Arab J Sci Eng (2016) 41:1183–1198

DOI 10.1007/s13369-016-2099-1

REVIEW ARTICLE – CIVIL ENGINEERING

Fiber–Matrix Interactions in Fiber-Reinforced Concrete:

A Review
Yassir M. Abbas1 · M. Iqbal Khan1

Received: 1 September 2015 / Accepted: 1 March 2016 / Published online: 30 March 2016
© King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals 2016

Abstract A significant breakthrough in concrete technol- List of symbols

ogy was achieved using fibers to reinforce concrete. Vari- Am , Af , Ab The cross-sectional area of the matrix,
ous researchers have reported that fiber reinforcement can the fiber and a concrete member, respectively
alter the brittleness of concrete. The efficiency of fiber re- Ec, Ef , Em Moduli of elasticity for the composite,
inforcement is based on the fiber–matrix interactions. The fiber and matrix, respectively
understanding of these interactions is a challenging engi- K IC Plane strain fracture toughness
neering problem, where the frictional bond governs and the Lc Critical length of the fiber
physical/chemical bond plays a minor role. This problem is Lp The maximum length of the fiber at
extremely sophisticated because of the following nonlinear which instantaneous pullout of fiber occurs
interactions: interfacial debonding, plastic material deforma- Lt The minimum length of the fiber at
tions, mechanical bond deformations, and frictional sliding. which a tensile failure occurs without debond-
This paper reports a comprehensive and up-to-date litera- ing
ture review on the fiber–matrix interactions, and physical P Shear force along the fiber–matrix interface
and theoretical modeling of the fiber–matrix interactions is Pt the applied pullout load
reported in detail. In addition, the most important conclu- k A constant correlates the relation between
sions of the parametric studies of the fiber–matrix interfacial shear stress on the fiber–matrix interface
bond are summarized. The information of the pullout test and the corresponding relative slippage
standardization to assess the fiber–matrix behavior of a fiber- le The embedded length of fibers
reinforced concrete is reviewed. The current research in the n, df Number and diameter of the fibers, respec-
area of fiber–matrix interactions of fiber-reinforced concrete tively
are discussed. s Slippage of the fiber due to pullout force
u Length of the debonded zone
Keywords Fiber-reinforced concrete · Fiber–matrix inter- x Variable distance parallel to the fiber length
actions · Pullout tests · Physical modeling · Standardization · εu The ultimate strain of the matrix.
Theoretical modeling εe The strain of the matrix
corresponding to the first crack stress.
τo The limiting interfacial bond strength
neglecting the Poisson’s effect on fibers
τfd the decreasing frictional bond stress
corresponding to the end slip after full
B Yassir M. Abbas debonding
yabbas@ksu.edu.sa
η Coefficient based of the shape of the load–slip
1 Department of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, curve. It can be assumed to be equal to 0.2 for
King Saud University, P. O. Box 800, 11421 Riyadh, straight fibers
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia σf Tensile strength of fiber

123
1184
γm The work of fracture of the matrix
τ Frictional shear stress at fiber–matrix interface
τ Shear strength for fiber–matrix interface
ψ The spacing between fibers
υf , υm The Poisson’s ratio
for the fiber and the matrix, respectively
δ Fiber orientation factor
, o Fiber displacement response of after
complete pullout and at the end of complete
pullout
ζ Damage coefficient taking a value between 0
and 1
1 Introduction
Concrete cracking arises at notably low tensile strains be-
cause it has a notably low tensile strength (approximately 7–
11 % of its compressive strength) [1]. Thus, concrete is clas-
sified as “brittle or fragile material”. The typical stress–strain
relationship for a stressed FRC element (Fig. 1) demonstrates
that it has two different behaviors pre- and post-initiation of
cracks. As shown in Fig. 1, the cracking and post-cracking
strength of a FRC are characterized based on these behav-
iors. It is often thought that this unfavorable behavior of
concrete in the post-crack stage can be altered by incor-
porating discontinuous fibrous reinforcement (fibers) in the
concrete to formulate fiber-reinforced concrete (FRC). How-
ever, the benefits of fibers in the pre-crack stage are not well
Fig. 1 Mechanics and
Micromechanics of FRC beam,
a Four-point flexure test, b
stressed element, c stress–strain
of stressed element
Stress
Cracking
Post-cracking
123
Arab J Sci Eng (2016) 41:1183–1198
understood [2,3]. Naaman [4] reported that the strength of the
matrix controls the cracking strength and the fiber–matrix in-
terfacial bond dominates the post-cracking strength. It is well
agreed that the inclusion of fibers in a brittle matrix consider-
ably improves its post-cracking performance; however, Gray
and Johnson [5] reported that the modulus of rupture (tensile
strength and first crack) and the associated absorbed energy
of a fiber-reinforced concrete can be dramatically improved
by increasing the fiber–matrix bond strength. Moreover, these
researchers observed that the ultimate tensile strength, strain
capacity and the energy absorbed of a FRC are improved by
increasing the shear strength of the fiber–matrix interface.
Generally, the fiber–matrix interactions (Fig. 2) govern
the mechanical properties of FRC [5–9]. These properties
include (1) compressive, bending and tensile strengths, (2)
modulus of elasticity, (3) ultimate strain fracture toughness,
(4) impact and seismic resistance, (5) ductility and (6) dura-
bility [5,7,9–11]. It has been proved that FRC with superior
mechanical properties could not be developed unless the
fiber–matrix interfacial bond was at least equal to the tensile
strength of the matrix [4]. However, notably strong fiber–
matrix bond does not guarantee the production of ductile
FRC, which indicates the importance of the properties of the
matrix and fiber. The tensile strength of the fiber, microstruc-
ture of the matrix and the length/alignment with respect to
the applied stress/content of the fibers are important to the
fiber capability to mitigate cracking [7].
In the past, direct and indirect experimental methods were
developed to quantify the fiber–matrix bond of FRC [12,13].
(a)
(b)
Strain
Crack opening
(c)
Arab J Sci Eng (2016) 41:1183–1198
Debonding
Bridging
Pullout
Failure
Fig. 2 Mechanisms of fiber–matrix interactions [13]
Load
Matrix
FRC
Fiber
Fig. 3 Physical modeling of debonding and pullout of fibers by fiber
pullout test [13]
In direct methods, the fiber–matrix bond behavior is assessed
by measuring the uniaxial tensile pullout load and the corre-
sponding slippage during fiber pullout from a cementitious
matrix [5,7,13–15]. This test can provide important infor-
mation on the fiber–matrix bond of FRC because it simulates
the debonding and pullout of fibers (Fig. 3). Because of the
nonlinearities associated with the fiber–matrix shear stress
distribution along the fiber length, particularly for deformed
fibers, many researchers adopted the fiber pullout test to as-
sess the efficiency and surface treatment of fibers. The “crack
mouth opening width” is defined as the total slip of the fiber
including elongation and straightening effects. In the indirect
methods, the fiber–matrix bond strength is assessed from the
mechanical property (mostly the flexural strength) of FRC
[16].
The subject of the fiber–matrix bond strength of FRC re-
ceives great interest from the researchers of modern concrete
technology. However, the reported study on this topic is scat-
tered in the literature. The objectives of this study are (1)
to comprehensively review the literature on the physical and
theoretical modeling of the fiber–matrix interactions of FRC,
(2) to provide information on the potential of standardiz-
ing the pullout test to assess the fiber–matrix behavior of
FRC and (3) to address the gaps in the literature of fiber–
matrix interactions of FRC for possible future research pro-
grams.
1185
2 Fiber–Matrix Interfacial Bond
The mechanics of the fiber–matrix interfacial bond are ex-
tremely sophisticated as a result of different linear and non-
linear modes of interaction: physical/chemical bond, inter-
facial debonding, plastic material deformations, mechanical
bond deformations, and frictional sliding. The fiber bridging–
debonding–pullout (Fig. 2) is generally considered the most
possible failure mode of FRC [17].
The pullout behavior of straight fibers is classified into
two modes of fracture (Fig. 4): (1) elastic physical/chemical
adhesion between the fiber and the matrix; (2) frictional
sliding [18,19]. However, the pullout behavior of deformed
(hooked-end) fibers is characterized into five modes of frac-
ture (Fig. 4): (1) elastic bond; (2) fiber–matrix debonding;
(3) plastic deformation of the hook; (4) Coulomb friction on
the hook; (5) fiber–matrix frictional bond [20]. As observed
in Fig. 4, the hooked-end fiber significantly enhances the
fiber–matrix pullout toughness because of the slip-hardening
behavior caused by the mechanical bond of the hook. How-
ever, Wille and Naaman [21] reported that the fiber–matrix
behavior of brass-coated straight fibers embedded in ultra-
high-performance concrete (UHPC) also exhibited the slip-
hardening behavior as hooked fiber embedded in normal
concrete. This behavior was attributed to the scratching of
the fiber surface using micro-sand, which increases the fric-
tional bond of the fiber–matrix interface in the post-cracking
stage.
2.1 Parameters Influencing the Fiber–Matrix Bond
The bonding strength of the fiber–matrix interface of a FRC is
influenced by the characteristics of the fiber, matrix and ITZ.
Table 1 gives the general parameters influencing the fiber–
matrix interfacial bond. So far, numerous parametric studies
Hooked fiber
Mode of fracture
I Elastic
Straight fiber II Mechanical
Pullout force
III Frictional
A
I
III
II
End slip
Fig. 4 Pullout modes of fracture for steel fibers [53]
123
1186
Table 1 Properties affecting the fiber–matrix bond [22]
Fiber ITZ Matrix
Strength Microstructure Strength
Geometry Porosity Composition
Stiffness Packing density Stiffness
Poisson’s ratio Local stiffness Poisson’s ratio
Embedded length Local strength Age
Orientation Processing Curing condition
on the fiber–matrix pullout behavior have been reported. In
these studies, the most investigated parameters are: (1) the
type and geometry of fibers, (2) alignment (orientation) of
the fiber, (3) surface treatment of fibers, (4) strength and
composite of the matrix, and (5) loading rate. However, few
studies have taken the embedment length and size of the fiber
in consideration. Based on the reported research, it seems
that there is no available information on the pullout behavior
of hooked fibers with embedment length less than 10 mm
[18]. The most important conclusions of these studies are
summarized in following sections.
2.1.1 Type of the Fiber
The most comprehensive study on the influence of fiber
type on the fiber–matrix bond was conducted by Chin and
Xiao [17]. In their study, the investigated fibers were: (1)
the flat-crimped, (2) the flat-end, (3) the hooked-end, (4)
the round-crimped, and (5) double-anchored of steel fibers.
These researchers reported that the flat-crimped fiber had
exhibited the highest pullout load (about 1.2 kN for fiber
having 50 mm length and 1.14 mm equivalent diameter).
However, the highest pullout toughness (10.8 Nm for fiber
having 50 mm length and 1.00 mm equivalent diameter) was
obtained for flat-end steel fiber. Chin and Xiao [17] concluded
that making the fiber deformations greater in size, amount,
intensity, or degree increases the ultimate pullout load and
decreases the pullout toughness, and vice versa. Richardson
and Heather [23] had compared the fiber–matrix bond of
hooked steel fibers and 3D steel fibers. It was concluded
that the bond of fiber matrix interface to fiber strength of 3D
fibers is more than three times that for hooked steel fibers.
However, Richardson and Heather [23] had used hooked
fiber with tensile strength more than that for 3D fibers.
2.1.2 Alignment of the Fiber
Naaman [24] demonstrated that increasing the alignment
of the fiber with respect to the loading direction increases
both of the fiber pullout load and response at the ultimate
load. However, Robins et al. [18] found that the toughness
123
Arab J Sci Eng (2016) 41:1183–1198
of deformed fibers (crimped and rounded-end fibers) de-
creases with increasing the alignment angle of fiber. In ad-
dition, these researchers concluded that, unless the orien-
tation causes a tensile failure of the fiber, the increase in
the fiber orientation increases the pullout toughness with
maximum toughness occurred at 10◦ –20◦ fiber orientation
angles. Up to 50 % increase in the ultimate pullout load
of straight fibers can be achieved by optimization of the
fiber orientation. Grunewald [20] demonstrated that the ul-
timate pullout load is independent of the fiber orientation
for hooked fibers. Due to the combined effect of snubbing
“the increase in bridging effect of the fiber due to its orien-
tation” and spalling of the matrix, Lee et al. [10] considered
the optimum range of fiber orientation is 30◦ –45◦ , which
achieve the maximum bridging performance. Most of the re-
searchers agree that the probability of fiber tensile failure or
matrix spalling increases with an increase in fiber orientation
[20].
2.1.3 Strength and Composition of the Matrix
Generally, increasing the strength of the matrix increases the
ultimate pullout load. In addition, the overall behavior of the
fiber–matrix interactions is enhanced as the strength of the
matrix increases, but not to the extent that makes the fiber
tensile failure possible. For hooked-end steel fibers aligned
in the direction of loading, Robins et al. [18] found that an
increase in the strength of the matrix, also, increases the pull-
out toughness and ultimate response. However, the rate of the
increase decreases as the fiber orientation angle increases.
Grunewald [20] has pointed out that increasing strength of
the matrix increases the probability of fiber tensile failure
and/or matrix spalling. Abu-Lebdeh et al. [25,26] found that
for only deformed fibers, increasing the strength of the matrix
increases the ultimate pullout load and toughness; however,
the pullout behavior of some of the straight fibers is not af-
fected by the strength of the matrix. In addition, they found
that the increase in the pullout toughness in very high strength
concrete is more pronounced than the increase in the ultimate
load.
Tuyan and Yazici [27] investigated the influence of mix
proportions of Slurry Infiltrated Fiber Concrete (SIFCON)
on the fiber–matrix bond utilizing the single-fiber pullout
test. They reported that increasing the strength of SIFCON
matrix increases fiber–matrix bond. Correlation between the
fiber–matrix bond and strength of the matrix was observed
for SIFCON under standard water and steam curing; how-
ever, this was not evident in autoclave curing. The effect
of age of standard water curing on the interfacial bond of
the fiber to the matrix was studied by Singh et al. [28]. It
was found that the maximum fiber–matrix interfacial bond
is reached after 2-day curing (Fig. 5). Although water curing
Arab J Sci Eng (2016) 41:1183–1198
30
25
Fiber-matrix bond (MPa)
20
15
10
5
0 1 2 3 4 5
Age of curing (days)
Fig. 5 Effect of the age of curing of the fiber–matrix bond [37]
more than 2 days enhances the strength of the matrix, Singh
et al. [28] reported that it does not improve the interfacial
bond of the fiber to the matrix. Recently, Wille and Naaman
[21] reported that increasing the strength of the matrix is im-
portant for increasing the fiber–matrix bond; however, it does
not guarantee the development of very high fiber to matrix
bond.
Tuyan and Yazici [27] investigated the influence of dif-
ferent curing conditions (standard, steam and autoclave) of
SIFCON on the fiber–matrix bond. It was reported that, gen-
erally, the fiber–matrix interfacial bond enhances as the cur-
ing conditions improve. The highest fiber to matrix bond
was achieved for autoclave curing, which changes the fiber
mode to tensile failure. However, 8 h of steam curing achieved
fiber–matrix bond as that obtained for 28-day standard water
curing. Barluenga [29] conducted experimental and a nu-
merical study on the fiber–matrix interactions at early age of
FRC made by AR-glass fibers. He concluded that the stress
distribution along the fiber depends on the development of
the strength of concrete and size, type and material of the
fiber.
Kim et al. [30] studied the influence of the fine aggre-
gate to coarse aggregate ratio on the fiber–matrix bond for
straight, hooked and twisted fibers. It was found that only
twisted fibers, increasing the S/a ratio from 0.444 to 0.615 in-
creases fiber–matrix interfacial bond. However, the S/a ratio
has no influence on fiber–matrix bond for straight and hooked
fibers. This was attributed to the enhancement of microstruc-
ture of the matrix and fiber–matrix mechanical interactions
for twisted fibers. It is worth mentioning that the increase
in fine aggregate to course aggregate ratio was achieved by
decreasing the content of the coarse aggregate.
2.1.4 Length of the Fiber
Robins et al. [18] demonstrated that increasing the length of
hook steel fiber from 12 to 25 mm caused a limited range
1187
Embedded length of the fiber
Frictional fiber-matrix bond
Model-1
6 7
End slip
Fig. 6 The fiber–matrix frictional bond models [21]
increase in the fiber pullout load. However, Shannag et al.
[8] reported that increasing the embedment depth of straight
steel fibers could increase the ultimate pullout load and pull-
out toughness by 200–300 %. Singh et al. [28] observed that
the performance of fiber–matrix interface during fiber pullout
changes with increasing the fiber embedment length. How-
ever, for polypropylene fibers, constant average fiber–matrix
bond for different embedment lengths was observed. Tuyan
and Yazici [27] had investigated the fiber–matrix of SIFCON
with different embedment lengths. It was reported that in-
creasing the embedment length of a fiber from 10 to 30 mm
in SIFCON matrix increases the ultimate pullout load. Also,
Ali et al. [31] found that increasing the embedded length
of a coconut fibers increases the ultimate pullout load and
toughness.
However, Boshoff et al. [32] found that fiber–matrix fric-
tional bond decreases as the fiber embedment length increa-
ses, not as expected. Thus, it was concluded that the micro-
mechanical model assuming a uniform interfacial bond along
the length (Model-1 in Fig. 6) of the fiber is not perfect. This
was attributed to the Poisson’s effects on the fiber. In addition,
these researchers have revealed that increasing the fiber em-
bedment length increases the probability of the tensile model
of failure for a fiber.
2.1.5 Rate of Loading
Boshoff et al. [33] conducted a comparison study on the fiber–
matrix interfacial bond under rates of utilizing the pullout
test. As expected, they found that the fiber–matrix inter-
facial bond depends on the rate of the loading, and it in-
creased as the rate of the loading increases. However, at high
rate of loading the possibility of fiber tensile failure is high.
Also in this regard Abu-Lebdeh et al. [25] have confirmed
that the ultimate pullout load and toughness are sensitive
to the rate of loading. However, due to geometry of fibers,
this sensitivity for deformed fibers is different from that for
123
1188
straight fibers. For deformed fibers, the maximum pullout
load and toughness increase with an increase in the loading
rate.
2.1.6 Other Parameters
Chan and Chu [34] investigated the effect of the content
of the silica fume on the fiber–matrix interfacial bond of
UHPC. It was reported that up to 30 % content of silica
fume, increasing the content of silica fume does not affect
the interfacial bond of the fiber to the matrix. However, due
to the decrease in the interfacial-toughening property, the
fiber–matrix bond decreases when the silica fume content is
more than 30 %. These researchers concluded that the 20–
30 % is the optimal content of silica fume for producing
UHPC.
Singh et al. [28] studied the influence of seawater and
salt environments on the fiber–matrix interfacial bond. It
was found that a concrete kept in salt water and seawater
for 6 months has more the fiber–matrix bond than that kept
in plain water. In addition, the maximum pullout load oc-
curs for the concrete kept in the seawater. The improvement
in the concrete exposed to the seawater was attributed to its
improved microstructural behavior as compared to salt envi-
ronment exposure.
Regarding the content of fiber in a FRC, Shannag et al.
[8] demonstrated that increasing the volume content from 3
to 6 % enhances the pullout behavior of steel fiber, namely
the ultimate pullout load and toughness increased by about
20 %.
2.2 Enhancement of Fiber–Matrix Interfacial Bond
Various techniques for enhancing the fiber–matrix interfa-
cial bond have been proposed [4,28,31,35,36]. These tech-
niques can be classified into: (1) macroscopic altering of
the mechanical properties and fibers (fibrillation, twisting,
crimping, hooked of enlarged end), (2) microscopic alter-
ing of the fiber surface properties (mechanical or chemical
treatment) and (3) microscopic enhancement of the matrix
by: (a) using microfibers (hybridization) or (b) densification
of the transition zone. All of these techniques can result in
significant enhancement in the fiber–matrix bond. However,
the transition zone densification method is appropriate for
metallic fibers. So far, most of the enhancement methods
have been made at the microscale levels of the constituent
materials of FRC. However, Li and Stang [9] reported that
the macroscopic notching of fibers had significantly enhance
the fiber–matrix interfacial bond, while the microscopic abra-
sion texturing of the fiber surface has no influence on the
fiber–matrix interfacial bond.
123
Arab J Sci Eng (2016) 41:1183–1198
2.2.1 Macroscopic Altering of Fiber Surface
Naaman [4] developed a new generation of twisted steel
fibers, known as “Torex,” with an enhanced fiber–matrix in-
terfacial bond. Because of its slip-hardening behavior, these
fibers are appropriate for the development of FRC with supe-
rior ductility properties. To enhance the fiber–matrix interfa-
cial bond, Singh et al. [28] proposed a mechanical indentation
treatment for polypropylene. This method involves applying
different pressures on the surface of the fiber by two rough
steel plates. These researchers revealed that the 700 kPa pres-
sure is the optimum since it creates up to 300 % increase
in the bond of fiber–matrix without tensile failure of the
fiber.
2.2.2 Microscopic Altering of Fiber Surface
Brass coating on the surface of steel fibers significantly en-
hances the interfacial bond of the fiber to the matrix and thus
enhances the overall performance of steel FRC. However,
it was reported that the use of oxidizing or degreasing en-
hances the interfacial bond of the fiber to the matrix, but it
has no influence on the mechanical properties of FRC. Most
of the mechanical treatments of fibers (hooked or enlarged
end, twisting) have positive effect on the fiber matrix interfa-
cial bond [5]. Wu and Li [35] showed that up to 600–700 %
enhancement in the fiber–matrix interfacial bond strength
can be attained by plasma treating for polypropylene fibers.
However, it was reported that the inclusion of PVA pow-
der or high alumina cement in the cementitious has a little
influence on the fiber–matrix interfacial bond. So far little
information on the combined effect of the combined enhance-
ment techniques is available. Sedan et al. [37] investigated
the mechanical properties of a FRC made with hemp fibers.
An alkaline treatment of this fibers increases the elastic (ad-
hesion) fiber–matrix interfacial bond, which increases the
flexural strength of the FRC by 94 % compared to the same
made with un-treated fibers.
Sebaibi et al. [36] studied the influence of treating fibers
0.5, 0.75 and 1 % of vinyl trimethoxy silane (VTMO) on
the fiber–matrix bond of UHPC. They found that the VTMO
treatment of fiber significantly enhances the fiber–matrix in-
terfacial bond with an optimal content of 0.5 %. Up to 20 MPa
fiber matrix bond of straight fiber embedded in UHPC was
developed by Wille and Naaman [21] by using zircon sand
with high hardness, which enhances the dispersion of mi-
croparticles in the matrix. Ali et al. [31] had demonstrated
that boiling coconut fibers increases the fiber–matrix bond by
184 %; however, the chemical treatment of the same fibers
decreases the fiber–matrix bond by 25 %.
Arab J Sci Eng (2016) 41:1183–1198 1189

Table 2 Types of fiber matrix

Effects Significance
interfacial bond [2]
Tensile Provide resistance to stresses Has great influence on the tensile
perpendicular to fiber–matrix strength of FRC
interface
Shear
Elastic Facilitate two-way fiber–matrix Almost all the mechanical
bridge for transferring stresses, if properties of FRC are influence
the applied shearing stresses on by the shearing bond strength of
the fiber matrix interface being the fiber–matrix interface
more than the matrix capability
to resist tensile stresses.
Frictional Resists the fiber slip when the
applied stresses being more than
the elastic bond strength of the
fiber–matrix interface

2.2.3 Microscopic Enhancement of the Matrix
A microstructural investigation on fiber–matrix fracture of
steel and polypropylene fibers revealed that the failure oc-
curred at the fiber–matrix interface; however, for brass fibers,
the failure occurred at the transition zone (which has a width
of 60–80 µm for the fiber–matrix interface) [7]. Thus, the
densification of transition zone is not appropriate for enhanc-
ing the fiber–matrix bond strength for steel and polypropy-
lene fibers. However, a research conducted by Shannag et al.
[8] concluded that up to 300 % enhancement of the fiber–
matrix interfacial bond for steel fiber can be obtained by
densifying the ITZ. Mu et al. [38] succeeded to increase
cost/toughness ratio of polypropylene FRC compared to AR-
glass FRC by improving its fiber–matrix bond. This was
achieved by enhancing the strength of the matrix and mini-
mizing the porosity of the ITZ.
Markovich et al. [39] investigated the inclusion of 4–6 %
by volume of microfibers in the cementitious matrix for con-
trolling the micro-cracks occurring around the macro-fiber
during the fiber pullout test. It was reported found that the
fiber hybridization improves up to 40 % the fiber–matrix
bond, especially for the matrix having low water–binder ra-
tio.
3 Mechanics of Fiber–Matrix Interactions
Based on the fiber alignment with respect to the applied
stresses, the fiber–matrix interfacial bond can be classified
into tensile bond and shear bond strength. The shear bond
strength is characterized into elastic and frictional. In the lit-
erature, the information available on the tensile bond strength
of the fiber–matrix interface is limited. Table 2 provides a
general description of the effect and significance of each class
of fiber–matrix interfacial bond. The properties that govern
the frictional shear bond strength are (1) coefficient of fric-
tion of the fiber–matrix interface, (2) normal stresses in the
matrix and (3) Poisson’s effects on the fiber–matrix inter-
face [2,16]. In the following sections, the conducted efforts
in the last 50 years to theoretically and physically model the
mechanics of fiber–matrix interactions of FRC are summa-
rized.
3.1 Theoretical Modeling
Various researchers have proposed theoretical models to sim-
ulate the fiber–matrix interactions [2,10,14,40,41]. Gener-
ally, the following procedure is followed: (1) assume an
elastic fiber–matrix bond until the initiation of the first crack,
(2) assume a notably simple post-cracking model, and (3)
estimate the stress distribution along the fiber–matrix using
semiempirical methods. At present, most available models
assume a constant fiber–matrix interfacial bond. In the re-
ported research, only Beaumont and Aleszka [16] assumed a
variable stress distribution along the fiber–matrix interface.
Generally, these models differ only in the simulation of the
fiber–matrix behavior at the post-cracking stage, which the
researchers agree to be at the end of the linearity of the stress–
strain relation of the FRC. However, this conclusion is not
absolutely true because the fiber–matrix interface debonds
after the matrix fractures [2]. The simplest model (model 1
in Fig. 6) for the fiber–matrix interactions assumes a uniform
frictional shear bond during the fiber pullout. This model was
modified by Li et al. [40] to incorporate the slip-hardening
effects of deformed fibers (model 2 in Fig. 6). Figure 7 shows
the simulated pullout–slip curves, which resulted from mod-
els 1 and 2.
Assuming that the elastic properties of the fiber and matrix
govern the shearing-stress distribution over the fiber surface,
Lawrence [41] modeled the shear force and stress distribution
along the fiber using Eqs. (1)–(2) as shown in Figs. 8 and 9,

123
1190 Arab J Sci Eng (2016) 41:1183–1198

   √  
π kdf Pt cosh ax
τ = √ √  and
Embedded length of the fiber R a sinh ale
  
Simulation based π kdf Pt √ 
τmax = √ coth ale (2)
on Model-2 R a
Pullout load

where

π df k
a=
R
Simulation based on Am E m − Af E f
Model-1 R=
(Am E m ) (Af E f )

Crack opening width Based on Lawrence [41] model, it can be seen from Fig. 8
that the pullout force distribution is linear for small embed-
Fig. 7 The simulated fiber–matrix interactions [21]
ment length but nonlinear (taking the form of an exponential
curve) for long embedded fibers. In addition, it can be seen
1
from Fig. 8 that the shear stress distribution over the fiber
data1
Normalized fiber shear stress τ/τ max

surface significantly depends on its embedded length. In this

0.8 data2
model, the maximum shearing stress τmax occurs when the
data3 fiber enters the matrix. In addition, the fiber begins debonding
0.6 data4 (Fig. 2) when τmax is greater than the fiber–matrix bonding
strength. Generally, the rule of mixture (Eq. 3) governs the
0.4 elastic behavior of the FRC. Moreover, it is usually assumed
that the first crack occurs when the matrix strain is equal to
0.2 the ultimate strain (Eq. 4).

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
E c = E f Vf + E m (1 − Vf ) (3)
Normalized fiber embeddment depth x l e
 1
24τ γm E f Vf2 3
εm u = 2d V
(4)
Fig. 8 Distribution of the pullout force over the fiber surface [23] Ec Em f m

1.4 Assuming the fiber and the matrix are in full contact, the
Normalized fiber embeddment depth x l e

data1 first cracking stress σm can be estimated by Eq. (5).

1.2
data2
 1  1
1 4E m γm 2 2G m E c 4
σm = (5)
0.8 df (1 + α) ψ E f E m Vm

0.6 where
0.4
E m Vm
α=
0.2 E f Vf
π√ 1
2
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
ψ = ln 3Vf
2
Normalized fiber embeddment depth x l e
Equation (6) provides a semiempirical expression to evaluate
Fig. 9 Distribution of the shear stress over the fiber surface [23] the generated tensile stress over the fiber surface during the
pullout test. Assuming that the shearing stress on the fiber–
matrix interface is inversely proportional to the tensile stress
respectively. This model uses experimental data to establish on fiber (Eq. 6), the composite strength σc after the first crack
the fitting constant k. initiation is obtained using Eq. (7).
 √  
sinh ax  
P = Pt √  (1) τo 4k1le
sinh ale σf = 1 − exp − (6)
k1 df

123
Arab J Sci Eng (2016) 41:1183–1198
 
τo df 2k1le df
σc = Vf 1+ exp − − (7)
k1 2k1le df 2k1le
where
E m υf μ
k1 =
E f (1 + υm )
Assuming the tensile strength of FRC does not affect the
alignment of the fiber, it can be estimated by σt = σf × factor,
in which a factor less than one is encountered to take into
account the actual number of fibers resisting the formation
of cracks. The fibers having embedment length less than the
critical length (Eq. 8) will start pullout under decreasing load.
df σf
Lc = (8)
4τ
Beaumont and Aleszka [16] developed Eq. (9) to find the
toughness of FRC beams γp , which represent the work done
by pullout force that causes the frictional shear stress τ  at
fiber–matrix interface.
Vf τ le2
γp = for le ≤ L c /2
12df
Vf σf3le
γp = for le > L c /2 (9)
12τ 2
To simulate the fiber–matrix interactions, it is generally
assumed a non-uniform elastic shear bond with frictional
shear bond in the formulation of models. Different modes of
failure have been established: (1) no debonding, (2) instan-
taneous debonding and (3) gradual debonding [16,42–44].
However, to solve the same problem, Naaman et. al. [45]
proposed a uniform elastic shear bond with frictional shear
bond. The following parameters were incorporated in the the-
oretical model of fiber–matrix interactions: (1) orientation,
spacing and aspect ratio of the fibers; (2) continuous fibers
[43,46–48]. However, notably few models have incorporated
the radial deformations because of shrinkage and Poisson’s
effects [16] and the effect of repetitive loading [46]. No re-
ported theoretical model appeared to consider the nonlinear
stress distribution along the fiber in the pre-cracking stage
(Fig. 10a).
The initiation of the first crack changes the role of the
fiber–matrix interfacial bond. Before the first crack begins,
the ultimate shearing stress over the fiber surface is located
at its edges (Fig. 10a). However, after the first crack, the
ultimate shearing stress is located at approximately at the
mid-length of the fiber (Fig. 10b). The pullout toughness of
steel/cement systems is approximately 10–20 J/m2 , which is
L c comparable to the tensile toughness of cement paste [9].
Several modes of failure are defined in terms of the fiber–
matrix bond and the mechanical and geometrical properties
1191
(a)
Fiber
Fiber
(b)
Fig. 10 Nonlinear distribution of shearing stress over the fiber surface:
a at pre-cracking stage, b at post-cracking stage [2]
Table 3 Mode of failure based on the fiber embedment length [2,49]
Case Mode of failure
le ≤ L p
The fiber–matrix elastic bond resists the fiber
pullout; however, prompt pullout occurs since
very short embedment length does not allow
the propagation of frictional resistance along
the fiber–matrix interface
L p ≤ le ≤ L c Fiber pullout process begins when the pullout
stresses is more than the elastic bond on the
fiber–matrix interface, and then, the debonded
zone with frictional resistance propagates, and
finally complete pullout occurs when the
applied pullout stresses approach the tensile
strength of fiber
L c ≤ le ≤ L t Fiber pullout process begins when the pullout
stresses is more than the elastic bond on the
fiber–matrix interface, and a fiber tensile failure
occurs with a partial debonded when the
applied pullout stresses exceed the tensile
strength of fiber
le > L t Prompt tensile failure of the fiber occurs when
the fiber is in full contact with the matrix and
the applied pullout stresses exceed the tensile
strength of fiber
of fibers. Table 3 defines four modes of failure being char-
acterized based on the critical embedment length, maximum
fiber length L p . The prompt pullout of fiber occurs as the
embedded length of fiber is below the minimum fiber length
L t ; however, the tensile failure occurs when the embedded
depth of fiber exceeds a critical value [2,49].
Wang et al. [14] demonstrated that the theoretical model
could be simplified by neglecting the elastic shear bond
strength of the fiber–matrix interface τs . In addition, Shannag
et al. [8] found that the frictional bond of the fiber–matrix in-
123
1192 Arab J Sci Eng (2016) 41:1183–1198

Table 4 Theoretical mode

Type of fiber Aspect ratio τo a1 a2 Range of slip (mm)
constants for different fibers [9]
Nylon – 0.05 0.001 0.0002 50
Monofilament polypropylene – 0.1 0.0005 0.0003 50
Straight steel – 2.35 −0.35 0.014 12.7
Fibrillated polypropylene – 0.8 0 0 0.3
Straight steel 62.50 4.2 −4.0 1.0 0.3
2.9 −4.0 0 0.3
Straight steel 31.25 6.0 −4.0 1.0 0.3
Hooked steel 60.00 3.5 4.0 −10.0 0.3
3.5 4.0 −10.0 0.3
4.5 −2.0 0.0 0.3

terfacial significantly contributed to resisting shear stresses

along the interface during the pullout test. In addition, these Embedded length of the fiber
researchers showed that the frictional shear bond strength
of the fiber–matrix interface τf for metallic fibers generally

Fiber-matrix bond
decreased when the relative slippage of the fiber–matrix in-
terface increased. However, for synthetic fibers, τf increases τ max
when the relative slippage of the fiber–matrix interface in- τf
creases. Therefore, the frictional bond strength of the fiber–
matrix interface should not be considered constant. Wang et
al. [14] presented a nonlinear model of the bond–slip rela-
tions ship using Eq. (10). 1

τ = τo + a1 x + a2 x 2 (10) End slip

where the constants τo , a1 and a2 for different types of fibers Fig. 11 Fiber–matrix bond model proposed by Naaman et al. [50]
are provided in Table 4. Li and Stang [9] demonstrated that
the model of Wang et al. [14] (Eq. 10) efficiently predicted
the slip-hardening relationship behavior of two-sided fiber strength can be considered equal to the frictional bond of
pullout experiments. the fiber–matrix interface. In addition, a 3D finite-element
Naaman et al. [50] proposed the model in Fig. 11 to sim- model of the fiber–matrix interactions by Georgiadi et al. [3]
ulate the fiber–matrix bond during the pullout test. Based on revealed that the appropriate ratio of fiber–matrix frictional
this model, Lee et al. [10] derived Eqs. (12)–(14) to model the coefficient μ is 10 %, which made the best correlations with
pullout force–slip behavior for the elastic, partial debonding experimental results.
and fully debonded modes, respectively. It should be noted
that the experimental investigations of Lee et al. [10] showed   
λAm E m 1 + e−λle
that the pullout behavior of fibers embedded in UHPC did P= s (12)
Q−2 1 − e−λle
not exhibit the drastic decrease in fiber–matrix bond when
the fiber debonding began. Thus, the maximum elastic bond
where
 π df κ Am E m
λ= K Q; K = ; and Q = 1 +
Am E m Af E f
⎧ ⎡ ⎤⎫

⎨ πd τ  ⎬
f max ⎣ 1 − e−2λ(1−u) ⎦
P = π df τf u +     
⎩ λ 2 −λ(1−u) + 1 − 1 1 + e−2λ(1−u) ⎭
Q e Q
  
1−e−λ(1−u)
P (Q − 1) u − π df2τf u (Q − 2) + (P − π df τf u) 1−e
2 Q−2
−2λ(1−u) λ − π df τf ule
s= (13)
Am E m

123
Arab J Sci Eng (2016) 41:1183–1198
P = π df τfd s (l − s + so )
 
−4υ
f μ(l−s+so ) 
η η
1 − exp 1+υf 1−υf
e−(s−so ) − ςe−l E f df Em + E
τfd (s) = τf η   f
1 − ςe−(l−s+so )
1 − exp −4υf μle
1+υ
E f df E mf + E f
Pmax
τ=
nπ df le
3.2 Physical Modeling
The fiber–matrix interfacial interaction has been investigated
using direct and indirect methods. Direct methods are based
on pullout tests of single fiber or group of fibers [51]. In indi-
rect methods, the fiber–matrix interfacial bond is quantified
from a mechanical property of a type of FRC (mostly the flex-
ural strength). In the pullout test, the fiber pullout load against
the fiber response history (slip or crack mouth opening dis-
placement) is acquired [52]. Despite great efforts to propose
an ideal pullout test method, no available method satisfies all
required measurements. Till date, there is no standard test in
any code or specification to assess the fiber–matrix interac-
tions for provided fiber and matrix.
3.2.1 Direct Methods
The pullout test is an experimental method to assess the dis-
placement response of fiber or group of fibers embedded in
a cementitious matrix to a uniaxial tensile quasi-static or dy-
namic load, which increases with a uniform rate to cause
fracture in the fiber–matrix interface or the fiber. The ac-
curacy of the pullout test measurement system is important
in the reliability of the results because the fiber response is
highly sensitive even to small pullout loads. This test has
been used to (1) optimize a mechanical property of FRC; (2)
investigate the effect of different parameters of the fiber, ma-
trix and interfacial transition zone (ITZ) of the fiber–matrix
interface; (3) evaluate the critically embedded fiber lengths;
and (4) quantify the properties of the fiber–matrix bond for a
provided type of FRC. However, these studies are rare in the
literature [16,53]. Many researchers reported that there was
no direct correlation between the fiber pullout test results
and the mechanical properties of the applied FRC [6,54].
Nonetheless, the information obtained from the fiber pullout
test can be used to optimize the FRC properties [51].
So far, several pullout test setups have been developed
to establish the pullout load–slip relationship for embedded
fiber in a matrix. The test configurations can be classified
into four types (Fig. 12): (1) single-fiber single-sided, (2)
multiple-fiber single-sided, (3) single-fiber double-sided, and
(4) multiple-fiber double-sided. Because of its simplicity,
the researchers have extensively used the single-fiber single-
1193
(14)



1−υ
f
(15)
(16)
(a) (b) (c) (d)
Fig. 12 Different configurations for pullout test: a single-fiber single-
sided, b multiple-fiber single-sided, c single-fiber double-sided config-
uration, d multiple-fiber double-sided [14]
Table 5 The criteria for efficient pullout test configuration [6,12,18]
Description of the criteria
a Testing configuration should be able to measure the
fiber–matrix interfacial response accurately
b The test configuration should facilitate pullout of the fiber
with very small free length
c The test configuration should facilitate pullout of the fibers
with up to 90◦ orientation with respect to the loading
d Testing configuration should facilitate the visual inspection
of the fiber–matrix interface
e Testing specimen should be easily fabricated
f Testing specimen should simulate an element of a FRC
g Testing specimen should facilitate an accurate placement of
fibers with different geometries during the fabrication of
the testing specimens
h Testing specimens should be easy and safely transported
i Testing specimens should facilitate high productivity and
safe storage in different curing regimes
j Testing specimens should be appropriate for applying the
secondary effects “as the radial or axial stresses
k Testing specimens should minimize stress concentration
and shrinkage effects
sided test configuration. However, the single-fiber double-
sided test configuration was rarely used [12]. The single-fiber
single-sided test configuration is associated with technical
problems in controlling the free tip of the fiber without break-
ing [10].
Many researchers suggested the criteria in Table 5 to de-
velop an efficient pullout test setup [6,12,18]. Based on these
criteria, Table 6 presents a review on the previously used test
configurations. Equation 16 is used by several researchers
to evaluate the shearing bond of the fiber–matrix interface.
Based on the assumption that the pullout load is equally dis-
tributed between the fibers on both sides for the double-sided
test configurations, the slip response of a single fiber is esti-
123
1194 Arab J Sci Eng (2016) 41:1183–1198

Table 6 Pullout test methods

Testing procedure Date Ref. Criteria as defined in Table 4 Remarks
a b c d e f g h i j k
√ √ √ √
1972, 2003, 2013 [4,21,24]    ×  × × Fiber orientation up to 75◦
was investigated

√ √ √ √ √
1976 [58]     × × A cylindrical specimen was
used to investigated the
Poisson’s effects of the
fiber–matrix bond

√ √ √ √ √ √
1978 [56]     × This test configuration was
developed for better
physical simulation for
the fracture of the fiber.
However for low
percentage volume of
fibers, it was
demonstrated that the
effect on the fiber–matrix
is marginal [56]

√ √ √ √
1991 [11] ×   ×  × ×

√
1997 [8] × ×   ×   × × ×

√ √
1999 [35]  × × ×    × × The test involves applying
simultaneous two
direction loading

√ √ √ √ √
2001 [39] × ×  × ×  A 65 mm dia. × 50 mm
height cylindrical
specimen drilled from
150 × 150 × 150 mm3
concrete cubes

√ √ √ √ √ √
2002 [18]  × × ×  Fiber orientation up to 60◦
was investigated

√ √
2004 [34]  × ×     × × Nine steel fibers were
embedded in the ASTM
tensile test specimen

√ √ √ √
2004 [28] × ×    ×  A 2 mm dia. × 50 mm
height cylindrical
specimen was used

123
Arab J Sci Eng (2016) 41:1183–1198 1195

Table 6 Continued
Testing procedure Date Ref. Criteria as defined in Table 4 Remarks
a b c d e f g h i j k
√ √ √ √
2009 [53] × × ×  × × ×

√ √ √ √ √ √
2010 [3]  × ×  × A 25 mm dia. × 100 mm height
cylindrical specimen was
used. A microstructural check
for the fiber location was
conducted.

√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
2010 [10]   × 32 fibers oriented at up to 60◦
were investigated in a
dog-bone specimen

√ √ √
2011 [26] ×   × ×  × × The test configuration was used
for comparing the pullout
load and toughness for
different fibers, lading rates
and matrix strengths

√ √ √ √ √
2012 [30] ×  ×  × ×

√ √ √ √ √ √ √
2012 [17]   × × A 65 mm × 65 mm × 200 mm
double-sided prismatic
specimen was used

√ √
2012 [36] × ×    ×   × A 10 mm × 10 mm × 20 mm
prismatic specimen was used

√ √ √ √ √
2012, 2013 [27,58] × × ×   × A 50 and 70 mm cubic
specimen was used to study
the fiber–matrix bond

√ √ √ √
2013 [31] ×  ×  × ×  A coconut fiber is embedded in
beam having
100 mm × 100 mm cross
section. The fiber pullout test
does require any type of
fixing since its fiber pullout
loads are much less than the
weight of the beam

√ √ √ √ √ √
2013 [23]     × A cubic specimen was used to
compare the fiber–matrix
bond of hooked and 3D fibers

√
Satisfied  Partially satisfied × Not satisfied

123
1196
mated by dividing the measured slip by two [10]. In addition,
the pullout toughness (energy absorbed in the fiber–matrix
interface for a particular crack opening width) is evaluated
by numerically integrating the load–slip relationship with a
limited amount of slip (e.g., 5 mm or the embedded length of
the fiber) to satisfy the maximum permissible crack opening
for certain serviceability requirement [28].
It can be seen from Table 6 that none of the used test
steps satisfies the technical requirements for a perfect phys-
ical simulation of the fiber–matrix interactions in an actual
FRC structure with high accuracy, productivity and safety
(Table 5). Most used test setups satisfy the accuracy of the
fiber-slip curve condition (condition a in Table 5). However,
most of them fail to simulate the secondary effects as the
radial stresses (condition l in Table 5). Generally, the double-
sided test setups succeed to simulate an element of FRC;
however, the standard or modified tensile strength specimen
(dog-bone specimen) is subjected to concentrated stresses
because of the gripping systems. Most single-sided test con-
figurations are held in position during testing by applying
bearing stresses opposite to the loading direction; however,
this case does not occur in the actual FRC. Some single-sided
test setups were glued to the bottom of the specimen, which
simulated an actual FRC structure better [39].
Ali et al. [31] used a single-sided specimen without re-
straining because its weight was much more than the ulti-
mate pullout load. However, this test setup failed to satisfy
the safety and productivity requirements (conditions e, h
and i in Table 5). The closest setup to achieve the physical
simulation requirements was presented by Gray and John-
ston [55], where they modified the basic single-fiber single-
sided test. For better physical modeling, this modification
involves transferring the restraining stresses to inside the
matrix instead of the specimen surface. Only the cylindri-
cal specimens introduced by Pinchin and Tabor [56] and
Georgiadi-Stefanidi et al. [3] satisfy the requirement for ap-
plying secondary (radial) effects. However, these test setups
are subjected to stress concentrations because of the radial
pressure stresses on the circumferential surface. It should be
noted that the testing methodology should minimize the devi-
ation of results. Generally, 20–55 % coefficient of variation
was reported for the results of the pullout test setups [56].
As reported by Bentur and Mindess [51], this variation was
attributed to (1) high variability of the measured properties,
(2) testing management, and (3) variations in gripping and
alignments. Figure 13 shows a typical result of a single-fiber
pullout test. This figure demonstrates that until the ultimate
pullout load (pre-cracking stage), the pullout load and slip-
page are linearly proportional. However, at the post-cracking
state, the slippage drastically increases with the decrease in
pullout force. Because of the frictional fiber–matrix interfa-
cial bond, the post-cracking stage has a random behavior for
the pullout force-slippage relation [24].
123
Arab J Sci Eng (2016) 41:1183–1198
Pre-cracking stage
Post-cracking stage
Pullout force
Crack opening width
Fig. 13 Typical result for single-fiber pullout test [38]
3.3 Indirect methods
Prudencio et al. [19] suggested an indirect method to predict
the pullout behavior of fiber from the results of the four-point
loading test. In this method, the load in a fiber that crosses the
critical section of the beam is estimated from the equilibrium
of the forces and moments if the number of the fibers (Eq. 17)
is assumed to cross that section.
Vf Ab δ
n= (17)
25π df2
4 Conclusions
The conclusions of this study are summarized as follows:
The fiber–matrix interactions govern the mechanical prop-
erties of FRC, and these interactions are governed by fric-
tional bond. The physical/chemical bond plays a minor role.
The frictional bond depends on the coefficient of friction of
the fiber–matrix interface, normal stresses in the matrix and
Poisson’s effects on the fiber–matrix interface. The bond of
the fiber–matrix interface has been quantified by direct and
indirect methods. In direct methods, the fiber–matrix bond
behavior is assessed by measuring the uniaxial tensile pullout
load and the corresponding slippage during the fiber pull-
out from a cementitious matrix, while in indirect methods,
the fiber–matrix bond strength is assessed as a mechanical
property of FRC. In theoretical modeling of the fiber–matrix
interactions, most researchers assume a constant fiber–matrix
interfacial bond in the post-cracking stage. All researchers as-
sumed that the debonding began when the first crack began in
the FRC. Increasing the fiber deformations in size, amount,
intensity or degree increases the ultimate pullout load and
decreases the pullout toughness.
Arab J Sci Eng (2016) 41:1183–1198
The pullout test is an experimental method to assess the
displacement response of fiber or group of fibers embedded
in a cementitious matrix to a uniaxial tensile quasi-static or
dynamic load, which increases with a uniform rate to cause
fracture in the fiber–matrix interface or the fiber. Despite
great efforts to develop an ideal pullout test method, none of
the used test setups satisfies the technical requirements for a
perfect physical simulation of the fiber–matrix interactions
in an actual FRC structure with high accuracy, productivity
and safety. The used test configurations can be classified into:
single-fiber single-sided, multiple-fiber single-sided, single-
fiber double-sided, and multiple-fiber double-sided. Because
of its simplicity, the researchers have intensively used the
single-fiber single-sided test configuration. Due to the high
variability of the measured properties, testing management,
gripping and alignments, the used pullout test setups exhibit
high variability (20–55 % coefficient of variation).
The initiation of the first crack alters the role of the fiber–
matrix interfacial bond. Before the first crack begins, the
ultimate shearing stress over the fiber surface is located at its
edges; after the first crack begins, the ultimate shearing stress
is at approximately the fiber mid-length. Experimental and
theoretical investigations are required to enhance the under-
standing of the fiber effects in the pre-crack stage. Moreover,
based on the fiber alignment with respect to the applied
stresses, the fiber–matrix interfacial bond can be classified
into tensile, elastic shear and frictional shear. The tensile
bond strength is important to the ductility of FRC.
Studies are required to rationally understand the contribu-
tion of the interfacial tensile strength of the fiber to the matrix
to the overall behavior of FRC. Theoretically, the orientation,
spacing and aspect ratio of fibers are incorporated to model
the fiber–matrix interactions, however, to precisely simulate
the fiber–matrix interactions, a theoretical model incorpo-
rating all possible governing parameters must be developed.
These parameters should include the radial deformations be-
cause of shrinkage and Poisson’s effects, repetitive-loading
effect and nonlinear stress distribution along the fiber in the
pre-cracking stage.
Little information is available in the literature on the dura-
bility of the fiber–matrix bond under different environmental
conditions. Research programs must study the environmen-
tal impact on the long-term behavior of the fiber–matrix
bond with emphasis on the microstructural investigations
under different exposure conditions. So far, various tech-
niques were proposed to enhance the fiber–matrix interfacial
bond. To enhance the ductility of high-performance concrete
and UHPC, innovative solutions are required to enhance the
fiber–matrix interfacial bond.
Acknowledgments The Author extends his appreciation to the Dean-
ship of Scientific Research at King Saud University for funding the work
through the research group Project No. RGP-VPP-105.
1197
References
1. Mehta, P.K.; Monteiro, P.J.: Concrete: Microstructure, Properties,
and Materials, vol. 3. McGraw-Hill, New York (2006)
2. Bartos, P.: Review paper: bond in fibre reinforced cements and
concretes. Int. J. Cement Compos. Lightweight Concrete 3(3), 159–
177 (1981). doi:10.1016/0262-5075(81)90049-X
3. Georgiadi-Stefanidi, K.; Euripidis, M.; Dafni, P.; Michalis, Z.: Nu-
merical modelling of the pull-out of hooked steel fibres from
high-strength cementitious matrix, supplemented by experimental
results. Constr. Build. Mater. 24(12), 2489–2506 (2010). doi:10.
1016/j.conbuildmat.2010.06.007
4. Naaman, A.E.: Engineered steel fibers with optimal properties
for reinforcement of cement composites. J. Adv. Concrete Tech-
nol. 1(3), 241–252 (2003). doi:10.3151/jact.1.241
5. Gray, R.; Johnston, C.: The influence of fibre–matrix interfacial
bond strength on the mechanical properties of steel fibre reinforced
mortars. Int. J. Cement Compos. Lightweight Concrete 9(1), 43–
55 (1987). doi:10.1016/0262-5075(87)90036-4
6. Maage, M.: Interaction between steel fibers and cement based
matrixes. Mater. Constr. 10(5), 297–301 (1977). doi:10.1007/
BF02478831
7. Chan, Y.; Li, V.C.: Effects of transition zone densification on
fiber/cement paste bond strength improvement. Adv. Cement Based
Mater. 5(1), 8–17 (1997). doi:10.1016/S1065-7355(97)90010-9
8. Shannag, M.; Brincker, R.; Hansen, W.: Pullout behavior of
steel fibers from cement-based composites. Cement Concrete
Res. 27(6), 925–936 (1997). doi:10.1016/S0008-8846(97)00061-6
9. Li, V.C.; Stang, H.: Interface property characterization and
strengthening mechanisms in fiber reinforced cement based com-
posites. Adv. Cement Based Mater. 6(1), 1–20 (1997). doi:10.1016/
S1065-7355(97)90001-8
10. Lee, Y.; Kang, S.; Kim, J.: Pullout behavior of inclined
steel fiber in an ultra-high strength cementitious matrix. Con-
str. Build. Mater. 24(10), 2030–2041 (2010). doi:10.1016/
S1065-7355(97)90001-8
11. Li, Z.; Mobasher, B.; Shah, S.P.: Characterization of interfacial
properties in fiber-reinforced cementitious composites. J. Am.
Ceram. Soc. 74(9), 2156–2164 (1991). doi:10.1111/j.1151-2916.
1991.tb08276.x
12. Gray, R.: Experimental techniques for measuring fibre/matrix
interfacial bond shear strength. Int. J. Adhes. Adhes. 3(4), 197–
202 (1983). doi:10.1016/0143-7496(83)90094-5
13. DiFrancia, C.; Ward, T.; Claus, R.: The single-fibre pull-
out test. 1: review and interpretation. Compos. Part A
Appl. Sci. Manuf. 27(8), 597–612 (1996). doi:10.1016/
1359-835X(95)00069-E
14. Wang, Y.; Li, V.C.; Backer, S.: Modelling of fibre pull-out from
a cement matrix. Int. J. Cement Compos. Lightweight Con-
crete 10(3), 143–149 (1988). doi:10.1016/0262-5075(88)90002-4
15. Lin, Z.; Kanda, T.; Li, V.C.: On interface property characterization
and performance of fiber reinforced cementitious composites. Con-
crete Sci. Eng. 1(3), 173–184 (1999)
16. Beaumont, P.; Aleszka, J.: Cracking and toughening of concrete
and polymer-concrete dispersed with short steel wires. J. Mater.
Sci. 13(8), 1749–1760 (1978). doi:10.1007/BF00548738
17. Chin, C.; Xiao, R.: Experimental and nonlinear finite element
analysis of fiber-cementitious matrix bond-slip mechanism. High
Perform. Fiber Reinf. Cement Compos. 6, 145–152 (2012). doi:10.
1007/978-94-007-2436-5_18
18. Robins, P.; Austin, S.; Jones, P.: Pull-out behaviour of hooked
steel fibres. Mater. Struct. 35(7), 434–442 (2002). doi:10.1007/
BF02483148
19. Prudencio, L. Jr.; Simon, A.; Peter, J.; Hugo, A.; Peter, R.: Predic-
tion of steel fibre reinforced concrete under flexure from an inferred
123
1198
fibre pull-out response. Mater. Struct. 39(6), 601–610 (2006).
doi:10.1617/s11527-006-9091-2
20. Grünewald, S.: Performance-based design of self-compacting fibre
reinforced concrete. Delft University Press, Delft, The Nether-
lands (2004)
21. Wille, K.; Naaman, A.: Bond stress-slip behavior of steeh fibers
embedded in ultra high performance concrete. In: ECF18, Dresden
(2013)
22. Kim, J.; Kim, D.; Kang, S.; Lee, J.: Influence of sand to coarse
aggregate ratio on the interfacial bond strength of steel fibers in con-
crete for nuclear power plant. Nuclear Eng. Des. 252, 1–10 (2012).
doi:10.1016/j.nucengdes.2012.07.004
23. Richardson, A.; Heather, M.: Improving the performance of con-
crete using 3D fibres. Procedia Eng. 51, 101–109 (2013). doi:10.
1016/j.proeng.2013.01.016
24. Naaman, A.E.: A statistical theory of strength for fiber reinforced
concrete. Ph.D. Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
(1972)
25. Abu-Lebdeh, T.; Hamoush, S.; Zornig, B.: Rate effect on pullout be-
havior of steel fibers embedded in very-high strength concrete. Am.
J. Eng. Appl. Sci. 3(2), 454 (2010)
26. Abu-Lebdeh, T.; Sameer, H.; William, H.; Brian, Z.: Effect of ma-
trix strength on pullout behavior of steel fiber reinforced very-high
strength concrete composites. Constr. Build. Mater. 25(1), 39–
46 (2011). doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2010.06.059
27. Tuyan, M.; Yazıcı, H.: Pull-out behavior of single steel fiber from
SIFCON matrix. Constr. Build. Mater. 35, 571–577 (2012). doi:10.
1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.04.110
28. Singh, S.; Shukla, A.; Brown, R.: Pullout behavior of
polypropylene fibers from cementitious matrix. Cement Concrete
Res. 34(10), 1919–1925 (2004). doi:10.1016/j.cemconres.2004.
02.014
29. Barluenga, G.: Fiber–matrix interaction at early ages of concrete
with short fibers. Cement Concrete Res. 40(5), 802–809 (2010).
doi:10.1016/j.cemconres.2009.11.014
30. Kim, J.J.; Dong, J.; Su, T.; Jang, H.: Influence of sand to coarse
aggregate ratio on the interfacial bond strength of steel fibers in con-
crete for nuclear power plant. Nuclear Eng. Des. 252, 1–10 (2012).
doi:10.1016/j.nucengdes.2012.07.004
31. Ali, M.; Li, X.; Chouw, N.: Experimental investigations on bond
strength between coconut fibre and concrete. Mater. Des. 44, 596–
605 (2013). doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2012.08.038
32. Boshoff, W.; Mechtcherine, V.; van Zijl, G.: Characterising the
time-dependant behaviour on the single fibre level of SHCC:
Part 1: mechanism of fibre pull-out creep. Cement Concrete
Res. 39(9), 779–786 (2009). doi:10.1016/j.cemconres.2009.06.
007
33. Boshoff, W.; Mechtcherine, V.; van Zijl, G.: Characterising the
time-dependant behaviour on the single fibre level of SHCC—
Part 2: the rate effects on fibre pull-out tests. Cement Concrete
Res. 39(9), 787–797 (2009). doi:10.1016/j.cemconres.2009.06.
006
34. Chan, Y.; Chu, S.: Effect of silica fume on steel fiber bond
characteristics in reactive powder concrete. Cement Concrete
Res. 34(7), 1167–1172 (2004). doi:10.1016/j.cemconres.2003.12.
023
35. Wu, H.; Li, V.C.: Fiber/cement interface tailoring with plasma treat-
ment. Cement Concrete Compos. 21(3), 205–212 (1999). doi:10.
1016/S0958-9465(98)00053-5
36. Sebaibi, N.; Mahfoud, B.; Nor Edine, A.; Christophe, B.: Me-
chanical properties of concrete-reinforced fibres and powders with
crushed thermoset composites: The influence of fibre/matrix inter-
action. Constr. Build. Mater. 29, 332–338 (2012). doi:10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2011.10.026
37. Sedan, D.; Cécile, P.; Agnèse, S.; Thierry, C.: Mechanical proper-
ties of hemp fibre reinforced cement: Influence of the fibre/matrix
123
Arab J Sci Eng (2016) 41:1183–1198
interaction. J. Eur. Ceram. Soc. 28(1), 183–192 (2008). doi:10.
1016/j.jeurceramsoc.2007.05.019
38. Mu, B.; Meyer, C.; Shimanovich, S.: Improving the interface bond
between fiber mesh and cementitious matrix. Cement Concrete
Res. 32(5), 783–787 (2002). doi:10.1016/S0008-8846(02)00715-9
39. Markovich, I.; Van Mier, J.; Walraven, J.: Single fiber pullout from
hybrid fiber reinforced concrete. HERON 46(3), 191–200 (2001)
40. Li, V.C.; Cynthia, W.; Shuxin, W.; Atsuhisa, O.; Tadashi, S.: In-
terface tailoring for strain-hardening polyvinyl alcohol-engineered
cementitious composite (PVA-ECC). ACI Mater. J. Am. Concrete
Inst. 99(5), 463–472 (2002)
41. Lawrence, P.: Some theoretical considerations of fibre pull-out
from an elastic matrix. J. Mater. Sci. 7(1), 1–6 (1972). doi:10.1007/
BF00549541
42. Laws, V.: The efficiency of fibrous reinforcement of brittle ma-
trices. J. Phys. D Appl. Phys. 4(11), 1737 (1971). doi:10.1088/
0022-3727/4/11/318
43. Aveston, J.; Kelly, A.: Theory of multiple fracture of fibrous
composites. J. Mater. Sci. 8(3), 352–362 (1973). doi:10.1007/
BF00550155
44. Swamy, R.; Mangat, P.; Rao, C.K.: The mechanics of fiber rein-
forcement of cement matrices. Spec. Publ. 44, 1–28 (1974)
45. Naaman, A.; Argon, A.; Moavenzadeh, F.: A fracture model
for fiber reinforced cementitious materials. Cement Concrete
Res. 3(4), 397–411 (1973). doi:10.1016/0008-8846(73)90078-1
46. Allen, H.: Stiffness and strength of two glass–fiber reinforced ce-
ment laminates. J Compos. Mater. 5(2), 194–207 (1971). doi:10.
1177/002199837100500205
47. Nair, N.: Mechanics of glass fibre reinforced cement. In: Rilem
Symposium. The Construction Press Ltd Hornby (1975)
48. Argon, A.; Shack, W.: Opening Paper: Theories of Fibre Cement
and Fibre Concrete. DTIC Document, Fort Belvoir (1975)
49. Bartoš, P.: Analysis of pull-out tests on fibres embedded in brittle
matrices. J. Mater. Sci. 15(12), 3122–3128 (1980). doi:10.1007/
BF00550385
50. Naaman, A.E.; George, G.; Jamil, M.; Husam, S.: Fiber pullout
and bond slip. I: analytical study. J. Struct. Eng. 117(9), 2769–
2790 (1991). doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1991)117:9(2769)
51. Bentur, A.; Mindess, S.: Fibre reinforced cementitious composites,
2nd edn. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2006)
52. Cunha, V.; Barros, J.; Sena-Cruz, J.M.: Pullout behaviour of
hooked-end steel fibres in self-compacting concrete. Civil Engi-
neering, Report 07-DC/E06.Universidade do Minho, Guimarães
53. Aiello, M.; Leuzzi, F.; Centonze, G.; Maffezzoli, A.: Use of
steel fibres recovered from waste tyres as reinforcement in con-
crete: pull-out behaviour, compressive and flexural strength. Waste
Manag. 29(6), 1960–1970 (2009). doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2008.12.
002
54. Hughes, B.; Fattuhi, N.: Load–deflection curves for fibre-
reinforced concrete beams in flexure. Mag. Concrete
Res. 29(101), 199–206 (1977). doi:10.1680/macr.1977.29.
101.199
55. Gray, R.; Johnston, C.: The measurement of fibre–matrix interfacial
bond strength in steel fibre-reinforced cementitious composites. In:
Proceedings of the RILEM Symposium (1978)
56. Pinchin, D.; Tabor, D.: Inelastic behaviour in steel wire pull-
out from Portland cement mortar. J. Mater. Sci. 13(6), 1261–
1266 (1978). doi:10.1007/BF00544732
57. Pinchin, D.: Poisson contraction effects in aligned fibre com-
posites. J. Mater. Sci. 11(8), 1578–1581 (1976). doi:10.1007/
BF00540895
58. Zı̄le, E.; Zı̄le, O.: Effect of the fiber geometry on the pullout re-
sponse of mechanically deformed steel fibers. Cement Concrete
Res. 44, 18–24 (2013). doi:10.1016/j.cemconres.2012.10.014