Construction and Building Materials 412 (2024) 134895

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

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

The use of natural (coconut) and artificial (glass) fibers in cement – polymer
composites: An experimental study
Caner Demirdağ a, Mehrab Nodehi b, Alper Bideci c, Özlem Sallı Bideci c, Metin Tuncer a,
Osman Gencel d, Togay Ozbakkaloglu e, *
a
Düzce University, Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences, 81600 Düzce, Turkey
b
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, United States
c
Düzce University, Art, Design and Architecture Faculty, Department of Architecture, 81600 Düzce, Turkey
d
Civil Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Architecture and Design, Bartin University, 74100 Bartin, Turkey
e
Ingram School of Engineering, Texas State University, San Marcos, TX, United States

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

Keywords: Fiber reinforced concrete composites are a group of high-performance materials with considerably enhanced
Polymer concrete stress-strain properties. Similar effects can also be achieved using polymeric binders whereby the inclusion of the
Fiber-reinforced concrete polymers as binder can significantly enhance the physical-mechanical properties of the resulting concretes. In
Natural fiber
this regard, the following study investigates the impact of utilizing natural (e.g., coconut) versus artificially
Coconut (coir) fiber
Glass fiber
manufactured fibers (e.g., glass fiber) in polymer-cementitious composites. In doing so, 14 mixes were produced
using various ratios of the two fibers. To evaluate the properties of the produced samples a series of tests
including flow diameters, unit weights, water absorption values, compressive strengths, flexural strengths and
ultrasound transmission rates were determined. Also, to evaluate the microstructural cohesion of polymer-
cement and polymer-coconut samples, scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and energy dispersive spectros­
copy (EDS) has also been used. The results show that the surface texture of fibers can play a key role in major
engineering properties of the fiber reinforced concretes and that the natural fibers have great potential to be used
as high-performance materials in cementitious composites. Also, it is found that the use of polymer as the main
binder can provide higher adhesion with fibers containing smoother surface (e.g., glass fiber) at the interfacial
transition zone (ITZ). In the end, recommendation for future studies is also included.

1. Introduction
Fiber reinforced concrete refers to the use of various types of fibers
from metallic, polymer or other composite origins that can enhance a
variety of properties in a given concrete sample [1–5]. Although the idea
of fiber reinforcement originates from long before the contemporary era,
the production of concrete-fiber reinforced composites is a key compo­
nent of current concrete structures due to the relative ease in application
and serviceability as well as major benefits. The benefits of the fiber
reinforcement are generally divided into the overall structural – earth­
quake behavior, as well as the material – hydration perspective. This
refers to the enhanced stress-strain and the ductility behavior of con­
crete structures, and the fact that fibers can channel the moisture within
the mixture and reduce drying and autogenous shrinkage while also
significantly reducing crack propagation. A general classification for
fiber reinforcement can be found in Refs. [2,6–9] whereby fibers can be
classified based on the materials they are made of, or their style (e.g.,
hooked, crimped, and flattened, among others). Despite the many ben­
efits fibers can add to the cementing materials [10] and concretes in
general, their bonding and overall behavior in composite and often
repaired concrete sections is of prime concern. According to Ref. [11] for
instance, polymer-based fibers do not bind well at the interface level
with the cementing materials due to their inherent difference between
the polymer chain – calcium silicate hydrate (C-S-H) or other cementing
products. This makes the effectiveness of fibers especially prone to high
variation. Such variation is furthered by the fact that often the preferred
fiber to be used depends heavily on local availability, such as the use of
natural versus artificial reinforcements. This makes the study of inter­
facial bonding depending on the type of fiber more critical. A practical
application for this is the repair of concrete sections that is often done

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: togay.oz@txstate.edu (T. Ozbakkaloglu).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2024.134895
Received 22 September 2023; Received in revised form 7 December 2023; Accepted 2 January 2024
Available online 8 January 2024
0950-0618/© 2024 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
C. Demirdağ et al.
using cement-polymer resin composites. To avoid potential delamina­
tion of the old versus new sections, one of the most practical methods is
using fibers to provide bridges between the various sections or compo­
nents. As a result, this study focuses on the properties of natural versus
artificial reinforcement with the binder being ordinary Portland cement
and in some mixes with added polymer resin.
Since the early 1920s the interest in the use of polymers in the
construction industry led to the filling of the first patent on the pro­
duction of polymer modified mortars [11]. Later during the 1930s –
1960s advances in the polymer science led to the production of synthetic
rubber latexes and coal-tar epoxy started as an initial stage on the
application of various polymers in the construction industry and espe­
cially cementitious materials. Over time the high resistance and tough­
ness of polymers when exposed to the deteriorating materials, such as
acids and corrosives became known whereby their use as a solution for
the production of engineered composites became more reasonable. It
was not however, until the 1980s-1990s that the polymer resins were
started to be used as binder, coating material and fibers [11]. As binder,
a variety of cement-polymer composites, such as polymer impregnated,
polymer modified, surface coated concretes have been developed that
relied on the partial to full substitution of Portland cement with a
polymeric binder. Similarly, since polymers could provide a consider­
ably cheaper and tougher solution to reinforcement as compared to
steel, a variety of polymer-based (synthetic) fibers have been developed
and researched for such purposes. Although fibers have over time shown
to be a very effective mean for enhancing the physical-mechanical and
durability properties of cementitious composites, the polymer-cement
adhesion has always remained an issue [12–14] leading to major trials
on other types of fibers such as those of glass (that are artificially
manufactured) and those of natural origins such as coir (coconut fiber).
In general, glass fibers are produced with various composition of
different oxides (e.g., silica, alumina and calcium) that allows their
properties to be highly modifiable, depending on the raw materials used
in their production [15,16]. This results in a density and young’s
modulus of ranging from 2.1–2.7 g/cm3 and 50–87 GPa, respectively
[1]. In either form, glass fibers are known to be highly resistant to
thermo-chemical causes of deterioration, have high mechanical perfor­
mance and bond well with various other materials, even polymers [17].
Coupled with high recyclability, glass fibers have been extensively used
in the literature as a solid mean to concrete reinforcement. For instance,
Ref. [18] provided a comparative evaluation of basalt versus glass fibers
and reported that glass fiber is capable of significantly increasing the
overall fracture energy. It was also reported that the glass fiber rein­
forced concretes did not develop further strengths when the glass fiber
content exceeds 0.5% volume. Further, Ref. [19] utilized glass and
polypropylene fibers to comparatively evaluate their properties. Results
of the study outlined that the impact of water-to-binder (w/b) ratio has
significant impact on the interfacial transition zone (ITZ) of the pro­
duced fiber reinforced specimens and that glass fibers develop better
adhesion, as compared to polypropylene fibers. Additionally, Ref. [20]
also conducted a research study on the properties of glass fiber rein­
forced concrete and highlighted its durability for use on building
facades.
Unlike the glass and synthetic fibers that are dependent on the used
oxides and polymer resin in their production, natural fibers generally
manifest a similar performance since their composition remains some­
what similar on a case-by-case basis. Natural fibers can be categorized
based on their materials and whether they are made from plants (veg­
etables, wood, leaves), geological processes or animals [21]. The most
commonly used fibers include coconut fibers, sisal, jute, hemp, euca­
lyptus, pineapple leaves, hemp, palm, bamboo, banana and palm,
among others [22]. Coconut (coir) fibers is a type of natural fiber ob­
tained from the fibrous layer that develops and surrounds the coconut
fruit grown in countries close to the equator. Due to the presence of high
hydroxyl in its structure and non-cellulosic components on its surface, it
can be combined with different physical and chemical methods to
2
Construction and Building Materials 412 (2024) 134895
improve its bonding with polymer [21,23,24]. As a result, glass fiber and
coconut fiber have been chosen as two candidates for synthetic and
natural fibers to be used in this study, respectively. As the main moti­
vation for this study, the use of fibers with polymer resin-cement com­
ponents are a representation of the performance the mentioned two fiber
types, in potential repair applications. In other words, the performance
between the cement – natural fiber, cement – synthetic fiber, resin -
natural and resin - synthetic fibers, as well as their combination, can
provide a strong basis for their use in repair applications.
This notion of repair, however, is not new and has been attempted in
the literature for decades. For instance, there are decade-long research
and development that have been conducted in the general area of repair
and rehabilitation of concrete structures. One can name those that are
based on fiber reinforced polymer jackets (e.g., [25,26]), those that
looked more at the cementitious materials level, such as Refs. [27,28], or
the studies that have focused on specific fiber performance, such as
Ref. [29]. Although each article has provided substantial contribution to
the field, to date, the combination of natural and synthetic fibers have
not been studied with cement-polymer resin composites which can be a
key binder for repair purposes. In other words, since in a variety of
repair applications for better adhesion of old cement-new repair binder,
as well as ensuring the high performance (such as low water absorption
of polymer resins [11]), a composite cement-polymer binder is used.
This prompted this study to evaluate the performance of various mix­
tures produced with cement-polymer composite, and also reinforced
with glass and coconut fibers.
Ref. [30], for instance, used two types of natural fibers (e.g., coir and
sisal) and provided basic background on the mechanical properties of
the produced samples. However, the mentioned reference did not study
the impact of polymer resin or glass fiber on the resulting materials.
Similar attempts have been made by other studies in the literature, such
as Refs. [31–33] that provided a series of mechanical strengths results on
natural fibers including coir (coconut) but did not provide the effect of
natural versus synthetic fibers produced with cement – polymer com­
posite sections. In this regard, the following study uses two groups of
fibers both of which can be recycled and can have a totally different
bonding property to the cement – polymer paste. This would allow a
deeper understanding of the interaction between cement – polymer –
glass and those of natural coconut fibers. In this regard, a series of
physical-mechanical and microstructural properties are tested that are
further elaborated in the following sections.
2. Material and method
2.1. Material
2.1.1. Aggregate
A locally available river sand in accordance with TS EN 196–1 [25]
standard, taken from Pınarhisar Limak Cement Factory, was used in the
Fig. 1. Particle size distribution of sand.
C. Demirdağ et al. Construction and Building Materials 412 (2024) 134895

production of concrete mortars Fig. 1 provides further information on Table 2

the sand used in this study. Physical properties of the cement used in this study.
Physical properties Value
2.1.2. Cement
Loss on Ignition (%) 2.91
A general purpose CEM type I 42.5 cement conforming to TS EN Undissolved Residue (%) 0.32
197–1 [26] standard was used in this study. Chemical and physical Specific Weight, (g/cm3) 3.05
analysis of the cement are given in Table 1. Specific Surface Area, (cm2/g) 4570
Whiteness 0.87
Initial Setting (min) 105
2.1.3. Polymer Final Setting (min) 135
In this study, a polyurethane-based resin has been used as partial Volume Constancy (mm) 1.00
binder in a group of mixes to produce a cement-polymer based com­ Compressive Strength, 3 days, (N/mm2) 37.40
posite. The used polyurethane has a density value of ~1450 kg/m3. Compressive Strength, 7 days, (N/mm2) 48.80
Compressive Strength, 28 days, (N/mm2) 59.70
Further information on the properties of the used polymer can be found
in Table 3.

2.1.4. Fibers Table 3

In this study, coconut (coir) fiber was used as natural fiber and glass
fiber was used as artificial fiber, that are presented in Fig. 2(a)-(b). Ta­
bles 4 and 5 also provide technical information acquired form the sup­
pliers of the fibers.
2.2. Methods and mixture proportions
Table 6 presents the mixture proportions whereby for all the mixes,
the labelling is as follows: the term CE refers to the use of only cement as
the binder while PO refers to the composite use of both polymer resin
and cement. For example, mixtures 1–4 and 9–11 only contain cement as
their primary binder while mixtures 5–8 and 12–14 contain both cement
and polymer as binder in each mix. Similarly, the term C and G used
afterward refer to the coconut and glass fiber used with the number
following letters representing the percentage used. For instance,
POC1.5G0 refers to the use of cement-polymer composite binding sys­
tem with 1.5% coconut fiber content and 0% glass fiber in the mixture.
The process of placing the fresh concrete in the molds included 45 s
of using a vibration machine. Accordingly, to evaluate the consistency
and flowability of the produced samples, flow table based on TS EN
1015–3 [27] has been performed. Similarly, density, absorption and
ultrasonic pulse velocity has been tested on all samples according to TS
EN 12390–7, ASTM C 642–21, and ASTM C 597, respectively. Also, to
measure the mechanical properties of the produced samples, compres­
sive and flexural strength tests were conducted based on TS EN 196–1.
Further, SEM-EDS analysis has been conducted to evaluate the
physico-chemical properties of the produced samples.
3. Results and discussions
3.1. Flowability and unit weight density
Fig. 3 presents the result of flowability and unit weight values. As can
be seen in Fig. 3, the highest flow value belongs to mixes produced
without any polymer resin with a mean value of 121.6 mm versus
117.7 mm. This can be resulted from the higher viscosity of polymer
resin as compared to water and cement [34,35] (given that the only
Table 1
Chemical properties of the cement used in this study.
Chemical elements Value (%)
SiO2 19.49
Al2O3 4.36
Fe2O3 3.40
CaO 63.93
MgO 1.67
SO3 2.81
Na2O 0.27
K2O 0.67
Chloride 0.0089
Technical characteristics of polymer.
Tensile strength (7 days) DIN 53 504 > 4,0 N / mm2
Elongation at break (7 days) DIN 53 504 > % 250
Solids content % 90
Density 1,45 g/cm3
Setting time (walking) 4 – 7 days
Drying time (+230 C and % 50 moisture) 12 – 24 h
Service temperature between − 300 C and + 800 C
Shore A hardness 70-75
liquid used in mixtures without polymer resins was water). Further,
from the table it can be seen that the mean flowability of mixtures
produced with and without fibers is 119.0 mm and 121.3 mm, respec­
tively. This shows that the addition of fibers has reduced the flow value
which is in agreement with previous studies in the literature (e.g., [36,
37]). The reason for reduced flow value can be the slight moisture ab­
sorption of fibers as well as the difficulty of movement by fibers since
they have a length size of ~20 cm. Similar results are achieved by
previous studies as in Refs. [38,39]. It is worth noting that mixes pro­
duced with glass fiber are found to have a lower mean flow value (e.g.,
117 mm) as compared to those produced with coconut fibers (e.g.,
122 mm). The reason for this can be the larger length of glass fiber
(20 cm) as compared to the coconut fiber (15 – 20 cm) as discussed in
Section 2. In overall, it can be stated that the fundamental parameters
that have affected the flow properties are the behavior of fibers’ surface
as well as their size and dimensions that can reduce movement and flow
values.
The results of unit weight values are presented in Fig. 3(b). As can be
seen in the figure, the highest unit weight value of 2174 kg/m3 belongs
to the mixture without any fibers or polymer resin addition. This shows
that ordinary materials generally develop a higher unit weight values
which is aligned with the information provided in Section 2. In contrast,
the lowest unit weight value of 1960 kg/m3 belongs to mixture con­
taining polymer resin with 1.5% coconut fiber. The reason for this can be
due to the higher density value of reference concrete’s ingredients as
compared to that of polymer resin and fibers that their addition in
general reduces the overall unit weight values. Although the addition of
fibers is found to generally reduce the unit weight values, since their
addition is rather marginal, the mean value of unit weight for samples
produced with coconut fiber versus those of glass fiber are found to be
relatively comparable (e.g., 2079 vs. 2080 kg/m3, respectively). In this
sense, it can be concluded that the main parameters affecting the unit
weight value are the overall density of various components in the
cementitious mixture.
3.2. Water absorption
Fig. 4 presents the result of water absorption test conducted on 28-
day cured samples. As can be seen in the figure, the highest absorp­
tion value of 8.4% is achieved for the mix containing no polymer resin or

3
C. Demirdağ et al. Construction and Building Materials 412 (2024) 134895

Fig. 2. (a) Coconut (coir) fiber. (b) Glass fiber.

Further from the figure, it can be seen that the absorption value of
Table 4
specimens produced with coconut fiber versus glass fiber are 6.45% and
Technical information for the glass fiber.
6.4% respectively. This shows that the inclusion of fibers has reduced
Information Value the overall absorption of samples (as compared to cementitious com­
Length 20 cm posites) and also glass fiber reinforcement has resulted in a slightly
Tensile strength 3400 MPa lower absorption values than the coconut fiber reinforced samples. The
Modulus of elasticity 77 GPa
reason for reduced absorption of samples containing fibers can be the
Application temperature -60 ◦ C to + 650 ◦ C
Melting temperature 1120 ◦ C
impermeability of fibers. Similar results have been reported in Ref. [19]
Specific gravity 2.6 that highlighted the lower absorption of glass fiber reinforced concrete
Fiber diameter 13-15 µm samples. This can be resulted from the relatively ceramic style surface of
glass fibers that has a very low absorption capacity [40]. Reporting from
Ref. [41], capillary water absorption coefficient of ceramics are gener­
Table 5 ally around half of natural aggregates.
The physical-chemical properties of the used coir (coconut) fiber.
Physical Value Chemical Value
3.3. Compressive strength
Length 15-20 cm Lignin 45.54%
density 1.4 g/cc Cellulose 43.44%
Breaking elongation 30.00% Hemi-cellulose 0.25% The result of 7 and 28 day cured samples tested under compression is
Diameter 0.1 – 1.5 mm Water soluble 5.25% presented in Fig. 5. Based on the figure, the mean strength value of
Moisture absorption 10.50% Loss on ignition 2.22% Portland cement-based samples is found to be 27.4 MPa while the
composite samples produced with polymer resin have developed a mean
value of 25.5 MPa after 7 days of curing. At the 28th day of curing the
Table 6 mentioned values change to ~37 and 27.2 MPa for Portland cement
Mixture design used in this study. based and polymer composite samples, respectively. This shows that the
Mix number Mix Name Materials polymer composites did not develop much more strength than what had
been achieved after 7 days. The reason for this can be due to the
Sand Cement Water Polymer Fiber
cementitious hydration that generally takes more time to hydrate in
1 CEC0G0 1350 450 225 0 0 cementitious materials, as opposed to polymer resins that react almost
2 CEC0.5G0 1337 450 225 0 4
instantly as soon as the activator is added to them [11]. In this case, the
3 CEC1G0 1325 450 225 0 8
4 CEC1.5G0 1312 450 225 0 12 results show a 35% strength increase from 7 days values to the 28 days
5 POC0G0 1283 450 225 37 0 values when the main binder is Portland cement but only 6.6% increase
6 POC0.5G0 1270 450 225 37 4 for polymer-based samples. Similar findings are reported in previous
7 POC1G0 1257 450 225 37 8
studies such as Ref. [11]. The main reason for improvement in the
8 POC1.5G0 1244 450 225 37 12
9 CEC0G0.5 1346 450 225 0 4 strength values is that the polymer resins gain their ultimate strengths
10 CEC0G1 1342 450 225 0 8 relatively faster than Portland cement.
11 CEC0G1.5 1338 450 225 0 12 Also, from the figure, it can be seen that the mean 7- and 28-day
12 POC0G0.5 1278 450 225 37 4 strength of samples for coconut and glass reinforced samples are 30.2,
13 POC0G1 1274 450 225 37 8
24.3 MPa and 34.7 and 30.4 MPa, respectively. This shows that in both 7
14 POC0G1.5 1270 450 225 37 12
and 28 days of curing the coconut fiber reinforced samples have
developed better strength. Similar results have been reported by
fibers. Conversely, the lowest absorption values are achieved for the mix Ref. [42] that the addition of coconut fiber can increase the mechanical
containing polyurethane resin with 1.5% of coconut fibers. The reason properties of the produced samples. The reason for this increased
for this can be the very low permeability on the surface of polymers that strength can be the smooth surface of glass fibers that does not bond well
reduces the overall absorption values [37]. Similarly, the mean water with cementitious paste, as opposed to the surface texture of the coconut
absorption value of mixes produced with and without polymer resin is fiber. In general, and based on the results, it can be stated that the
5.8% and 7.3%, respectively. This shows that the use of polymer resin in surface texture of the fibers can play a critical role in the overall per­
the mixture has generally reduced the absorbed water content in the formance of the concrete sections. However, to ensure the effect of fibers
test. This result is aligned with those of reported in literature (e.g., [11]). are statistically significant, a more sophisticated statistical multilevel

4
C. Demirdağ et al. Construction and Building Materials 412 (2024) 134895

Fig. 4. Water absorption of various mixes.

Fig. 5. Compressive strengths of various mixes after 7 and 28 days of curing.

Table 7
Result of Statistical analysis for compressive strength results.
Grouping Coefficient Standard error P value

Glass fiber vs. Coconut Fiber -4.08 2.63 0.15

Polymer vs. Cement -5.58 2.36 0.04

* :with a P-value of 0.05 being the point of defining significance.

Fig. 3. (a)-(b): Flow table and unit weight values of various mixes, and (c): an
image of flow diameter.

modeling [43] with random intercept and random slope and grouping
variables as a fixed effect using software ‘R′ version 4.30 has been used.
Results are outlined in Table 7 and show that the grouping of coconut
and glass fibers have had no statistically significant impact on the
compressive strength of samples (coefficient = − 4.08, standard error =
2.63 and a P value = 0.15). However, the same modeling showed a
Fig. 6. Flexural strengths of various mixes after 7 and 28 days of curing.
rather significant impact of using polymer and cement with a coefficient
= − 5.58, Standard error = 2.36 and a P value = 0.04.
based samples versus those of supplied with polymer resin is found to be
~5 and 4.7 MPa after 7 days of curing, and 5.6 and 5.2 MPa after 28
3.4. Flexural strength
days of curing. Similar trend has been observed in Section 3.3 that the
samples prepared solely with Portland cement developed better
Flexural strengths result of samples tested after 28 days of curing is
strengths. The reason behind this finding can be the reduced bond
presented in Fig. 6. As can be seen, the mean value of Portland cement-

5
C. Demirdağ et al. Construction and Building Materials 412 (2024) 134895

strengths at the interface between the polymer chains and the cemen­
titious hydrated products. According to Ref. [44], part of the reason for
this can be shrinkage stress of polymer chains that incurs different stress
values than the cementitious one in the composite sample. Similarly, the
samples produced with coconut fiber are seen to develop a mean flexural
strength value of higher than glass powder (e.g., ~5 and 5.7 MPa, as
compared to 4.9 and 5.1 MPa) which suggests better performance of
coconut fibers. This result is aligned with those discussed in Section 3.3.

3.5. UPV

The purpose of UPV is to non-destructively evaluate the presence of

defects based on the passing speed of UPV. In this study, the UPV is done
to check the ultrasonic speed relationship between different materials
added to mixtures such as the effect of polymer resin or fibers, as
compared to Portland cement. Table 8 presents an outline defined by the Fig. 7. UPV result of various mixes.
research community on the overall quality relationship of samples.
Fig. 7 presents the results for ultrasonic pulse velocity test carried out
content of Si, Al and Ca suggests that theoretically the glass fibers should
as per ASTM C 597 [30]. Based on the figure, it can be seen that the
bond better with the cementitious paste and have slight surface hydra­
mean UPV speed for samples produced with Portland cement alone had
tion. Nonetheless, despite the higher content of Si, Al, and Ca in mixes
the highest values of 3.43 km/s as opposed to Portland cement – poly­
containing glass fiber reinforcement, and based on the results of me­
mer samples with 2.69 km/s. This shows that the samples produced with
chanical properties in Sections 3.3 and 3.4, it can be concluded that the
a combination of Portland cement and polyurethane resin have had high
glassy surface (ceramic style) of the glass fibers do not bond well with
internal defects which is aligned with that information discussed at
polymer - cement composites.
Section 3.3. and 3.4. Nonetheless, since the polymer resin blocks the
entrance of water, this type of internal defect has not been observed in
Section 3.2. 4. Conclusion
Further from Fig. 7, it can be seen that the mean UPV value of
samples containing coconut fiber is found to be ~3.35 km/s which In this study, the properties of the concretes obtained by adding
compares to the samples with glass fiber with a value of 2.72 km/s. This coconut and glass fiber at different rates (0%, 0.5%, 1% and 1.5%) used
shows that on average the samples produced with coconut fiber devel­ in combination with polymer resin and Portland cement were investi­
oped better interfacial bonding as compared to glass fiber reinforced gated. To evaluate the properties of the produced fiber reinforced
samples. The reason for this can be different surface texture of the two samples a series of physical and mechanical tests have been conducted.
fibers that are further discussed in Section 3.6. The results obtained from the study can be summarized as the following:

• The flow values obtained ranged from 110 mm to 134 mm and the
3.6. SEM – EDS characterization
flow value of mixtures produced with coconut and glass fiber
decreased, as compared to the reference mix. In terms of flowability,
Scanning Electroscope (SEM) images of 28-day-old samples for
the size and surface of the fibers are found to have substantial impact
microstructural analysis are given in Fig. 8(a)-(d). As can be seen in
on the final values. In this regard, the smooth surface of the glass
Fig. (a)-(b), cementitious hydration products are found to disperse along
fiber is believed have resulted in better flowability than the coconut
the texture (and ruts) of the coconut fiber. This allows the paste-fiber
fiber. As for the binder, the amount of initiator added to polymer
interface to remain stronger as opposed to the relatively smooth sur­
resin is the main affecting factor for its flowability properties.
face of glass fiber (Fig. 8(c)-(d)) that cannot serve as independent areas
• The densities of samples ranged between 2174 kg/m3 and 1960 kg/
for hydration. Also, under stress, the smooth surface of the glass fiber is
m3, and the addition of polymer resin, with either of fibers are found
hypothesized not to have significant bonding strength. This can further
to reduce the density values. Part of this reduction is believed to have
verify the results found and discussed in Section 3.3. and 3.4 that the
been caused by the lower density of the mentioned components, as
coconut fiber performs better due to its surface texture and provide
opposed to reference mixtures. However, the addition of polymer
insight on the composite use of polymers with fibers such as glass that
resin is found to result in certain cavities within the microstructure at
have smoother surface that can have different interfacial transition zone
the cement – polymer level which is verified by the UPV results. Such
(ITZ) adhesion.
defects can also be responsible for lowered density values.
Table 9 presents the EDS results. In general, EDS is conducted in this
• The maximum water absorption value is found to be 8.4% for the
study to provide information about the overall elemental analysis in a
reference mixture, and the minimum water absorption value is
given sample. As can be seen, the coconut reinforced samples are found
documented as 5.5% for the mixture with coconut fiber and polymer
to have a lower Si, Al and even Ca elements in their composition, if
resin. In general, all the water absorption values experienced a
compared to glass fiber reinforced samples. This can be caused by the
considerable reduction in the presence of polymers and fibers, as
fact that the glass fibers are potentially made of aluminosilicate-based
compared to the reference mix. It is believed that the low absorption
glass materials. Further, the samples made with coconut fiber are
rate or rather, impermeability of polymers and fibers are responsible
found to constantly have some sodium (Na) content within which sig­
for this tendency.
nifies the amount of organic salt remaining in the stems. The higher
• The compressive and flexural strength results showed enhanced
performance of coconut fiber as opposed to those produced with
Table 8 glass fibers. The reason for this is believed to be the surface texture of
Ultrasound – Concrete Quality Relationship. coconut fiber, as opposed to the smooth surface of glass fiber that
Wavelength [km/sec] > 4.5 4.5- 3.5-3.0 3.0- < 2.0 does not provide independent areas for hydration products. This has
3.5 2.0 been the case despite the fact that EDS results showed that glass fiber
Concrete Quality Excellent Good Uncertain Poor Very Poor
reinforced samples had higher Si, Al, and Ca contents which would

6
C. Demirdağ et al. Construction and Building Materials 412 (2024) 134895

Table 9
Presenting the EDS results acquired for the coconut and glass fiber reinforced
samples.
Coconut fiber reinforced

No./Elements Si Al Ca Na C O

1 0.66 0.54 9.00 1.69 48.93 39.19

2 47.80 1.23 9.93 0.27 16.47 24.29
3 10.11 1.57 33.44 0.50 10.21 44.17
4 6.26 1.17 30.01 0.57 9.86 48.70
5 11.08 3.13 44.85 0.85 3.93 31.17
6 1.57 0.57 39.55 0.59 10.05 46.12
Mean 12.91 1.36 27.79 0.74 16.57 38.94
Glass fiber reinforced
No./Elements Si Al Ca Na C O
1 35.55 9.47 18.26 0 0 34.03
2 38.91 1.84 15.5 0 12.19 31.03
3 14.64 2.4 50.89 0 3.98 22.92
4 3.37 2.57 62.66 0 1.59 18.75
5 13.71 3.38 33.02 0 6.66 40.74
6 5.96 2.77 52.63 0 2.04 29.28
Mean 18.69 3.73 38.82 0 4.41 29.45

theoretically result in better mechanical performance. As a result, it

is believed that the mechanical performance of fibers should be
divided to surface texture and elemental concentrations. In this
study, the SEM results showed a good adhesion between the coconut
fibers’ surface texture and the cementitious paste.

The result of this study are found to be significant and point to the
high capability of natural fibers for use in the construction industry.
Also, from the results, it can be suggested that the topic of bonding
resulted from different fiber textures in relation to their elemental
concentration can be recommended for future studies in this area.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Ozbakkaloglu Togay: Project administration, Methodology, Inves­

tigation, Funding acquisition, Formal analysis, Data curation, Concep­
tualization. Tuncer Metin: Validation, Software, Resources,
Methodology, Investigation, Funding acquisition, Formal analysis, Data
curation, Conceptualization. Gencel Osman: Methodology, Investiga­
tion, Funding acquisition, Formal analysis, Data curation, Conceptuali­
zation. Demirdağ Caner: Writing – review & editing, Visualization,
Validation, Resources, Investigation, Formal analysis, Data curation.
Nodehi Mehrab: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft,
Visualization, Validation, Formal analysis, Data curation, Conceptuali­
zation. Bideci Alper: Resources, Project administration, Methodology,
Investigation, Funding acquisition, Formal analysis, Data curation,
Conceptualization. Sallı Bideci Özlem: Validation, Supervision, Inves­
tigation, Funding acquisition, Formal analysis, Data curation,
Conceptualization.

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.

Data availability

Data will be made available on request.

Acknowledgements
Fig. 8. (a)-(b): Presenting the SEM images of samples reinforced with coconut
fiber and (c)-(d): SEM images of samples made with glass fiber. The authors appreciate all the universities that supported this study.

7
C. Demirdağ et al. Construction and Building Materials 412 (2024) 134895

References [22] A. Gholampour, T. Ozbakkaloglu, A review of natural fiber composites: properties,

modification and processing techniques, characterization, applications, J. Mater.
Sci. 55 (2020) 829–892, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10853-019-03990-y.
[1] T. Sathishkumar, S. Satheeshkumar, J. Naveen, Glass fiber-reinforced polymer
[23] M. Ali, A. Liu, H. Sou, N. Chouw, Mechanical and dynamic properties of coconut
composites – a review, J. Reinf. Plast. Compos. 33 (2014) 1258–1275, https://doi.
fibre reinforced concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 30 (2012) 814–825, https://doi.
org/10.1177/0731684414530790.
org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.12.068.
[2] M.Ozgur Seydibeyoglu, Amar Mohanty, Manjusri Misra, Fiber Technology for
[24] M. Avubothu, S. Ponaganti, R. Sunkari, M. Ganta, Effect of high temperature on
Fiber-Reinforced Composites, Woodhead Publishing, n.d. 〈https://shop.elsevier.co
coconut fiber Reinforced concrete, Mater. Today Proc. 52 (2022) 1197–1200,
m/books/fiber-technology-for-fiber-reinforced-composites/seydibeyoglu/978–0-
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2021.11.036.
08–101871-2〉. (Accessed 1 July 2023).
[25] M. Tavakkolizadeh, H. Saadatmanesh, Repair of damaged steel-concrete composite
[3] R. Chandra, S.P. Singh, K. Gupta, Damping studies in fiber-reinforced composites –
girders using carbon fiber-reinforced polymer sheets, J. Compos. Constr. 7 (2003)
a review, Compos. Struct. 46 (1999) 41–51, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-8223
311–322, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0268(2003)7:4(311).
(99)00041-0.
[26] J.C. Lim, T. Ozbakkaloglu, Influence of concrete age on stress–strain behavior of
[4] J. Esmaeili, M. Ghaffarinia, M. Nodehi, O. Gencel, J. Shi, T. Ozbakkaloglu,
FRP-confined normal- and high-strength concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 82 (2015)
Mechanical and fractural characteristics of structural lightweight fiber reinforced
61–70, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.02.020.
concrete, Struct. Concr. 24 (2023) 2420–2439, https://doi.org/10.1002/
[27] B.A. Tayeh, B.H. Abu Bakar, M.A. Megat Johari, Characterization of the interfacial
suco.202200107.
bond between old concrete substrate and ultra high performance fiber concrete
[5] Ö. Salli Bideci, H. Yılmaz, O. Gencel, A. Bideci, B. Çomak, M. Nodehi,
repair composite, Mater. Struct. 46 (2013) 743–753, https://doi.org/10.1617/
T. Ozbakkaloglu, Fiber-reinforced lightweight calcium aluminate cement-based
s11527-012-9931-1.
concrete: effect of exposure to elevated temperatures, Sustainability 15 (2023)
[28] M. Roy, I. Ray, J.F. Davalos, High-performance fiber-reinforced concrete:
4722, https://doi.org/10.3390/su15064722.
development and evaluation as a repairing material, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 26 (2014)
[6] C.D. Johnston. Fiber-Reinforced Cements and Concretes, zero ed., CRC Press, 2014
04014074, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000980.
https://doi.org/10.1201/9781482298154.
[29] L.Gh Salim, H.M. Al-Baghdadi, H.H. Muteb, Reactive powder concrete with steel,
[7] T.H. Panzera, A.L. Christoforo, P.H. Ribeiro Borges, High performance fibre-
glass and polypropylene fibers as a repair material, Civ. Eng. J. 5 (2019)
reinforced concrete (FRC) for civil engineering applications. in: Advanced Fibre-
2441–2449, https://doi.org/10.28991/cej-2019-03091422.
Reinforced Polymer (FRP) Composites for Structural Applications, Elsevier, 2013,
[30] I. Shah, J. Li, S. Yang, Y. Zhang, A. Anwar, Experimental investigation on the
pp. 552–581, https://doi.org/10.1533/9780857098641.4.552.
mechanical properties of natural fiber reinforced concrete, J. Renew. Mater. 10
[8] Shao-yun Fu, Bernd Lauke, Y.-W. Mai, Science and Engineering of Short Fibre-
(2022) 1307–1320, https://doi.org/10.32604/jrm.2022.017513.
Reinforced Polymer Composites, Woodhead Publishing, n.d. 〈https://shop.elsevier.
[31] H.Y.B. Katman, W.J. Khai, N. Bheel, M.S. Kırgız, A. Kumar, O. Benjeddou,
com/books/science-and-engineering-of-short-fibre-reinforced-polymer-compos
Fabrication and characterization of cement-based hybrid concrete containing coir
ites/fu/978–0-08–102623-6〉. (Accessed 1 July 2023).
fiber for advancing concrete construction, Buildings 12 (2022) 1450, https://doi.
[9] F. Micelli, A. Renni, A.G. Kandalaft, S. Moro, Fiber-reinforced concrete and
org/10.3390/buildings12091450.
ultrahigh-performance fiber-reinforced concrete materials. in: New Materials in
[32] M. Gupta, M. Kumar, Effect of nano silica and coir fiber on compressive strength
Civil Engineering, Elsevier, 2020, pp. 273–314, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-
and abrasion resistance of concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 226 (2019) 44–50,
12-818961-0.00007-7.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.07.232.
[10] M. Nodehi, F. Aguayo, S.E. Nodehi, A. Gholampour, T. Ozbakkaloglu, O. Gencel,
[33] N.K. Krishna, M. Prasanth, R. Gowtham, S. Karthic, K.M. Mini, Enhancement of
Durability properties of 3D printed concrete (3DPC), Autom. Constr. 142 (2022)
properties of concrete using natural fibers, Mater. Today Proc. 5 (2018)
104479, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2022.104479.
23816–23823, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2018.10.173.
[11] M. Nodehi, Epoxy, polyester and vinyl ester based polymer concrete: a review,
[34] C.M.L. Tavares, M.C.S. Ribeiro, A.J.M. Ferreira, R.M. Guedes, Creep behaviour of
Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. 7 (2022), https://doi.org/10.1007/s41062-021-00661-3.
FRP-reinforced polymer concrete, Compos. Struct. 57 (2002) 47–51, https://doi.
[12] G.-J. Liu, E.-L. Bai, J.-Y. Xu, N. Yang, Mechanical properties of carbon fiber-
org/10.1016/S0263-8223(02)00061-2.
reinforced polymer concrete with different polymer–cement ratios, Materials 12
[35] M. Saribiyik, A. Piskin, A. Saribiyik, The effects of waste glass powder usage on
(2019) 3530, https://doi.org/10.3390/ma12213530.
polymer concrete properties, Constr. Build. Mater. 47 (2013) 840–844, https://doi.
[13] G.-J. Liu, E.-L. Bai, J.-Y. Xu, N. Yang, T. Wang, Dynamic compressive mechanical
org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.05.023.
properties of carbon fiber-reinforced polymer concrete with different polymer-
[36] A.S. El-Dieb, M.M. Reda Taha, Flow characteristics and acceptance criteria of fiber-
cement ratios at high strain rates, Constr. Build. Mater. 261 (2020) 119995,
reinforced self-compacted concrete (FR-SCC), Constr. Build. Mater. 27 (2012)
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.119995.
585–596, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.07.004.
[14] M. Nodehi, S.E. Nodehi, Ultra high performance concrete (UHPC): reactive powder
[37] O. Gencel, M. Nodehi, O. Yavuz Bayraktar, G. Kaplan, A. Benli, A. Gholampour,
concrete, slurry infiltrated fiber concrete and superabsorbent polymer concrete,
T. Ozbakkaloglu, Basalt fiber-reinforced foam concrete containing silica fume: an
Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. 7 (2022) 39, https://doi.org/10.1007/s41062-021-
experimental study, Constr. Build. Mater. 326 (2022) 126861, https://doi.org/
00641-7.
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2022.126861.
[15] A. Cevahir, Glass fibers. in: Fiber Technology for Fiber-Reinforced Composites,
[38] W. Wang, A. Shen, Z. Lyu, Z. He, K.T.Q. Nguyen, Fresh and rheological
Elsevier, 2017, pp. 99–121, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-101871-2.00005-
characteristics of fiber reinforced concrete——a review, Constr. Build. Mater. 296
9.
(2021) 123734, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.123734.
[16] J. Yeon, S.C. Chowdhury, J.W. Gillespie, Mechanical properties and damage
[39] R.A. Raju, S. Lim, M. Akiyama, T. Kageyama, Effects of concrete flow on the
analysis of S-glass: a reactive molecular dynamics study, Compos. Part B Eng. 234
distribution and orientation of fibers and flexural behavior of steel fiber-reinforced
(2022) 109706, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2022.109706.
self-compacting concrete beams, Constr. Build. Mater. 262 (2020) 119963, https://
[17] K.K. Chawla, Glass fibers. in: Encyclopedia of Materials: Technical Ceramics and
doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.119963.
Glasses, Elsevier, 2016, pp. 676–680, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-818542-
[40] M. Nodehi, V. Mohamad Taghvaee, Sustainable concrete for circular economy: a
1.02325-0.
review on use of waste glass, Glass Struct. Eng. 7 (2022) 3–22, https://doi.org/
[18] A.B. Kizilkanat, N. Kabay, V. Akyüncü, S. Chowdhury, A.H. Akça, Mechanical
10.1007/s40940-021-00155-9.
properties and fracture behavior of basalt and glass fiber reinforced concrete: an
[41] F. Pacheco-Torgal, S. Jalali, Reusing ceramic wastes in concrete, Constr. Build.
experimental study, Constr. Build. Mater. 100 (2015) 218–224, https://doi.org/
Mater. 24 (2010) 832–838, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2009.10.023.
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.10.006.
[42] V.K. Bhagat, S. Biswas, J. Dehury, Physical, mechanical, and water absorption
[19] Z. Yuan, Y. Jia, Mechanical properties and microstructure of glass fiber and
behavior of coir/glass fiber reinforced epoxy based hybrid composites, Polym.
polypropylene fiber reinforced concrete: an experimental study, Constr. Build.
Compos. 35 (2014) 925–930, https://doi.org/10.1002/pc.22736.
Mater. 266 (2021) 121048, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.121048.
[43] H. Goldstein. Multilevel Statistical Models, first ed., Wiley, 2010 https://doi.org/
[20] Ch Devi, D.S. Vijayan, R. Nagalingam, S. Arvindan, A review of the
10.1002/9780470973394.
implementations of glass fiber in concrete technology, Mater. Today Proc. 62
[44] C.J. Soares, A.L. Faria-E-Silva, M.D.P. Rodrigues, A.B.F. Vilela, C.S. Pfeifer,
(2022) 2010–2015, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2022.02.293.
D. Tantbirojn, A. Versluis, Polymerization shrinkage stress of composite resins and
[21] Majid Ali, Natural fibres as construction materials, J. Civ. Eng. Constr. Technol. 3
resin cements – what do we need to know? Braz. Oral. Res. 31 (2017) https://doi.
(2012), https://doi.org/10.5897/JCECT11.100.
org/10.1590/1807-3107bor-2017.vol31.0062.