper, the effects of fibers in increasing the

energy absorption of panels in the flexural and impact tests were Fig. 15. Manifold increase of flexural and impact energy absorption of fiber
compared. Results of this comparison indicated that the effects of fibers reinforced panels, in comparison to the control panel.
and their manner of distribution on the impact energy absorption were
more considerable, in comparison with the flexural energy absorption.
The FG-SF2 panel, containing 1% non-uniformly distributed steel fibers,
had the best performance in both impact and flexural tests. In compar­
ison with the control panel, the impact absorbed energy and flexural
absorbed energy of this panel were 100.4 and 27.5 times higher,
respectively. Fig. 15 displays the manifold increase of impact absorbed
energy and flexural absorbed energy of fiber reinforced panels, in
comparison to the control panel.
Through the regression analysis between the impact absorbed energy
and flexural absorbed energy of panels, it was found that there was a
direct and approximately linear relationship between the two parame­
ters (see Fig. 16). This result showed that the absorbed energy of panels
in the flexural and impact tests are correlated.

Fig. 16. Statistic correlation between flexural and impact energy absorption
of panels.

6. Conclusion

This study investigated the flexural and impact performance of

Fig. 14. The flexural toughness index (fe ) of panels.
cementitious composite panels reinforced with steel and nylon fibers.
The panels developed in this study were 10 different types. One types of
these panels was made of plain cementitious composite (the control
panel), three types were reinforced with uniformly distributed fibers
(the RCC panels), and six types were reinforced with non-uniformly
distributed fibers (the FGRCC panels). The volume of fiber used in all
of the panels was the same (that is, one percent of the cementitious
composite volume). The panels were different in terms of fiber type as
well as manner of fibers distribution. The non-uniform distribution of
fibers in the FGRCC panels was as follows: 1% fibers in panels were

1732
A. Sahraei Moghadam et al.
distributed more in the surrounding layers and less in the inner layer.
From the flexural and impact test results, the following conclusions were
made:
1. The results of drop weight impact test indicated the significant in­
fluence of steel fibers on the impact resistance of panels. However,
the nylon fibers had negligible effect on the impact resistance of
panels. The fiber-free panels (that is the plain cementitious com­
posite panel) and those reinforced with nylon fibers were quickly
fragmented when they received few blows after the first crack
development. The panels containing steel fibers could bear many
blows after the first crack is formed before destruction. Under the
best condition, addition of 1% steel and nylon fibers can increase the
impact absorbed energy by a factor of 100.4 and 1.44, respectively,
in comparison with the control panel.
2. Based on results of the drop weight impact test, it can be concluded
that the FGRCC panels had a behavior similar to that of RCC panels in
terms of the first crack resistance, and they had a better performance
than the RCC panels in terms of the failure resistance.
3. In the flexural test, the plain cementitious composite panel and those
reinforced with nylon fibers rapidly experienced failure after the first
crack development and showed brittle performance, while the steel
fibers could improve the flexural performance of panels through
bridging action on the cracks developed due to flexure. Under the
best condition, 1% steel and nylon fibers could increase the flexural
energy absorption 27.5 and 1.22 times, respectively, as compared to
the control panel.
4. The addition of fibers with non-uniform distribution in FGRCC
panels could considerably improve the flexural behavior. The FGRCC
panels, as compared to the RCC panels containing the same per­
centage of fibers, showed better performance in flexural test.
5. The influence of fibers to improve the flexural behavior at post-
cracking step was more considerable than their effect at pre-
cracking step.
6. Comparing the energy absorption of panels in impact and flexural
tests indicated that implementation of fibers in RCC and FGRCC
panels in impact test was more successful, as compared to the flex­
ural test.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
References
[1] Máca P, Sovják R, Konvalinka P. Mix design of UHPFRC and its response to
projectile impact. Int J Impact Eng 2014;63:158–63.
[2] Rashiddadash P, Ramezanianpour A, Mahdikhani M. Experimental investigation on
flexural toughness of hybrid fiber. Constr Build Mater 2014;51:313–20.
[3] Sahraei Moghadam A, Omidinasab F. Assessment of hybrid FRSC cementitious
composite with emphasis on flexural performance of functionally graded slabs.
Constr Build Mater 2020;250.
[4] Mastali M, Ghasemi Naghibdehi M, Naghipour M, Rabiee SM. Experimental
assessment of functionally graded reinforced concrete (FGRC) slabs under drop
weight and projectile impacts. Constr Build Mater 2015;95:296–311.
[5] Deng Z, Li J. Tension and impact behaviors of new type fiber reinforced concrete.
Cem Concr Res 2005;25(15):189–204.
1733
View publication stats
Structures 29 (2021) 1723–1733
[6] 6. Zellers B, Cruso R (2002) Nycon nylon fibers add to hydration efficiency of
cement. Nykon Inc 14:125-139.
[7] Mastali M, Dalvand A, Fakharifar M. Statistical variations in the impact resistance
and mechanical properties of polypropylene fiber reinforced self-compacting
concrete. Comput Concr 2016;18:113–24.
[8] Athiyamaan V, Mohan Ganesh G. Experimental, statistical and simulation analysis
on impact of micro steel – fibres in reinforced SCC containing admixtures. Constr
Build Mater 2020;246.
[9] Song PS, Hwang S, Sheu BC. Strength properties of nylon-and_ polypropylene-fiber
reinforced concretes. Cem Concr Res 2005;35(8):1546–50.
[10] Nili M, Afroughsabet V. Combined effect of silica fume and steel fibers on the
impact resistance and mechanical properties of concrete. Int J Impact Eng 2010;37:
879–86.
[11] Afroughsabet V, Ozbakkaloglu T. Mechanical and durability properties of high-
strength concrete containing steel and polypropylene fibers. Constr Build Mater
2015;94:73–82.
[12] Nili M, Afroughsabet V. The effects of silica fume and polypropylene fibers on the
impact resistance and mechanical properties of concrete. Constr Build Mater 2010;
24:927–33.
[13] Mastali M, Dalvand A, Sattarifard A. The impact resistance and mechanical
properties of reinforced self-compacting concrete with recycled glass fiber
reinforced polymers. J Cleaner Prod 2016;124:312–24.
[14] Miyamoto Y, Kaisser WA, Rabin BH, Kawasaki A, Ford RG. Functionally graded
materials: design, processing and applications, Mater Technol Series. Kluwer
Academic Publisher; 1999.
[15] Torelli G, Giménez Fernández M, Lees J. Functionally graded concrete: Design
objectives, production techniques and analysis methods for layered and
continuously graded elements. Constr Build Mater 2020;242.
[16] Sahraei Moghadam A, Omidinasab F, Dalvand A. Experimental investigation of
(FRSC) cementitious composite functionally graded slabs under projectile and drop
weight impacts. Constr Build Mater 2020;237.
[17] Quek ST, Lin VWJ, Maalej M. Development of functionally-graded cementitious
panel against high-velocity small projectile impact. J Impact Eng 2010;37:928–41.
[18] Dias CMR, Savastano H, John VM. Exploring the potential of functionally graded
materials concept for the development of fiber cement. J Constr Build Mater 2010;
24:140–6.
[19] Ghasemi Naghibdehi M, Sharbatdar MK, Mastali M. Repairing reinforced concrete
slabs using composite layers. J Mater Des 2014;58:136–44.
[20] Ghasemi Naghibdehi M, Mastali M, Sharbatdar MK, Ghasemi Naghibdehi M.
Flexural performance of functionally graded RC cross section with steel and PP
fibers. Mag Concr Res 2014;66:219–33.
[21] ASTM C150, Standard Specification for Portland Cement, ASTM International,
West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2012.
[22] ASTM C39, Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Cylindrical Concrete
Specimens 2003 ASTM International West Conshohocken, PA, USA.
[23] Nagataki S, Fujiwara H (1995) Self-compacting property of highly-flowable
concrete in: V.M. Malhotra (Ed.). American Concrete Institute 154:301–314.
[24] Mastali M, Dalvand A. (2016) Use of silica fume and recycled steel fibers in self-
compacting concrete. construction and building materials 125:196-209.
[25] Khaloo A, Molaei Raisi E, Hosseini P, Tahsiri H. Mechanical performance of self-
compacting concrete reinforced with steel fibers. J Constr Build Mater 2014;51:
179–86.
[26] 26. EFNARC (2005) Specifications and guidelines for self-compacting concrete.
Englished Eur Fed Spec Constr Chem Concr Syst 8-17.
[27] Khan U, Khan RA, Pandey NK, Tyagi A. Fresh and hardened properties of hybrid
fibre reinforced self consolidating concrete containing basalt and polypropylene
fibres. Int J Recent Technol Eng (IJRTE) 2019;8(2):3356–61.
[28] Abirami T, Murali G, Saravana Raja Mohan K, Salaimanimagudam MP, Nagaveni P,
Bhargavi P. Multi-layered two stage fibrous composites against low-velocity falling
mass and projectile impact. Constr Build Mater 2020;248.
[29] ASTM C1609 / C1609M-19, Standard Test Method for Flexural Performance of
Fiber-Reinforced Concrete (Using Beam With Third-Point Loading), ASTM
International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2019.
[30] JSCE (Japan Society of Civil Engineering) (1984) SF-4: Method of Test for Flexural
Strength and Flexural Toughness of Fiber Reinforced Concrete, Tokyo, 58–66.
[31] ASTM C1018, Standard Test Method for Flexural Toughness and First-Crack
Strength of Fiber-Reinforced Concrete, ASTM International 1998 West
Conshohocken, PA, USA.
[32] Maho B, Sukontasukkul P, Jamnam S, Yamaguchi E, Fujikake K, Banthia N. Effect
of rubber insertion on impact behavior of multilayer steel fiber reinforced concrete
bulletproof panel. Constr Build Mater 2019;216:476–84.