Xue Yang (Bagus)

polymers
Article
Stress–Strain Model for Lightweight Aggregate Concrete
Reinforced with Carbon–Polypropylene Hybrid Fibers
Xue Yang, Tao Wu * and Xi Liu
School of Civil Engineering, Chang’an University, Xi’an 710061, China; ms_yangxue@163.com (X.Y.);
lliuxii@163.com (X.L.)
* Correspondence: wutaochd0922@yahoo.com; Tel.: +86-139-9132-2194
Abstract: This research aimed to investigate the hybrid effects of carbon and polypropylene fibers on
the stress–strain behavior of lightweight aggregate concrete (LWAC). The considered test variables
were two fiber volume fractions of 0.2% and 0.4% and two water/binder ratios of 0.27 and 0.30.
Eighteen groups of prisms fabricated with fiber-reinforced LWAC were tested under axial compressive
load. Experimental studies were carried out to analyze the influence of different fiber combinations
on the complete stress–strain behavior. It was found that the carbon–polypropylene hybrid fibers
led to toughness enhancement that was numerically more significant than the sum of individual
fibers, indicating a positive synergistic effect between them. Finally, a mathematical expression of the
stress–strain curve accounting for the fiber combinations was developed. Compared with existing
stress–strain models, the proposed model shows better accuracy in predicting the effect of carbon
and polypropylene fibers in both single and hybrid forms on the stress–strain curve of LWAC.
Keywords: compressive stress–strain relationship; lightweight aggregate concrete; carbon fiber;

polypropylene fiber; hybrid fiber reinforcement
Citation: Yang, X.; Wu, T.; Liu, X.

Stress–Strain Model for Lightweight
Aggregate Concrete Reinforced with
1. Introduction
Carbon–Polypropylene Hybrid Lightweight aggregate concrete (LWAC) has been successfully used in structural
Fibers. Polymers 2022, 14, 1675. engineering due to its advantages over conventional concrete, including lower density,
https://doi.org/10.3390/ superior thermal insulation, and higher specific strength [1,2]. However, disadvantages
polym14091675 such as higher brittle texture and lower mechanical properties have restricted the wide
Academic Editor: Libo Yan
range of applications for LWAC [3]. Incorporating fibers into concrete as a single or hybrid
form is confirmed as an effective way of compensating for the adverse effects of LWAC. As
Received: 21 March 2022 is known, the most beneficial characteristic of fiber is the crack-bridging mechanism, which
Accepted: 19 April 2022 can significantly increase the toughness and post-cracking ductility of concrete [4–6].
Published: 20 April 2022 Different types of fibers, such as steel, glass, carbon, nylon, and polypropylene, have
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral been used to produce fiber-reinforced LWAC (FLWAC) [7]. Adding steel fiber to LWAC
with regard to jurisdictional claims in leads to a significant improvement in the mechanical performance of concrete but increases
published maps and institutional affil- the density of LWAC. Instead, the incorporation of non-metallic fibers (carbon, basalt,
iations. polypropylene, etc.) in concrete has become attractive because of the high performance and
low density [8,9]. LWAC comprising two or more types of fiber was investigated to achieve
a positive synergistic response. Therefore, combinations of high-strength carbon fiber and
high-ductility polypropylene fiber are hoped to reinforce LWAC at multiple scales.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. The stress–strain relationship is crucial to the axial design of short columns and the
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
flexural designing of slabs and beams [10,11]. Moreover, a thorough understanding of
This article is an open access article
comprehensive compressive stress–strain behavior is essential for the nonlinear analysis
distributed under the terms and
of structures and the derivation of design behavior curves [10]. However, the effect of
conditions of the Creative Commons
non-metallic fibers on the compressive stress–strain response of LWAC may be different
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
from that on the properties of normal-weight concrete (NWC). To design and analyze the
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Polymers 2022, 14, 1675. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym14091675 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/polymers

Polymers 2022, 14, 1675 2 of 19
performance of the structural application of LWAC reinforced with carbon and polypropy-
lene fibers, it is necessary to investigate relevant mechanical properties and propose a
stress–strain model.
Continuing efforts regarding experimental and theoretical research have been dedi-
cated to generating compressive stress–strain curves, and several empirical models have
been established in the last few decades, such as those proposed by Carreira and Chu [12],
Guo [13], and Wee et al. [14]. It was reported that the stress–strain response of concrete
depended on the concrete composition [15]. Nevertheless, the constituents of LWAC differ
from those of NWC, and it is uncertain whether a model proposed based on NWC can
provide good predictions for LWAC. Meanwhile, the effect of fibers is not taken into account
in the parameters of the proposed models.
Studies on the compressive behavior of fiber-reinforced NWC as well as LWAC have
been carried out. Tasnimi [16] derived a stress–strain model applicable to both LWAC
and NWC, but it did not reflect the properties of lightweight aggregate (LWA). Recently, a
unified model was developed by Lim and Ozbakkaloglu [17] to describe the stress–strain
behavior of both NWC and LWAC, but the proposed model is unsuitable for fiber-reinforced
concrete. Wang et al. [18] proposed a model to predict the compressive stress–strain
behavior of concrete reinforced with basalt–polypropylene hybrid fibers. Currently, the
available evidence regarding the axial compressive behavior of FLWAC is still insufficient.
The axial compressive behavior of LWAC reinforced with non-metallic fiber has yet to be
investigated, and it is essential to develop a model for the prediction of this concrete.
This study explores the effects of single and hybrid carbon and polypropylene fibers
on the compressive stress–strain behavior and model of LWAC. From the experimental
results, analytical expressions for compressive strength and critical strain accounting for the
fiber combinations were proposed. Finally, to capture the complete stress–strain response
of FLWAC, a stress–strain model suggesting the peak stress and critical strain was derived.
2. Experimental Details
2.1. Materials
Lightweight Aggregate: Artificially expanded shale ceramic with crushed shape
provided by Guangda Co., Ltd. (Yichang, China) was selected as coarse LWA. According to
Chinese Specification GB/T 17431.2-2010 [19], its properties and particle size distribution
are provided in Table 1. The chemical composition of LWA provided by the manufacturer
is also listed in Table 1.
Table 1. Properties of LWA.
Bulk Apparent Crushing 1 h/24 h Total Particle Size Distribution (%)

Density Density Strength Water Absorption Porosity 5~10
(kg/m3 ) (kg/m3 ) (MPa) (%) (%) 2.36~5 mm 10~16 mm
mm
860 1512 6.9 2.2/2.6 43.12 11 68 21
Chemical Composition
SiO2 (%) Al2 O3 (%) Fe2 O3 (%) TiO2 (%) CaO (%) MgO (%) SiO3 (%) Alkalis as Na2 O (%) LOI (%)
65.4 15.9 4.2 0.7 2.4 3.7 0.23 3.8 3.67
Fibers: Two types of fibers, namely, carbon and polypropylene fibers, were used,
provided by Anjie composite material factory (Haining, China) and Hansen Co., Ltd.
(Wuhan, China). Their respective features and properties, as provided by the suppliers, are
listed in Table 2.
(kg/m³)
(kg/m³) (kg/m³)
(kg/m³) (MPa)
(MPa) (%) (%) (%) (%) mmmm
860 860 15121512 6.9 6.9 2.2/2.6
2.2/2.6 43.12
43.12 11 11 68 68 21 21
Alkalis as Na
Alkalis as2O
Na2O
SiO2S(%)
iO2 (%) Al2O3 (%)
Al Fe2OFe
2O3 (%) 3 (%)
2O3 (%)TiO2TiO
(%)2 (%) CaOCaO
(%) (%) MgO (%) (%)SiO3SiO
MgO (%)3 (%) LOILOI
(%) (%)
(%) (%)
Polymers 2022, 14, 1675 3 of 19
65.465.4 15.915.9 4.2 4.2 0.7 0.7 2.4 2.4 3.7 3.7 0.230.23 3.8 3.8 3.673.67
Table 2. Properties
Table of fibers.
2. Properties of fibers.
Table 2. Properties of fibers.
Fiber Details
Fiber Details Carbon Fiber
Carbon Fiber Polypropylene Fiber
Polypropylene Fiber
Fiber Details Carbon Fiber Polypropylene Fiber
View
View
View
Fiber shape Straight, filaments Straight, fibrillated

Fiber
Cut shape
Fiber
length (Lshape Straight, filaments
Straight, filaments Straight, Straight,fibrillated
fibrillated
f ) (mm) 8~10 15~22
Cut Diameter
length
Cut (L(D
length f) (mm)
f(L f) (mm)
) (µm) 8~10
7 8~10 15~22 15~22
80
Diameter
Aspect (Df) (D
ratio
Diameter (μm)
(Lff/D f)
) (μm) 7 7
1100 80 225 80
Specific gravity (g/cm 3 1.8 0.91
Aspect ratioratio
Aspect (Lf/D (Lf)f/Df)) 11001100 225 225
Elongation (%) 2.1 17
Specific gravity
Specific (g/cm³)
gravity (g/cm³) 1.8 1.8 0.910.91
Tensile strength (MPa) 4000 >400
Elongation
Elongation
Elastic (%)
modulus (GPa) (%) 2.1
240 2.1 17 17 22
Tensile strength
Tensile
Water strength (MPa)
absorption (MPa) <1% 4000 4000
by weight >400>400 Nil
Elastic modulus
Elastic modulus (GPa) (GPa) 240 240 22 22
Water
Binder: absorption
Water absorption
Ordinary Portland cement, <1%classified
by weight
<1% by weight
as P.O 42.5, was used, Nil Nil complying with
Chinese Specification GB 175-2007 [20]. Silica fume and class F fly ash in accordance with
2.2. 2.2.
Preparation
Preparation
GB/T and and
18736-2017 Details
Details
[21] of Specimens
were of Specimens
added as active mineral admixtures.
The The The
effective finewater/binder
effective aggregate
water/binder used
ratiowas(W/B)
ratio mediumemployed
(W/B) sand was
employed sieved0.27to0.27
was 4 mm
and 0.3with
and for a bulk
0.3 Series
for 1 density
Series and1 andof
1530 kg/m 3.
Series 2, respectively.
Series 2, respectively. NineNine concrete
concretemixtures
mixtures werewere prepared
prepared withwith the thesame binder,
same binder,
aggregate, A
aggregate, high-performance
water, and and
water, superplasticizerpolycarboxylate-based
superplasticizer for each series.
for each In superplasticizer
series. addition,
In addition, was
silicasilica
fume employed
and
fume fly ash
and in all
fly ash
mixtures
werewereapplied to improve
applied replace
to replace fiber dispersion
0.080.08and and 0.120.12 and adjust
by mass
by mass the fluidity
of cement,
of cement, in fresh LWAC
respectively.
respectively. mixtures.
The The mix mix
proportions
proportions of plain
of plainLWAC LWAC are provided
are provided in Table
in Table 3. Accordingly,
3. Accordingly, as shown
as shown in Table
in Table4, 4,
2.2.combinations
different Preparation andofDetails ofand
Specimens
different combinationscarbon of carbon polypropylene
and polypropylene fibers (volume
fibers (volume fraction
fraction= 0.2% and and
= 0.2%
0.4%)0.4%) The
werewere effective
incorporated
incorporated water/binder
intointo
the plain ratioLWAC
LWAC
the plain (W/B)
mixturesemployed
mixtures to was
to investigate 0.27both
investigate and 0.3individual
the
both for individual
the Series 1 and
effectsSeries
and 2, respectively.
synergistic effect Nine
of fiberconcrete mixtures
reinforcement.
effects and synergistic effect of fiber reinforcement. were prepared with the same binder, ag-
gregate,
The The
concrete water,
concretewaswasand superplasticizer
prepared
prepared using for each
a forced-action
using a forced-actionseries.
mixer In addition,
under
mixer under silica
lab conditions. fume
lab conditions. and
Before fly ash
Before
mixing,wereLWA
mixing, applied
LWA waswas to replace
firstfirst 0.08
pre-wetted
pre-wettedand 0.12
withwith by mass
additional
additional of
watercement, respectively.
to ensure
water to ensure an SSDan SSD The mix
condition. propor-
condition.
tions
Firstly,
Firstly, of plain LWAC
powder-type
powder-type are provided
ingredients
ingredients asin
suchsuch Table
cement,
as 3.flyAccordingly,
cement, ash, as fume,
silicasilica
fly ash, fume, shown
and and in Table
medium medium 4,
sanddifferent
sand
combinations
werewere
dry dry
mixed mixed of
for about carbon
for about3 min.and polypropylene
Next,
3 min. polypropylene
Next, fibers
polypropylene (volume
fibers fraction
werewere
fibers added = 0.2%
and and
added mixed and 0.4%)
in dry
mixed were
in dry
incorporated
statestate
for for
anotheranother 2into 2the
min, plain
and and
min, LWAC
after mixtures
that,
after atohalf-quantity
investigate
a half-quantity
that, of bothof the
pre-mixed individual
pre-mixed water effects
waterwithwith and
synergistic
superplasticizer
superplasticizer effect
waswas of fiber
introduced reinforcement.
introduced to theto dry
the drymix.mix.
The Themixturemixture waswas mixed mixedfor afor further
a further3 3
min,min,
followed
followed by the by addition
the addition of pre-soaked
of pre-soaked LWA. LWA.To compensate
To compensate for the
for absorbed
the absorbed water water
Table 3. The mix proportions of plain LWAC (kg/m3 ).
of carbon
of carbonfiber, it isitsuggested
fiber, is suggested to first blend
to first carbon
blend carbonfiberfiber
withwiththe theremaining
remaining water to to
water
ensure sufficient
ensure sufficientdispersion.
dispersion. Subsequently,
Subsequently, 3 min 3 minafterafter
the the
aggregate
aggregate waswas added, added, the the
Mixture W/B Cement Silica Fume Fly Ash LWA Sand Water Superplasticizer
remaining
remainingwater waswas
water gradually
gradually poured
poured intointo
the mixer.
the mixer. Mixing waswas
Mixing performed
performed for another
for another
Plain–a 0.27 440 min until a44consistent mixture
3~5 66 was obtained. 603 Simultaneously,
684 148.5concrete
fresh 6.8mixtures
3~5 min until a consistent mixture was obtained. Simultaneously, fresh concrete mixtures
Plain–b 0.3 440 44 66 578 667 165 5.2
werewere
cast cast
intointostandard
standard molds.molds.All All
specimens
specimens werewere compacted
compacted on aonhigh-frequency
a high-frequency
vibrating tabletable
vibrating for 30 fors30 and keptkept
s and covered
covered withwith
plastic sheets
plastic for 24
sheets forh24 before
h before demolding.
demolding.
The TheTable
hardened 4. Fiber
hardened addition
specimens
specimens in LWAC
were cured
were mixtures.
in ainstandard
cured a standard curing room
curing roomfor 28for days
28 days and andthenthen
Carbon Polypropylene
Carbon–Polypropylene Hybrid Fibers/(%)
Fiber W/B Fiber/(%) Fiber/(%)
0.2 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.2/0.2 0.2/0.4 0.4/0.2 0.4/0.4
0.27 CF0.2a CF0.4a PF0.2a PF0.4a CF0.2PF0.2a CF0.2PF0.4a CF0.4PF0.2a CF0.4PF0.4a
Mix code
0.3 CF0.2b CF0.4b PF0.2b PF0.4b CF0.2PF0.2b CF0.2PF0.4b CF0.4PF0.2b CF0.4PF0.4b
The concrete was prepared using a forced-action mixer under lab conditions. Before
mixing, LWA was first pre-wetted with additional water to ensure an SSD condition. Firstly,
powder-type ingredients such as cement, fly ash, silica fume, and medium sand were dry
mixed for about 3 min. Next, polypropylene fibers were added and mixed in dry state
Polymers 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 19
Polymers 2022, 14, 1675 4 of 19

cured under the same conditions as the specimens to determine the cubic compressive
strength in accordance with the Chinese Specification GB/T 50081-2007 [22].
for another
Table 3. The2mix
min, and after of
proportions that, a half-quantity
plain LWAC (kg/m³).of pre-mixed water with superplasticizer
was introduced to the dry mix. The mixture was mixed for a further 3 min, followed by
Mixture W/B Cement Silica Fume Fly Ash LWA Sand Water Superplasticizer
the addition of pre-soaked LWA. To compensate for the absorbed water of carbon fiber,
itPlain–a 0.27 to440
is suggested 44carbon fiber
first blend 66 with the
603remaining
684 water
148.5 to ensure
6.8 sufficient
Plain–b 0.3
dispersion. 440
Subsequently, 344
min after the66aggregate578was added,
667 165 remaining
the 5.2 water was
gradually poured into the mixer. Mixing was performed for another 3~5 min until a
Table 4. Fiber
consistent addition
mixture in obtained.
was LWAC mixtures.
Simultaneously, fresh concrete mixtures were cast into
Carbon standard molds. All specimens
Polypropylene were compacted on a high-frequency vibrating table for 30 s
and kept covered with plastic sheetsCarbon–Polypropylene Hybrid The
for 24 h before demolding. Fibers/(%)
hardened specimens
Fiber W/B Fiber/(%) Fiber/(%)
were cured in a standard curing room for 28 days and then placed at room temperature
0.2 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.2/0.2 0.2/0.4 0.4/0.2 0.4/0.4
until testing time. For each concrete mixture, three 100 mm cubes were cast and cured
0.27 CF0.2a CF0.4a PF0.2a PF0.4a CF0.2PF0.2a CF0.2PF0.4a CF0.4PF0.2a
under the same conditions as the specimens to determine the cubic compressive CF0.4PF0.4a
strength in
Mix code
0.3 CF0.2b CF0.4b PF0.2b PF0.4b CF0.2PF0.2b CF0.2PF0.4b
accordance with the Chinese Specification GB/T 50081-2007 [22]. CF0.4PF0.2b CF0.4PF0.4b
2.3. Experimental
2.3. Experimental Instrumentation
Instrumentationand
andMethods
Methods
Axialcompressive
Axial compressiveteststestswere
wereperformed
performedon on100
100mmmm××100 100mmmm×× 300 300 mm
mmprismatic
prismatic
specimens
specimensinincompliance
compliance with
with the
the Chinese
Chinese Specification
Specification GB/T 50081-2007 [22].
GB/T 50081-2007 [22]. The
The speci-
spec-
imens were tested
mens were testedononaa1000
1000kN kNelectro-hydraulic
electro-hydraulic servo
servo universal
universal testing
testing machine
machine at aat a
dis-
displacement control
placement control raterate of 0.02
of 0.02 mm/min.
mm/min. To avoid
To avoid the endtheofend of concrete
concrete crushing,
crushing, steel
steel collars
collars were employed
were employed to confine
to confine the toptheandtop and bottom
bottom of the specimen.
of the specimen. The axial The axial deforma-
deformation was
tion was measured
measured usinglinear
using four four linear variable
variable displacement
displacement transducers
transducers (LVDTs) that
(LVDTs) that were
were
mounted ◦
mounted atat90
90° around
around thethe test
test section
section of
ofthe
thespecimen
specimen(see (seeFigure
Figure1).1). Before
Beforetesting,
testing, the
the
specimen
specimen was
was preloaded
preloaded from
from 00 toto55MPa
MPaand andthen
thenunloaded
unloadedto to0.5
0.5MPa,
MPa,which
whichformed
formed
one
oneloading–unloading
loading–unloadingcycle.
cycle.Thus,
Thus,more
morethan
thanthree
threecycles
cycleswere
wereapplied
appliedto tothe
thespecimens
specimens
to
to guarantee axial loading and prevent the slackness of the system [23]. During the
guarantee axial loading and prevent the slackness of the system [23]. During the test,
test,
the
the applied load and corresponding axial deformation were continuously recorded at
applied load and corresponding axial deformation were continuously recorded at aa
sampling frequency of 10 Hz to describe the stress–strain curve of the
sampling frequency of 10 Hz to describe the stress–strain curve of the specimen. specimen.
Figure1.1.Scheme
Figure Schemeof
ofaxial
axialcompression
compressiontest.
test.
Compressive stress
Compressive stress was
wasthetheapplied
appliedload load divided
divided byby the
thecross-sectional
cross-sectional area
areaofofeach
each
specimen,and
specimen, andthen
then compressive
compressive strain
strain waswas calculated
calculated from from the average
the average value ofvalue of four
four LVDTs.
LVDTs.
With the With
stressthe
andstress and corresponding
corresponding strain, thestrain, the experimental
experimental stress–strain
stress–strain curves can curves
be
plotted. Compressive
can be plotted. strength
Compressive (f c ) and
strength critical
(fc) and strain
critical strain (ccorresponding
(εc ), ), correspondingtotothe
thepeak
peak
point,
point, were
were obtained
obtained directly
directly from
fromthe theexperimental
experimental stress–strain
stress–strain curve.
curve. The
The initial
initial tan-
tan-
gential elastic modulus (E ) and peak secant elastic modulus (E ) were
gential elastic modulus (Ecc) and peak secant elastic modulus (E00) were calculated usingcalculated using
Equations
Equations(1)(1)and
and(2),
(2),respectively:
respectively:
σc2− c2 − 
σc1c1
Ec =
Ec = (1)
(1)
ε 2 −2 −0.00005
0.00005
σc
E0 = (2)
εc
c
E0 = (2)
Polymers 2022, 14, 1675 c 5 of 19
where c2 is the compressive stress at the point of fc/3; c1 is the compressive stress at the
point of the strain of 0.0005; and 2 is the compressive strain at the point of the stress of
where σc2 is the compressive stress at the point of f c /3; σc1 is the compressive stress at the
c2.
point of the strain of 0.0005; and ε2 is the compressive strain at the point of the stress of σc2 .
3. Results and and
3. Results Discussion
Discussion
3.1. Failure Mechanism
3.1. Failure Mechanism
The The
effecteffect
of fiber reinforcement
of fiber reinforcement on LWAC
on LWAC can be candirectly characterized
be directly by the
characterized bymod-
the mod-
ification of the
ification of crack pattern
the crack and and
pattern the failure mode.
the failure mode. Specimens containing
Specimens the same
containing the samefiberfiber
combination
combination but with different
but with W/BW/B
different showshow similar failure
similar modes,
failure modes,suchsuch
as Plain–a
as Plain–aand and
Plain–b, so the
Plain–b, so failure mode
the failure of specimens
mode of specimens withwith
W/BW/B of 0.3ofwas takentaken
0.3 was as anasexample
an example to to
analyze the effect
analyze of fibers
the effect on the
of fibers concrete
on the concretefailure mechanism.
failure mechanism. AsAs shown
shown in in
Figure
Figure2, 2,
fail-
failure
ure modes for carbon-fiber-reinforced LWAC LWAC(CFLWAC)
(CFLWAC)and andpolypropylene-fiber-reinforced
polypropylene-fiber-rein-
LWAC
forced LWAC (PFLWAC)
(PFLWAC) expressed
expressed significant
significantdifferences
differences from those
from of hybrid-fiber-reinforced
those of hybrid-fiber-re-
LWAC
inforced (HFLWAC).
LWAC (HFLWAC).In the In
specimen of plainofLWAC,
the specimen noticeable
plain LWAC, concreteconcrete
noticeable crushingcrush-
can be rec-
ognized
ing can from densefrom
be recognized cracksdense
forming afterforming
cracks a compressive
after atest. The failuretest.
compressive modeTheoffailure
specimens
mode of of
LWAC with only
specimens of LWACcarbon fiber
with wascarbon
only similarfiber
to that
wasofsimilar
plain LWAC,
to that ofwhereas the degree
plain LWAC,
of concrete
whereas the degreespalling was relatively
of concrete spalling waslighter for concrete
relatively lightercontaining
for concrete carbon fiber. car-
containing Cracks
extended through the LWA were accompanied by the rupture
bon fiber. Cracks extended through the LWA were accompanied by the rupture of carbon of carbon fiber, which can be
attributed to the low strength of LWA as well as the low ductility
fiber, which can be attributed to the low strength of LWA as well as the low ductility of of carbon fiber. Moreover,
fractured
carbon LWA on the
fiber. Moreover, crack surface
fractured LWA on canthe
also explain
crack thecan
surface higher
alsobrittleness
explain theofhigher
LWAC as
compared
brittleness with NWC
of LWAC with thewith
as compared sameNWC strength
withgrade.
the same strength grade.
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
Figure 2. Failure
Figure modesmodes
2. Failure of specimens under under
of specimens axial compression (W/B =(W/B
axial compression 0.3): (a) Plain (a)
= 0.3): LWAC;
Plain (b)
LWAC;
PFLWAC; (c) CFLWAC; (d) HFLWAC.
(b) PFLWAC; (c) CFLWAC; (d) HFLWAC.
In the
Incase of LWAC
the case containing
of LWAC polypropylene
containing polypropylene fiber, thethe
fiber, specimen
specimen maintained
maintained integ-
integrity
rity during the testing.
testing. However,
However,there
thereisisaabeneficial
beneficialmodification
modification onon
thethe failure
failure pattern
pattern in that
in that there
there is no
is no apparent
apparent concrete
concrete spalling,
spalling, but but dense
dense crackscracks canobserved.
can be be observed.
ThisThis phe-
phenomenon
may be due to the bridging effect of polypropylene fiber that restrains the cracking and
lateral deformation of concrete. In addition, the ruptured polypropylene fiber can be
viewed on the crack surface because of the high ductility of the polypropylene fiber, which
allows a large deformation when subjected to tensile stress. Additionally, the difference in
compressive strength was taken as partly responsible for the difference in failure modes
nomenon may be due to the bridging effect of polypropylene fiber that restrains the crack-
ing and lateral deformation of concrete. In addition, the ruptured polypropylene fiber can
be viewed on the crack surface because of the high ductility of the polypropylene fiber,
Polymers 2022, 14, 1675 which allows a large deformation when subjected to tensile stress. Additionally, the6 of
dif-
19
ference in compressive strength was taken as partly responsible for the difference in fail-
ure modes between CFLWAC and PFLWAC. The compressive strength of LWAC con-
taining carbon fiber was much higher than that solely containing polypropylene fiber.
between CFLWAC and PFLWAC. The compressive strength of LWAC containing carbon
fiber was much higher than that solely containing polypropylene fiber.
3.2. Compressive Stress–Strain Behavior
Figure 3 shows
3.2. Compressive the typical
Stress–Strain stress–strain curve of LWAC in compression. During the
Behavior
loading procedure,
Figure 3 showsthe thespecimen’s response curve
typical stress–strain to axialofcompression was recorded
LWAC in compression. Duringto illus-
the
trate crack
loading patternsthe
procedure, corresponding to different
specimen’s response stages
to axial in the stress–strain
compression was recorded curve.toAs shown
illustrate
in the patterns
crack figure, four cracking stages
corresponding during stages
to different the compressive tests can curve.
in the stress–strain be identified
As shown in the
in
stress–strain curve. In stage 1, the stress can be assumed to be linearly
the figure, four cracking stages during the compressive tests can be identified in the stress– increasing from
point
strain O to point
curve. A, illustrated
In stage 1, the stressby can
the elastic
be assumeddeformation of the increasing
to be linearly aggregate from and thepointcement
O to
paste.A,
point This linearityby
illustrated is maintained until approaching
the elastic deformation 90% of theand
of the aggregate peakthepoint
cement andpaste.
is consid-
This
erably larger
linearity than that until
is maintained of NWC (30%~45%)
approaching 90% [24]. Microcracks
of the peak pointthat andexisted before loading
is considerably larger
would
than thatnotofextend until the end
NWC (30~45%) [24].ofMicrocracks
this stage. Point A is recognized
that existed before loadingas thewouldpoint not
where the
extend
stress–strain
until the end curve
of thisdeflects
stage. PointfromAlinearity. Meanwhile,
is recognized the cracks
as the point wheretend to propagatecurve
the stress–strain from
point A. from
deflects During stage 2,Meanwhile,
linearity. the strain increases
the cracks more
tendquickly than before,
to propagate from manifesting
point A. During as a
continuous decrease
stage 2, the strain in themore
increases curve’s
quickly gradient. As the
than before, stress steadily
manifesting increases, decrease
as a continuous vertical
cracks appear on
in the curve’s the specimen
gradient. As theuntilstressonesteadily
major crack reaches
increases, its critical
vertical cracks length at point
appear B.
on the
specimen
Point until onetomajor
B is referred as thecrack
peakreaches its critical
point, from whichlength at point
the peak stressB.andPoint B is referred
critical strain can to
as the
be peak point,
obtained. In thefrom whichregion,
post-peak the peak thestress and critical
specimen enters strain can be instability
the cracking obtained. In the
stage,
post-peak
and cracksregion,
propagate the specimen
automatically, entersthough
the cracking instability
the stress stage, and
is decreasing. The cracks
duration propagate
of stage
automatically, though the stress is decreasing. The duration of stage
3 is relatively short, as the stress decreases rapidly to about 50% of the peak stress, sug- 3 is relatively short, as
the stress
gesting thedecreases
brittleness rapidly to about
of LWAC. 50%
Point C of
is the peak to
referred stress,
as thesuggesting
inflectionthe brittleness
point in the de- of
LWAC. Point
scending C is referred
branch. In the case to as
of the
stageinflection point
4, the load in the descending
capacity mainly consists branch. In the
of the case of
frictional
stage 4, theand
resistance load capacity
residual mainly consists of the frictional resistance and residual stress.
stress.
60
Plain-b
50
B
OA (Stage 1): elastic deformation
AB (Stage 2): internal cracking
40 A
Stress  /MPa
BC (Stage 3): visible cracking

C (Stage 4): failure
30
C
20
10
O
0
0 3000 6000 9000 12000 15000 18000
Strain  /×10-6
Figure 3. A typical example of the compressive stress–strain curve.
Figures 4 and 5 present the effects of different fiber combinations on the compressive
stress–strain behavior of
stress–strain behavior of LWAC
LWAC with with W/B
W/B ofof 0.27
0.27 and
and 0.3,
0.3, respectively.
respectively. AllAll experimental
experimental
stress–strain curves
stress–strain curves show
show aa similar
similar shape
shape inin ascending
ascending andand descending branches, but
descending branches, but the
the
critical points
critical points referred
referred toto in
in Figure
Figure 33 change
change with
with changes
changes inin fiber
fiber dosages
dosages and
and W/B.
W/B. AsAs
shown in the figure, the initial linear stage of the stress–strain curve shows
shown in the figure, the initial linear stage of the stress–strain curve shows no noticeable no noticeable
difference with
difference withthetheaddition
addition of of
fibers. However,
fibers. However,the nonlinear stage stage
the nonlinear of the of
ascending branch
the ascending
is significantly affected. When adding fibers to the LWAC, the drop
branch is significantly affected. When adding fibers to the LWAC, the drop in the ascend- in the ascending
branch
ing is flatter,
branch andand
is flatter, the nonlinear
the nonlinearstage of the
stage of ascending
the ascendingbranch is wider
branch thanthan
is wider thatthat
of the
of
plain LWAC, indicating a larger energy dissipation capacity for
the plain LWAC, indicating a larger energy dissipation capacity for the FLWAC. For the FLWAC. For LWAC
containing a single type of fiber, the gradient of the descending branch is close to that of
the corresponding plain LWAC, as plotted in Figures 4a and 5a. Instead, as presented in
Figures 4b and 5b, the descending parts in HFLWAC become much flatter than those of
plain LWAC, suggesting an increase in energy dissipation capacity when referring to the
post-peak portion.
LWAC containing a single type of fiber, the gradient of the descending branch is close to
LWAC
that containing
of the a singleplain
corresponding type of fiber, the
LWAC, gradient
as plotted inof the descending
Figures 4a and 5a.branch is close
Instead, to
as pre-
that of in
sented theFigures
corresponding plain
4b and 5b, LWAC, as plotted
the descending parts ininHFLWAC
Figures 4a and 5a.
become Instead,
much as than
flatter pre-
Polymers 2022, 14, 1675 7 of 19
sentedofinplain
those Figures 4b and
LWAC, 5b, the descending
suggesting an increaseparts in HFLWAC
in energy become
dissipation muchwhen
capacity flatterrefer-
than
thosetoofthe
ring plain LWAC,portion.
post-peak suggesting an increase in energy dissipation capacity when refer-
ring to the post-peak portion.
Plain-a Plain-a
60 60
CF0.2a
Plain-a CF0.2PF0.2a
Plain-a
60 60
CF0.4a
CF0.2a CF0.2PF0.4a
CF0.2PF0.2a
50 PF0.2a 50 CF0.4PF0.2a
CF0.2PF0.4a
CF0.4a
50 PF0.4a
PF0.2a 50 CF0.4PF0.4a
CF0.4PF0.2a
 /MPa
 /MPa
40 PF0.4a 40 CF0.4PF0.4a
 /MPa
 /MPa
40 40
Stress
Stress
30 30
Stress
Stress
30 30
20 20
20 20
10 10
10 10
0 0
0 3000 6000 9000 12000 15000 18000 0 3000 6000 9000 12000 15000 18000
0 0
0 3000  /×10 12000
6000Strain9000
-6
15000 18000 0 3000  /×10 12000
6000Strain9000
-6
15000 18000
Strain  /×10-6 Strain  /×10-6
(a) (b)
(a) (b)
Figure
Figure 4.4. Effects
EffectsofofCF
CFandandPFPFonon
thethe
compressive stress–strain
compressive curves
stress–strain of LWAC
curves (W/B(W/B
of LWAC = 0.27): (a)
= 0.27):
Figurein4.single
fibers Effects of CF
form; (b)and PF in
fibers onhybrid
the compressive
form. stress–strain curves of LWAC (W/B = 0.27): (a)
(a) fibers in single form; (b) fibers in hybrid form.
fibers in single form; (b) fibers in hybrid form.
Plain-b Plain-b
60 60
CF0.2b
Plain-b CF0.2PF0.2b
Plain-b
60 60
CF0.4b
CF0.2b CF0.2PF0.4b
CF0.2PF0.2b
50 PF0.2b 50 CF0.4PF0.2b
CF0.2PF0.4b
CF0.4b
50 PF0.4b
PF0.2b 50 CF0.4PF0.4b
CF0.4PF0.2b
 /MPa
 /MPa
40 PF0.4b 40 CF0.4PF0.4b
 /MPa
40
 /MPa 40
Stress
Stress
30 30
Stress
Stress
30 30
20 20
20 20
10 10
10 10
0 0
0 3000 6000 9000 12000 15000 18000 0 3000 6000 9000 12000 15000 18000
0 0
0 3000  /×10 12000
6000Strain9000
-6
15000 18000 0 3000  /×10 12000
6000Strain9000
-6
15000 18000
Strain  /×10-6 Strain  /×10-6
(a) (b)
(a) (b)
Figure 5. Effects of CF and PF on the compressive stress–strain curves of LWAC (W/B = 0.3): (a)
Figure
fibers 5.single
Figurein5. Effects ofCF
form;
Effects of CF
(b)and PFon
fibers
and PF inon the
hybrid
the compressive
form.
compressive stress–strain
stress–strain curves
curves of LWAC
of LWAC (W/B
(W/B = 0.3):
= 0.3): (a)
(a) fibers
fibers in single form; (b) fibers in hybrid
in single form; (b) fibers in hybrid form. form.
3.3. Stress–Strain Characteristics
Stress–Strain Characteristics
3.3. Stress–Strain Characteristics
Table 5 contains the characteristic values of the experimental stress–strain curves,
Tablepeak
including contains
5 contains the
stress, the characteristic
characteristic
critical strain, initial values
values ofofthe
tangential theexperimental
experimental
elastic modulus, stress–strain
stress–strain
and peakcurves, curves,
secant
including
including peak
peak stress,
stress, critical
critical strain,
strain, initial
initial tangential
tangential elastic
elasticmodulus,
modulus,
elastic modulus. The cubic compressive strength (fcu) obtained from the tests is also listed and
and peak
peak secant
secant
elastic modulus. The
The cubic
cubic compressive
compressive strength
strength (f
(f )
cucu ) obtained
obtained from
from
in Table 5. As can be seen, both axial and cubic compressive strengths decreased with fiber the
the tests
tests is is also
also listed
listed
in Table 5. As
As can
can be
be seen,
seen, both
both axial
axial and
and cubic
cubic compressive
compressive strengths
strengths
addition, except with the addition of only carbon fiber. The probable reason for this may decreased
decreased with
with fiber
fiber
addition,
addition, except
except with
with the
the addition
addition of
of only
only carbon
carbon fiber.
fiber. The
The probable
probable
be the high elastic modulus and tensile strength of the carbon fiber. Thus, a load-bearing reason
reason forfor this
this maymay
be the high
high elastic
elastic modulus
modulus and
and tensile
tensile strength
strength of
of the
the carbon
carbon
skeleton can be formed in concrete. However, the low elastic modulus of polypropylene fiber.
fiber. Thus,
Thus, a a load-bearing
load-bearing
skeleton
skeleton
fiber can more
can
caused be formed
be formed
defects inconcrete.
in concrete.
in However,of
However,
the compactness the
the lowelastic
low
concrete. elastic modulus
Asmodulus
can also ofbeofpolypropylene
polypropylene
seen, with the
caused
fiber caused
decrease more
more
in W/B, defects
defects
the in the
in
compressive the compactness
compactness ofofconcrete.
strength of concrete concrete. AsAscan
increases, can alsobe
also
which beseen,
can seen,
be withthe
with
attributed the
decrease in W/B,
W/B, the
the compressive
strength of of concrete
concrete increases,
increases,
to the increase in compactness of the hydrated cement paste [25]. As expected, when W/B which
which can
can bebe attributed
attributed
to the increase
decreases fromin 0.30compactness
compactness of the
of
to 0.27, the axial thecompressive
hydratedcement
hydrated cement
strength paste
paste [25].As
[25].
of plain Asexpected,
expected,
concrete when
when
increases W/B
W/B
from
47.87 MPa to 50.38 MPa. Meanwhile, the compressive strength of FLWAC in Series 1from
decreases from 0.30
0.30 to
to 0.27,
0.27, the
the axial
axial compressive
strength of
of plain
plain concrete
concrete increases
increases from is
MPa
47.87 MPa
higher thantoto 50.38
50.38
that MPa. Meanwhile,
MPa. Meanwhile,
of corresponding thecompressive
the
concrete compressive
in strength
Series 2. strength ofof FLWACininSeries
FLWAC Series 1 1is is
higher than thatthat of
of corresponding
correspondingconcrete concretein inSeries
Series2.2.
Polymers 2022, 14, 1675 8 of 19
Table 5. Characteristic values of compressive stress–strain curves of LWAC.
V CF V PF f cu fc εc Ec E0
Specimen W/B εc /ε0 Ec /E0
(%) (%) (MPa) (MPa) (10−6 ) (GPa) (GPa)
Plain–a 0 0 61.34 (0.041) 50.38 2492 1.000 23.4 20.2 1.157
CF0.2a 0.2 0 61.17 (0.038) 55.97 3807 1.528 22.9 14.7 1.558
CF0.4a 0.4 0 74.03 (0.054) 63.86 3940 1.581 23.1 16.2 1.425
PF0.2a 0 0.2 50.83 (0.045) 41.15 2547 1.022 20.1 16.2 1.244
PF0.4a 0.27 0 0.4 42.15 (0.036) 36.05 2307 0.926 19.4 15.6 1.241
CF0.2PF0.2a 0.2 0.2 48.15 (0.062) 40.71 2834 1.137 20.7 14.4 1.441
CF0.2PF0.4a 0.2 0.4 42.90 (0.049) 39.93 2685 1.077 20.8 14.9 1.399
CF0.4PF0.2a 0.4 0.2 47.98 (0.039) 43.25 2769 1.111 21.1 15.6 1.351
CF0.4PF0.4a 0.4 0.4 62.15 (0.061) 50.15 2847 1.142 22.2 17.6 1.260
Plain–b 0 0 58.24 (0.030) 47.87 2500 1.000 22.7 19.1 1.186
CF0.2b 0.2 0 57.99 (0.033) 52.29 3680 1.472 23.2 14.2 1.633
CF0.4b 0.4 0 67.11 (0.031) 56.06 3870 1.548 22.4 14.5 1.546
PF0.2b 0 0.2 49.64 (0.041) 42.07 2354 0.942 21.8 17.9 1.220
PF0.4b 0.3 0 0.4 40.99 (0.064) 34.16 2314 0.926 18.6 14.8 1.260
CF0.2PF0.2b 0.2 0.2 48.26 (0.019) 41.68 2790 1.116 22.0 14.9 1.473
CF0.2PF0.4b 0.2 0.4 50.65 (0.030) 44.19 2548 1.019 21.7 17.3 1.251
CF0.4PF0.2b 0.4 0.2 51.36 (0.047) 44.46 2764 1.106 22.5 16.1 1.399
CF0.4PF0.4b 0.4 0.4 56.88 (0.028) 49.18 2968 1.187 21.3 16.6 1.285
The critical strain is defined as the strain at the peak point, from which the vertical
deformability of the specimen can be evaluated. The critical strain of FLWAC was in the
range of 0.00231~0.00394, with an average of 0.002939, which is slightly higher than that
of the plain LWAC. Besides that, it can be concluded that the critical strain of LWAC is
higher than the critical strain of 0.002 for NWC, as reported in the Chinese Specification GB
50010-2010 [26].
The elastic modulus is extensively used to evaluate the deformability and stiffness of
concrete [27]. As provided in Table 5, the Ec and E0 for plain LWAC and FLWAC range from
18.6 GPa to 23.4 GPa and 14.2 GPa to 20.2 GPa, respectively, lower than the Ec of NWC at
the comparable strength specified by CEB-FIP Model Code [28]. This phenomenon might
be correlated with the porous structure of the LWA, thereby increasing the deformability
of aggregate, which is directly responsible for the reduction in the elastic modulus [29].
Moreover, it is believed that the addition of fibers to LWAC reduces its elastic modulus as a
result of the interference of fibers with the compactness of concrete. The ratio of Ec to E0
can reflect the curvature of the ascending branch in the stress–strain curve. In other words,
the value of Ec /E0 demonstrates the characteristic of nonlinearity in the ascending branch.
The larger the Ec /E0 , the more significant the nonlinearity. As can be observed, the plain
LWAC has an Ec /E0 of 1.157 and 1.186, indicating the apparent linearity of LWAC. Besides
that, Ec /E0 increases with the addition of fibers, suggesting significant nonlinearity in the
ascending branch of the FLWAC.
3.4. Toughness
The toughness is calculated as the area under the stress–strain curve up to the spec-
ified strain, representing the concrete’s energy absorption capacity and ductility. The
specified strain was set to 0.009 and 0.015, which is 3 and 5 times the ultimate strain
following the ACI 318 standard [30], which is sufficient for evaluating the post-peak de-
formation following Fanella and Naaman [31]. The specific toughness is defined as the
toughness ratio to peak strength since the toughness is affected by the compressive strength.
Therefore, the specific toughness is considered a better measure to reflect the effect of
fibers on the energy absorption capacity. The definitions of toughness and specific tough-
the energy absorption capacity. The definitions of toughness and specific toughness are
Polymers 2022, 14, 1675 9 of 19
shown in Figure 6. The toughness and specific toughness are calculated using Equations
(3) and (4), respectively:
i
ness are shown in Figure 6. The toughness and specific toughness are calculated using
Equations (3) and (4), respectively: TFi =  (  ) d  (3)
0
Z εi
TFi = σ (ε)dε (3)
 ( ) d
R ε i = 0
i
0
TF (4)
TR = i
 i TFi f c i
i σ ( ε )dε
TRi = 0 f c= (4)
fc ε i fc ε i
whereεiirepresents
where ε1 and
represents ε2 , corresponding
1 and 2, corresponding to a specific
to a specific strain strain
of 0.009ofand0.009 andTF0.015;
0.015; 1 and TF1 and
TF
TF22 are
arethe
thetoughness
toughness corresponding
corresponding to the
tospecific strain strain
the specific of ε1 and of ε21;and
TR1 and TR1 2and
2; TR are the
TR2 are the
specific toughness corresponding to the specific strain 1 and 2.
specific toughness corresponding to the specific strain ε 1 and ε 2 .
50 A TF3=Area(OABD)
TF5=Area(OACE)
TR3=TF3/(9000×10-6fc)
40
TR5=TF5/(15,000×10-6fc)
Stress  /MPa
30
B
20 C
10
O D E
0
0.000
0 0.003
3000 0.006
6000 0.009
9000 12,000
0.012 0.015 18,000
15,000 0.018
Strain  /×10-6
Figure6.6.Definitions
Figure Definitionsof of toughness
toughness andand specific
specific toughness.
toughness.
Table
Table6 6shows
shows thethecompressive
compressive toughness and specific
toughness toughness
and specific of LWAC,
toughness with
of LWAC, with
which the effects of the fiber combination and W/B on the energy absorption capacity of
which the effects of the fiber combination and W/B on the energy absorption capacity of
LWAC can be exhibited. In the case of LWAC in Series 1, an initial increase followed by
aLWAC
decreasecaninbe exhibited.
toughness andInspecific
the case of LWAC
toughness canin beSeries
observed1, an initial increase
following the increasefollowed
in by a
decrease in toughness
polypropylene fiber content.andThe specific toughness can
lower compressive be observed
strength of PF0.2a following
and PF0.4a the mayincrease
be in
polypropylene fiber content. The lower compressive strength of
the main reason for the decrease in toughness. The addition of carbon fiber is conducive to PF0.2a and PF0.4a may
be the main
increasing thereason
energyfor the decrease
absorption in toughness.
capacity The addition
and the ductility of LWAC.of Incarbon
the casefiber is conducive
of LWAC
in
to Series 2, an increase
increasing the energy in both toughness
absorption and specific
capacity and toughness
the ductility canof beLWAC.
observedInwith the case of
the increase in carbon fiber content. The toughness and specific toughness
LWAC in Series 2, an increase in both toughness and specific toughness can be observed of PF0.2b and
PF0.4b
with theapproach
increase those of plainfiber
in carbon LWAC. It can The
content. be inferred
toughnessthat carbon fiber has
and specific a superior
toughness of PF0.2b
effect on the post-peak behavior of LWAC as compared to polypropylene fiber. Moreover,
and PF0.4b approach those of plain LWAC. It can be inferred that carbon fiber has a su-
by comparing Plain 1 with Plain 2, the toughness and specific toughness for Series 2 are
periorsignificant
more effect onthan thethepost-peak behavior
corresponding of LWAC
specimens as compared
in Series 1. Therefore,tothe polypropylene
reduction in fiber
Moreover, by comparing Plain 1 with Plain 2, the toughness and
W/B (from 0.3 to 0.27) reduces the effect of fiber addition on the toughness of concrete. specific toughness for
Series 2 areLWAC
When morecontained
significant than the corresponding
carbon–polypropylene hybrid specimens in Series
fibers, an increase 1. Therefore, the
in toughness
reduction
and specificintoughness
W/B (from was0.3 to 0.27) The
observed. reduces the effect
percentage of theofspecific
fiber addition
toughness onincrease
the toughness
is of
shown in
concrete. Table 6 with the corresponding plain concrete as control concrete. For instance,
HFLWAC When shows
LWAC an increase
contained in TRcarbon–polypropylene
5 of 42.6~56.3% and 26.2~38.3%hybrid forfibers,
W/B of an0.27 and 0.30,
increase in tough-
respectively. Besides that, CF0.4PF0.2 and CF0.4PF0.4 show a specific
ness and specific toughness was observed. The percentage of the specific toughness in-toughness larger than
CF0.2, which shows that the carbon fiber has a better effect on the energy absorption capac-
crease is shown in Table 6 with the corresponding plain concrete as control concrete. For
ity than polypropylene fiber does, similar to the results in single-fiber-reinforced LWAC.
instance, HFLWAC shows an increase in TR5 of 42.6~56.3% and 26.2~38.3% for W/B of 0.27
and 0.30, respectively. Besides that, CF0.4PF0.2 and CF0.4PF0.4 show a specific toughness
larger than CF0.2, which shows that the carbon fiber has a better effect on the energy ab-
sorption capacity than polypropylene fiber does, similar to the results in single-fiber-rein-
forced LWAC.
Polymers 2022, 14, 1675 10 of 19
Table 6. Toughness and specific toughness of LWAC.
σ 0.009 σ 0.015 Toughness Specific Toughness (%)

Specimen
(MPa) (MPa) TF 3 TF 5 TR3 TR5
Plain-a 22.09 13.88 0.2933 0.3954 0.6468 (-) 0.5232 (-)
CF0.2a 39.58 20.73 0.3882 0.5465 0.7703 0.6506
CF0.4a 37.83 18.58 0.3888 0.5419 0.6764 0.5657
PF0.2a 26.01 15.98 0.2801 0.4030 0.7563 0.6529
PF0.4a 17.23 13.19 0.2177 0.3082 0.6701 0.5699
CF0.2PF0.2a 29.32 21.71 0.3070 0.4591 0.8379 (29.5%) 0.7518 (43.7%)
CF0.2PF0.4a 28.45 26.08 0.3018 0.4650 0.8399 (29.9%) 0.7764 (48.4%)
CF0.4PF0.2a 34.57 27.78 0.3206 0.5049 0.8656 (33.8%) 0.8178 (56.3%)
CF0.4PF0.4a 34.63 25.69 0.3664 0.5413 0.8007 (23.8%) 0.7097 (35.6%)
Plain-b 25.15 16.97 0.2919 0.4145 0.6775 (-) 0.5772 (-)
CF0.2b 31.79 21.14 0.3317 0.4822 0.7049 0.6148
CF0.4b 38.02 31.60 0.3651 0.5600 0.7236 0.6897
PF0.2b 20.28 9.18 0.2525 0.3371 0.6669 0.5342
PF0.4b 17.73 11.77 0.2159 0.3046 0.7022 0.5944
CF0.2PF0.2b 31.94 23.03 0.3116 0.4712 0.8322 (22.8%) 0.7551 (30.8%)
CF0.2PF0.4b 30.25 23.96 0.3128 0.4827 0.7866 (16.1%) 0.7282 (26.2%)
CF0.4PF0.2b 37.65 28.16 0.3280 0.5296 0.8198 (21.0%) 0.7942 (37.6%)
CF0.4PF0.4b 42.12 30.89 0.3642 0.5871 0.8229 (21.5%) 0.7985 (38.3%)
Note: the data in parentheses show the percentage of specific toughness increase over that of plain concrete.
3.5. Assessment of Synergy

With an appropriate mixing range, two or more different fibers in the concrete can
derive benefits from each of the individual fibers and exhibit a positive synergistic effect,
enhancing the material properties of concrete so that they are far superior to a single
fiber [32,33]. To assess the effect of hybridization of carbon and polypropylene fibers
on toughness, the synergistic effect coefficients were evaluated following the method
suggested by Wang et al. [18] as follows:
β CF−PF + β min(CF,PF)
α x −1 = (5)
β min(CF,PF) + β max(CF,PF)
β CF−PF + β max(CF,PF)
α x −2 = (6)
β min(CF,PF) + β max(CF,PF)
where αx−1 and αx−2 are introduced to represent the synergistic effect coefficients, and x is
one of the material properties that need to be identified. In this study, the effect of synergy
on toughness was predicted; αt3−1 and αt3−2 represent the synergistic effect coefficients
of TR3 , and αt5−1 and αt5−2 are the synergistic effect coefficients of TR5 . The parameter β
is the toughness enhancement ratio of FLWAC to the corresponding plain LWAC, βCF−PF
is the toughness enhancement ratio of HFLWAC, and βmin(CF,PF) and βmax(CF,PF) are the
minimum and maximum enhancement ratios of individual carbon and polypropylene
fibers that compose the hybrid fibers, respectively. The idea behind this method is that
when αx−1 > 1, the combination of fibers produces a positive synergy; meanwhile, when
αx−1 < 1, but αx−2 > 1, it is a positive synergistic effect, and when αx−2 < 1, it is a negative
synergistic effect.
The synergistic effect coefficients noted for toughness are presented in Table 7. As
indicated in the table, all specimens exhibited positive synergistic effects, which represents
that the hybridization of carbon and polypropylene fibers leads to toughness enhancement
that is numerically more significant than the sum of the individual fibers. Polypropylene
fiber did not add much to the toughness but shows effectiveness in contributing to the
toughness when combined with carbon fiber. In addition, hybridization was less effective
at higher fiber dosages in both Series 1 and Series 2. For instance, in Series 1, the best
ypropylene fiber did not add much to the toughness but shows effectiveness in contrib-
uting to the toughness when combined with carbon fiber. In addition, hybridization was
Polymers 2022, 14, 1675 11 of 19
less effective at higher fiber dosages in both Series 1 and Series 2. For instance, in Series 1,
the best performance was obtained with carbon fiber at 0.2% and polypropylene fiber at
0.4%. Besides that, it can be seen from Table 7 that W/B shows little influence on the rein-
performance was obtained
forcement of fiber in LWAC.with carbon fiber at 0.2% and polypropylene fiber at 0.4%.
Besides that, it can be seen from Table 7 that W/B shows little influence on the reinforcement
Table
of fiber7.in
Specific
LWAC. toughness synergistic coefficient.
Specimen t3−1
Table 7. Specific toughness synergistic coefficient. t5−1
CF0.2PF0.2a 1.053 1.076
CF0.2PF0.4a Specimen 1.087 αt3−1 1.103 αt5−1
CF0.4PF0.2a CF0.2PF0.2a 1.132 1.053 1.207 1.076
CF0.4PF0.4a CF0.2PF0.4a 1.092 1.087 1.127 1.103
CF0.4PF0.2a 1.132 1.207
CF0.2PF0.2b CF0.4PF0.4a
1.093 1.092
1.122 1.127
CF0.2PF0.4b CF0.2PF0.2b 1.058 1.093 1.094 1.122
CF0.4PF0.2b CF0.2PF0.4b 1.069 1.058 1.085 1.094
CF0.4PF0.4b CF0.4PF0.2b 1.070 1.069 1.084 1.085
CF0.4PF0.4b 1.070 1.084
4. Compressive Stress–Strain Model
4. Compressive Stress–Strain Model
4.1. Modeling of Compressive Strength
4.1. Modeling of Compressive Strength
The relationship between fcu and fc was basically linear, and a formula is proposed
The relationship between f cu and f c was basically linear, and a formula is proposed
with relevant test data, as follows:
with relevant test data, as follows:
f c = 0.82 f cu + 2.01 (7)
f c = 0.82 f cu + 2.01 (7)
A comparison of the calculated results with the test values is shown in Figure 7. As
can beA comparison of the
observed, the calculated
calculated results
values withthe
match theexperimental
test values is shown
valuesin Figure
well. 7. As
Then, can
Equa-
be observed,
tion theused
(7) can be calculated values the
to calculate match fc ofthe experimental
LWAC values
containing well.and
carbon Then, Equation (7)
polypropylene
can be used to calculate the f c of LWAC containing carbon and polypropylene fibers.
fibers.
70
65
y=x
60
fc(Calculated) /MPa
55
50
45
40
35
30
30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70
fc(Test) /MPa
Figure 7. Comparison
Figure 7. of ffc between
Comparison of between experimental
experimental and calculated values.
4.2.
4.2. Modeling
Modeling of
of Critical
Critical Strain
Strain at
at Peak
Peak Compressive
Compressive Stress
Stress
In
In order to analyze the influence of the two types
order to analyze the influence of the two types of
of fibers
fibers on
on the
the critical
critical strain,
strain, the
the
critical strain ratio (εc /ε0 ) is taken to compensate for the effect of W/B, where εc /ε0 is the
critical strain ratio (c/0) is taken to compensate for the effect of W/B, where c/0 is the
ratio of critical strain for FLWAC (εc ) to the critical strain for the corresponding plain LWAC
ratio of critical strain for FLWAC (c) to the critical strain for the corresponding plain
(ε0 ). As Section 3.2 stated, the FLWAC with the same mix design as the corresponding plain
LWAC (0). As Section 3.2 stated, the FLWAC with the same mix design as the correspond-
LWAC contains different fiber combinations.
ing plain LWAC contains different fiber combinations.
It can be observed in Table 5 that εc /ε0 increases with the increase in V CF but slightly
It can be observed in Table 5 that c/0 increases with the increase in VCF but slightly
decreases with the increase in V PF. An analytical equation for describing the relationship be-
decreases with the increase in VPF. An analytical equation for describing the relationship
tween the critical strain ratio and fiber volume fraction was obtained by fitting experimental
data, as shown in Equation (8) (R2 = 0.741):
ε c /ε 0 = 1 + 0.1281( RI )CF − 0.0613( RI )PF − 27150( RI )CF ( RI )PF (8)

between the critical strain ratio and fiber volume fraction was obtained by fitting experi-
mental data, as shown in Equation (8) (R2 = 0.741):
 c /  0 = 1 + 0.1281( RI )CF − 0.0613 ( RI )PF − 27150 ( RI )CF ( RI )PF
Polymers 2022, 14, 1675 12 of 19
(8)
where c is the critical strain of FLWAC, and 0 is the critical strain of the corresponding
plain LWAC;
where εc is thefor example,
critical in Series
strain of FLWAC,1, 0 isand the critical
ε0 is thestrain
criticalof specimen Plain-a,
strain of the and (RI)CF
corresponding
and (RI)
plain PF arefor
LWAC; theexample,
reinforcing indexes
in Series 1, ε(calculated
0 is the critical as the aspect
strain ratio multiplied
of specimen Plain-a, by
andthe vol-
(RI) CF
ume fraction)
and (RI) PF areof carbon
the fiber and
reinforcing polypropylene
indexes (calculated fiber, respectively.
as the aspect ratioThe critical strain
multiplied of
by the
plain LWAC
volume can of
fraction) becarbon
modeled using
fiber and the following analytical
polypropylene expression
fiber, respectively. Theproposed by Lim
critical strain of
and Ozbakkaloglu
plain LWAC can be[17]: modeled using the following analytical expression proposed by Lim
and Ozbakkaloglu [17]: 0.1 0.13
f c0.225  152   2D  0.13
kd
0.225k 0.1 2D
 0 f= d

c 152
    (9)
ε0 = 1000 DD   H H  (9)
1000
wherekkdd is
where isthe
theparameter
parametertoto allow
allow forfor density;
density; D isDtheis the diameter
diameter of theofspecimen
the specimen
(D = 100(D =mm);
100
mm);
and Hand H is
is the the height
height of theofspecimen
the specimen (H =mm).
(H = 300 300 mm).
When ε0 is known,
When 0 is known, c FLWAC
εc for for FLWAC can
can be calculated.
be calculated.
The values
values ofof εcccalculated
calculatedby byEquations
Equations(8)(8)andand(9)(9)
based
based onon (RI) CF and
(RI) (RI)(RI)
CF and PF inPF
this
in
this study
study are compared
are compared withtest
with the thevalues of c inofFigure
test values εc in Figure
8. As can 8. beAsseen
can from
be seenthe from the
compar-
comparison,
ison, the calculated
the calculated values arevalues
in goodare agreement
in good agreement withresults.
with the test the test results.
Then, Then,
Equations
Equations
(8) (8) and
and (9) can (9) can
be used be used
to model tocritical
the model strain
the critical straincontaining
of LWAC of LWAC single containing single
and hybrid
and hybrid
carbon and carbon and polypropylene
polypropylene fibers. fibers.
4500
4000
y=x
 c(Calculated) /×10-6
3500
3000
2500
2000
2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500
 c(Test) /×10-6
Figure 8. Comparison of εc between

between experimental
experimental and calculated values.
4.3. Modeling of the Stress–Strain Curve

4.3. Modeling of the Stress–Strain Curve
4.3.1. Existing Models
4.3.1. Existing Models
As presented in Table 8, five typical existing stress–strain models, including those de-
As presented
veloped by Carreirain andTable
Chu8,[12], fiveAbbass
typicaletexisting stress–strain
al. [34], Ou models, Júnior
et al. [35], Oliveira including et al.those
[36],
developed
and Wang et al. [18], were applied to predict the compressive behavior of FLWAC. et al.
by Carreira and Chu [12], Abbass et al. [34], Ou et al. [35], Oliveira Júnior
[36], and Wang et al. [18], were applied to predict the compressive behavior of FLWAC.
TableAfter reviewing
8. Existing these models
stress–strain models, foritconcrete
is recognized that the five existing models, except
in compression.
for the model of Wang et al. [18], were modified based on the Carreira and Chu model
Models that was initially used
Fitting to describe the behavior of plain concrete
Expressions in Parameters
Crucial compression. Abbass
et al. [34] and Ou etal. [35] modified
β(ε/ε c )
the parameter  with the fiber reinforcing index, with
Carreira and Chu, 1985 σ =characteristic
fc β = 1/(1 − ( f c /ε c Ec ))
which the fiber β can be considered in the models. In the model established
β−1+(ε/ε c )
Abbass et al., 2018 by Oliveira Júnior et al.β(ε/ε c ) the material parameter  β
[36], contains
= 1.401( RIthe)2fiber
− 1.56volume fraction
( RI ) + 2.42
σ = fc β
and compressive strength. β − 1 +( Wang
ε/ε c ) et al.’s model was derived for the axial compressive be-
Ou et al., 2012 havior of basalt–polypropylene
σ = fc
β(ε/ε c ) β = 0.71( RI
hybrid fiber reinforced concrete. )2 − the
Since 2( RIreinforcing
) + 3.05 in-
β−1+(ε/ε c ) β
dex of carbon fiber in this study is similar to that of basalt fibers
in [17], this model
was
Júnior et al., 2010 β(ε/ε c ) β = and 0.0536 − 0.5754Vf f c fibers.
= fc
applied to theσ experimentalβ−1+(ε/ε cdata )β of LWAC containing carbon polypropylene
Ascending branch:
σ = f c a1 (ε/ε c ) + (6 − 5a1 )(ε/ε c )5 + (4a1 − 5)(ε/ε c )6 a1 = 1.417 + 0.697VBF − 6.699VPPF
Wang et al., 2019
Descending
branch: α = 5.638 + 24.01VBF − 468.34VPPF
(ε/ε c )
σ = fc
α(ε/ε c −1)2 +ε/ε c
 = fc    = 1 / (1 − ( f c /  c Ec ) )
1985   − 1 + ( /  ) 
 c 
  ( /  c ) 
Abbass et al., 2018  = fc    = 1.401( RI ) 2 − 1.56( RI ) + 2.42
  − 1 + ( /  ) 

 c 
Polymers 2022, 14, 1675   ( /  c )  13 of 19
Ou et al., 2012  = fc    = 0.71( RI ) 2 − 2( RI ) + 3.05
  − 1 + ( /  ) 
 c 
  ( /  ) 
Júnior et al., 2010  = fc 
After reviewing   −these
c
models, 
 c ) 
it is recognized that the five ( 0.0536-0.5754
 = existing V f ) f cexcept for
models,
(

 1 +  /
the model of Wang et al. [18], were modified based on the Carreira and Chu model that was
initially usedAscending to describebranch: the behavior of plain concrete in compression. Abbass et al. [34]
and a1 ( et/ al.
= f c Ou c) + (
[35]
6 − 1 )(
modified
5a ( /  c ) + ( 4a1 − 5 )(  /  c )
5
the parameter β6 with the fiber reinforcing index, with which
a1 = 1.417 + 0.697 VBF −established
6.699VPPF
)
the fiber characteristic can be considered in the models. In the model by
Wang et al., 2019 Descending branch:
Oliveira Júnior et al. [36], the material parameter β contains  = 5.638 + 24.01
the fiber VBF − 468.34
volume fraction
VPPF and
compressive 
 = strength.
fc 
(Wang
/  c ) et al.’s  model was derived for the axial compressive behavior

of basalt–polypropylene   ( /  − 1)hybrid
2

+  /  c fiber reinforced concrete. Since the reinforcing index of
 c 
carbon fiber in this study is similar to that of basalt fibers in [17], this model was applied to
the experimental
Comparisonsdata of the of LWAC
predicted containing carbon
stress–strain and polypropylene
curves with the experimental fibers. curves for
Comparisons of the predicted stress–strain curves
Series 1 and Series 2 are shown in Figures 9 and 10. As can be observed, the ascending with the experimental curves for
Series 1 and Series 2 are shown in Figures 9 and 10. As
branch in stress–strain curves predicted by the existing models is in close agreement with can be observed, the ascending
branch in stress–strain
the experimental results. curves
In the predicted
descending by the existing
branch, models
Carreira andis Chu’s
in close agreement
model and Wang with
the experimental
et al.’s results. In the
model underestimate thedescending
post-peak region branch,of Carreira
the curves. andAbbass
Chu’s et model and Wang
al.’s model can
et al.’s model underestimate the post-peak region of the
be used to effectively describe the behavior of PFLWAC but underestimates the behavior curves. Abbass et al.’s model can
be used to effectively describe the behavior of PFLWAC
of CFLWAC. However, Abbass et al.’s model and Ou et al.’s model can only be used in but underestimates the behavior
of CFLWAC. However,concrete
single-fiber-reinforced Abbass et foral.’s
justmodel and Ouconsidered
one variable et al.’s model canparameter
in the only be used in
. In
single-fiber-reinforced concrete for just one variable considered
Oliveira Junior et al.’s model, to express the stress–strain curves of HFLWAC, the volume in the parameter β. In
Oliveira
fraction Junior
of fiberetused al.’s inmodel, to expressthe
the parameter was stress–strain
calculated curves
by the of sumHFLWAC,
of the two thetypes
volume of
fraction of fiber used in the parameter β was calculated by
fibers. The curves for single-fiber-reinforced LWAC that Oliveira Júnior et al. [36] pre- the sum of the two types of fibers.
The
dictedcurves
werefor single-fiber-reinforced
close to the experimental LWAC curves;that Oliveira
however, theJúnior
curvesetfor al.HFLWAC
[36] predicted werewere
un-
close to the experimental curves; however, the curves for HFLWAC were underestimated.
derestimated.
Plain-a CF0.2a CF0.4a

1.0 Carreira and Chu
Abass Abass Abass
Ou Ou Ou
0.8 0.8 0.8
Normalized Stress /fc

Junior Junior Junior
Wang Wang Wang
0.6 0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2 0.2
0.0 0.0 0.0

0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Normalized strain /c Normalized strain /c Normalized strain /c
(a) (b) (c)

PF0.2a PF0.4a CF0.2PF0.2a
Abass Abass Junior
Ou Ou Wang
0.8 0.8 0.8
Junior Junior
Wang Wang
0.6 0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2 0.2
Polymers 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW0.0 0.0 0.0 14 of 19

0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
(d) (e) (f)

CF0.2PF0.4a CF0.4PF0.2a CF0.4PF0.4a
Wang Wang Wang
0.8 0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2 0.2
0.0 0.0 0.0

0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
(g) (h) (i)

Figure 9. Application
Figure 9. Applicationofofexisting
existing stress–strain
stress–strain models
models to data
to the the data
of: (a)of: (a) Plain–a;
Plain–a; (b) CF0.2a;
(b) CF0.2a; (c)
(c) CF0.4a;
CF0.4a;
(d) (d) (e)
PF0.2a; PF0.2a; (e) (f)
PF0.4a; PF0.4a; (f) CF0.2PF0.2a;
CF0.2PF0.2a; (g) CF0.2PF0.4a;
(g) CF0.2PF0.4a; (h) CF0.4PF0.2a;
(h) CF0.4PF0.2a; (i) CF0.4PF0.4a.
(i) CF0.4PF0.4a.
Plian-b CF0.2b CF0.4b
1.0 Carreira and Chu 1.0 Carreira and Chu
Abass Abass Abass
Ou Ou Ou
0.8 0.8 0.8
ized Stress /fc
ized Stress /fc
ized Stress /fc

Wang Wang Wang
0.6 0.6 0.6

Nor
Nor
Nor
0.2 0.2 0.2
0.0 0.0 0.0

0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
(g) (h) (i)

Polymers 2022, 14, 1675 14 of 19
Figure 9. Application of existing stress–strain models to the data of: (a) Plain–a; (b) CF0.2a; (c)
CF0.4a; (d) PF0.2a; (e) PF0.4a; (f) CF0.2PF0.2a; (g) CF0.2PF0.4a; (h) CF0.4PF0.2a; (i) CF0.4PF0.4a.
Plian-b CF0.2b CF0.4b

Abass Abass Abass
Ou Ou Ou
0.8 0.8 0.8

Wang Wang Wang
0.6 0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2 0.2
0.0 0.0 0.0

0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
(a) (b) (c)

PF0.2-b PF0.4b CF0.2PF0.2b
Abass Abass Junior
Ou Ou Wang
0.8 0.8 0.8

Junior Junior
Wang Wang
0.6 0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2 0.2
0.0 0.0 0.0

0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
(d) (e) (f)

CF0.2PF0.4b CF0.4PF0.2b CF0.4PF0.4b
Wang Wang Wang
0.8 0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2 0.2
0.0 0.0 0.0

0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
(g) (h) (i)

Figure 10.
Figure 10. Application
Applicationofofexisting
existingstress–strain
stress–strainmodels
modelsto to
thethe
data of:of:
data (a) (a)
Plain–b; (b) CF0.2b;
Plain–b; (c)
(b) CF0.2b;
CF0.4b;
(c) (d)(d)
CF0.4b; PF0.2b; (e)(e)
PF0.2b; PF0.4b; (f) (f)
PF0.4b; CF0.2PF0.2b; (g)(g)
CF0.2PF0.2b; CF0.2PF0.4b;
CF0.2PF0.4b;(h)(h)
CF0.4PF0.2b;
CF0.4PF0.2b;(i) (i)
CF0.4PF0.4b.
CF0.4PF0.4b.
4.3.2.
4.3.2. New Proposal for the Stress–Strain Curve of FLWAC FLWAC
As
As previously
previously mentioned,
mentioned, Carreira and Chu’sChu’s model
model (1985)
(1985) gives
gives aa relatively
relatively good
good
representation of the ascending
representation of the ascending portion. Therefore, the stress–strain model generated
Therefore, the stress–strain model generated by by
Carreira
Carreira and Chu (1985) and later improved by Wee et al. (1986) was chosen
Chu (1985) and later improved by Wee et al. (1986) was chosen to predict the to predict
the stress–strain
stress–strain curvecurve of LWAC.
of LWAC. TheThe parameters
parameters of model
of this this model
werewere further
further modified
modified to
to pre-
predict
dict thethe stress–strain
stress–strain behavior
behavior ofof carbon-and/or
carbon- and/or polypropylene-fiber-reinforcedLWAC.
polypropylene-fiber-reinforced LWAC.
The
The model
model isis represented
represented byby the
the following:
following:
!
k1 β(ε/ε c )
σ = fc (10)
k1 β − 1 + (ε/ε c )k2 β
1
β= (11)
1 − ( f c /ε c Ec )
where β is the material parameter, which can be obtained from Equation (11); the parameter
k1 is applied to the numerator, and in the first term of the denominator, k2 is applied to the
exponent of the last term of the denominator.
According to the above analysis, the regression equations of parameters k1 and k2 are
determined by using (RI)CF , (RI)PF , and β as variables, as follows:
k1 = 1.2524 − 0.0197( RI )CF − 0.3224( RI )PF − 0.0875β (12)
k2 = 1.1476 − 0.0158( RI )CF − 0.2512( RI )PF − 0.1059β (13)

Polymers 2022, 14, 1675 15 of 19
Here, k1 and k2 can be calculated by Equations (12) and (13), and then the fitted stress–
strain curve can be determined by Equation (10). Table 9 shows the experimental and
calculated parameters. The COVs are 0.587 and 0.808 for k1 and k2 ; the average ratio is 1.00
and 1.02 for k1 and k2 , respectively.
Table 9. Comparison of calculated values with the experimental values.
k1 k2
Specimen V CF (%) V PF (%) β
Experimental Calculated Ratio Experimental Calculated Ratio
Plain–a 0 0 7.3508 0.56 0.6092 0.92 0.3833 0.3691 1.04
CF0.2a 0.2 0 2.7933 0.9546 0.9646 0.99 0.8572 0.8169 1.05
CF0.4a 0.4 0 3.3518 1.071 0.8724 1.23 0.8793 0.7230 1.22
PF0.2a 0 0.2 5.0967 0.4895 0.6614 0.74 0.4066 0.4948 0.82
PF0.4a 0 0.4 5.1409 0.4429 0.5124 0.86 0.4139 0.3771 1.10
CF0.2PF0.2a 0.2 0.2 3.2675 0.549 0.7781 0.71 0.5332 0.6537 0.82
CF0.2PF0.4a 0.2 0.4 3.5085 0.5538 0.6119 0.90 0.5083 0.5151 0.99
CF0.4PF0.2a 0.4 0.2 3.8499 0.5331 0.6838 0.78 0.4493 0.5572 0.81
CF0.4PF0.4a 0.4 0.4 4.8419 0.4509 0.4519 1.00 0.397 0.3391 1.17
Plain–b 0 0 6.3908 0.6855 0.6932 0.99 0.4144 0.4708 0.88
CF0.2b 0.2 0 2.5804 1.194 0.9833 1.21 0.9684 0.8395 1.15
CF0.4b 0.4 0 2.8304 0.812 0.9181 0.88 0.7265 0.7782 0.93
PF0.2b 0 0.2 5.5495 0.7507 0.6218 1.21 0.4665 0.4469 1.04
PF0.4b 0 0.4 4.8467 0.8236 0.5382 1.53 0.5093 0.4083 1.25
CF0.2PF0.2b 0.2 0.2 3.1157 0.6874 0.7914 0.87 0.5717 0.6698 0.85
CF0.2PF0.4b 0.2 0.4 4.9805 0.4463 0.4831 0.92 0.3622 0.3592 1.01
CF0.4PF0.2b 0.4 0.2 3.5076 0.7719 0.7137 1.08 0.5258 0.5934 0.89
CF0.4PF0.4b 0.4 0.4 4.5032 0.5982 0.4816 1.24 0.4146 0.3749 1.11
4.4. Comparison between Experimental Results and the Proposed Model

Comparisons of the experimental and analytical stress–strain curves of FLWAC are
shown in Figures 11 and 12 for W/B of 0.27 and 0.30, respectively. There is a reasonable
adjustment between the analytical ascending branch of the predicted curve and the ex-
perimental curve. When referring to the descending branch, a slight difference can be
found between experimental results and predicted curves, which can be attributed to the
inconsistent manner in which cracks occurred. In both cases, the proposed model shows
better accuracy relative to the experimental curve than the existing models.
s 2022, 14, Polymers 14, 1675
2022,REVIEW
x FOR PEER 16 of 19 16 of 19
s 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 19

60 60 60
Proposed model Proposed model Proposed model
60 60 60
50 Proposed model 50 Proposed model 50 Proposed model
50 50 50
 /MPa
 /MPa
 /MPa
40 40 40
 /MPa
 /MPa
 /MPa
40 40 40
StressStress
StressStress
StressStress
30 30 30
30 30 30
20 20 20
20 20 20
10 10 10
10 10 10
0 0 0
0 3000 6000 9000 12000 15000 0 3000 6000 9000 12000 15000 0 3000 6000 9000 12000 15000
0 Strain  /×10 -6 0 Strain  /×10 -6 0 Strain  /×10-6
0 3000 6000 9000 12000 15000 0 3000 6000 9000 12000 15000 0 3000 6000 9000 12000 15000
Strain  /×10 Strain  /×10 Strain  /×10 -6
(a)
-6
(b)
-6
(c)
60 (a) PF0.2a
60 (b) PF0.4a
60
(c) CF0.2PF0.2a
PF0.2a PF0.4a
60 60 60 CF0.2PF0.2a
50 50
 /MPa
 /MPa
50
 /MPa
40 40 40
 /MPa
 /MPa
 /MPa
40 40 40
StressStress
StressStress
30 30
StressStress
30
30 30 30
20 20 20
20 20 20
10 10 10
10 10 10
0 0 0
0 3000 6000 9000 12000 15000 0 3000 6000 9000 12000 15000 0 3000 6000 9000 12000 15000
0 Strain  /×10-6
0 Strain  /×10-6 0 Strain  /×10-6 0 3000 6000 9000 12000 15000
0 3000 6000 9000 12000 15000 0 3000 6000 9000 12000 15000
Strain  /×10 -6
Strain  /×10-6 Strain  /×10-6
(d) (e) (f)
60 (d) CF0.2PF0.4a
60 (e) CF0.4PF0.2a
60
(f) CF0.4PF0.4a
CF0.2PF0.4a CF0.4PF0.2a CF0.4PF0.4a
60 60 60
50 50 50
 /MPa
 /MPa
 /MPa
40 40 40
 /MPa
 /MPa
40 40  /MPa 40
StressStress
StressStress
StressStress
30 30 30
30 30 30
20 20 20
20 20 20
10 10 10
10 10 10
0 0 0
0 3000 6000 9000 12000 15000 0 3000 6000 9000 12000 15000 0 3000 6000 9000 12000 15000
0 Strain  /×10 -6 0 Strain  /×10 -6 0 Strain  /×10-6
0 3000 6000 9000 12000 15000 0 3000 6000 9000 12000 15000 0 3000 6000 9000 12000 15000
Strain  /×10 -6
Strain  /×10 -6 Strain  /×10 -6
(g) (h) (i)
(g) (h) (i)
Figure 11. Comparison of calculated
Figure 11. Comparison complete stress–strain
of calculated curves
complete for: (a) Plain–a;
stress–strain curves(b)for:
CF0.2a; (c)
(a) Plain–a; (b) CF0.2a;
Figure
CF0.4a;11.
(d)Comparison
PF0.2a; (e) of calculated
PF0.4a; (f) complete(g)
CF0.2PF0.2a; stress–strain curves
CF0.2PF0.4a; (h) for: (a) Plain–a;
CF0.4PF0.2a; (i) (b) CF0.2a; (c)
CF0.4PF0.4a.
(c) CF0.4a; (d) PF0.2a; (e) PF0.4a; (f) CF0.2PF0.2a; (g) CF0.2PF0.4a; (h) CF0.4PF0.2a; (i) CF0.4PF0.4a.
CF0.4a; (d) PF0.2a; (e) PF0.4a; (f) CF0.2PF0.2a; (g) CF0.2PF0.4a; (h) CF0.4PF0.2a; (i) CF0.4PF0.4a.
Plain-b CF0.2b CF0.4b
60 60 60
Plain-b CF0.2b CF0.4b
60 60 60
50 50 50
 /MPa
 /MPa
 /MPa
40 40 40
 /MPa
 /MPa
 /MPa
40 40 40
StressStress
StressStress
30
StressStress
30 30
30 30 30
20 20 20
20 20 20
10 10 10
10 10 10
0 0 0
0 3000 6000 9000 12000 15000 0 3000 6000 9000 12000 15000 0 3000 6000 9000 12000 15000
0 Strain  /×10 -6
0 Strain  /×10 -6 0 Strain  /×10-6
0 3000 6000 9000 12000 15000 0 3000 6000 9000 12000 15000 0 3000 6000 9000 12000 15000
Strain  /×10 -6
Strain  /×10-6 Strain  /×10 -6
(a) (b) (c)

60 (a) PF0.2b
60 (b) PF0.4b
60
(c) CF0.2PF0.2b
PF0.2b PF0.4b CF0.2PF0.2b
60 60 60
50 50 50
 /MPa
 /MPa
 /MPa
40 40 40
 /MPa
 /MPa
 /MPa
40 40 40
StressStress
StressStress
StressStress
30 30 30
30 30 30
20 20 20
20 20 20
10 10 10
10 10 10
0 0 0
0 3000 6000 9000 12000 15000 0 3000 6000 9000 12000 15000 0 3000 6000 9000 12000 15000
0 Strain  /×10-6 0 Strain  /×10-6 0 Strain  /×10-6
0 3000 6000 9000 12000 15000 0 3000 6000 9000 12000 15000 0 3000 6000 9000 12000 15000
Strain  /×10-6 Strain  /×10-6 Strain  /×10-6
(d) (e) (f)
(d) (e) (f)
Figure 12. Cont.

s 2022, 14, Polymers 14, 1675
2022,REVIEW
x FOR PEER 17 of 19 17 of 19
CF0.2PP0.4b CF0.4PF0.2b CF0.4PF0.4b

60 60 60
50 50 50
Stress  /MPa
Stress  /MPa
Stress  /MPa
40 40 40
30 30 30
20 20 20
10 10 10
0 0 0
0 3000 6000 9000 12000 15000 0 3000 6000 9000 12000 15000 0 3000 6000 9000 12000 15000
Strain  /×10-6 Strain  /×10-6 Strain  /×10-6
(g) (h) (i)

Figure 12. Comparison of calculated
Figure 12. Comparisoncomplete stress–strain
of calculated curves
complete for: (a) Plain–b;
stress–strain curves(b)for:
CF0.2b; (c)
(a) Plain–b; (b) CF0.2b;
CF0.4b; (d) PF0.2b; (e) PF0.4b; (f) CF0.2PF0.2b; (g) CF0.2PF0.4b; (h) CF0.4PF0.2b; (i) CF0.4PF0.4b.
(c) CF0.4b; (d) PF0.2b; (e) PF0.4b; (f) CF0.2PF0.2b; (g) CF0.2PF0.4b; (h) CF0.4PF0.2b; (i) CF0.4PF0.4b.
5. Conclusions5. Conclusions
The compressive Thestress–strain
compressiverelationship
stress–strainof LWAC containing
relationship of LWAC different
containing combina-
different combinations
tions of carbonofand polypropylene
carbon fibers andfibers
and polypropylene different
and W/B was investigated
different experimen-experimentally
W/B was investigated
through
tally through the the compressive
compressive testing of
testing of prisms. prisms. Furthermore,
Furthermore, regression regression
formulas offormulas
com- of compres-
siveand
pressive strength strength
criticaland
straincritical
werestrain wereand
derived, derived, and a stress–strain
a stress–strain model for HFLWAC was
model for HFLWAC
was established.established.
Therefore,Therefore,
the following the following
conclusions conclusions
can be drawn: can be drawn:
The were
The failure modes failure modes
less affectedwerebyless
W/B affected by W/Bsignificant
but displayed but displayed significant modifications
modifications
withofthe
with the addition addition
fibers. Although of fibers.
CFLWACAlthoughand CFLWAC
plain LWAC andshowed
plain LWACsimilarshowed
failure similar failure
modes with
modes with localized localized
concrete concrete
crushing, crushing,
LWAC LWAC containing
containing polypropylene polypropylene
fiber main- fiber maintained
tained integrity during the testing, and no apparent crushing was observed after the test.the test.
integrity during the testing, and no apparent crushing was observed after
Hybrid carbon–polypropylene
Hybrid carbon–polypropylene fibers have better fibers have better
reinforcing reinforcing
effects on LWAC effects
thanon LWAC than
single
single fibers. All fibers. All
specimens show specimens
positive show positive
synergistic synergistic
effects, effects, demonstrating
demonstrating the positive the positive
hybridization
hybridization effect of carboneffect of carbon and polypropylene
and polypropylene fibers. fibers.
The axialstrength
The axial compressive compressive strength
of FLWAC of FLWAC is to
is proportional proportional to f cu , and a conversion
fcu, and a conversion
relationship between them was established by the regression of experimental data data through
relationship between them was established by the regression of experimental
through EquationEquation
(7). An(7). An empirical
empirical formula formula
of theofcritical
the critical
strainstrain of FLWAC
of FLWAC basedbased on fiber reinforcing
on fiber
indexes ((RI)
reinforcing indexes ((RI)CF and and (RI)
CF (RI)PF) and ) and the critical strain of plain LWAC
PF the critical strain of plain LWAC was proposed was proposed through
Equations
through Equations (8) and (9). (8) and (9).
Allcurves
All stress–strain stress–strain
show acurves similarshow
trendain similar trend in their characteristics.
their mathematical mathematical characteristics.
Onemodel
One stress–strain stress–strain model canby
can be estimated beusing
estimated by using the
the appropriate appropriate
curve parameter.curveTheparameter. The
between the parameters (k 1 and k
relationship between the parameters (k1 and k2) and fiber reinforcing indexes ((RI)CF and ((RI)CF and
relationship 2 ) and fiber reinforcing indexes
(RI) ) is estimated through Equations (10)–(13).
(RI)PF) is estimatedPFthrough Equations (10)–(13).
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, T.W.; methodology, X.Y. and T.W.; formal analysis, X.Y.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, T.W.; methodology, X.Y. and T.W.; formal analysis, X.Y.
and X.L.; investigation, T.W., X.Y. and X.L.; resources, T.W.; data curation, X.L. and X.Y.; writing—
and X.L.; investigation, T.W., X.Y., and X.L.; resources, T.W.; data curation, X.L. and X.Y.; writing—
original draft preparation, X.Y. and T.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version
original draft preparation, X.Y. and T.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version
of the manuscript.
of the manuscript.
Funding:
Funding: This work This work by
was supported was supported
the National by the National
Natural Science Natural Science
Foundation Foundation
of China, China of China, China
(52078042, 51878054, 51908041), the Natural Science Foundation of Shaanxi Province, China China (2020GY-
(52078042, 51878054, 51908041), the Natural Science Foundation of Shaanxi Province,
(2020GY-248), and248),
theand the Fundamental
Fundamental Research
Research Funds Funds
for the for the Central
Central Universities
Universities (300102280712).
(300102280712).
Institutional
Institutional Review Review Board
Board Statement: Statement:
The study The
did not studyethical
require did notapproval.
require ethical approval.
Informed
Informed Consent Consent
Statement: Statement: Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Data
Data Availability Availability
Statement: The Statement: The in
data presented data
thispresented
study areinavailable
this study
onare available
request fromon
therequest from the
corresponding
corresponding author. author.
Conflicts
Conflicts of Interest: The of Interest:
authors The no
declare authors declare
conflict no conflict of interest.
of interest.
Polymers 2022, 14, 1675 18 of 19
Abbreviations
f cu Cubic compressive strength/MPa

fc Compressive strength corresponding to the peak point of stress–strain curve/MPa
εc Critical strain corresponding to the peak point of the stress–strain curve
ε0 Critical strain for corresponding plain LWAC
Ec Initial tangential elastic modulus/GPa
E0 Peak secant elastic modulus/GPa
TFi Toughness
TRi Specific toughness
α x−i Synergistic effect coefficients
References
1. Kockal, N.U.; Ozturan, T. Effects of lightweight fly ash aggregate properties on the behavior of lightweight concretes. J. Hazard.
Mater. 2010, 179, 954–965. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
2. Sohel, K.M.A.; Al-Jabri, K.; Zhang, M.H.; Liew, J.Y.R. Flexural fatigue behavior of ultra-lightweight cement composite and high
strength lightweight aggregate concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 173, 90–100. [CrossRef]
3. Guler, S. The effect of polyamide fibers on the strength and toughness properties of structural lightweight aggregate concrete.
Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 173, 394–402. [CrossRef]
4. Li, J.J.; Niu, J.G.; Wan, C.J.; Jin, Z. Comparison of flexural property between high performance polypropylene fiber reinforced
lightweight aggregate concrete and steel fiber reinforced lightweight aggregate concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2017, 157, 729–736.
[CrossRef]
5. El-Mal, H.; Sherbini, A.S.; Sallam, H. Mode II fracture toughness of Hybrid FRCs. Int. J. Concr. Struct. Mater. 2015, 9, 475–486.
[CrossRef]
6. Qian, K.; Geng, S.Y.; Liang, S.L.; Fu, F.; Yu, J. Effects of loading regimes on the structural behavior of RC beam-column
sub-assemblages against disproportionate collapse. Eng. Struct. 2022, 251, 113470. [CrossRef]
7. Hassanpour, M.; Shafigh, P.; Mahmud, H.B. Lightweight aggregate concrete fiber reinforcement—A review. Constr. Build. Mater.
2012, 37, 452–461. [CrossRef]
8. Erdem, S.; Dawson, A.R.; Thom, N.H. Impact load-induced micro-structural damage and micro-structure associated mechanical
response of concrete made with different surface roughness and porosity aggregates. Cem. Concr. Res. 2012, 42, 291–305.
[CrossRef]
9. Yanga, G.J.; Parkb, M.; Parka, S.J. Recent progresses of fabrication and characterization of fibers-reinforced composites: A review.
Compos. Commun. 2019, 14, 34–42. [CrossRef]
10. Lu, Z.H.; Zhao, Y.G. Empirical stress-strain model for unconfined high-strength concrete under uniaxial compression. J. Mater.
Civ. Eng. 2010, 22, 1181–1186. [CrossRef]
11. Weng, Y.H.; Qian, K.; Fu, F.; Fang, Q. Numerical investigation on load redistribution capacity of flat slab substructures to resist
progressive collapse. J. Build. Eng. 2020, 29, 101109. [CrossRef]
12. Carreira, D.J.; Chu, K.H. Stress-strain relationship for plain concrete in compression. ACI J. 1985, 82, 797–804.
13. Guo, Z.H. Concrete Strength and Deformation; Tsinghua University Press: Beijing, China, 1997; pp. 127–131.
14. Wee, T.H.; Chin, M.S.; Mansur, M.A. Stress-strain relationship of high-strength concrete in compression. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 1986, 8,
70–76. [CrossRef]
15. Desnerck, I.P.; Schutter, G.D.; Taerwe, L. Stress-strain behaviour of self-compacting concretes containing limestone fillers. Struct.
Concr. 2012, 13, 95–101. [CrossRef]
16. Tasnimi, A.A. Mathematical model for complete stress–strain curve prediction of normal, lightweight and high-strength concretes.
Mag. Concr. Res. 1994, 56, 23–34. [CrossRef]
17. Lim, J.C.; Ozbakkaloglu, T. Stress-strain model for normal-and lightweight concretes under uniaxial and triaxial compression.
Constr. Build. Mater. 2014, 71, 92–509. [CrossRef]
18. Wang, D.H.; Ju, Y.Z.; Shen, H.; Jin, Z. Mechanical properties of high performance concrete reinforced with basalt fiber and
polypropylene fiber. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 197, 464–473. [CrossRef]
19. CS (Chinese Standard) GB/T 17431.2-2010; Lightweight Aggregates and Its Test Methods—Part 2: Test Methods for Lightweight
Aggregates. China Architecture and Building Press: Beijing, China, 2010. (In Chinese)
20. CS (Chinese Standard) GB 175-2007; Common Portland Cement. China Architecture and Building Press: Beijing, China, 2007.
(In Chinese)
21. CS (Chinese Standard) GB/T 18736-2017; Mineral Admixtures for High Strength and High Performance Concrete. China Architec-
ture and Building Press: Beijing, China, 2017. (In Chinese)
22. CS (Chinese Standard) GB/T 50081-2007; Standard for Test Method of Mechanical Properties on Ordinary Concrete. China
Architecture and Building Press: Beijing, China, 2007. (In Chinese)
23. Wei, Y.; Wu, Y.F. Compressive behavior of concrete columns confined by high strength steel wire. Constr. Build. Mater. 2014, 54,
443–453. [CrossRef]
Polymers 2022, 14, 1675 19 of 19
24. Domagała, L. Modification of properties of structural lightweight concrete with steel fibres. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2011, 17, 36–44.
[CrossRef]
25. Smarzewski, P. Influence of basalt-polypropylene fibres on fracture properties of high performance concrete. Compos. Struct. 2019,
209, 23–33. [CrossRef]
26. CS (Chinese Standard) GB 50010-2010; Code for Design of Concrete Structures. China Architecture and Building Press: Beijing,
China, 2010. (In Chinese)
27. Gao, D.Y.; Zhang, L.J.; Nokken, M. Compressive behavior of steel fiber reinforced recycled coarse aggregate concrete designed
with equivalent cubic compressive strength. Constr. Build. Mater. 2017, 141, 235–244. [CrossRef]
28. CEB-FIP. CEB-FIP Model Code 2010. In Model Code for Concrete Structures; CEB-FIP: London, UK, 2010.
29. Han, B.; Xiang, T.Y. Axial compressive stress-strain relation and poisson effect of structural lightweight aggregate concrete. Constr.
Build. Mater. 2017, 14, 338–343. [CrossRef]
30. ACI Committee. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary; ACI 318-14; ACI: Farmington Hills, MI,
USA, 2018.
31. Fanella, D.A.; Naaman, A.E. Stress-strain properties of fiber reinforced mortar in compression. ACI J. Proc. 1985, 82, 475–483.
32. Banthia, N.; Majdzadeh, F.; Wu, J.; Bindiganavile, V. Fiber synergy in hybrid fiber reinforced concrete (HyFRC) in flexure and
direct shear. Cem. Concr. Res. 2014, 48, 91–97. [CrossRef]
33. Abadel, A.; Abbas, H.; Almusallam, T.; Al-Salloum, Y.; Siddiqui, N. Mechanical properties of hybrid fibre-reinforced concrete–
analytical modelling and experimental behavior. Mag. Concr. Res. 2015, 68, 823–843. [CrossRef]
34. Abbass, M.; Khan, M.I.; Mourad, S. Evaluation of mechanical properties of steel fiber reinforced concrete with different strengths
of concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 168, 556–569. [CrossRef]
35. Ou, Y.C.; Tsai, M.S.; Liu, K.Y.; Chang, K.C. Compressive behavior of steel fiber reinforced concrete with a high reinforcing index.
J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2012, 24, 207–215. [CrossRef]
36. Oliveira Júnior, L.A.; Borges, V.E.S.; Danin, A.R. Stress-strain curves for steel fiber-reinforced concrete in compression. Matéria
2010, 15, 260–266. [CrossRef]

Xue Yang (Bagus)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Xue Yang (Bagus)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

polymers

Keywords: compressive stress–strain relationship; lightweight aggregate concrete; carbon fiber;

Citation: Yang, X.; Wu, T.; Liu, X.

Polymers 2022, 14, 1675. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym14091675 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/polymers

Table 1. Properties of LWA.

Bulk Apparent Crushing 1 h/24 h Total Particle Size Distribution (%)

Fiber shape Straight, filaments Straight, fibrillated

Polymers 2022, 14, 1675 4 of 19

BC (Stage 3): visible cracking

Figure 3. A typical example of the compressive stress–strain curve.

Table 5. Characteristic values of compressive stress–strain curves of LWAC.

Table 6. Toughness and specific toughness of LWAC.

σ 0.009 σ 0.015 Toughness Specific Toughness (%)

3.5. Assessment of Synergy

ε c /ε 0 = 1 + 0.1281( RI )CF − 0.0613( RI )PF − 27150( RI )CF ( RI )PF (8)

Figure 8. Comparison of εc between

4.3. Modeling of the Stress–Strain Curve

Plain-a CF0.2a CF0.4a

Normalized Stress /fc

Normalized Stress /fc

0.6 0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0 0.0

(a) (b) (c)

Normalized Stress /fc

Normalized Stress /fc

0.6 0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2 0.2

Polymers 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW0.0 0.0 0.0 14 of 19

(d) (e) (f)

Normalized Stress /fc

Normalized Stress /fc

0.6 0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0 0.0

(g) (h) (i)

ized Stress /fc

ized Stress /fc

Junior Junior Junior

0.6 0.6 0.6

0.0 0.0 0.0

(g) (h) (i)

Plian-b CF0.2b CF0.4b

Normalized Stress /fc

Normalized Stress /fc

Normalized Stress /fc

0.6 0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0 0.0

(a) (b) (c)

Normalized Stress /fc

Normalized Stress /fc

0.6 0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0 0.0

(d) (e) (f)

Normalized Stress /fc

Normalized Stress /fc

0.4 0.4 0.4