Alexandria Engineering Journal (2023) 68, 479–489

H O S T E D BY
Alexandria University

Alexandria Engineering Journal

www.elsevier.com/locate/aej
www.sciencedirect.com

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Investigation of the effect of using geogrid, short

glass, and steel fiber on the flexural failure of
concrete beams
Mohamed S. Moawad a,*, Ahmed M. El-Hanafy b

a
Faculty of Engineering, Civil Department, Future High Institute of Engineering in Fayoum (FIEF), Fayoum, Egypt
b
Construction Research Institute, National Water Research Center, Cairo, Egypt

Received 14 August 2022; revised 9 October 2022; accepted 24 January 2023

Available online 31 January 2023

KEYWORDS Abstract This research studies the flexural behavior of concrete beams reinforced with biaxial geo-
Biaxial geogrids; grids, distributed short glass and steel fibers. No longitudinal steel reinforcement bars were used.
Geosynthetics; Therefore, an amount of short glass and steel fibers was used to improve the concrete beam behav-
Flexural behavior; ior against flexural failure. Eleven specimens of single reinforced (flexural reinforcement) concrete
Short glass fiber; beams and double reinforced (compression and flexural reinforced) concrete beams using two biax-
Steel fiber ial geogrids sheet layers, with randomly distributed short glass and steel fibers were cast. The sam-
ples were tested using two points of load along the beam specimen span with an increment of
loading by 5 KN to evaluate several parameters. The studied parameters are using geogrids as a
main flexural reinforcement, using geogrid sheet layers as a flexural and compression reinforcement,
using short glass and steel fibers as an additional reinforcement of concrete with various ratios
0.25 %, and 0.75 %. The test results indicated that the use of geogrid layers as the main flexural
reinforcement improved the behavior of the concrete beam specimens at failure. As well as; more
enhancement of beam specimens at failure was observed when using short glass and steel fibers with
geogrid reinforcement in concrete beams. The tested beam specimens which were reinforced by geo-
grids in the flexural and compression zone using 0.75 % of steel fibers gave better results due to
modes of failure, toughness, failure load capacity, crack width, and post cracking stiffness.
Ó 2023 THE AUTHORS. Published by Elsevier BV on behalf of Faculty of Engineering, Alexandria
University. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction

Geogrids are a geosynthetic material, made of polymers which

* Corresponding author. is mainly used to strengthen the soil in tension stresses [1]. In
E-mail addresses: m.moawad@fief.edu.eg (M.S. Moawad), ahmed_ recent years there has been more interest in studying the use
elhanafy@nwrc.gov.eg (A.M. El-Hanafy). of the geogrids layers as a partial or full replacement of tradi-
Peer review under responsibility of Faculty of Engineering, Alexandria tional steel bars reinforcement because of the concerns related
University. to corrosion of traditional steel bars.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2023.01.054
1110-0168 Ó 2023 THE AUTHORS. Published by Elsevier BV on behalf of Faculty of Engineering, Alexandria University.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
480
Nomenclature
List of abbreviations
Pcr First cracking load.
PPC Post cracking load.
PCL Maximum load capacity.
Dcr Vertical displacement (deflection) at First crack-
ing.
Short glass fibers are a polymeric material reinforced with
several extremely tiny fibers of glass. It is used as a reinforcing
agent for many products including concrete. The E-glass and
S-glass are the most common types of fiberglass used in such
applications [2]. Many researchers concluded that the use of
short glass fibers in structural concrete elements gives good
results can be improved the concrete behavior at failure. Using
short glass fibers on reinforced concrete hidden beams leads to
increasing the ultimate load capacity [3].
Steel fibers is a metal reinforcement, which is used to rein-
force the concrete, and defined as short, discrete lengths rang-
ing from 20 mm up to 40 mm with a ratio of length to diameter
(aspect ratio) from about 20 to 100. It is randomly distributed
and dispersed in an un-hardened concrete mixture using suit-
able lengths within the range of 30 to 35 mm to be applied dur-
ing a concrete mix.
The recent research results indicated that the steel fibers
reinforced concrete has relatively good mechanical properties
in comparison with the traditional concrete. Therefore, using
the steel fibers could be a good solution for enhancing the
mechanical performance of concrete beams under a flexural
moment. the using of steel fiber in the concrete beam can be
increase the concrete tensile strength [4]. The major advantages
when using FRP bars as a steel bars reinforcement replacement
are high corrosive-resistant behavior, the high tensile strength
and their light weight non magnetic features [5]. The using of
steel fibers on the slender reinforced concrete beams leads to
enhancement in the ductility failure and the cyclic response
behavior, which it was observed that an increasing in the cycle
load [6]. Flexural performance in terms of initial stiffness
strength, deformation capacity, cracking behavior, and resid-
ual stress were improved when using steel fibers in structural
concrete beam members. Furthermore, increasing in steel fiber
ratio demonstrated lower deformation [7]. Using the hocked
ends steel fibers was enhanced a pullout behavior regarding
to the characteristic by the force transmission mechanisms
between hocked fiber and the matrix through an interfacial
zone surrounding the fiber [8]. Generally; the Major concern
about using fibers in reinforced concrete (glass and steel fibers)
is their workability and flowability during the casting of beam
specimens especially; when using a concrete mix design with-
out any chemical admixture to increase workability.
Using fibers in concrete can overcover the shortcoming of
using geogrids as the main reinforcement in concrete beams
regarding modes of failure, cracking propagation, ductility,
failure load capacity, and post cracking stiffness. This study
monitors the effect of using the glass and steel fibers with geo-
grids as main longitudinal sheet layers reinforcement in con-
M.S. Moawad, A.M. El-Hanafy
DPC Vertical displacement (deflection) at Post cracking
load.
Dmax Maximum vertical displacement (deflection) at
failure load.
R Modulus of rupture.
PP polypropylene.
MD machine direction.
TD Transfer direction.
crete beam regarding flexural failure. A parametric study was
conducted to investigate the fibers ratios, types of failure,
and geogrids layers position. The detailed measurements of
the concrete strain, geogrid sheet layers strain, vertical dis-
placement, cracking load, crack distribution, crack width,
and ultimate load capacity of concrete beam specimens were
recorded during testing of beam specimens.
The behavior of concrete beam reinforced by biaxial geo-
grid without using traditional steel bars reinforcement under
flexural load failure was enhanced due to ductility and changed
modes of failure with slightly increasing in flexural capacity [9].
An increasing in the post cracking load and ductility was
observed based on increasing the geogrids layers in concrete
beam under the flexural failure [10]. enhancement in perfor-
mance of the concrete beam reinforced by geogrid layers
behavior regarding increasing of first cracking load, width of
cracks, and maximum load capacity under flexural failure
[11]. The results of the fracture energy and the Post cracking
performance under flexural failure investigation were con-
firmed that the post cracking and flexural performance resis-
tance could be improved due to using geogrid [12].
The behavior of concrete beam, fully reinforced with vari-
ous types of geogrids, under flexural failure was studied and
it was concluded that biaxial geogrid are preferred because
of their tensile strength in two directions despite that all types
of geogrids reinforcement provided increasing in the ductility,
post cracking behavior, flexural failure strength with large val-
ues of deflection, and absorbed fracture energy with increasing
of geogrid sheet layers in concrete beams [13,14,15]. While the
investigation studies of the effect of the number of layers of
biaxial geogrids on the flexural failure capacity of concrete
beams were increasing the number of reinforcement layers lead
to an increase in load-carrying capacity with the observed
reduction in deflection [16]. The steel fibers effect on concrete
beams confined by biaxial geogrids was investigated and found
that the significant enhancement of capacities regarding flexu-
ral failure, energy dissipation, and ultimate load [17]. More-
over, increasing in stiffness degradation, and vertical
displacement ductility corresponding to deflection were
observed also. Generally; the use of steel fibers in concrete
beams with using geogrids as reinforcement leads to enhance-
ment in the mechanical properties of the behavior of concrete
beams regarding the flexural failure capacity, post-yield perfor-
mance, modes of failure, crack formation; initial /post stiffness
cracking, average cracking widths, and fracture energy [18,19].
The effect of using glass fibers in concrete beam reinforced by
geogrid layers was evaluated analytically experimentally, and
Investigation of the effect of using geogrid, short glass, and steel fiber 481

the enhancement in the post behavior and flexural beam capac-

ity were observed [20].
The study explores the possibility of using geogrids as the
main reinforcement in concrete beams, as well as the effect
of using short glass and steel fibers with various ratios on
behavior of concrete beam reinforced by geogrids under flexu-
ral behavior. The concrete structures that would have an
improved behavior by using geogrid plus glass and steel fibers
are lining for canals, slab on grade, road pavements, and run-
off of the airports. Fig. 1 Typical Detailing for Control Beam Specimen B0.

2. Methods

2.1. Experimental program

Eleven simply supported beam specimens, as detailed in

Table 1, were tested under two points of loading at one-third
of the clear span of the tested beam up to failure. All concrete
beam specimens had the same overall dimensions and were
reinforced either at both compression and flexural zones (dou-
ble reinforcement) or reinforced at flexural zone only (single
reinforcement) using two layers of the biaxial geogrid sheets. Fig. 2 Typical Detailing for Control Beam Specimen B01 Single
The beam specimens had an overall width, depth, and length Reinforcement.
of 200 mm, 300 mm, and 1200 mm respectively, as shown in
Figs. 1–3. The experimental specimens were divided into three
normal strength with grade 42.5, natural siliceous sand used
groups based on the studied parameters; geogrids reinforce-
with a maximum size of 4 mm, and crushed dolomite with a
ment, types of fibers, and fiber ratios, as illustrated in Table 2.
maximum nominal size of 10 mm which is smaller than the
opening apertures of the geogrid and allows the coarse aggre-
2.2. Material and mix design
gates to pass through the apertures and avoid blocking the
geogrid. The used ratio of water/cement is 0.50. The concrete
2.2.1. Concrete materials and mix design
mixture designed to have compressive strength 30 MPa at
All concrete beam specimens were cast with the same concrete 28-days. Table 3 listed the mix design of used concrete mix-
mixtures, consisting of Type I Portland cement representing a tures for tested beam specimens.

Table 1 Specimens Reinforcement Details.

Beam Specimen Flexural Reinforcement Compression Types of Fiber Fiber weight per
ID Description Reinforcement Fiber Ratio specimen
(Kg/m3)
B0 Control Specimens










B01 (2-Layers biaxial geogrid








sheets)
B02 (2-layers biaxial geogrid (2-Layers biaxial geogrid






sheets) sheets)
B1-1 Flexural (2-Layers biaxial geogrid

Glass Fiber 0.25 %
reinforcement sheets)
B1-2 Flexural (2-Layers biaxial geogrid

Steel Fiber 0.25 % 1.386
reinforcement sheets)
B1-3 Flexural (2-Layers biaxial geogrid

Glass Fiber 0.75 %
reinforcement sheets)
B1-4 Flexural (2-Layers biaxial geogrid

Steel Fiber 0.75 % 4.158
reinforcement sheets)
B2-1 Double (2-layers biaxial geogrid (2-Layers biaxial geogrid Glass Fiber 0.25 %
reinforcement sheets) sheets)
B2-2 Double (2-layers biaxial geogrid (2-Layers biaxial geogrid Steel Fiber 0.25 %
reinforcement sheets) sheets) 1.386
B2-3 Double (2-layers biaxial geogrid (2-Layers biaxial geogrid Glass Fiber 0.75 %
reinforcement sheets) sheets)
B2-4 Double (2-layers biaxial geogrid (2-Layers biaxial geogrid Steel Fiber 0.75 % 4.158
reinforcement sheets) sheets)
482 M.S. Moawad, A.M. El-Hanafy

The geogrid layers with polypropylene (PP) sheet for biax-

ial were used to reinforce the concrete beams in this investiga-
tion. The geogrid structural elements are made up of ribs and
junction (NODES). Physical and mechanical biaxial geogrid
characteristics were provided by the manufacturer, and a series
of biaxial tensile tests were performed on PP geogrids at labo-
ratories of Construction Research Institute (CRI) to determine
the actual tensile strength as listed in Table 4. The tests were
conducted according to ASTM D-6637 Method B (Wide
Fig. 3 Typical Detailing for Control Beam Specimen B02 Width Tensile Method) [21] using a universal testing machine
Double Reinforcement. Testometric CM-500 as illustrated in Fig. 5.
The standard test method to determine the tensile strength
and plot the stress–strain curve of biaxial geogrids was con-
ducted on five specimens with dimensions of 200 mm width
and 470 mm height for polypropylene (pp) according to
Table 2 Studied Parameters. ASTM-D6637- 01, 2011 [21]. The steel clamps were used at
Group Parameter Effect Behavior Specimen the outer ribs geogrids specimens to prevent any slippage fail-
No. Study ure of specimens during the test. The tests were performed with
G1 Geogrids Flexural B0, B01, B02
a tensile rate of 30 mm/min. Stress–strain relationships for ten-
Reinforcement capacity sile test of polypropylene (pp) geogrid are shown in Fig. 6.
G2 Types of Fibers B01, B1-1,
B1-2 2.2.3. Steel fibers
B01, B1-3, Hooked ends steel fibers mixed with fresh concrete were used
B1-4 in this study with a concrete volume fraction of 0.25 %, and
B02, B2-1,
0.75 %. Hooked ends Steel fibers dimension utilized in this
B2-2
B02, B2-3,
study is 0.30 mm mean diameter and 30 mm in length as illus-
B2-4 trated in Fig. 7. The modulus of elasticity (young’s modulus)
G3 Fiber Ratios B01, B1-1, and the tensile strength of Hooked ends steel fibers were 205
B1-3 and 1.95 GPa, respectively.
B01, B1-2,
B1-4 2.2.4. Glass fiber
B02, B2-1,
A monofilament chopped glass fibers from type E distributed
B2-3
B02, B2-2,
randomly as shown in Fig. 8. Glass fibers are coated with
B2-4 saline-based to sizing improve initial dispersion and bond.
The short glass fibers are extremely fine, single filaments, mea-
suring a diameter of 15microns, cut to an average length of
30 mm approximately, following geogrid aperture opening size
considerations.

2.2.2. Biaxial geogrid reinforcement 2.3. Beam specimens fabrication

A biaxial geogrid type (LBO-440) with (32 mm  32 mm) aper-
tures size was used as a reinforcement of concrete beam as To evaluate the flexural behavior of single and double geogrid-
shown in Fig. 4. The relationship between the geogrid aperture reinforced concrete beams using an amount of fibers compared
opening size and the length of both steel fibers and glass fibers to unreinforced concrete beams, and geogrid-reinforced con-
allows for interlocking between the geogrid and fibers. Conse- crete beams without using fibers, the two-point flexural bend-
quently, leading to a better interaction between geogrid and ing test was conducted. Wood molds were constructed with
concrete. internal dimensions of 200  300  1200 (mm) with a
1000 mm clear span. Fig. 9 illustrates concrete beam prepara-
tion. The biaxial geogrids were cut to fit the wood mold area
Fig. 9a, and b and the two geogrid layers location was selected
Table 3 Concrete mix design. at one-sixth depth (50 mm) measured from the bottom of con-
Material Specific Weight Volume crete beam specimens to be within the tension zone for single
Gravity (Kg) (m3)
Cement 3.15 400 0.126
Fine Aggregate (Sand) 2.5 578 0.231
Coarse Aggregate (Crushed 2.67 1151 0.431
Dolomite)
Water 1 200 0.2
Super plasticizer Admixture 1.18 4 0.0033
(Viscocrete 20 HE)
Fig. 4 Biaxial Geogrid Sheet.
Investigation of the effect of using geogrid, short glass, and steel fiber 483

Table 4 Physical and Mechanical Properties of Geogrid.

Properties Biaxial Type (LBO-440)
Material Polypropylene (PP)
Unit weight, MD (kg/m2) 0.25
Aperture size, MD (mm) 32
Aperture size, TD (mm) 32
Ultimate tensile strength, MD (kN/m2) 49
Strength at 2 % strain, MD (kN/m2) 16
Strength at 5 % strain, MD (kN/m2) 32
Note: MD is the machine direction; TD is the transverse direction.
Fig. 7 Hooked ends steel fibers.

Fig. 8 Short glass fibers reinforced polymer.

Fig. 5 Standard Test Method for Determining Tensile Proper-
ties test of biaxial geogrids, ASTM [D 6637 – 01] by (Testometric
Machine), (CRI).
fixed and kept tight by being tied to the wooden mold. After
fixation of the first bottom layer of biaxial geogrid, a 25 mm
thickness of the concrete layer was cast followed by placing
the second layer of geogrid and another layer of the concrete
mixture were cast above the geogrid. The mixtures were con-
solidated to the extent possible to ensure intermixing between
the concrete layers above and below the geogrid. One control
beam per specimen (unreinforced B0, single reinforcement
B01, and double reinforcement type B02) was produced. Spec-
imens were protected in an environmental chamber for 28 days
before testing.

2.4. Test setup and instrumentation

Fig. 6 Force-Strain Curve for Tested Biaxial Geogrid Sample at
Tensile Rate 30 mm/min.
reinforced beam specimens (B01, B1-1, B1-2, B1-3, and B1-4);
as well as, two layers of geogrids at 50 mm measured from the
top of concrete beam specimens within the compression zone
for doubly reinforced concrete beam specimens (B02, B2-1,
B2-2, B2-3, and B2-4).
Concrete was cast in three successive layers with proper
vibration using a vibrating machine as shown in Fig. 9c. For
casting the geogrid-reinforced concrete beams, a 50 mm con-
crete layer was first poured and compacted in the mold with
a vibrator. The first layer of biaxial geogrid was then carefully
Fig. 10, and Fig. 11 show the setup and instrumentation of the
two-points loading test respectively. All concrete beam speci-
mens have a loading span of 333 mm and a support clear span
of 1000 mm. to investigate behavior of tested beam specimens
under flexural failure. The beam specimens were tested under
the same shear-span-to-depth ratio a\d less than 2–3 (slender
ratio) to make the failure of tested specimens in flexural failure.
one linear variable transducer (LVDT) was fixed at the center
bottom of each beam specimen, to measure a vertical displace-
ment at mid-span during loading. The geogrids reinforcement
was instrumented by strain gauges to monitor strain developed
in geogrids during loading as shown in Fig. 12 and was fixed
along the centerline of the geogrid sheet layer in the longitudi-
nal beam direction at the middle span. The applied load was
vertical at the center of the rigid steel beam which transmitted
the load equally on two bearings resting on the top of the beam
and spaced at 333 mm under load control with an increment of
5 kN. The loading continued until failure using a compression
hydraulic jack which was attached to load cell with a maxi-
mum capacity of 500 kN to record the load applied on the test
specimen. The measured data were recorded by a data logger
484 M.S. Moawad, A.M. El-Hanafy

Fig. 9 Casting of concrete beam specimens.

connected to the computer system program ‘‘lab view”

software.

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Crack pattern and failure mode

All control and geogrids reinforced concrete beams were tested

under a 2-point loading system until eventually failed, and the
cracks were observed and marked as each load increased con-
tinuously during the loading time. The cracking patterns and
Fig. 10 Test Set-up of Concrete Beam Specimens.
deflections were measured for all tested geogrids reinforced
concrete beam specimens and are shown in Figs. 13 to 23.
The first cracking load (Pcr), post cracking load, and maxi-
mum failure measured load as well as their relative vertical dis-
placements for all tested concrete beam specimens were listed
in Table 5. For the control beam specimens and all the geo-
grids reinforced concrete beams with the glass fibers; only
the flexural crack at the middle of the beam span was formed
due to the loading beam specimen has a flexural nature. While
in the geogrids reinforced concrete beam specimens with steel
fibers; two flexural cracks were formed at mid-span of the
beam specimens with observed wider lower crack at failure
load capacity when compared with remaining concrete beam
specimens. This is attributed to both the higher tensile and
bond stresses of the steel fibers with concrete due to the using
Fig. 11 Strain gauge locations. steel fiber increasing the concrete beam ductility. It was noticed
that no shear cracks appeared for all tested reinforced concrete
beam specimens. The failure load capacity for the unreinforced
control concrete beam (B0) was recorded at the same time of

Fig. 13 Crack Pattern at Failure Load for Tested Beam

Fig. 12 Strain gauge of geogrid fixation. Specimen B0.
Investigation of the effect of using geogrid, short glass, and steel fiber
Fig. 14 Crack Pattern at Failure Load for Tested Beam
Specimen B01.
Fig. 15 Crack Pattern at Failure Load for Tested Beam
Specimen B02.
Fig. 16 Crack Pattern at Failure Load for Tested Beam
Specimen B1-1.
Fig. 17 Crack Pattern at Failure Load for Tested Beam
Specimen B1-2.
Fig. 18 Crack Pattern at Failure Load for Tested Beam
Specimen B1-3.
Fig. 19 Crack Pattern at Failure Load for Tested Beam
Specimen B1-4.
the first occurring cracking load without any post cracking
load after maximum load capacity. Using steel fibers with geo-
grids reinforcement in concrete beam resulted in decreasing of
485
Fig. 20 Crack Pattern at Failure Load for Tested Beam
Specimen B2-1.
Fig. 21 Crack Pattern at Failure Load for Tested Beam
Specimen B2-2.
Fig. 22 Crack Pattern at Failure Load for Tested Beam
Specimen B2-3.
Fig. 23 Crack Pattern at Failure Load for Tested Beam
Specimen B2-4.
the vertical displacement (deflection) with increasing in the
steel fibers ratio and also increasing in the post cracking load.
The ratio of the post cracking load to maximum load capacity
for concrete beams B1-1, and B1-2 increased by 9.77 %,
7.39 %, respectively, when compared with geogrid reinforced
control concrete beam B01. On the other hand, the increase
in short glass fiber ratio in the concrete beam lead to increasing
in the deflection against load. The ratio between post cracking
load to maximum load for specimens B1-4 increased by
43.33 % when compared with beam specimen B01.
3.2. Load-deflection behavior
The load-midspan deflection curve of single and doubly geo-
grid reinforced concrete beam specimens and unreinforced
control concrete beam specimens are presented in Figs. 24,
25, and 26. The first crack is initiated at the bottom zone of
the tested concrete beam once the flexural strength of the con-
crete is reached. After that, the tensile stress is completely
transferred to the geogrid layers. This leads to a sudden drop
in the load which is mainly due to the weak bond at the
geogrid-concrete interface as shown in the load–deflection
486 M.S. Moawad, A.M. El-Hanafy

Table 5 Experimental results of tested beams.

Beam ID First cracking load Dcr (mm) Post cracking load DPC (mm) Maximum load capacity DMax (mm) %PPPC Modes of failure
CL
Pcr (KN) PPC (KN) PCL (KN)
B0 39.55 3.58 NA NA 39.55 3.58 NA Flexural failure
B01 42.93 4.53 29.00 40.28 42.93 4.53 67.54 Flexural failure
B02 52.86 4.61 41.2 65.05 52.86 4.61 77.93 Flexural failure
B1-1 53.81 5.92 39.90 52.75 53.81 5.92 74.14 Flexural failure
B1-2 57.62 7.47 41.8 52.14 57.62 7.47 72.53 Flexural failure
B1-3 58.33 7.55 42.45 7.32 58.33 7.55 72.77 Flexural failure
B1-4 75.04 10.42 72.65 11.57 75.04 10.42 96.81 Flexural failure
B2-1 55.56 6.25 43.97 6.43 55.56 6.25 79.12 Flexural failure
B2-2 59.99 8.05 55.08 9.74 59.99 8.05 91.81 Flexural failure
B2-3 70.00 10.85 50.90 11.25 70.00 10.85 72.71 Flexural failure
B2-4 100.96 28.78 93.12 28.58 100.96 28.78 92.22 Flexural failure

curves. The resistance to the applied load is increasing again

due to the activation of geogrid layers tensile strength. The
beam reinforced with geogrid can take further post cracking
load, especially in double-reinforced concrete beam specimens
where Fig. 27 shows the maximum load capacity and maxi-
mum post cracking load, while the ratio percentage of the
maximum value of post cracking load and maximum load
capacities are shown in Fig. 28. The variation between flexure
tensile stresses is mainly due to the crack propagation rate,
which is probably due to the variation of the first crack loca-
tion as well as crack numbers within the middle third of the
concrete beam specimens.
Results show increase in peak load of doubly geogrid rein-
forced concrete beam specimen (B02) by 23.13 %, and 33.63 %
when compared with single geogrids reinforced concrete beam
specimen (B01), and unreinforced control concrete beam spec-
imen (B0); respectively. This is due to the contribution of geo-
grid sheet layers reinforcement in both compression and
tension zones to the load capacity. The addition of geogrid Fig. 25 Load deflection curve at mid span of tested single
in the concrete beam as compression and flexural reinforce- reinforced beam specimens B01, B1-1, B1-2, B1-3, and B1-4.
ment contributes to increased post-peak behavior in compar-

Fig. 26 Load deflection curve at mid span of tested double

Fig. 24 Load deflection curve at mid span of tested control beam reinforced beam specimens B02, B2-1, B2-2, B2-3, and B2-4.
specimens B0, B01, B02.
Investigation of the effect of using geogrid, short glass, and steel fiber 487

specimen B1-3 shows a slight increase in peak load capacity by

35.87 %, and 8.39 % when compared with B01, and B1-1. Fur-
thermore, the double reinforced concrete beam specimen B2-3
shows a slight increase in peak load capacity by 32.41 %, and
25.97 % when compared with B02, and B2-1, respectively.
Therefore, the use of the steel fibers in single and double geo-
grid reinforced concrete beam specimens exhibited delayed
failure and gave extra peak load when compared with the sin-
gle and doubly geogrid reinforced concrete beam specimens
using glass fibers, especially when using the ratio of steel fibers
by 0.75 %. This is attributed to the toughness, fracture absorp-
tion energy capacity, and higher tensile strength of the steel
fibers when compared with short glass fibers.

3.3. Flexural strength behavior

Flexural strength is one measure of the tensile strength of unre-

inforced and geogrid reinforced concrete beam specimens. It is
Fig. 27 Maximum load capacity and post cracking load. the measure of the ability of a concrete beam specimen to resist
failure in bending. The flexural strength of the beam under
two-point loading at one-third of the clear span from each
end of the beam specimen was expressed as modulus of rupture
R, and was calculated from the following formula of Eqn.1
[22,23,24,25,26] and illustrated in Fig. 29. Where the clear span
of the beam is taken as 1000 mm in the case of a 1200 mm
beam.
PL
R¼
bd2
Where,

(P) is ultimate load (N);

(L) is clear span length between two supports (mm);
(b) is width of beam (mm);
(d) is depth of beam (mm).

It was found that there is a slight increase in the flexural

strength of a single geogrid reinforced concrete beam (B01)
by 8.52 % when compared with an unreinforced concrete
Fig. 28 Ratio between post cracking and load capacity. beam specimen (B0), while the observed increase in flexural
capacity for double geogrid reinforced concrete beam speci-
men (B02) by 33.63 % when compared with unreinforced con-
ison with the unreinforced control concrete beam specimen. crete beam (B0) and geogrid reinforced beams.
And also, the addition of geogrid sheet layers on the tension It was observed also; that the use of the steel fibers by
zone only (singly reinforced) has a slight effect on the post- 0.75 % ratio in the double geogrid reinforced concrete beam
peak behavior.
Using steel fibers in geogrid reinforced concrete beam spec-
imens resulted in an increase in peak load capacity and corre-
sponding deflection whether using single or double reinforced
geogrid. The results show an increase of 74.79 %, and
30.21 % in the peak load capacity for single reinforced con-
crete beam specimens with 0.75 % steel fibers B1-4 by when
compared with single geogrids reinforced concrete beam spec-
imens with 0 % steel fibers (B01) and 0.25 % steel fibers (B1-2)
respectively. Also, an increase of 91 %, and 68.30 % in the
peak load capacity for double-reinforced concrete beam spec-
imens with 0.75 % steel fibers B2-4 is shown when compared
with double reinforced concrete beam specimens with 0 % steel
fibers (B02) and 0.25 % steel fibers (B2-2) respectively. While
slightly increasing in the failure load capacity was observed
when using glass fibers in single and double geogrids reinforced
concrete beam specimens. The single reinforced concrete beam Fig. 29 Flexural strength of tested beam specimens.
488
specimen (B2-4) gives the highest value of the flexural strength
and showed an increase of 44.23 %, and 91.00 % when com-
pared with glass fibers with a 0.75 % ratio in the double geo-
grids reinforced concrete beam specimen (B2-3), and double
geogrid reinforced concrete control beam specimen (B02).
Also, single geogrid reinforced concrete beam specimens with
0.75 % steel fibers (B1-4) gives the highest values in flexural
strength of single geogrid reinforced concrete specimens with
an increase of 28.64 %, and 74.79 % when compared with
glass fibers with 0.75 % ratio in the single geogrid reinforced
concrete beam specimen (B1-3), and single geogrid reinforced
concrete beam specimen (B01). This is because the steel fibers
are higher in ductility, tensile, and bonding with concrete than
short glass fibers.
Furthermore, there was a slight increase of 7.09 %, and
34.23 % in the flexural capacity of single geogrid reinforced
concrete specimens with 0.25 % of steel fibers (B1-2) when
compared with single geogrid reinforced concrete beam speci-
mens with 0.25 % short glass fibers (B1-1), and single geogrid
reinforced concrete control beam specimen (B01). A slight
increase of 7.96 %, and 13.48 % was observed also in the flex-
ural capacity of double geogrid reinforced concrete specimens
with 0.25 % of steel fibers (B2-2) when compared with double
geogrid reinforced concrete beam specimens with 0.25 % short
glass fibers (B2-1), and double geogrid reinforced concrete
beam specimen (B02). This is attributed to the effect of the
small amount of steel fibers on the ductility and energy of
the rupture due to the small amount of steel fibers in the geo-
grid reinforced concrete beams.
3.4. Toughness capacity
Toughness is a material capacity to absorb the energy and the
plastically deform without fracture, as measured in this inves-
tigation by the calculated area under the load–strain curve.
The concrete beams, especially double geogrid reinforced con-
crete, showed an increase in the toughness as shown in Fig. 30.
B2-4 shows the highest dissipated energy increase of 52.5 % in
comparison with unreinforced beam specimen (B0). This could
be attributed to using steel fibers and double geogrid reinforce-
ment. All doubly geogrid reinforced concrete beam specimens
have more flexural energy absorption capacity than single geo-
grid reinforced concrete beams whether using steel fibers or
Fig. 30 Toughness capacity compared with unreinforced beam
(B0).
M.S. Moawad, A.M. El-Hanafy
short glass fibers. Also, the increase in the fibers ratios leads
to an increase in the energy absorption capacity.
4. Conclusions
According to the results obtained from this study, the follow-
ing conclusions can be drawn:
1. The ultimate strength of double geogrid reinforced concrete
beam specimens is more than that of single geogrid rein-
forced concrete beam specimens and unreinforced concrete
beam specimens.
2. The load carrying capacity of geogrid reinforced concrete
beam specimens with glass fibers is less than that of the geo-
grid reinforced concrete beam specimens with steel fibers.
3. The use of steel fibers and glass fibers by a ratio of 0.75 %
in geogrids reinforced concrete beam specimens enhance
the results compared with the ratio of 0.25 % in maximum
load capacity, flexural strength, initial and post cracking
stiffens, and the toughness capacity.
4. The use of steel fibers in geogrid reinforced concrete beam
specimens showed more fracture energy, and maximum
post cracking load than geogrid reinforced concrete beam
containing short glass fibers.
5. The flexure bending test on geogrid reinforced concrete
beams reveals that the strength of the geogrid with the pres-
ence of fibers especially steel fibers can play a vital role in
enhancing the load-deformation behavior as well as crack
propagation.
6. Deflection can be reduced and enhanced by the use of dou-
ble geogrid reinforcement layers in concrete beam speci-
mens. The results showed that the ratio between
maximum load and corresponding midspan deflection for
B02 is 8.72 % while it was 10.55 % for B0 and 9.06 %
for B01.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing
financial interests or personal relationships that could have
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
References
[1] R. Chidambaram, Siva, and Pankaj Agarwal, ‘‘The confining
effect of geo-grid on the mechanical properties of concrete
specimens with steel fiber under compression and flexure”,
Const. Build. Mater. J. 71 (2014) 628–637.
[2] H.Q. Ahmed, D.K. Jaf, S.A. Yaseen, ‘‘Flexural Capacity and
Behavior of Geopolymer Concrete Beams Reinforced with Glass
Fibre– Reinforced Polymer Bars”, Int. J. Concr. Struct. Mater.
(2020), ISSN 1976–0485,.
[3] M.S. Moawad, Effect of short glass fiber on shear capacity for
shallow wide reinforced concrete beams, J. Eng. Appl. Sci. 68
(44) (December 2021).
[4] Job Thomas, Ananth Ramaswamy, ‘‘Mechanical Properties of
Steel Fiber-Reinforced Concrete”, J. Mater. Civil Eng., vol. 19,
may 2007, pp. 385-392.
[5] C.G. Karayannis, P.-M. Kosmidou, C.E. Chalioris, Reinforced
Concrete Beams with Carbon-Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Bars—
Experimental Study, Fibers J. 6 (4) (2018) 1–20.
Investigation of the effect of using geogrid, short glass, and steel fiber
[6] C.E. Chalioris, P.-M. Kosmidou, C.G. Karayannis, Cyclic
Response of Steel Fiber Reinforced Concrete Slender Beams:
An Experimental Study, Mater. J Vol. 12, Issu 9 (April 2019).
[7] V.K. Kytinou, C.E. Chalioris, C.G. Karayannis, Analysis of
Residual Flexural Stiffness of Steel Fiber-Reinforced Concrete
Beams with Steel Reinforcement, Mater. J. 13 (12) (June 2020).
[8] C.G. Karayannis, Analysis and experimental study for steel fibre
pullout from cementitious matrices, Adv. Compos. Lett. 9 (4)
(2000) pp.
[9] X. Tang, G.R. Chehab, S. Kim, ‘‘Laboratory study of geogrid
reinforcement in Portland cement concrete”, in: 6th RILEM
International Conference on Cracking in Pavements, June 2008,
pp. 769-778.
[10] X. Tang, I. Higgins, M.N. Jlilati, Behavior of Geogrid-
Reinforced Portland Cement Concrete under Static Flexural
Loading, Infrastruct J. 4 (September 2018).
[11] Kamal Sh. Mahmoud, Mohammed M. Rasheed, Mustafa A.
Yousif, and Maha Al-soudani, ‘‘Structural behaviors of
Reinforced Concrete Beams with and without Geo-Grid
Layers”, J. Appl. Sci. Eng., Vol. 25, January 2022, pp. 993-1001.
[12] N.S. Correia, G.M. Dalfre, Experimental investigation on the
flexural and post-cracking behaviour of geogrid reinforced
concrete overlay, J. Civil Environ. Stud. 6 (1) (2021) 1–10.
[13] F. El Meski, G.R. Chehab, Flexural behavior of concrete beams
reinforced with different types of geogrids, J. Mater. Civ. Eng.
26 (8) (August 2014).
[14] S. Shobana, G. Yalamesh, Experimental Study of Concrete
Beams Reinforced with Uniaxial and Biaxial Geogrids, Int. J.
ChemTech Res. 8 (3) (2015) 1290–1295.
[15] M. Abd-Elmohsen, Flexural behavior of self-compacting
concrete prisms reinforced with geogrids, J. Eng. Sci. Assiut
Univ. Faculty Eng. 45 (4) (2017) 422–435.
[16] K. Rakendu, Anagha Manoharan, ‘‘Flexural behavior of
concrete beams reinforced with biaxial geogrid”, Int. J. Eng.
Res. General Sci. 5 (4) (2017) 72–83.
489
[17] S. Sivakamasundari, D.A. Joshua, Arun Kumar, ‘‘Study on
Flexural Behavior of Steel Fiber RC Beams Confined With
Biaxial Geo-Grid”, Proc. Eng. J. 173 (2017) 1431–1438.
[18] P. Nishanthi, R. Vidjeapriya, S. Sivaram, K. Sathish, K.
Bharath, M.K. Muhammed Mukhthar Khan, ‘‘Effect of geo-
grid and steel fibres on flexural behaviour of reinforced concrete
beams”, Mater. Today: Proc. J., Volume 47, Part 14, May 2021,
pp. 4597-4605.
[19] Athira Bhaskaran, and Lekshmi L., ‘‘Experimental
Investigation of Flexural Behaviour of Geo-Grid Reinforced
Concrete Beam with Distributed Steel Fiber”, Int. J. Appl. Eng.
Res., ISSN 0973-4562, Vol. 14, 2019, pp. 15-19.
[20] S.J. Joel, N.Y. Venkata, S.A. Arun, C. Daniel, Experimental
and analytical investigation of geo-grid confined RC beams with
glass fiber reinforced concrete, Struct. J. 34 (December 2021)
487–497.
[21] American Society for Testing and Materials ASTM D 6637,
(2011), Standard Test Method for Determining Tensile
Properties of Geogrids, by the Multi-Rib Tensile Method.
[22] ACI Committee 318 (2008), Building code requirements for
reinforced concrete and commentary, American Concrete
Institute, Detroit.
[23] ACI 318 (2014), Building code requirements for structural
concrete and commentary, American Concrete Institute (ACI),
Farmington Hills, MI
[24] ASTM. (2010). ‘‘Standard test method for flexural strength of
concrete (using simple beam with third-point loading).” C78/
C78M-10, West Conshohocken, PA.
[25] BS EN 1992 (2004) Design of concrete structures. In: Part 1-1:
general rules and rules for buildings. European Committee for
Standardization (CEN), Euro code 2, Brussels.
[26] Egyptian code of practice for design and construction of
reinforced concrete structures (ECP203-2018). Fourth edition.
Housing and Building Research Centre, Giza, Egypt.