Structures 29 (2021) 1–13

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Impact response of novel layered two stage fibrous composite slabs with
different support type
R. Rithanyaa a, G. Murali a, *, M.P. Salaimanimagudam a, Roman Fediuk b,
Hakim S. Abdelgader c, d, A. Siva e
a
School of Civil Engineering, SASTRA Deemed to be University, Thanjavur, India
b
Far Eastern Federal University, Vladivostok, Russia
c
Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Gdansk University of Technology, Gdańsk, Poland
d
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Tripoli, Tripoli, Libya
e
Departamento de ingenieria en Obras Civiles, Universidad de Santiago de Chile, Av. Ecuador 3659, Estacion Central, Santiago, Chile

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

Keywords: The performance of novel Layered Two Stage Fibrous Composite slabs (LTSFC) was pioneered under falling mass
Impact strength collisions using a combined experimental and numerical study. Such LTSFC slabs consist of three layers with and
Support type without the insertion of glass fibre mesh between the layers. LTSFC techniques were used to fabricate the
Support layout
composite slabs with three layers including 3%, 1.5%, and 3% of fibre content for the top, middle, and bottom
Numerical analysis
Fibres
layers respectively. Sixteen MLPAFC square slabs were cast with only short hooked end fibres and tested under
Glass fibre mesh falling mass collisions by amending two parameters namely the type of support (fixed and hinge) and support
layout. Two distinct support layouts on two types of support were considered and tested with and without the
glass fibre mesh between layers of LTSFC. A glass fibre mesh was introduced between the three layers to block
crack growth propagation and absorb additional collision energy. The glass fibre mesh insertion between the
layers and the LTSFC production technique were considered as novel modifications. A numerical study using
Auto desk Fusion 360 was conducted and compared with experimental results. The numerical results showed fair
agreement with the experimental test results. Based on the validated numerical models, collision energy and
cracking pattern evolution were studied. The findings indicated that the glass fibre mesh insertion between the
layers combined with steel fibres disrupted crack proliferation, thus exhibiting superior engrossed collision
energy and postponing crack growth. Additionally, the engrossed collision energy at crack initiation and ultimate
crack for the slabs with four sides fixed and hinged support were greater with respect to two opposite sides fixed
and hinged support. Numerical values were in reasonable agreement with the experimental values in terms of
collision energy and cracking patterns.

1. Introduction restoration is often required to improve the performance of the structure

Increased danger of terrorist attacks, the collision of vehicles on
transportation structures, and load to the runway while landing and
take-off of aircraft has compelled builders to use new materials and
structures that can resist impact effectively [1]. With the more signifi­
cant threat of terrorist attacks globally to civilian infrastructures, their
vulnerability under impact loads has received greater focus [2]. It is
crucially important to ensure the right conditions of the infrastructure
under impact load. This prevents substantial economic loss and ensures
that the structure can be rehabilitated and returned to service. Quick
[3]. For current civilian and military infrastructure, the addition of
various types of fibres (steel, basalt, glass, polypropylene, jute etc.) to
concrete is used to enhance impact strength [4,5]. Stress distribution in
the concrete matrix, ensured by the dispersed fibres, leads to an increase
in mechanical properties [6–9]. Structures are more often subjected to
multiple accidental collisions and hence, are required to have high
collision energy absorbance. With limited evidence on the structural
components’ impact behavior under impact loading, it is of paramount
importance to study the structural components’ impact behavior and
failure pattern subjected to multiple impacts. There is also urgency to

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: murali@civil.sastra.edu (G. Murali).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2020.11.004
Received 28 February 2020; Received in revised form 30 October 2020; Accepted 5 November 2020
Available online 13 November 2020
2352-0124/© 2020 Institution of Structural Engineers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
R. Rithanyaa et al.
develop a novel material that can resist impact loads, and improve
ductility and durability, thus reducing the amount of repair required.
This, in turn leads to advances in the operational readiness of impact
resistance materials [10].
The coarse aggregate is placed in a well-designed frame-work
without leaving any internal voids though a special grout mixture is
known as Two-stage concrete (TSC). Various production methods in TSC
has led to it having different names. For example, mixing grout in a
colloidal mixer before injecting it in a coarse aggregate is called “Col­
crete” in the United Kingdom. Normally, gravity or pumping method is
followed in the TSC grouting [11]. Pouring the grout on the upper sur­
face of the pre-placed aggregate and allowing it to percolate to the
bottom under its weight through the aggregate mass is known as the
gravity process. Since it penetrates through the coarse aggregate body,
this method is more feasible when the section of grout has a limited
thickness of less than 300 mm [12]. In the pumping process, a series of
pipes are placed at the bottom of the aggregate through which grout is
pumped to the optimum level. In the first method, the natural gravita­
tional force is applied and in the next artificial pumping is used.
Therefore, the size of the coarse aggregate plays a dominant role due to
its preparation. For instance, a minimum size of 50 mm aggregate is used
in the gravity process, whereas finer aggregates are preferred for the
pumping process [13].
Choosing the grout mixture proportion is based on the measured
bleeding and flowability of various trial grout mixtures in conformity
with ASTM C938 [14]. The suitable cement to sand and water to cement
ratios are selected to meet a time of efflux between 20 and 24-s, ideal for
TSC, and grout bleeding should not exceed 0.5% [15]. Coo et al. [16]
stated that grout in preplaced concrete related principally to grout
mortar flowability and shape and coarse aggregate gradation. To ach­
ieve good grout mortar flow, an appropriate ratio of water to cement and
cement to sand should be selected. Meanwhile, the inclusion of mineral
admixtures also improves grout flowability [17]. Abdelgader et al. [18]
reported that a leaner grout mixture with cement to sand ratio of four
could produce more cost-effective TSC. Orchard [19] stated that the
grouts used for underwater TSC applications should be rich mixtures
(cement to sand ratio = 1–2). Therefore, choosing a suitable grout
proportion is of great significance as the amount of sand and water
control the rheological and bleeding properties of TSC grout.
Recently, Yunhong et al. (2019) [20] investigated the relationship
between water-cement ratio and three strength grades (C1, C2, and C3)
preplaced aggregate concrete (PAC). Parameters such as compressive
strength and splitting tensile strength were examined at a mesoscopic
level. The outcome showed that when the forming method with/without
vibration was used, the strength grade of PAC attained C20, C30, and
C40 with the corresponding water-cement ratio as 0.54, 0.48, and 0.42
respectively. Using the same water-cement ratio, the tension-
compression ratio of PAC was superior with respect to reference con­
crete. Nehdi et al. (2017) [21] examined PAC’s mechanical properties
with the addition of steel fibres of various dosages and lengths. The
findings indicated that PAC developed for a 6% dosage of long steel fibre
achieved exceptional mechanical properties. Mohammadhosseini et al.
(2020) [22] examined the strength and transport properties of preplaced
aggregate fibre – reinforced composite using waste polypropylene and
carpet fibres. The study exhibited a reduction in compression strength,
water absorption, and sorptivity. A notable improvement in tensile
strength was also observed. This type of composite can potentially be
used for emerging strength and transport properties [23].
Two-stage concrete differs from the conventional method in which
all ingredients are mixed and then placed in a well-designed framework.
In TSC, grout ingredients are mixed independently and then mixed grout
is pumped into the mass of the pre-placed aggregate as stated above. Due
to the nature of processes, a higher coarse aggregate amounting to 60%
of the total volume gets reflected in TSC, while about 40% of the total
volume is envisaged in conventional concrete [24]. Therefore, coarse
aggregate particles resting on each other except for the filling up of
2
Structures 29 (2021) 1–13
internal voids through grouting serve as a skeleton in TSC, whereas, in
the conventional method, coarse aggregates are highly dispersed. This
necessitates a specific stress mechanism leading to fracturing and
tearing. However, the stresses are quietly transformed between the
aggregate particles in the areas of contact [25].
The coarse aggregate separation problem normally witnessed in the
conventional method, particularly in heavyweight aggregates, is almost
avoided in TSC techniques by pre-placing the framework’s aggregates.
Also, the necessity of compaction, vibration, or consolidation processes
to achieve a dense structure is avoided in TSC. This has drastically
brought down the cost of production. The grout injection generates
lateral pressure; therefore, the framework must be very strong to resist
lateral pressure and be tight enough to control leakage. Naturally, the
cost of framework used in TSC is comparatively one third-higher than
the cost involved in preparing the same by the conventional method
[26]. However, TSC is considered a viable technique in marine or un­
derwater ecosystems [27,28]. Irrespective of these advantages, TSC
demands highly skilled human resources and most contractors do not
have such high skilled human resources. Therefore, the present paper
attempts to provide useful inputs to help contractors and engineers
overcome this lack of skilled human resources.
Recent research shifted attention to layered fibrous composites due
to its superior impact strength and ductility [29]. The technology for
producing a recently introduced layered fibrous composite was identical
to that of LTSFC. Fibres and coarse aggregates are mixed independently
and the prepared grout is injected into the mass of the pre-placed
aggregate to fill the voids between aggregate skeleton. Layered com­
posites are more effective and massive in redistributing internal stresses,
extremely important for impact resistance [30–33]. It is possible to
optimize the multi-layered structure for its resistance to impact by
varying its internal structure, thickness, and fibre content of each layer,
[1,2]. Murali and Ramprasad (2018) [34] pioneered the concept of
layered two stage concrete and tested the slabs under falling mass col­
lisions. Three layer fibrous concrete slabs were prepared with different
fibre dosages in each layer (Top 4%, middle 2%, and bottom 4%). Re­
sults revealed that layered two stage concrete exhibited superior impact
performance, improved ductility and delayed crack development.
Ramkumar et al (2019) [2] developed a two stage and layered fibrous
concrete made with low carbon cementitious materials and steel fibres
(crimped and hooked end) and tested it under impact load. Layered
concrete was proposed with three layers; top, mid, and bottom which
were reinforced with 6% hooked end fibre, 3% crimped fibre, and 6%
hooked end fibre respectively. Results emphasized that excellent impact
energy was attained in layered concrete with respect to two stage con­
crete although the same amount of fibre was used, [2,34] developed
three-layer composites with a thickness of 20 mm for each layer and a
fibre content of 4–6% for the outer layers and 1.5–3% for the inner layer.
It was revealed that the layered composites exhibited superior impact
strength, and cracks were propagated inside the composites for a long
time without leading to the destruction of the composite. However,
when the fibre content exceeded a specific limit, the composites began to
weaken. This technology was successfully applied for critical structures,
such as exploiting underwater conditions, structures of nuclear power
plants, etc [35]. Mastali et al. [29] investigated the functionally graded
reinforced composite slabs composed of 5 layers and were tested for
impact load. The first and fifth layers had 2% steel fibre content, the
second and fourth layers 1% steel fibre content while the middle layer
had 2% fibre. This finding indicated that the developed layered com­
posites provided superior impact strength, diminishing penetration
depth, and consequently ameliorating its effectiveness.
Depending on the type of support, the slab’s resistance to external
influences will be different, which should be considered when designing
it [36,37]. Nevertheless, studies on the impact resistance of LTSFC slabs
for different types of support are not found in the open literature.
Therefore, this paper’s results can lead to a new application methodol­
ogy for LTSFC with excellent mechanical properties and impact strength.
R. Rithanyaa et al.
Fig. 1. Appearance of fibre used.
Table 1
Fibre properties.
Fibre type Length (mm) Diameter (mm) Tensile strength (MPa)
Hooked End Short 30 0.5 1200
Earlier literature proposed a novel LTSFC to resist impact load, absorb
more collision energy, and delay crack propagation. LTSFC was fabri­
cated with three layers with and without glass fibre sheet insertion be­
tween the layers. The square slabs made with short hooked end fibres
combined with a glass fibre mesh were tested under falling mass colli­
sions by amending two types of support (fixed and hinge) with two
support layouts. There seems to be limited data available on the effect of
support type on impact resistance for LTSFC. Therefore, this paper ex­
amines the impact response of LTSFC slab with different support types.
2. Research significance
Despite an excess of investigations on layered fibrous concrete’s
behavior, their performance outcomes explicitly come under falling
mass collisions are largely unexplored, thereby needing a particular
focus. The limited information available reported only about the impact
response of LTSFC cylindrical specimens. Consequently, research studies
concerning the impact strength response of LTSFC structural compo­
nents are scarce and need specific attention. Consequently, this inves­
tigation aims to provide in-depth knowledge of layered fibrous concrete
slabs with and without insertion of glass fibre sheets between layers.
Fig. 2. Production technique (a) Preplace fibres and aggregates into wooden frame (b) Grout injection (c) Multiple fibre mesh placement in-between the layers and
(d) Top surface of finished slab.
3
Structures 29 (2021) 1–13
Fig. 3. Specimen geometry and mesh location.
3. Experimental procedure
3.1. Description of raw materials
Ordinary, 53 grade Portland Cement with 3.14 specific gravity,
supplied by Ramco Cement was used in this research. Natural river sand
was used as fine aggregate with 2.41 and 2.62 fineness modulus and
specific gravity respectively, which confirmed to IS:383 [38]. The well-
graded coarse aggregates used was crushed granite gravel of 12.5 mm
size purchased locally. A top range polycarboxylic ether based super­
plasticizer (SP) with the commercial name “master glenium SKY 8233
was used to meet efflux time. The dosage of super-plasticizing admixture
was 0.4 and 0.6 by weight of cement. The superplasticizer’s relative
density was 1.08 ± 0.02 at 25 ◦ C, pH was greater than 6 and the chloride
ion content less than 0.2%. Two-way glass fibre reinforcement grids of
spacing 5 mm × 5 mm were used. Further, a hooked end steel fibre was
used to improve the collision energy of the LTSFC slabs. The fibre is
shown in Fig. 1 and its properties in Table 1.
3.2. Mix proportions
In this study, sixteen different composite slabs were cast, and the
defined w/b and s/b ratio was 0.45 and 1.0 respectively. To produce
flowable grout in the skeletons consisting of fibres and coarse aggregate,
fine sand was identified tailored to suit LTSFC. A w/b ratio of 0.45 was
adopted for all slabs to meet efflux time of 35–40 ± 2 s in conformity
with ACI 304.1 and ASTM C939/C939M – 16a [15,39]. Fig. 2 demon­
strates the production technique and location of the glass fibre mesh
insertion in the LTSFC slabs. For all fibrous slabs, the top layer was
reinforced with a 3.0% dosage of fibres, the middle layer with 1.5% fibre
dosage and the bottom layer with a 3.0% dosage of fibres. Fig. 3 illus­
trates the geometry and configuration of the glass sheet inserted in the
LTSFC slab. The information on the mixed composition and the layers
and fibre dosage used in this study are enumerated in Table 2.
3.3. Specimen preparation
To evaluate the impact strength of LTSFC, 600 × 600 × 60 mm size
slabs were cast. Initially, coarse aggregates and pre-defined fibres were
R. Rithanyaa et al. Structures 29 (2021) 1–13

Table 2
Information on the mixed composition used for slab.
Series Mix Id s/b ratio w/b ratio Fibre dosage (%) Support Glass fibre mesh (Layer) SP (%)

Top layer Middle layer Bottom layer Type Layout

1 T-H4 0 0 0 Hinge 4 Sides 0 0.4

T-H2 0 0 0 2 Opposite sides 0 0.4
T-M− H4 1 0.45 0 0 0 Hinge 4 Sides 2 0.4
T-M− H2 0 0 0 2 Opposite sides 2 0.4
LF-H4 3 1.5 3 Hinge 4 Sides 0 0.6
LF-H2 3 1.5 3 2 Opposite sides 0 0.6
LF-M− H4 3 1.5 3 Hinge 4 Sides 2 0.6
LF-M− H2 3 1.5 3 2 Opposite sides 2 0.6

2 T-F4 1 0.45 0 0 0 Fixed 4 Sides 0 0.4

T-F2 0 0 0 2 Opposite sides 0 0.4
T-M− F4 0 0 0 Fixed 4 Sides 2 0.4
T-M− F2 0 0 0 2 Opposite sides 2 0.4
LF-F4 3 1.5 3 Fixed 4 Sides 0 0.6
LF-F2 3 1.5 3 2 Opposite sides 0 0.6
LF-M− F4 3 1.5 3 Fixed 4 Sides 2 0.6
LF-M− F2 3 1.5 3 2 Opposite sides 2 0.6

on two types of supports. A schematic of the slab supported four sides

and two opposite sides are shown in Fig. 5.

3.4. Experimental setup

Fig. 4. Appearance and shape of mesh.
mixed and pre-placed in the mold. Later, grout made with cement, sand,
admixture, and water was injected into each layer to fill the aggregates
and fibres’ gaps. Gravity grout injection was used in this study; the
LTSFC production technique is shown in Fig. 2. This permits more fibres
and coarse aggregates to be packed in the mould and interlock with each
other. The detailed information of the geometry, layer thickness, and
mesh insertion location is illustrated in Fig. 3. The size of the mesh used
for the slab was 480 × 480 mm respectively. The mesh was designed to
cover 64% of the total area of the specimen’s top face, as shown in Fig. 4.
All slabs were tested under impact load with two distinct support layouts
The falling mass test based on ACI committee 544 was performed
[40]. A mass of 6.8 kg repeatedly dropped from a height of 600 mm on to
the slab’s top surface is shown in Fig. 6(a). During the multiple falling
mass collision test, impact responses of LTSFC were collected; replicated
impact till crack initiation was defined by (R1) whereas replicated
impact till ultimate crack was denoted by (R2). For the slab, a two
distinct support layout, four side support, and two opposite sides’ sup­
port were used on hinged and fixed support. The specimen support
layouts used in this study are illustrated in Fig. 6(b) and (c). Detailed
information on the hinged and fixed support conditions are shown in
Fig. 6(b) and (c). To ensure zero rotation of the fixed support, L shaped
steel plates were placed at the slab’s top edge and locked with clamps,
whereas rectangular pipe sections were used for the hinged support.
Collision energy at R1 and R2 was calculated as follows.
Collision energy (U) = N × m × g × H (1)
where, N; the number of impacts, m; the mass of iron ball (6.8 kg), g;
gravity acceleration (9.81 m/s2), and H; the height of free fall.
4. Discussion of results
4.1. Influence of support type and layout on the LTSFC slabs
The present section is geared toward the influence of the support

Fig. 5. Support type and layout.

4
R. Rithanyaa et al. Structures 29 (2021) 1–13

Fig. 6. Test setup (a) Falling mass collision testing device (b) Fixed support (c) Hinged support [25].

Table 3
Test results.
Mix Id Number of blows Impact ductility index Impact Energy (J) Crack Resistance Impact resistance ratio

R1 R2 U1 U2 RSC × 107(N/m2) RUC × 107(N/m2)

T-H4 8 12 1.50 326 490 0.12 0.02 0.01

T-H2 7 10 1.43 286 408 0.10 0.02 0.01
T-M− H4 15 25 1.67 612 1020 0.17 0.06 0.02
T-M− H2 12 19 1.58 490 775 0.15 0.04 0.01
LF-H4 98 258 2.63 3998 10,526 22.79 4.16 0.92
LF-H2 87 217 2.49 3550 8854 21.23 3.95 0.87
LF-M− H4 120 334 2.78 4896 13,627 30.85 6.30 1.39
LF-M− H2 108 311 2.88 4406 12,689 16.80 5.66 1.25
T-F4 12 19 1.58 490 775 0.16 0.04 0.01
T-F2 10 16 1.60 408 653 0.13 0.03 0.01
T-M− F4 18 30 1.67 734 1224 0.26 0.08 0.02
T-M− F2 15 24 1.60 612 979 0.20 0.06 0.02
LF-F4 108 294 2.72 4406 11,995 28.47 5.19 1.15
LF-F2 98 253 2.58 3998 10,322 25.83 4.61 1.02
LF-M− F4 131 369 2.82 5345 15,055 34.53 8.34 1.84
LF-M− F2 122 346 2.84 4978 14,117 31.87 6.98 1.54

8000 16000
Collision energy U1 (J)

Collision energy U2 (J)

(a) (b)
6000 12000

4000 8000

2000 4000

0 0
T-H4
T-H2
T-M-H4
T-M-H2
LF-H4
LF-H2
LF-M-H4
LF-M-H2
T-F4
T-F2
T-M-F4
T-M-F2
LF-F4
LF-F2
LF-M-F4
LF-M-F2

T-H4
T-H2
T-M-H4
T-M-H2
LF-H4
LF-H2
LF-M-H4
LF-M-H2
T-F4
T-F2
T-M-F4
T-M-F2
LF-F4
LF-F2
LF-M-F4
LF-M-F2

Mix Id Mix Id

Fig. 7. Collision energy (a) crack initiation and (b) ultimate crack.

type and layout on collision energy’s comprehensive behavior at crack
initiation and ultimate crack and failure mechanisms. Findings from the
experimental studies are outlined in Table 3. As already indicated, all
LTSFC slabs were subjected to repetitive falling mass impact, which
involved a 6.8 kg cast iron ball elevated to 600 mm height. The free fall
height and hammer weight were maintained constant for all LTSFC
slabs, which had the same free fall duration for all test slabs.
4.1.1. Effect of hinged support on the LTSFC slabs
According to the results from Fig. 7, it was clear that the collision
energy of T-H4 and T-H2 slabs were 326 J and 286 J respectively in the
case of crack initiation and 490 J and 408 J respectively for ultimate
crack. It was apparent that the insertion of glass fibre mesh between
layers had a positive influence on T-M− H4 and T-M− H2 slabs, where
the collision energy was enhanced by 87.7% and 71.3% for crack initi­
ation and 108.2% and 89.9% for ultimate crack with respect to T-H4 and
T-H2 slabs respectively. It was evident from Fig. 7 that collision energy
at crack initiation and ultimate crack of the slabs with support hinged on
the four sides was greater with respect to supports on the two hinged
sides. By associating with T-H4 and T-H2, collision energy at crack

5
R. Rithanyaa et al. Structures 29 (2021) 1–13

4.0 2.0
3.0 1.6
1.2
IDI

2.0

IRR
0.8
1.0 0.4
0.0 0.0

T-H4
T-H2
T-M-H4
T-M-H2
LF-H4
LF-H2
LF-M-H4
LF-M-H2
T-F4
T-F2
T-M-F4
T-M-F2
LF-F4
LF-F2
LF-M-F4
LF-M-F2
T-H4
T-H2
T-M-H4
T-M-H2
LF-H4
LF-H2
LF-M-H4
LF-M-H2
T-F4
T-F2
T-M-F4
T-M-F2
LF-F4
LF-F2
LF-M-F4
LF-M-F2
Mix Id
Mix Id
Fig. 11. Impact resistance ratio of LTSFC slabs.
Fig. 8. Impact ductility index of LTSFC slabs.

noticed on the sides without support [41].

4.1.2. Effect of fixed support on the LTSFC slabs

Fig. 9. Capturing images for measuring crack width.
initiation was ameliorated by 1126.3%, and 1141.2% and for ultimate
crack it was lessened by 2048.1% and 2070.1% for slabs LF-H4 and LF-
H2 respectively. This could be ascribed to the addition of short hooked
end fibres (high fibre dosage (3%) at the top and bottom layers) in the
slab that triggered work effectively during macro-crack formation
resulting in high collision energy as observed [1].
On the other side, the glass fibre mesh’s insertion in the LF-M− H4
and LF-M− H2 slabs exhibited excellent collision energy at crack initia­
tion and ultimate crack. These values were enhanced by 1401.8% and
1440.5% for crack initiation and 2681.0% and 3010.0% for ultimate
crack with respect to the T-H4 and T-H2 slabs respectively. This was due
to the fibre mesh insertion’s influence between layers with high fibre
content in the top and bottom layers, which delayed crack initiation and
ultimate crack under impact load. Results indicated that the slab with
hinged supports on four sides exhibited higher engrossed collision en­
ergy compared to the slabs with two hinged supports. The collision
energy of the LTSFC slabs increased when the supported sides were
increased from two to four. For the slab with hinged support, cracks
were concentrated in the middle of the slab. It is seen that crack dispersal
was concentrated on the supported sides, whereas fewer cracks were
According to the support layout, the slab supported on four sides
fixed had greater support stiffness, which leads to less damage under the
falling mass impact than the slab supported on two sides fixed [41]. For
instance, engrossed collision energy at crack initiation was 490 J and
408 J and for ultimate crack the values were 775 J and 653 J respec­
tively for the T-F4 and T-F2 slabs. Insertion of glass fibre mesh in the T-
M− F4 and T-M− F2 slabs, absorbed collision energy at crack initiation
which was lessened by 49.8% and 50.0% respectively, with respect to
the T-F4 and T-F2 slabs. Likewise, the ultimate crack was reduced by
57.9% and 49.9% respectively, compared to P-F4 and P-F2 slabs. Further
fibre addition in the LF-F4 and LF-F2 slabs showed an intrinsic incre­
ment in collision energy by 799.2% and 879.9% respectively in crack
initiation and 1447.7% and 1480.7% respectively in case of ultimate
crack with respect to the T-F4 and T-F2 slabs. This phenomenon may be
due to higher fibre dosage in the top and bottom layers. Initially, cracks
started at a microscopic level and coalesced to the macro-level [34].
Fibres played a major role in arresting cracks by connecting them in the
tension region, which resulted in limiting macro crack augmentation
and transmitting tensile stresses effectually after crack development.
Collision energy at crack initiation for the LF-M− F4 and LF-M− F2 slabs
was enhanced by 990.8% and 1120.0% for the T-F4 and T-F2 slabs.
Likewise, collision energy at ultimate crack was ameliorated by
1842.5% and 2061.8% for the T-F4 and T-F2 slabs. This illustrated the
constructive effect of the slab supported on four sides fixed, as it brought
out the stiffness and increased in engrossed collision energy compared to
the slabs supported on the two opposite sides fixed [41]. The crack
instigated a microscopic level in the middle of the slab supported by four
sides fixed and proliferated in the direction of the supports while a
scattered crack configuration was noticed in all slabs with fixed support
[3].
In a nutshell, collision energy at crack initiation and the ultimate
crack was altered with support type. Collision energy at crack initiation
and ultimate crack of the slabs with fixed support was greater with
respect to hinge supports. Also, support layout influenced collision en­
ergy at crack initiation and ultimate crack for slabs with four sides
support, which was greater with respect to slabs with supports on the

40 10 (b)
RUC x 107 (N/m2)
RSC x 107 (N/m2)

(a)
30 8
6
20
4
10 2
0 0
T-H4
T-H2
T-M-H4
T-M-H2
LF-H4
LF-H2
LF-M-H4
LF-M-H2
T-F4
T-F2
T-M-F4
T-M-F2
LF-F4
LF-F2
LF-M-F4
LF-M-F2
T-H4
T-H2
T-M-H4
T-M-H2
LF-H4
LF-H2
LF-M-H4
LF-M-H2
T-F4
T-F2
T-M-F4
T-M-F2
LF-F4
LF-F2
LF-M-F4
LF-M-F2

Mix Id Mix Id

Fig. 10. Resistance of cracks (a) service (b) ultimate.

6
R. Rithanyaa et al. Structures 29 (2021) 1–13

clear pattern. For example, adding a glass mesh for all specimens lead to
the nominal growth of this indicator, while the number of supports and
their type also had similar results. In a nutshell, the LTSFC slab con­
taining fibre addition and glass fibre mesh resulted in ductile failure,
completely eradicating its brittleness.

4.1.4. Service and ultimate crack resistance

Based on engrossed collision energy at crack initiation and ultimate
crack, the overall length of the crack, greatest crack width, greatest
crack depth, the resistance of service crack (RSC), and ultimate stages
(RUC) were assessed from Eqs. (2) and (3) respectively [46]. Under
multiple impacts, cracks initiated at the bottom center moved toward
the edges. A feeler gauge was used to measure crack depth and a, strings
ruler to measure crack length, while a portable microscope measured
crack width. Crack length and width were measured immediately after
the first crack and failure. The images were taken using a USB portable
microscope and crack width corresponding to first crack and failure was
also measured. Fig. 9 illustrates capturing images to measure the crack
width.
RSC = U1/(l × w × d) (2)

Fig. 12. Schematic of tension membrane action (a) Stresses in slab (b) bicycle RUC = U2/(l × w × t) (3)
wheel force transfer mechanism [48].
where, RSC = Resistance of service crack, l = Overall crack length, w
= Greatest crack width, d = Greatest crack depth, RUC = Resistance of
two opposite sides. The same support mechanism was obtained for both
ultimate crack and t = Slab thickness.
fixed and hinge supports. Steel fibre addition and mesh insertion in the
Fibre addition had a decisive effect on service crack resistance and
LTSFC slab can alleviate the speed of damage. This was due to the
ultimate crack resistance, as illustrated in Fig. 10. Most notably, a non-
incorporation of fibre in the slabs, which lead to the efficient restraining
fibrous slab with glass fibre mesh for the fixed and hinged slabs sup­
of microcrack enlargement and the damage speed. Also, fibres were
ported on four. Two opposite sides reported SCR ranges from 0.10 × 107
dispersed uniformly, which improved the bridging and reinforcing ef­
N/m2 to 0.26 × 107 N/m2, and RUC from 0.02 × 107 N/m2 to 0.08 × 107
fects and led to good cohesion between the fibre and matrix. More un­
N/m2; Fibre addition with glass fibre mesh insertion resulted in an
deviating stress transfer occurred due to alleviated stress concentration
intrinsic increase ranging from 16.80 × 107 N/m2 to 34.53 × 107 N/m2
inside the slab [41].
for RSC and 3.95 × 107 N/m2 to 8.34 × 107 N/m2 for RUC, respectively.
The positive implications of fibre addition and mesh insertion be­
More than a 100 time increase in these characteristics was due to fibre
tween layers contributed to superior collision energy than anticipated.
addition n and mesh insertion which provided the required plasticity
High fibre content at the top and bottom layers could trigger micro-
and thus absorbed a relatively large amount of collision energy before
cracks before failure, enhanced resistance of crack development and
failure. Composite matrix provides resistance to crack propagation, re­
proliferation [41]. Glass fibre mesh insertion between layers interrupted
sidual strength after crack initiation, extreme toughness; ability to
crack proliferation leading to delayed crack extension and higher impact
withstand large deformations and tensile (bending). A decrease can
strength. The unique production technique assured uniform dissemina­
explain this fact in the possibilities of stress redistribution due to the
tion, eradication of clustering ability, and fibre balling [34]. Hence, the
delay in microplastic deformations. Fibre “bridges”, affected the for­
anomalous enhancement in the LTSFC slab’s impact strength with
mation of the microstructure, reduced internal stresses and the number
respect to non-fibrous slabs was due to higher fibre dosage (3%) in the
of formed centers of development of internal defects of the composite
top and bottom layers [2]. Generally, steel fibre addition in conventional
(the dimension of these centers also decreases). This prevents these
fibrous composites is restricted to 2% of the composite volume by virtue
processes from further defect development. In a nutshell, hinged support
of workability contemplations and to ensure even steel fibre distribution
provides slabs with lower RSC and RUC values than fixed supports due
[11]. Hence, fibre addition above 2% showed a tendency to cluster and
to stress concentration near supports with additional freedom degrees.
fibre ball, provoking voids and triggering foibles where microscopic
For the same reason, slabs with four supports show higher RSC and RUC
cracks were initiated, leading to reduced impact strength [1]. In
values than those with two supports.
contrast, the LTSFC slab production technique alleviated such issues as
higher fibre dose and aggregates were preplaced before grout injection
4.1.5. Impact resistance ratio (IRR)
[42,43].
The impact crack resistance ratio is demarcated to a non-dimensional
factor [47]. The observed compressive strength of a 100 mm cube after
4.1.3. Impact ductility index (IDI)
28 days of curing for plain concrete and fibrous concrete was 35.42 MPa
The ability of fibre addition, mesh insertion, support type, and sup­
and 45.26 MPa, respectively.
port layout influences post crack engrossed collision energy, and hence
the impact ductility index [44]. Fig. 8 illustrates the IDI value, which is IRR = U2 /fck (4)
the ratio of engrossed collision energy at the ultimate crack and cracks
initiation. Specifically, in all non– fibrous slab series, IDI exhibited was where, IRR = ratio of impact crack resistance, fck = Cube compres­
less than 1.7 ranging from 1.43 and 1.67, indicating reduced post crack sive strength in MPa.
resistance. Fig. 8 reveals that fibre addition and glass fibre mesh inser­ A similar trend of IDI observed for the impact resistance ratio of the
tion in LTSFC slab lead to increased IDI ranging from 2.49 to 2.88. This LTSFC slabs is illustrated in Fig. 11. For the non-fibrous slabs without
was because even after initial crack formation, energy spent on pull-out mesh, the calculated ratios were 0.01, and for fibrous slabs without
of fiber from the damaged surface slowed crack formation [45]. The mesh these values varied from 0.87 to 1.15. This could be due to the
effect of other variables on IDI was insignificant and did not provide a mechanical work of fibrous reinforced concrete matrix, described
earlier. Positive effects were observed in concrete slabs by glass fibre

7
R. Rithanyaa et al.
Fig. 13. Cracking pattern of LTSFC slabs.
mesh insertion. The IRR for non-fibrous slabs with glass fibre mesh
varied from 0.1 to 0.2, and for fibrous slabs with mesh, it varied from
1.25 to 1.84. (Also, the regularity of the dependent variable on the
number of degrees of freedom of the supports, i.e. the impact resistance
ratio was higher for a fixed support than for an articulated support, and
four supports, than for two supports). It is clear from Fig. 11, that the
calculated IRR value for the non-fibrous slab with and without mesh was
less than 0.5; revealing that IRR of non-fibrous slabs was lower than
compressive strength. Nevertheless, for slabs with fibre addition and
mesh insertion, the IRR ratio was greater than 0.8. It is also evident that
the fibrous slabs had greater impact resistance than compressive
strength [34]. Support type and layout did not influence the impact
resistance ratio of LTSFC slabs much.
8
Structures 29 (2021) 1–13
4.1.6. Force transfer mechanism
Due to repeated impact, microscopic cracks started d from the point
of maximum tension, coalesced with the macroscopic crack with these
cracks being transmitted to the free edges of the slab at the point of time
fibres by way of line yields. Fig. 12 illustrates the load-carrying mech­
anism in the horizontal plane, which is homologous to transfer the force
in a bicycle wheel (but spokes without pretension) with the radial ten­
sion zone adjusted by circumferential compression. The falling mass in
the transverse direction within any closed region was supported by
integrating vertical components of the same radial tension at their cor­
responding inclinations and around its perimeter. A view of the square
slab displaying modest vertical support around its edges is illustrated in
Fig. 12.
R. Rithanyaa et al. Structures 29 (2021) 1–13

Table 4 Table 6
Average Element Size (% of the model size). Comparison of experimental and numerical results.
Solids Yes Mix Id Experimental results Numerical results Percentage
Scale Mesh Size Per Part No Impact Energy (J) Impact Energy (J) difference
Average Element Size (absolute value) 30 mm
U1 U2 U1 U2 U1 U2
Element Order Parabolic
Create Curved Mesh Elements Yes T-H4 326 490 356 540 9.1 10.3
Max. Turn Angle on Curves (Deg.) 60 T-H2 286 408 322 444 12.7 8.8
Max. Adjacent Mesh Size Ratio 1.5 T-M− H4 612 1020 686 1156 12.1 13.3
Max. Aspect Ratio 10 T-M− H2 490 775 521 875 6.4 12.9
Minimum Element Size (% of average size) 20 LF-H4 3998 10,526 4525 11,980 13.2 13.8
Number of Refinement Steps 0 LF-H2 3550 8854 3892 10,050 9.6 13.5
Results Convergence Tolerance (%) 20 LF-M− H4 4896 13,627 5489 15,176 12.1 11.4
Portion of Elements to Refine (%) 10 LF-M− H2 4406 12,689 4898 13,496 11.2 6.4
Number of nodes 297,953 T-F4 490 775 502 842 2.5 8.6
Number of elements 164,296 T-F2 408 653 447 721 9.6 10.4
T-M− F4 734 1224 821 1355 11.8 10.7
T-M− F2 612 979 687 1043 12.3 6.5
LF-F4 4406 11,995 4887 12,226 10.9 1.9
LF-F2 3998 10,322 4218 10,393 5.5 0.7
LF-M− F4 5345 15,055 5845 16,945 9.4 12.6
LF-M− F2 4978 14,117 5213 15,063 4.7 6.7

sudden breakdown. Cracks proliferated through the weakened zone, and

insertion of glass fibre mesh between layers delayed the progress of
crack conglomeration ensuring the postponement of failure. Comparing
the front side of the fibrous slabs, a punched shear hole is noticed in
Fig. 13(g–h) and (m–p), which is missing in the non-fibrous slabs Fig. 13
(a–d) and (i–l). Contrarily, the punching-shear effect was not seen on
any face of the non-fibrous slabs. Brittle behavior was seen in slabs
supported on four sides and two opposites sides in both the fixed and
hinged variants.

Fig. 14. Numerical model of slab with fixed support on four sides.
5. Numerical simulation

Finite element software of Auto desk fusion 360 was used for the
Table 5
numerical simulation of the tested slabs. The cracking pattern’s exper­
Material model properties used.
imental results, collision energy at crack initiation, and ultimate crack
Description Non-fibrous TSFC (1.5% TSFC (3% Glass fibre
were compared with the numerical results. The same test model di­
concrete fibre content) fibre content) mesh
mensions (600 × 600 × 60 mm) were adopted in the finite element
Density 2.407E− 06 2.407E− 06 2.407E− 06 1.75E− 06 models due to the mesh design and (mesh density will impact finite
kg/mm3 kg/mm3 kg/mm3 kg/mm3
Young’s 31,004 MPa 36,000 MPa 36,000 MPa 6950 MPa
element outcomes substantially) [49]. While generating the finite
Modulus element specimen models, solid elements were used to model the slabs.
Poisson’s Ratio 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 On average, 164,296 elements were used for meshing the slab with a
Yield Strength 2.5 MPa 5.2 MPa 5.9 MPa 1.905 MPa maximum mesh size ratio of 1.5. In the numerical simulation, the
Ultimate 2.5 MPa 5.5 MPa 6.5 MPa 2.7 MPa
rotation was allowed and translations restrained in the case of pinned
Tensile
Strength support. Both were restrained in the case of fixed support. In the nu­
Thermal 0.0016 W/ 0.0016 W/ 0.0016 W/ 2.3E− 04 merical simulation, falling weight collision was carried out only for a
Conductivity (mm C) (mm C) (mm C) W/(mm C) single weight drop with increased height. Hence the total destruction
Thermal 1E− 05/C 1E− 05/C 1E− 05/C 7.31E− 05/ due to replicated impact was not simulated in this study. Autodesk
Expansion C
Coefficient
Fusion 360 finite element package was used extensively in recent years
Specific Heat 800 J/(kg C) 800 J/(kg C) 800 J/(kg C) 1000 J/(kg to resolve non-linear complications and to solve non-linear problems
C) with incremental falling mass collision scrutiny. (engendering the finite
element model of the slab), solid elements were used and their details
are shown in Table 4.
4.1.7. Cracking pattern of LTSFC slabs
Fig. 14 depicts the slab’s finite element model supported on four
Fig. 13 displays the cracking patterns on the slabs under repeated
sides fixed with a 6.8 kg steel ball. The material properties used in this
falling weight collision tests. Two distinct forms of cracking were
numerical simulation are shown in Table 5. The steel ball was held
observed in the LTSFC slabs. Non-fibrous slabs fractured into two/three
above the slab for applying the falling mass collisions for the finite
fragments upon failure and with its structural integrity and geometry
element model while crack initiation and ultimate crack were obtained
ending on reaching collision energy. The cracking pattern of fibrous
by the trial and error method and; by increasing the height of drop until
LTSFC slabs was unbroken, unlike non-fibrous slabs [47]. This behav­
it attained crack initiation and ultimate crack. Comparison between
ioural pattern showed that fibrous LTSFC slabs remained structurally
numerical simulation and experimental data in terms of collision energy
undivided and that a ductile mode of failure was obtained. Moreover,
at crack initiation and ultimate crack is seen in Table 6.
fibre addition and glass fibre mesh insertion between layers brought
Following the numerical results shown in Table 6, it is evident that
forth more closely aligned uniform cracks i.e., a relatively large number
the T-H4 and T-H2 slabs’ collision energy were 356 J and 322 J
of cracks was observed on the top of the slabs. The evolution of
respectively for crack initiation and 540 J and 444 J respectively for
numerous cracks on the top of the slabs was due to the fibre bridging
ultimate crack.
action, which engrossed more collision energy and disallowed the slab’s

9
R. Rithanyaa et al.
Fig. 15. Location of mesh and propagation of cracks through mesh insertion.
(i) By comparing T-M− H4 with T-H4, collision energy correspond­
ing to crack initiation and ultimate crack increased by about
92.7% and 114.1%, respectively. Likewise, comparing T-M− H2
with the T-H2 slab, the values were 61.8% and 97.1% respec­
tively. Comparing LF-H4 with the T-H4 slab, collision energy
corresponding to crack initiation and ultimate crack increased by
1171.0% and 2118.5%, respectively. A 1108.7% and 2163.5%
increment was observed in collision energies for the-H2 and T-H2
slabs.
(ii) For the LF-M− H4 slab, collision energy corresponding to crack
initiation and ultimate crack increased by 21.3% and 26.7%,
respectively, compared to the LF-M− H2 slab. Likewise, a 25.8%
and 34.3% increase in collision energies was observed in for the
LF-H4 slab.
(iii) For the non-fibrous slab supported on four and two sides fixed,
the observed collision energies corresponding to crack initiation
and ultimate crack were 502 J and 842 J for the T-F4 slab and
441 J and 721 J for the T-F2 slab.
(iv) When comparing T-M− F4 with T-F4, collision energy corre­
sponding to crack initiation and ultimate crack increased by
63.5% and 60.9%, respectively. Likewise, for the T-M− F2 slab,
53.7% and 44.7% were observed compared to the T-F2 slab.
(v) When comparing LF-F4 with the T-F4 slab, the observed collision
energy corresponding to crack initiation and ultimate crack
increased by 873.5% and 1352.0%, respectively. An increment of
843.6% and 1341.4% was observed in collision energies for LF-F2
as compared to the T-F2 slab.
(vi) Collision energy at crack initiation for the LF-M− F4 and LF-
M− F2 slabs increased by 19.6% and 23.6% with respect to the T-
F4 and T-F2 slabs. Likewise, collision energy at ultimate crack
was ameliorated by 23.6% and 44.9% with respect to the T-F4
and T-F2 slabs.
Based on this discussion, collision energy at crack initiation and ul­
timate crack for the slabs with support on four sides was greater with
respect for support with two sides for both the hinged and fixed cases.
These numerical results agreed with the experimental results.
The mean minimum and maximum percentage difference between
the experimental and numerical values was 0.7% and 13.8% respec­
tively. Numerical simulation displayed that numerical collision energy
at crack initiation and ultimate crack values was significantly higher
than the experimental values for all slabs. In the numerical simulation,
the fixed and hinged supports can be modeled properly; but it was
impossible to produce faultlessly fixed and hinged supports at the time
of experiments. This may be the most common cause of divergence be­
tween the numerical and experimental results. Also, the behaviour of
nonlinear materials was used for the numerical simulation of the slabs. It
was assumed that the composites’ anisotropy and heterogeneous ma­
terial behavior might not be replicated in the numerical model. The
LTSFC slabs consisted of two layers of glass fibre mesh and the crack was
initiated in the tension zone moving toward the compression zone. Glass
10
Structures 29 (2021) 1–13
fibre mesh insertion between layers interrupted crack proliferation,
leading to delays in crack extension resulting in higher impact strength
[50]. Fig. 15(a) depicts the crack reaching the first layer of mesh and
absorbing some energy before shifting it to the second layer of the LTSFC
slabs followed by the second layer of mesh and the third layer of the
LTSFC slabs as shown in Fig. 15(b). Numerical simulation results were
valuable in providing knowledge on engrossed collision energy of the
LTSFC slabs during the design phase.
Fig. 16 shows examples of cracking patterns in terms of the safety
factor which was attained from the numerical analysis. This attained
crack distribution agreed with the experiments. The crack instigated at a
microscopic level in the middle of the slab supported by four sides fixed
moved in the support direction. A dispersed crack formation was noticed
in all slabs with fixed support, as illustrated in Fig. 16(i, k, m, o). in the
slab with hinged support, cracks were concentrated in the middle. It was
seen that most crack dispersals were concentrated at the supported
sides, whereas fewer cracks were noticed on the sides without support,
as illustrated in Fig. 16(a–h). It was also seen from the numerical anal­
ysis that the failure of the slab with fixed supports was significantly
higher compared to the slabs with hinged supports. Support layouts
were also affected by impact energy absorbance. Impact energy at fail­
ure and crack initiation for slabs supported on four sides was higher than
slabs supported on two sides. Similar observations were evidenced for
both fixed and hinged support mechanisms (for slabs with fixed sup­
ports, stiffness, and impact energy absorbance improved). Conse­
quently, failure and cracks were initiated from the middle of the slab and
moved to the supports with a broader distribution area. In the case of the
test slab with free supports, cracks were generally concentrated at the
slab’s center. Higher impact energy was observed in the test slab with
fixed supports, which resulted in the distribution of failure, a decrease in
the number of cracks, and the slab’s delayed failure. Consequently, the
concentration of damage in a small point was prevented in the test slabs
with fixed supports.
6. Conclusions
The experimental and numerical investigation on the impact
behaviour of LTSFC slabs united with steel fibres and glass fibre mesh
insertion between layers was examined under a falling mass impact test.
Two distinct support layouts on two types of supports were considered
and tested with and without glass fibre mesh between layers of the
LTSFC slabs. The numerical investigation was also carried out using
Auto desk Fusion 360, and the collision energy and cracking pattern
were compared with the experimental results. Ultimately, the precise
outcome of this investigation are as follows.
1. Invention of LTSFC united with steel fibre addition and glass fibre
mesh insertion between layers can be used for industrialization and
large-scale production (with well-construction of offshore structures,
industrial flooring, transportation structures, airport runways, and
R. Rithanyaa et al. Structures 29 (2021) 1–13

Fig. 16. Cracking pattern from the numerical analysis.

11
R. Rithanyaa et al.
protective structures, etc where a falling mass scenario is
paramount).
2. For the slab supported by hinged support, the highest collision en­
ergy was engrossed by the LF-M− H4 and LF-M− H2 slabs, which
revealed excellent collision energy at crack initiation and ultimate
crack. These values were improved by 1401.8% and 1440.5% for
crack initiation and 2681.0% and 3010.0% for ultimate crack with
respect to the T-H4 and T-H2 slabs respectively.
3. For the slab with fixed support, the highest collision energy at crack
initiation for the LF-M− F4 and LF-M− F4 slabs was reduced by
990.8% and 1120.0% and for ultimate crack by 1842.5% and
2061.8% with respect to the T-F4 and T-F2 slabs.
4. In the LTSFC slabs, glass fibre mesh insertion between layers inter­
rupted crack proliferation leading to delayed crack extension. Crack
bridging action of the steel fibres exhibited a superior impact.
5. The engrossed collision energy at crack initiation and ultimate crack
of the slabs with fixed support was significantly greater with respect
to hinged supports. Likewise, support layout influenced collision
energy at crack initiation and ultimate crack for slabs with four side
support. This was greater than the two opposite side supported slabs
(both hinged and fixed).
6. All slabs with hinged support exhibited lower RSC and RUC values
than those of the fixed supports. Support type and layout did not
influence the impact resistance ratio of LTSFC slabs.
7. Non-fibrous slabs fractured into two/three fragments on failure and
revealed brittle failure. (Despite the cracking pattern of the fibrous
LTSFC slabs) were not broken. Steel fibre addition to the LTSFC slab
modified the cracking pattern from one huge solitary crack to
numerous multitudinous cracks, which exhibited the composite’s
improved ductility.
8. Collision energy at crack initiation and ultimate crack obtained from
the numerical simulation was significantly higher and in reasonable
agreement with all LTSFC slabs’ experimental values. Fixed and
hinged support could be adequately modeled in numerical simula­
tion, but it was impossible to produce faultlessly fixed and hinged
supports at the time of the experiments, due to which higher values
were attained in numerical simulation.
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.
Acknowledgments
The authors are deeply grateful to the support provided by the School
of Civil Engineering, SASTRA Deemed to be University.
References
[1] Abirami T, Loganaganandan M, Murali G, Roman Fediuk R, Vickhram
Sreekrishna T, Vignesh G, et al. Experimental research on impact response of novel
steel fibrous concretes under falling mass impact. Constr Build Mater 2019;222:
447–57.
[2] Ramkumar VR, Murali G, Asrani NP, Karthikeyan K. Development of a novel low
carbon cementitious two stage layered fibrous concrete with superior impact
strength. J Build Eng 2019;25:100841.
[3] Murali G, Asrani NP, Ramkumar VR, Siva A, Haridharan MK. Impact resistance and
strength reliability of novel two-stage fibre-reinforced concrete. Arab J Sci Eng
2019;44(5):4477–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13369-018-3466-x.
[4] Yoo DY, Banthia N. Impact resistance of fiber-reinforced concrete – A review. Cem
Concr Compos 2019;104:103389.
[5] Hussain T, Ali M. Improving the impact resistance and dynamic properties of jute
fiber reinforced concrete for rebars design by considering tension zone of FRC.
Constr Build Mater 2019;213:592–607.
[6] Grzymski F, Musiał M, Trapko T. Mechanical properties of fibre reinforced concrete
with recycled fibres. Constr Build Mater 2019;198:323–31. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.11.183.
12
Structures 29 (2021) 1–13
[7] Kaufmann W, Amin A, Beck A, Lee M. Shear transfer across cracks in steel fibre
reinforced concrete. Eng Struct 2019;186:508–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
engstruct.2019.02.027.
[8] Gümüş M, Arslan A. Effect of fiber type and content on the flexural behavior of
high strength concrete beams with low reinforcement ratios. Structures 2019;20:
1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2019.02.018.
[9] Zheng X, Ji T, Easa SM, Zhang B, Jiang Z. Tensile basic creep behavior of
lightweight aggregate concrete reinforced with steel fiber. Constr Build Mater
2019;200:356–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.12.138.
[10] Wu J, Liu X, Zhoue H, Li L, Liu Z. Experimental and numerical study on soft-hard-
soft (SHS) cement based composite system under multiple impact loads. Mater Des
2018;139:234–57.
[11] Najjar MF, Soliman AM, Nehdi ML. Critical overview of two-stage concrete:
Properties and applications. Constr Build Mater 2014;62:47–58. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.03.021.
[12] Abdelgader HS. Experimental–mathematical procedure of designing the two-stage
concrete. PhD Dissertation. Gdańsk, Poland: Technical University of Gdańsk; 1995.
[13] Abdelgader HS. Effect of quantity of sand on the compressive strength of two-stage
concrete. Magaz Concr Res 1996;48(177):353–60.
[14] ASTM C 938. Standard practice for proportioning grout mixtures for preplaced
aggregate concrete. West Conshohocken, PA,USA: ASTM International; 2010. 3.
[15] ACI 304.1. Guide for the use of preplaced aggregate concrete for structural and
mass concrete applications. Am Concr Inst, ACI Committee 2005;304(1):19.
[16] Coo M, Pheeraphan T. Efect of sand, fly ash, and coarse aggregate gradation on
preplaced aggregate concrete studied through factorial design. Constr Build Mater
2015;93:812–21.
[17] Abdelgader HS, Fediuk RS, Kurpinska M, Khatib JM, Murali G, Baranov AV, et al.
Mechanical properties of two-stage concrete modified by silica fume. Magazine
Civil Eng 2019;89(5):26–38.
[18] Abdelgader HS, Górski J, Khatib JM, El-baden AS. Two-stage concrete: effect of
silica fume and superplasticizers on strength. BFT Int Concr Plant Precast Technol
(Concr Technol) 2016:30–6.
[19] Orchard DF. Concrete technology, 3rd ed., vol. 2. London: Applied Science
Publishers Ltd.; 1973. p. 409–16.
[20] Yunhong C, Shuai L, Baolong Z, Rui L, Yuan W. Preparation of preplaced aggregate
concrete and experimental study on its strength. Constr Build Mater 2019;229:
116847.
[21] Moncef L, Nehdi ML, Najjar MF, Soliman AM, Azabi TM. Novel steel fibre-
reinforced preplaced aggregate concrete with superior mechanical performance.
Cem Conc Compos 2017;82:242–51.
[22] Mohammadhosseini H, Tahir MM, Alaskar A, Alabduljabbar H, Alyousef R.
Enhancement of strength and transport properties of a novel preplaced aggregate
fiber reinforced concrete by adding waste polypropylene carpet fibers. J Build Eng
2020;27:101003.
[23] Ali M. Rajabi, Farzam Omidi Moaf, and Hakim S. Abdelgader. Evaluation of
Mechanical Properties of Two-Stage Concrete and Conventional Concrete Using
Nondestructive Tests.
[24] O’Malley J, Abdelgader H. Investigation into viability of using two stage
(preplaced aggregate) concrete in an Irish setting. Front Arch Civ Eng China 2010;4
(1):127–32.
[25] H. Abdelgader, A. Saud, A. El-Baden. Flexural strength of two-stage concrete, in:
Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Sustainable Construction
Materials and Technologies (SCMT3), August 2013. Kyoto, Japan.
[26] Holschemacher K, Mueller T, Ribakov Y. Effect of steel fibres on mechanical
properties of high-strength concrete. Mater Design (1980-2015) 2010;31(5):
2604–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2009.11.025.
[27] Mohamed N, Soliman AM, Nehdi ML. Full-scale pipes using dry-cast steel fibre-
reinforced concrete. Constr Build Mater 2014;72:411–22. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.09.025.
[28] Koksal F, Altun F, Yigit I, Sahin Y. Combined effect of silica fume and steel fibre on
the mechanical properties of high strength concretes. Constr Build Mater 2008;22
(80):1874–80.
[29] 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. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.07.153.
[30] Lin S, Shams S, Choi H, Azari H. Ultrasonic imaging of multi-layer concrete
structures. NDT E Int 2018;98:101–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ndteint.2018.04.012.
[31] Balevičius R, Marčiukaitis G. Linear and Non-linear Creep models for a multi-
layered concrete composite. Arch Civil Mech Eng 2013;13(4):472–90. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.acme.2013.04.002.
[32] Ben-Dor G, Dubinsky A, Elperin T. Ballistic properties of multilayered concrete
shields. Nucl Eng Des 2009;239(10):1789–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
nucengdes.2009.05.015.
[33] Ranjbar N, Behnia A, Chai HK, Alengaram UJ, Jumaat MZ. Fracture evaluation of
multi-layered precast reinforced geopolymer-concrete composite beams by
incorporating acoustic emission into mechanical analysis. Constr Build Mater
2016;127:274–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.09.144.
[34] Murali G, Ramprasad K. A feasibility of enhancing the impact strength of novel
layered two stage fibrous concrete slabs. Eng Struct 2018;175:41–9. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.08.034.
[35] Najjar MF, Nehdi ML, Soliman AM, Azabi TM. Damage mechanisms of two-stage
concrete exposed to chemical and physical sulfate attack. Constr Build Mater 2017;
137:141–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.01.112.
R. Rithanyaa et al.
[36] Morozov VI, Opbul EK, Van Phuc P. Behaviour of axisymmetric thick plates resting
against conical surface. Mag Civil Eng 2019;86(2):92–104.
[37] Tyukalov Yu, Ya. Calculation method of bending plates with assuming shear
deformations. Magazine of. Civ Eng 2019;85(1):107–22.
[38] IS:383-2016. Coarse and fine aggregate for concrete – specification, (third
revision).
[39] ASTM C939/C939M-16a, Standard Test Method for Flow of Grout for Preplaced-
Aggregate Concrete (Flow Cone Method), ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, 2016.
[40] ACI Committee 544. State-of-the-art report on fibre reinforced concrete. ACI
Committee 544 report 544.1R-96. Detroit: American Concrete Institute; 1996.
[41] Anil O, Kantar E, Yilmaz MC. Low velocity impact behavior of RC slabs with
different support types. Constr Build Mater 2015;93:1078–88.
[42] Coo M, Pheeraphan T. Effect of sand, fly ash, and coarse aggregate gradation on
preplaced aggregate concrete studied through factorial design. Constr Build Mater
2015;93:812–21.
[43] Coo M, Pheeraphan T. Effect of sand, fly ash and limestone powder on preplaced
aggregate concrete mechanical properties and reinforced beam shear capacity.
Constr Build Mater 2016;120:581–92.
[44] Asrani Neha P, Murali G, Parthiban K, Surya K, Prakash A, Rathika K,
Chandru Uma. A feasibility of enhancing the impact resistance of hybrid fibrous
13
Structures 29 (2021) 1–13
geopolymer composites: Experiments and modelling. Constr Build Mater 2019;203:
56–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.01.072.
[45] G. Murali, A.S. Santhi, G. Mohan Ganesh, Impact resistance and strength reliability
of Fiber-reinforced concrete in bending under drop weight impact load
International Journal of Technology, 5(2). 2014, 111-120.
[46] Kankam CK. Impact resistance of palm kernel fibre-reinforced concrete pavement
slab. J Ferrocem 1999;29(4):279–86.
[47] Yahaghi J, Muda ZC, Beddu SB. Impact resistance of oil palm shells concrete
reinforced with polypropylene fibre. Constr Build Mater 2016;123:394–403.
[48] Burgess Ian. Yield-line plasticity and tensile membrane action in lightly-reinforced
rectangular concrete slabs. Eng Struct 2017;138:195–214. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.01.072.
[49] Zhang ZC, Chen YM, Liu HL. Numerical investigation on the impact resistance of
road barriers of Micropile-MSE Wall for subgrade. Comput Geotech 2017;82:
249–65.
[50] Abirami T, Murali G, Saravana Raja Mohan K, Salaimanimagudam MP,
Nagaveni Parshyam, Bhargavi Pallem. Multi-layered two stage fibrous composites
against low-velocity falling mass and projectile impact. Constr Build Mater 2020;
248:118631.