(rpet) fiber self-compacting concrete faisal bin sheikh khalid
TRANSCRIPT
i
ENGINEERING PROPERTIES OF RING SHAPED POLYTHEYLENE
TEREPHTHALATE (RPET) FIBER SELF-COMPACTING CONCRETE
FAISAL BIN SHEIKH KHALID
A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirement for the award of the
Doctor of Philosophy
FACULTY CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
UNIVERSITY TUN HUSSEIN ONN MALAYSIA
APRIL 2015
v
ABSTRACT
Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles are plastic containers that are typically
discarded, and thus, cause environmental pollution. To solve this problem, PET bottles
are recycled in concrete. Previous studies have mostly used PET with straight or
irregularly shaped fibers. It has been shown that PET has a weak interfacial bond with
cement paste in the pullout load because of the lamellar shape of fibers. Therefore, ring-
shaped PET (RPET) fibers are introduced in this study to overcome the limitations of
traditional straight, lamellar, or irregularly shaped fibers. RPET fibers are mainly
designed with a special shape to mobilize fiber yielding rather than fiber pullout. RPET
fibers are made directly from waste bottles. The diameter of RPET bottles is fixed at 60 ±
5 mm. The width of RPET fibers is fixed at 5, 7.5, or 10 mm and designated as RPET-5,
RPET-7.5, and RPET-10 respectively. This study mainly determines the optimum water–
binder ratio and fiber content of RPET fiber concrete (FC) through self-compacting, as
well as through compressive, tensile, and toughness strength tests. A water–binder ratio
of 0.55 and working ranges from 0.25% to 1% of fiber content are successfully accepted
for all sizes of RPET fibers. Result of the pullout test shows that RPET fiber interfacial
bond strength ranges from 0.502 MPa to 0.519 MPa for RPET-5 fiber, from 0.507 MPa
to 0.529 MPa for RPET-7.5 fiber, and from 0.516 MPa to 0.540 MPa for RPET-10 fiber.
This study presented that the compressive and tensile strength of RPET fiber exhibited an
increase of 17.3% and 35.7%, respectively compared to normal concrete. RPET FC shows
improvement in first crack load for flexural toughness strength of RPET FC with increase
of 24.5% compared to normal concrete specimen. Moreover, 156 FC cylinders were used
to develop new equations for predicting the compressive and tensile strengths of RPET
FC via multiple regression analysis. Two equations are obtained. These equations are
included in calculating compressive and tensile strength of RPET FC limited up to 28
days In conclusion, incorporating RPET fibers when recycling waste PET bottles in
concrete produces FC with An improvement performance comparable to that of normal
concrete.
vi
ABSTRAK
Polyethylene Terephthalates (PET) botol merupakan sebahagian dalam produk plastik
yang telah dibuang terus dan meyebabkan pencemaran kepada alam sekitar. Sehubungan
dengan itu, salah satu cara untuk mengatasi masalah ini adalah dengan mengitar semula
di dalam bentuk fiber. Kajian terdahulu menjurus kepada bentuk lurus atau bentuk tidak
seragam. Rumusan kajian terdahulu menunjukkan bentuk lurus and bentuk tidak seragam
PET fiber di dalam konkrit mempunyai kelemahan dari segi kekuatan ikatan permukaan
antara fiber dan konkrit semasa ujian penarikan fiber. Oleh itu, bagi mengatasi masalah
ini bentuk bulatan PET atau di pangil sebagai Ring shaped PET (RPET) di perkenalkan
di dalam kajian ini. RPET fiber dapat menahan kesan pernarikan fiber dan mengalami
kegagalan pada kekuatan tegangan maksimum fiber itu sendiri. RPET fiber dihasilkan
secara terus dari botol kitar semula. Ia mempunyai diameter bersaiz 60 ± 5 mm. Kelebaran
RPET fiber terbahagi kepada tiga iaitu 5 mm, 7.5 mm, dan 10 mm yang bermaksud kepada
RPET-5, RPET-7.5, dan RPET-10. Objektif utama kajian ini adalah menentukan
kesesuain dalam nisbah air-simen dan kandungan fiber melalui ujian seperti anti
pemadatan konkrit, kekuatan mampatan. kekuatan tegangan, kekuatan keutuhan konkrit
fiber itu sendiri. Di akhir ujian menunjukkan 0.55 nisbah air-simen dan kandungan effektif
sebanyak 0.25% hingga 1.00% adalah terbaik untuk semua saiz RPET fiber. Keputusan
ujian penarikan daya ikatan permukaan RPET fiber adalah sebanyak 0.502 MPa hingga
0.519 MPa, 0.507 MPa hingga 0.529 MPa, dan 0.516 MPa hingga 0.540 MPa untuk
RPET-5, RPET-7.5, dan RPET-10 fiber. Kajian ini menunjukkan peningkatan sebanyak
17.3% sehingga 35.7% untuk ujian kekuatan mamapatan dan ujian ketegangan
dibandingkan dengan spesimen normal konkrit. Malahan, RPET fiber konkrit memberi
peningkatan sebanyak 24.5% untuk kekuatan rekahan pertama setelah dibandingkan
dengan normal konkrit spesimen. Kemudian, 156 silinder konkrit melalui ujian kekuatan
mampatan dan tegangan diambil serta dianalisa untuk menghasilkan formula baru melalui
keadah Multiple Regression. Dua formula ini dapat menentukan secara teori bagi
kekuatan mampatan dan tegangan fiber konkrit, namun terhad sehingga tempoh matang
konkrit 28 hari sahaja. Akhir kata, campuran RPET fiber dengan konkrit adalah berkesan
dalam penghasilan fiber konkrit setelah dibandingkan dengan konkrit normal.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE PAGE
TITLE i
DECLARATION ii
DEDICATION iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT iv
ABSTRACT v
ABSTRAK vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS vii
LIST OF FIGURES xi
LIST OF TABLES xvi
LIST OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS xix
LIST OF APPENDICES xxi
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Statement of problem 2
1.3 Research objectives 5
1.4 Scope of study 6
1.5 Significant of study 6
1.6 Organisation of thesis 7
viii
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 8
2.1 Introduction 8
2.2 Definition of Fiber concrete 10
2.3 Previous works on plastic fiber in self-compacting concrete 11
2.4. Fiber tensile and pullout loads 14
2.4.1 Previous works on plastic fibers regarding
tensile and pullout loads 16
2.5 Previous works on plastic fibers regarding
hardened-state FC properties 18
2.6 Influence of fiber content on FCs 26
2.7 Influence of fiber shape on FCs 29
2.8 Influence of water–binder ratio on FCs 30
2.9 Concluding remarks 31
CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 32
3.1 Introduction 32
3.2 Preparation of raw materials 34
3.2.1 Cement 34
3.2.2 Fly ash 34
3.2.3 Chemical admixture 35
3.2.4 Coarse aggregates 35
3.2.5 Sand 35
3.2.6 Water 35
3.2.7 RPET fibers 35
3.3 Design mix proportion of RPET FC 37
3.4 Preparation mixtures of RPET FC 40
3.5 Testing fresh-state concrete properties 42
3.5.1 Filling capability test 42
3.5.2 Passing capability test 43
3.6 Hardened-state of RPET FC 44
3.6.1 Compressive strength test 44
3.6.1.1 Preparation of specimens 47
3.6.1.2 Setup of compressive strength test 47
3.6.2 Splitting tensile strength 48
3.6.2.1 Preparation of specimens 48
3.6.2.2 Setup of splitting tensile strength test 49
3.6.3 Flexural toughness of RPET FC using the
ASTM C1018 toughness method 50
3.6.3.1 Preparation of specimens 50
ix
3.6.3.2 Setup flexural toughness 51
3.6.3.3 ASTM C1018 test method for flexural
toughness measurements 52
3.7 Tensile strength of RPET fiber 53
3.8 Fibre pullout test 55
3.8.1 Preparation of materials and RPET fiber 55
3.8.2 Preparation of concrete mixtures 56
3.8.3 Preparation of specimens 57
3.8.4 Pullout test apparatus and data analysis 60
3.9 Mathematical model 62
3.10 Concluding remarks 63
CHAPTER 4 ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION ON FRESH, HARDNED-STATE,
AND PULLOUT PROPERTIES OF SELF-COMPACTING
CONCRETE RPET FC 64
4.1 Introduction 64
4.2 Fresh-state of self-compacting RPET FC 64
4.2.1 Filling capability test 65
4.2.1.1 Effect of fiber content 67
4.2.1.2 Effect of RPET fiber size 71
4.2.2 Passing capability test 75
4.2.2.1 Effect of RPET fiber content 76
4.2.2.2 Effect of RPET fiber size 80
4.2.3 Selecting the optimum water–binder ratio for
RPET FC 82
4.2.3.1 Filling capability 83
4.2.3.2 Passing capability 84
4.2.3.3 Compressive strength 86
4.2.4 Concluding remarks on fresh-state
self-compacting RPET FC 89
4.3 Compressive strength of RPET FC 91
4.3.1 Effect of fibre content on compressive strength 93
4.3.2 Effect of RPET fiber size on compressive strength 99
4.3.3 Effect on age on compressive strength 101
4.3.4 Correlation between compressive and
tensile strength 102
4.4 Splitting tensile strength 104
4.4.1 Effect of RPET fiber content on tensile strength 106
4.4.2 Effect of RPET fiber size on tensile strength 109
x
4.4.3 Correlation between compressive strength
and tensile strength 110
4.5 Flexural toughness of RPET FC using the
ASTM C1018 toughness method 117
4.5.1 Failure mode 122
4.5.2 First crack load 124
4.5.3 Load-deflection response 128
4.5.4 Effect of RPET fiber content on flexural toughness 128
4.5.5 Effect of RPET fiber size on flexural toughness 133
4.5.6 Concluding remarks on hardened-state of RPET FC 134
4.6 Tensile, pullout, and interfacial bond strength
of RPET fiber 135
4.6.1 Tensile strength of RPET fiber 135
4.6.2 Fiber pullout test 137
4.6.2.1 Load-End displacement response 138
4.6.2.2 Effect of embedded length of fiber on
pullout load 140
4.6.2.3 Effect of RPEt fiber size on pullout
load 142
4.6.2.4 Effect of embedded length RPET fiber
on interfacial bond strength 145
4.6.2.5 Effect of RPET fiber on interfacial
bond strength 147
4.6.3 Concluding remarks on tensile and interfacial
bond strength of RPET fiber 149
CHAPTER 5 DEVELOPMENT OF COMPRESSIVE AND TENSILE STRENGTH
RPET FC MODEL 150
5.1 Introduction 150
5.2 Development of a new equation: Compressive
strength of RPET FC 150
5.2.1 General form 151
5.2.2 Regression analysis 154
5.2.3 Equation models 155
5.2.3.1 Coefficient of determinant (R2) 155
5.2.3.2 t-Test 156
5.2.3.3 t-statistic 158
5.3 Development of a new equation: Tensile strength
of RPET FC 159
5.3.1 General form 159
xi
5.3.2 Regression analysis 162
5.3.3 Equation model 163
5.3.3.1 Coefficient of determinant (R2) 163
5.3.3.2 t-Test 164
5.3.3.3 t-statistic. 165
5.4 Discussion on the model 167
5.5 Concluding remarks 176
CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 177
6.1 Introduction 177
6.2 Conclusions on fresh-state of RPET FC 177
6.3 Conclusions on hardened-state of RPET FC 178
6.4 Conclusions on tensile and interfacial bond strength
of RPET fiber 179
6.5 Conclusions on mathematical models of RPET FC 180
6.6 Research contributions 181
6.7 Recommendations for future research 182
REFERENCES 183
APPENDIX 197
xii
LIST OF FIGURES
NO TITLE PAGE
1.1 Previous studied on waste PET in concrete 3
2.1 General profile of a single fiber pullout curve 15
3.1 Flow chart of research methodology 33
3.2 The ring bottle of plastic PET bottle 36
3.3 The dimension of ring waste bottles 37
3.4 Determination of mass RPET fiber for 1m3 concrete 38
3.5 The tilting drum mixer 40
3.6 Procedure mixes SCC concrete of RPET fiber 41
3.7 Slump flow apparatus and measurement 42
3.8 L-Box apparatus for passing capability test 43
3.9 Cylinder steel formwork 47
3.10 Compressor plate and cylinder concrete 48
3.11 Apparatus for tensile strength test 49
3.12 Prism mould for flexural toughness test 51
3.13 Specimen under third point loading 51
3.14 Description of the flexural toughness according to ASTM
C1018
52
3.15 Dog-bone shape of RPET fiber 53
3.16a Hinge roller of tensile test 54
3.16b Full setup of tensile test 54
3.17a RPET-5 fiber 56
3.17b RPET-7.5 fiber 56
3.17c RPET-10 fiber 56
3.18 Mould of 100 x 100 x 100 mm 57
3.19a Embedment 15 mm of RPET fiber 58
3.19b Embedment 20 mm of RPET fiber 58
xiii
3.19c Embedment 25 mm of RPET fiber 59
3.20 Hardened RPET fiber before test 59
3.21 Hinge support for pullout strength test 60
3.22 Minimized compressive forces on sample 60
3.23 Complete setup pullout test 61
4.1 Slump flow for normal SCC and RPET FC 65
4.2a Great scc mixture 69
4.2b Fiber balling occurred 70
4.3 Present study (RPET-5 FC) and other previous researches 71
4.4a Slump flow FC of 0.45 water binder ratio 72
4.4b Slump flow FC of 0.55 water binder ratio 73
4.4c Slump flow FC of 0.65 water binder ratio 73
4.5a RPET-5 fiber in concrete mixture 74
4.5b RPET-10 fiber in concrete mixture 74
4.6a Passing flow for normal SCC 75
4.6b Passing flow for RPET FC 75
4.7 Comparison result between present study and other previous
researches
79
4.8a Passing index of RPET-5, RPET-7.5, and RPET-10 fiber at
0.45 water binder ratio
81
4.8b Passing index of RPET-5, RPET-7.5, and RPET-10 fiber at
0.55 water binder ratio
81
4.8c Passing index of RPET-5, RPET-7.5, and RPET-10 fiber at
0.65 water binder ratio
81
4.9 The slump flow results for normal SCC and RPET FC
(1.00% fiber content)
83
4.10 The passing index results for normal SCC and RPET FC
(1.00% fiber content)
85
4.11 The compressive strength of RPET-5 FC at age of 28 days 87
4.12 The compressive strength of RPET-7.5 FC at age of 28 days 88
4.13 The compressive strength for RPET-10 FC at age of 28 days 88
4.14a After test for normal SCC 92
4.14b After test for 0.75 % volume of RPET-5 FC 92
4.15a After test for 1.00 % volume of RPET-5 FC 92
xiv
4.15b After test for 1.50 % volume of RPET-5 FC 92
4.16 Effect of fiber content on the compressive strength of RPET
FC
93
4.17 Fiber bridging concrete by synthetic manufactured fiber 96
4.18 Successive stages of crack propagation across a RPET fiber 97
4.19 Compressive strength from present study and observed by
previous researches
98
4.20 The surface area of RPET fiber 100
4.21 Compressive strength between RPET FC (1.00% fiber
content) and observed by previous researches.
101
4.22 Correlation between compressive strength and age of
concrete of RPET-5, RPET-7.5, and RPET-10 FC
103
4.23 Normal SCC after tensile test 106
4.24 RPET-5 FC after tensile test 106
4.25 Effect of fiber content on the experimental tensile strength of
RPET FC
107
4.26 Comparison between RPET FC and those reported by
previous researcher.
108
4.27 Correlation between tensile strength and compressive
strength of RPET-5, RPET-7.5, and RPET-10 FC
111
4.28 Normal SCC 121
4.29 REPT-5 FC containing 0.5% of RPET-5 fiber after flexural
toughness test
121
4.30 REPT-5 FC containing 1.0% of RPET-5 fiber after flexural
toughness test
121
4.31 REPT-5 FC containing 1.5% of RPET-5 fiber after flexural
toughness test
122
4.32 Failure pattern-separation between RPET fiber and concrete
matrix
122
4.33 Failure pattern-fiber rupture 123
4.34a Failure pattern-fiber rupture after yielding 123
4.34b Failure pattern-cone type concrete fracture 123
4.34c Failure pattern-separation between RPET fiber and concrete
matrix
123
4.35 Load-displacement of RPET-5 FC (specimen 1) 125
4.36 Load-displacement of RPET-7.5 FC (specimen 1) 125
4.37 Load-displacement of RPET-10 FC (specimen 1) 126
4.38 First Crack Load of REPT FC 127
xv
4.39 Flexural toughness of RPET-5 FC 129
4.40 Flexural toughness of RPET-7.5 FC 129
4.41 Flexural toughness of RPET-10 FC 130
4.42 Toughness strength result from present study and observed
by previous researches
132
4.43 Toughness Indices I20 of 0.50 % and 1.00 % fiber content 133
4.44 Load- Displacement curves for RPET-5 fiber (specimen 1) 137
4.45 Load- Displacement curves for RPET-7.5 fiber (specimen 1) 137
4.46 Load- Displacement curves for RPET-10 fiber (specimen 1) 138
4.47 Load- Displacement curves for all sizes of RPET fiber in 25
embedded lengths (specimen 1)
139
4.48 The maximum of pullout load according to the size of RPET
fiber
142
4.49 The surface area of RPET fiber in concrete 143
4.50 The comparison between RPET fiber and previous researcher
on surface embedded area.
144
4.51 Pullout load result from present study and observed by
previous researchers
144
4.52 Interfacial bond strength RPET fiber 146
4.53 The comparison of interfacial bond strength between RPET
fiber and those reported by previous researchers
146
5.1
Ratio of compressive strength observed from experimental
work over to predicted Equation 5.9
169
5.2 Ratio of tensile strength observed from experimental work
over to predicted Equation 5.17
169
xvi
LIST OF TABLES
NO TITLE PAGE
2.1 Prediction of MSW in Kuala Lumpur 9
2.2 Solid wastes composition of selected locations in Kuala
Lumpur, Malaysia
10
2.3 The mix proportion of plastic fiber SCC and workability as
reported by different researches
12
2.4 The mix proportion of plastic fiber SCC and workability as
reported by different researches
17
2.5 The mix proportion of plastic fiber SCC and hardened-state
results as reported by different researches
23
2.6 Remarks from previous researches on the suitable fiber
content for FC properties
27
3.1 Chemical composition of the Portland cement and fly ash 34
3.2 Dimension of RPET fiber 36
3.3 Mixtures Proportion for 1m3 of concrete 39
3.4 Number of specimens cast to determine the optimum RPET
fiber content
45
3.5 Mixture proportion of RPET FC adopted in the present study 46
3.6 Mixture proportion of SCC to test pullout strength of RPET
fiber
57
3.7 Number of RPET fiber tested for pullout strength 58
4.1 Slump flow of RPET-5, RPET-7.5, and RPET-10 FC 66
4.2 Slump flow of RPET FC 68
4.3 Passing Index for RPET-5, RPET-7.5, and RPET-10 FC 75
4.4 Analysis of passing Index for RPET-5, RPET-7.5, and
RPET-10 FC
76
4.5 The compressive strength of normal SCC and RPET FC at
age of 28 days
86
4.6 Summary of RPET-5, RPET-7.5, and RPET-10 FC for fresh
properties concrete
89
xvii
4.7 Compressive strength test for RPET-5, RPET-7.5, and RPET-
10 FC
91
4.8 Compressive strength of RPET FC 93
4.9 Analysis of compressive strength between sizes of RPET FC 100
4.10 Direct tensile strength test for RPET FC 105
4.11 Analysis of tensile strength between sizes of RPET FC 110
4.12 Comparison of compressive and tensile strength for RPET-5
FC (experimental and predicted)
114
4.13 Comparison of compressive and tensile strength for RPET-
7.5 FC (experimental and predicted)
115
4.14 Comparison of compressive and tensile strength for RPET-10
FC (experimental and predicted)
116
4.15 Flexural toughness of RPET-5 FC 118
4.16 Flexural toughness of RPET-7.5 FC 119
4.17 Flexural toughness of RPET-10 FC 120
4.18 First crack load of RPET FC 127
4.19 Analysis of toughness indices from flexural toughness test 131
4.20 Tensile strength of RPET fiber 135
4.21 Tensile fiber strength from present study and observed by
previous researchers
136
4.22 Result of pullout test for RPET fiber 138
4.23 Analysis of maximum load from pullout test 141
4.24 Interfacial bond strength of RPET fiber 145
5.1 Combination of general equation for compressive strength of
RPET fiber concrete
153
5.2 Results of regression analysis using SPSS 154
5.3 Coefficient of determinant for Equation 5.7, 5.8, and 5.9 156
5.4 MSR and MSE values from SPSS output 157
5.5 Degree of freedom 157
5.6 Critical t value from APPENDIX F 157
5.7 Significance of Equation 5.7 158
5.8 Significance of Equation 5.8 158
5.9 Significance of Equation 5.9 158
5.10 Combination of general equation for tensile strength of RPET 162
xviii
5.11 Results of Regression Analysis using SPSS 162
5.12 Coefficient of determinant for Equation 5.15, 5.16, and 5.17 164
5.13 MSR and MSE values from SPSS output 164
5.14 Degree of freedom 165
5.15 Critical t value from APPENDIX F 165
5.16 Significance of Equation 5.15 165
5.17 Significance of Equation 5.16 166
5.18 Significance of Equation 5.17 166
5.19 Selection of RPET-Age of RPET FC 168
5.20 Selection of interfacial bond stress, df 168
5.21 Coefficient of α and β 168
5.22 Ratio of experimental over predict equation 5.9 for
compressive strength of RPET FC
170
5.23 Ratio of experimental over predict equation 5.17 for tensile
strength of RPET FC
174
xix
LIST OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ϕ - diameter
κ - constant
σ - stress of specimen
εcc - concrete strain
Df - thickness of PET fiber
Ec - Modulus of Elasticity (MOE)
fck - compressive strength (Eurocode)
fcu - compressive strength (British Standard)
fct - tensile strength
fct,fl - flexural tensile strength
fct,sp - splitting tensile strength
fr - modulus rupture of concrete
fIf - first crack loading by UNI 11039-2
Gf fracture energy
hb - height of specimen in flexural tensile strength
Lf - length of PET fiber
PIf - first crack loading by UNI 11039-2
Vf - volume fraction of PET fibers
ACI - American Concrete Institute
ASTM - American Standard Test Method
BS - British Standard
CPET - Crystalline PET
EG - Ethylene glycol
EN - European Standard
F - conventional fiber factor
xx
FA Fly ash
FRC - Fiber Reinforced Concrete
HDPE High Density Polyethylene
ILSI - International Life Science Institute
ISIS - Intelligent Sensing for Innovative Structures
LB - L-box
LVDT - Liner Variable Differential Transformer
MC - Moisture content
MPMA - Malaysian Plastic Industry
MSE - Mean square residual or error
MSR - Mean square regression
MSW - Municipal Solid Waste
PA - passing ability
PET - Polyethylene Terephthalate
PP Polypropylene
RC - Reinforced Concrete
UTF - Universal Test Frame
UTM - Universal Test Machine
UTHM - Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia
SCC - Self-compacting concrete
SF - Slump flow
SPSS - statistical analysis in social science
TPA - Terephthalic acid
PTA - Pure Terephthalic acid
VF - Flow rate
xxi
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX TITLE PAGE
A A sample calculation to determine toughness indices of RPET
FC
197
B Compressive strength test used in Regression multiple
analysis
205
C MODEL 1-Compressive strength 209
D MODEL 2-Compressive strength 210
E MODEL 3-Compressive strength 211
F Table t-distribution 212
G Tensile strength test used in Regression multiple analysis 213
H MODEL 1-Tensile strength 215
I MODEL 2-Tensile strength 216
J MODEL 3- Tensile strength 217
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background of study
The rapid development of the construction industry has increased the demand for
tall and long-span concrete structures and the attempt to satisfy this demand with fiber
concrete (FC) (Ashour et al., 1992). Fibers are primarily used as replacements for
conventional reinforcement in non-structural applications to control early thermal
contraction and drying shrinkage cracking. These benefits have increased the application
of fibers in structures, particularly those with low reliability levels, such as slabs on grade,
foundations, and walls. The use of fibers as a part of the overall structural design of
structural applications is continuously increasing. Fibers are added to improve the fracture
characteristics and behavior of structures through the capability of the fibers to bridge
cracks. Therefore, many studies have been extended to analyze various fiber types and
shapes, particularly in investigating the performance of concrete reinforced with fibers
(Ochi et al. 2007, Kim et al. 2010, Foti, 2011 & Fraternalli et. al. 2011). The possibility
of using waste materials as fibers to be incorporated in concrete has been determined.
Adding waste fibers has good effects on the properties of the final products and benefits
the environment.
2
Waste polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles can be used in various
applications such in construction. The development of new construction materials using
recycled PET fibers is important in the construction and PET recycling industries.
In the field of civil engineering research, the recycled PET has begun to be adopted
in the concrete. Studies have incorporated PET waste into concrete (Ochi et al. 2007,
Pereire et al. 2011, Foti, 2012, & Irwan et al. 2013). These studies have shown that
recycled PET fibers produce different results depending on their shape and content. An
example of study that has been conducted by Ochi et al. (2007) revealed that using 30
mm-long PET fibers can increase tensile strength for volume replacement up to 1.5%
compared with that made of 20 mm-long fibers. They claimed that long fibers have the
capability to interlocking fiber bridges in concrete because fibers can be inserted between
aggregates compared with 20 mm-long fibers. However, recycled PET fibers exhibit
limited performance because of the weak interfacial bond strength of PET surface during
fiber bridge stress, particularly in fibers with lamellar and irregular shapes (Fratenali et
al., 2010 & Irwan et al., 2014).
Therefore, traditional straight, lamellar, or irregularly shaped fibers have
limitations in providing significant results for engineering properties. Thus, this study
produces ring-shaped PET (RPET) fibers and investigates the possibility of incorporating
them into concrete. Optimum fiber content needs to be determined, and the performance
of recycled PET FC need to be investigated.
1.2 Statement of problem
The amounts of plastic consumed annually have been increasing steadily. Therefore,
selecting PET waste products as recycled materials is appropriate from the perspective of
civil engineering applications. Recycled PET may be used as fiber reinforcement for
structural concrete. Fiber-reinforced concrete (FRC) can enhance crack control and
ductility in quasi-brittle concrete and can be an alternative for mass consumption, which
is an important issue in recycling waste materials (Kim et al., 2008). Major studies using
PET bottles with different sizes, shapes, fiber contents, and mix concrete water–cement
ratios have been performed, as shown in Figure 1.1.
3
Figure 1.1: Previous studies on waste PET in concrete
- Use 0.5%, 1.0%, and 1.5% of
PET volume,
-Strength and modulus of
elasticity increased with
increasing of PET volume
except for1.5% fiber,
-Binder material and
superplasticizer were added, and
- Superplasticizer (SP) exhibited
improvement on workability
compared to concrete without
SP
Ochi et al., 2007
Waste PET bottle in Concrete
Pelliser et al., 2012
- Use lamellar PET of 0%, 2.5%, and
7.5% PET volume,
-PET FC made of self-compacting
concrete (SCC),
-Interfacial transition zone in
hardened concrete is high with
increasing of PET volume,
-PET does not exhibit chemical
bonding and reaction, and
-The lamellar-shaped PET fibers
exhibited an easy slip at high stress
load.
Fernando et al., 2012
- Use plastic length (lamellar) of 10mm, 20mm, and 30 mm.
- Use PET volume of 0.05%, 0.18%, and 0.30% fiber,
- PET FC made of self-compacting concrete (SCC),
-Compressive strength increase with increasing of plastic
volume,
-Plastic of 30mm length exhibited improvement in
compressive strength compared to PET of 10mm and 20 mm
length respectively, and
-The fiber surface area which is contact with matrix concrete
exhibited improvement on FC strength.
Foti, 2012
-Use PET bottle that has been cut in ring shape with size
90.5 mm of diameter,
-The author only used 5 mm width of ring PET,
- The author used 0.50% and 0.75% of fiber content,
- PET FC made of self-compacting concrete (SCC),
- The author found that ring PET in concrete has minor
increase in compressive strength, and
-However, tensile and flexural strength of ring PET
presented improvement strength compared to normal and
lamellar PET fiber concrete.
Ramadevi et al., 2012
- Use lamellar of 1.0%, 2.0%, 4.0%,
and 6.0% PET volume,
-PET FC made of self-compacting
concrete (SCC),
-Compressive and flexural strength
increased with an increase of PET
content ranged 1.0-2.0%, and
-Decrease in compressive and
flexural strength at more than 4%
fiber content.
- Use irregular shape of PET fiber incorporated with concrete,
- Use PET volume ranged of 0.5% to 1.50% fiber content,
- Have a slightly increase in compressive strength. It shows an
exhibited improvement strength on tensile and first crack ductility
compared to normal concrete, and
- PET FC made of self-compacting concrete (SCC) mixture exhibited
improvement on filling and passing capability compared PET FC
(without SCC).
Irwan et al., 2013
4
Ochi et al. (2007) studied recycled PET bottles with 30 mm-long fibers. The fiber
surface was indented to provide sufficient friction energy. The authors claimed that a high
percentage of fiber content produced fiber bundles during mixing and pouring. Binder
material and superplasticizer help fiber distribute well in concrete compared normal
concrete (without binder and superplasticizer). The results of previous studies have shown
that PET has a weak interfacial bond with cement paste in the pull-out load because of the
lamellar shape of fibers (Pelliser et al., 2012). Pelliser et al. (2012) claimed that lamellar-
shaped PET fibers exhibit limited performance in PET FC.
Ramadevi et al. (2012) exhibited that compressive strength increased up to 2%
replacement content of waste PET fibers. An increase in fiber content increases concrete
strength. Foti (2012) studied the possibility of using fibers from PET bottles to increase
concrete ductility. Foti (2012) claimed that ring PET fibers exhibit impressive
performance compared with lamellar-shaped PET fibers, particularly in tensile strength.
The ring shape is the main factor that contributes to fiber bridges during tensile stress.
Irwan et al. (2013) used a waste bottle with irregularly shaped PET fibers. The authors
claimed that concrete mixture is not the only factor that contributes to the improvement
of the compressive strength of FC. Fiber size and shape also have roles to prevent slip out
fiber at high stress load and exhibited fiber concrete (FC) performance.
To overcome the limitations of traditional straight or irregularly shaped fibers,
ring-shaped fibers were selected in this study. Ring-shaped fibers are mainly designed to
mobilize fiber yielding (rupture by tensile) rather than fiber pullout (slipped by fiber
force), which is a primary advantage over straight or irregularly shaped PET fibers as per
discussed in Foti, 2011. The more number of fibers in concrete that will increase fiber
interlocking mechanism between fiber and matrix concrete is needed. Besides, PET fiber
made of SCC mixture exhibited sufficient result on workability and strength concrete
compared to PET fiber without SCC mixture. Therefore, this study aimed to prove the
advantage of ring-shaped PET fiber in terms of fresh and hardened-state of RPET FC on
mixture design according to self-compacting concrete (SCC).
5
1.3 Research objectives
The overall goal of this research is to investigate the influence of RPET fibers in
fresh and hardened-state of FC. The study aims to establish engineering material
properties and develop mathematical equation for RPET FC. The equation established
will be useful in determining the compressive and tensile strength of RPET FC.
To achieve the above goals, the following specific objectives are outlined as follows:
i. Determine the optimum water–binder ratio and fiber content of RPET FC,
ii. Determine the interfacial bond strength of RPET FC, and
iii. Develop an empirical equations for the compressive and tensile strength of RPET
FC at 28 days.
1.4 Scope of Study
The scope of the study covers two different aspects on RPET FC. The first aspect
is related to the engineering properties of fresh and hardened state of RPET FC and the
second aspect is related to develop equation for compressive and tensile strength of RPET
FC. To accomplish the aforementioned objectives, several tasks were undertaken, which
are described as follows.
i. RPET fibers were made directly and cut manually from waste plastic bottles,
ii. The width of fibers selected are 5, 7.5, and 10 mm wide were selected to continue
the research of Foti (2012). Foti (2012) only studied 5 mm-wide fibers
incorporated into concrete. However, the diameter of the fibers in the present study
was different from that in Foti (2012). That is, a diameter of 60 mm was used in
this study whereas 95 mm was used in Foti (2012),
6
iii. All mixtures were designed according to self-compacting (SCC) requirements, as
introduced by Irwan et al. (2014). This study presented the RPET fiber
incorporated with SCC mixture design called as RPET FC. Concrete without fiber
was also designed to SCC mixture called as normal SCC in this study,
iv. Compressive, tensile, and interfacial bond strength of RPET FC were conducted
by compressive strength, splitting tensile strength, and pullout fiber strength tests,
respectively, and
v. The compressive strength and tensile strength of FC were determined
experimentally to find the prediction model of strength through regression
analysis. A new mathematical model for calculating the 28 days strength of RPET
FC has been proposed.
1.5 Significant of study
Over 30 million tons of plastics are produced yearly, and plastic materials take hundreds
of years to break down in landfills (European Commission DG Environment, 2011). For
every 1 ton of recycled plastic, 64 km2 of landfill space is saved (European Commission
DG Environment, 2011). Recycling can also help conserve 30% of the energy used to
make new plastic bottles, containers, and other items. In civil engineering, the challenge
is to utilize plastic waste materials in structural applications. Plastic waste can serve as a
replacement material or admixture material to help reduce the unit weight of structures
and provide toughness to prevent cracking.
Using recycled waste plastic as fibers in structures generally provides sufficient
benefits to consider it as an economical and attractive option. Once the use of concrete
with RPET fibers becomes popular, the importance of research contributions to provide
technical knowledge on this new material becomes apparent.
7
1.6 Organization of thesis
Chapter 1 presents the background, problem statement, objectives, scope, significance,
and organization of the study.
Chapter 2 provides the literature review of factors that influence the properties of
fresh and hardened-state FC, including findings from previous studies on PET fibers SCC.
Studies on the compressive strength, tensile strength, interfacial bond strength, first crack
load, and toughness are also included.
Chapter 3 describes the experimental program carried out in this study. The main
parameters, materials, and instrumentation are detailed.
Chapter 4 presents the optimum water–binder ratio of self-compacting RPET FC
determined through filling and passing capability tests. The findings discussed in this
chapter is presented to select the water–binder ratio to be used in hardened-state RPET
FC. In hardened-state RPET FC, the investigation on the tensile strength and behavior of
pullout RPET fibers. The optimum fiber content of RPET is determined through its
compressive strength, tensile strength, and flexural toughness strength tests of RPET FC.
The results and data from compressive and tensile are used to develop a mathematical
model and explained in Chapter 5.
Chapter 5 demonstrates the development of the mathematical models for RPET
FC to determine the compressive strength and tensile strength of reinforced RPET FC.
Chapter 6 presents the conclusion of the study and recommendations for further
works.
8
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
Plastic consumption now days have become an integral part of our lives. The amounts of
plastics consumed annually have been increasing steadily. There are several factors that
contribute to the rapidly growth of plastics consumption such as low density, fabrication
capabilities, long life, lightweight, and low cost of production (Siddique et al., 2007).
Plastic has been used widely in packaging, automotive and industrial applications,
preservation and distribution of food, housing, communication materials, security
systems, and other uses. Plastic waste also includes municipal solid waste. Table 2.1
shows the prediction of municipal solid wastes (MSW) in Kuala Lumpur (KL), Malaysia
(Saeed et al., 2009). Most of the plastic wastes are thrown away by consumers after single
usage due to unwanted or cheap product and lack of awareness to the environment
(Welle, 2011). The worst scenario need to be concerned for is the effect of the increasing
in plastic wastes affect the environment and health if the conventional treatment does not
have any improvement.
9
Table 2.1: Prediction of MSW in Kuala Lumpur (Saeed et al., 2009)
Year
Population of KL city
(millions)
MSW (kg/person/day)
MSW
(millions kg/day) MSW
(millions kg/year)
2008 2.34 1.62 3.79 1383.35
2010 2.53 1.69 4.28 1562.20
2012 2.74 1.76 4.82 1759.30
2014 2.96 1.83 5.42 1978.30
2016 3.20 1.90 6.08 2219.20
2018 3.46 1.98 6.85 2500.25
2020 3.75 2.06 7.73 2821.45
2022 4.05 2.14 8.67 3164.55
2024 4.38 2.23 9.77 3566.05
The trend of growth population to the MSW in Table 2.1 indicates a serious query.
The population of KL city citizen from 2008 to 2024 increases by 87% but the MSW
growth increase by 157.8%. From this result, it shows that the percentage in MSW growth
is greater than the population growth. The contradiction percentage between population
and MSW growth show that the MSW problem is going to be severed if proper treatment
is ignored. According to Manaf et al. (2009), the source of MSW can be from the food,
mix paper, plastic, textile, rubber, glass and organic. Table 2.2 classifies the percentage
of each type of waste in MSW while. Plastic which is common used in packaging industry
for food and beverage (PET) consume about 9 % to 10 % percent from MSW. This
percentage reflects the seriously high amount of plastic waste in landfills in Malaysia.
10
Table 2.2: Solid wastes composition of selected locations in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
(Agamuthu & Faizura, 2005)
Wastes consumption Percentage (%)
Garbage 45.7
Plastic 9.0
Glass 3.9
Paper or cardboard 29.9
Metals 5.1
Fabric 2.1
Miscellaneous 4.3
Total 100
Nevertheless, bottle and flasks account for 67 % from total plastic waste
consumption in Malaysia (MPMA, 2007). The worst scenario is most of the plastic use
now days are singly thrown after first usage. The problem further complicated since
plastic wastes is undegradable and may cause environmental disturbance. Treatment
method through incineration produces toxic gas like dioxin that could be dangerous to
human health. There are several methods for dispose the plastic wastes but most of the
treatment are not resulted to a promising result if the plastic wastes generation is too high.
Therefore, one of the potential means to the problem is to recycle the PET in construction
industry as fiber concrete (FC). Fiber concrete can enhance crack control, ductility in
concrete, and can be alternative for mass consumption using recycling waste materials
(Kim et al., 2008). This study investigate the influence of RPET FC as waste recycled
fiber incorporated with concrete through fresh-state and hardened state of FC.
2.2 Definition of Fiber Concrete
FC is concrete with a fibrous material, which increases its structural integrity. FC also
contains short discrete fibers that are uniformly distributed and randomly oriented (Fantilli
et al., 2005). Fibers used include glass, steel, synthetic, and natural. The characteristic of
11
FRC changes with varying concrete types, geometries, densities, orientations,
distributions, and fiber materials within different fibers (Chawla, 2001 & Bataneyh et al.,
2007).
2.3 Previous works on plastic fibers in self-compacting concrete (SCC)
Self-compacting concrete is a mix that expels entrapped air without vibration and
that travels round obstacles. The main characteristic of SCC is that vibrating is
unnecessary during construction, which reduces manpower demand during the
construction stages of concrete structures. In FC technology nowadays, most researchers
have focused on the effect of steel fibers on the rheology of SCC mixtures and the
development of steel fiber-reinforced SCC mixture design procedures (Toutanji et al.,
1998, Sahmaran et al., 2005, Mustafa et al., 2007, Abdulkadir et al., 2007, Stahli et al.,
2008, Krishna et al., 2010, & Li et al., 2011).
Some studies (Forgeron, 2010 & Singh, 2010) have been conducted on synthetic
fiber reinforcement and its effect on the flow characteristics of SCC. Therefore, studying
the flow characteristics of SCC mixtures with synthetic fiber reinforcement is important
to identify and characterize the main factors that affect their flow.
The most important property of concrete in its fresh state is its workability on
filling and passing. Filling ability test for SCC standard was slump flow, orimet, v-tunnel
tests, meanwhile passing ability test namely L-box, U-box, and J-ring tests. Therefore,
slump flow and L-box tests were selected to determine the filling and passing ability of
FC. The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) and American Concrete
Institute (ACI) have established standard tests to assess the fresh properties of SCC. The
slump flow ranges on 550 mm to 740 mm for slump flow test according to ASTM. L-box
test presented ranges on 0.8 to 1.0 of passing index according to ACI. These test have
been conducted and presented details in next Chapter 4.
SCC have been used widely incorporating plastic fibers. Previous researchers have
done conducted all types of plastic fiber in different size, content and shape of fiber. The
summary of the previous works of using plastic fiber in SCC is shown in Table 2.3.
12
Table 2.3: The mix proportion of plastic fiber SCC and workability as reported by different researches
Author
Mix Design Properties (kg/m3) Results for workability
Cement Water. Sand Agg. Binder SP. W/C Fiber
type
Vol. of fiber
(%)
Slump flow,
(mm) Passing index
Alberti et al.,
2014 200 189.7 918 367
200
(Limestone) 4.7 0.5 Macro synthetic
0.5 642 -
1.0 600 -
1.5 590 -
Irwan et al.,
2013 300 175 980 805 45 (FA) 4.68 0.55
Irregular PET
waste
0.5 587 0.91
1.0 560 0.88
1.5 552 0.81
Zhang et al.,
2013 390.3 158 647 1151
74.1 (FA) +
29.6 (SF) 4.94 0.35
Polypropylene-
20 mm length
0.06 540 -
0.10 533 -
0.12 509 -
Benaicha et
al., 2013 350 170.7 170.7 830
170 (Limestone)
- 0.33
Micro synthetic 0.5 650 0.83
0.75 620 0.81
Macro synthetic 0.5 650 0.80
0.75 603 0.72
Deepa et al.,
2012 300 150 300 240 - - 0.50
Polypropylene -
6 mm length
0.30 712 0.93
0.50 680 0.87
0.75 620 0.82
Bataneyh et
al., 2007 440 252 555 961 - - 0.55
PET waste-
lamellar
5.0 541 -
10.0 448 -
Note:
Agg is aggregate, SP is superplasticizer, FA is fly ash, and SF is silica fume
12
13
Alberti et al. (2014) investigated macro synthetic fibers to determine the flow
capability of FC. They used macro polyolefin fibers with a length of 60 mm and a diameter
of 0.93 mm. A superplasticizer was used with the mix concrete fiber. Slump flow
decreased when fiber content was increased. The slump flow pattern of concrete with 1%,
1.5%, and 2% fiber contents slightly decreased on averages of 1.2%, 8.4%, and 10%,
respectively, compared with that of normal concrete. Therefore, Alberti et al. (2014)
claimed that an increase in fiber content decreases the flow capability of SCC FC.
Irwan et al. (2013) used a waste bottle with irregularly shaped PET fibers in SCC
mix. They used fly ash (class F) as binder material, superplasticizer, and mix concrete
with 0.55 water–binder ratio. The contents of the irregularly shaped PET fibers were 0%,
0.5%, 1%, and 1.5%. The slump flow of concrete decreased with increasing fiber volume.
A slump flow ranging from 552 mm to 567 mm was obtained with decreases of 1.3% to
2.3% at 0.5% increment of the fiber content. A slump flow ranging from 0.81 mm to 0.96
mm of the passing index was obtained with decreases of 3.4% to 8.2% at 0.5% increment
of the fiber content. However, Irwan et al. (2013) claimed that the fiber balling effect may
not occur in irregularly shaped PET fibers incorporated into concrete. They also indicated
that the size of irregularly shaped PET fibers, which is smaller (the diameter is 15 mm)
than those of other fibers with a high surface, is the main factor that prevents the bundling
of fibers in concrete.
Zhang et al. (2013) investigated the effect of PP fibers on the workability of
concrete with fly ash and silica fume. Three fiber content percentages, namely, 0.06%,
0.1%, and 0.12%, were used. The result indicated that adding PP fibers affects the
workability of concrete. Such addition also decreased the slump flow of concrete at ranges
of 7.7% to 10.7% compared with that of plain concrete. With the increase in fiber content,
the number of fibers in unit concrete mixture becomes large. Therefore, the obstructive
effect of fibers on the flow capability of fresh-state concrete also increases.
Benaicha et al. (2013) used 20 mm-long micro PP synthetic fibers and 54 mm-
long macro copolymer synthetic fibers in mix concrete. A superplasticizer (0.3%) was
used in the mix composition with 0.33 water–binder ratio. Limestone powder was used as
an additional filler binder in the composition mixture. A slump flow of 603 mm to 650
mm was obtained for micro and macro synthetic fibers with 0.5% and 0.75% fiber
14
contents, respectively. It was confirmed that the slump flow pattern of concrete decreases
with increasing fiber content. Decreases in slump flow with averages of 4.62% and 7.2%
were obtained with increasing fiber content for micro and macro synthetic fibers,
respectively. The geometry of synthetic fibers functions as an important factor to achieve
the smooth dispersion of fibers during the test. Synthetic fibers have a rounded and long-
thin shape that helps them incorporate into concrete and flow with concrete paste without
any obstruction to aggregates.
Deepa et al. (2012) used concrete mixtures with a viscosity-modifying agent
(VMA) that is 0.23% by weight of the cementitious material and without any binder
material. PP fibers (6 mm long) and a concrete mixture with 0.50 water–cement ratio were
used. Slump flows of 712, 680, and 620 mm were obtained for 0.3%, 0.5%, and 0.75%
fiber contents, respectively. Batayneh et al. (2007) investigated the effect of ground
plastic on concrete slump. Concrete mixtures with up to 20% plastic particle content were
proportioned to partially replace fine aggregates.
A decrease was observed in slump with increasing plastic particle content. This
decrease in slump value was attributed to the shape of plastic particles. The majority of
the researchers have found that an increase in fiber content decreases the flow capability
of FC. However, determining the optimum fiber content is important to find the value that
satisfies the requirements for SCC testing.
2.4 Fiber tensile and pullout loads
Tensile testing is performed on plastic fibers to determine their ultimate tensile strength
and MOE. These properties are primarily used to compare different fiber types and to
market commercial fibers. ASTM D683‐08 can be used to determine the tensile properties
of plastics by stretching dog bone-shaped specimens until they rupture. However, given
the molecular alignment and varying parameters associated with the manufacturing
processes of synthetic fibers, such specimens produced by the same material will not
exhibit the same tensile properties as those of extruded filaments.
The ASTM D2256‐09 Standard Test Method for Tensile Properties of Yarns by
the Single‐Strand Method specifies a constant rate for testing that results in fiber rupture
15
within a period of 20 ± 3s. The maximum tensile force applied to the specimen before
rupture is recorded. The recorded value is used to calculate the ultimate tensile strength,
as shown in Equation 2.1.
𝜎𝑓𝑢 = 𝑃𝑇
𝐴 (2.1)
where,
σfu = Ultimate tensile strength of fiber (MPa),
PT = Maximum tensile load (N), and
A = Cross sectional area of the filament (mm2).
The matrix fiber concrete is often over simplified by assuming a uniform shear
bond stress reported in terms of average strength over the embedded surface area of the
fiber (Wang et al., 1988). Fiber pullout curves typically use pull-out load (N) plotted
against fiber slip (mm). Pullout curves have been characterized using the parameters
interfacial frictional stress at the onset of slip, τ0, chemical bond, Gd, friction coefficient, f,
and slip –hardening parameters, β as shown in Figure 2.1.
Figure 2.1: General profile of a single fiber pullout curve (Redon et al., 2001)
16
Figure 2.1 illustrates a pullout curve broken into three stages as described by
Redon et al. (2001). A stable fiber debonding process occurs along the fiber-matrix
interface. Pullout load continues to increase up to a value Pa or Pmax and the embedment
length, le is unchanged while the debonded length increases until it is equal to le in the
second stage (load from Pa to Pb).
A sharp drop between Pa and Pb indicates the breaking of a chemical bond between
fiber and the matrix. A study conducted by Redon et al. (2001) that used PVA and PP
synthetic fiber found that synthetic fibers have no chemical reaction and chemical bond
between fiber and matrix concrete. Therefore, majorities of plastic fiber during pullout
test have the low constant friction energy.
In third stage, frictional resistance is the dominant force. This stage that the fiber-
matrix interface can exhibit slip-hardening, constant friction, or slip-softening.
2.4.1 Previous works on plastic fibers regarding tensile and pullout loads
A previous work on synthetic fiber have been conducted by several of researchers to
determine tensile and interfacial bond strength. The details of the mixture proportions and
the tensile strength and pullout load are given in Table 2.4. Foti (2011) studied the
possibility of using fibers from PET bottles to increase concrete ductility. The tensile
strength of RPET fibers with 0.20 mm thickness, 335 mm total length, and 5 mm width
was determined. The ring “0”-shaped PET obtained an average tensile strength of 180
MPa. This tensile strength result is sufficiently high and comparable with other fibers in
the market for FRC.
17
Table 2.4: The plastic fiber properties and result conducted by different researches
Author
Fiber properties
Tensile
strength,
(N/mm2)
Pullout load
Type of fiber Shape
Size
w/c
Embedded
length of
fiber, (mm)
Load,
(N)
Width
or
Diam.
(mm)
Length,
(mm)
Foti, 2011 Waste bottle Ring 5 335 180 - - -
Shannon 2011
HDPE
Straight 0.47 45 - 0.47
15 69
20 88
PP 15 48
20 64
Richardson et
al., 2009
Micro
polypropylene Straight 0.11 30 0.55
45 28
50 39
55 54
Ochi et al.,
2007
PET
manufactured Straight
0.75
30
172
- - - PP
manufactured 1.21 350
Singht et al.,
2004 PP Straight 1.31 45 - 0.33
19 81
25 108
38 142
Shannon (2011) studied the melt extrusion and tensile strength of different PE
materials, namely, high-density PE (HDPE) and PP fibers with 1.76 mm width. A pullout
load test with two embedded lengths (15 mm and 20 mm) was conducted with a constant
displacement rate of 5 mm/min. Fibers with different materials but similar widths and
embedded lengths tend to exhibit differences in the pullout load. HDPE with 1.76 mm
width obtained higher load strength than PP with 1.76 mm width at both 15 mm and 20
mm embedded lengths. The pullout strength of HDPE and PP fibers increased from 19.5%
to 27.6% as the embedded length increased. It was confirmed that different type of plastic
fiber tends to have different pullout load pattern.
Richardson et al. (2009) examined the behavior of PP fibers with 0.19 mm
diameter and different embedded length. The load increased as the embedded length of
the fibers increased. An average increase of 39.3% to 48.1% in strength was obtained
from embedded lengths ranging from 45 mm to 55 mm. Therefore, the embedded length
of the fibers presented different pullout strength results. The difference is related to the
Note
HDPE is high density polyethylene, PP is polypropylene, & PET is polyethylene terephthalate
18
fiber area connected to the concrete, which determines the friction and interfacial bond
energy of the fibers.
Ochi et al. (2007) used PET, PP, and PVA fibers to determine the tensile strength
of different types of manufactured plastic fibers. PET, PP, and PVA fibers had 0.75, 1.21,
and 0.71 mm widths, respectively, but their length were fixed at 30 mm. PVA fibers
obtained the highest tensile strength. By contrast, PET fibers had the lowest tensile
strength of 172 MPa.
Singh et al. (2004) investigated the pullout behavior of PP fibers with an
embedded length and interfacial bond fibers with a concrete matrix. They indicated that
PP fibers have a weak bond with concrete because of the smooth surface of the fibers,
which do not allow sufficient friction to develop between the concrete and the fibers.
However, they recognized that the embedded length of the fibers in concrete exerts
significant effects on pullout characteristic. The increase in embedded length from 19 mm
to 38 mm raises load strength from 39% to 68.2%.
Previous studies (Foti, 2011) have shown that recycled PET exhibits an adequate
tensile strength comparable to those of commercial plastic fibers in the market. The size
of the surface area contact with concrete mainly contributes to pullout and interfacial
energies. A high fiber surface that comes in contact with concrete produces high pullout
load energy. Therefore, embedded lengths and sizes of RPET fibers have been
investigated to determine different pullout strength of FC.
2.5 Previous works on plastic fibers regarding hardened-state FC properties
The summary previous works of plastic fiber regarding all type of plastic fiber in different
size, content and shape of fiber on compressive, tensile, and flexural toughness (hardened-
state) FC properties as shown in Table 2.5.
Vikrant et al. (2013) used PP fibers with length of 15, 20, and 24 mm and 0.4%
fiber content. Different fiber lengths indicate varying FC strength values. The average
strength values ranged from 1.1% to 4.2% were obtained for fiber lengths ranging from
15 mm to 24 mm. Fiber length (surface area) is an important factor that affects the
remarkable strength result. Long fibers have a high surface area that connects with the
19
concrete matrix and produces high interfacial bond strength and friction energy during
load compression compared with short fibers. Fibers with length ranged from 15 mm to
24 mm of fibers increased their concrete strength on averages of 26.6% to 31.4%
compared with the control concrete. The size of the fiber surface area influences strength.
Fiber suppresses the localization of microcracks. Consequently, the apparent size of fiber
(length) of the matrix increases based on the compressive strength result.
Irwan et al. (2013) used a waste bottle with irregularly shaped PET fibers in the
SCC mixture. The increase in PET fiber content increased strength, that is, an increment
was observed in the strength of concrete with 0.5% fiber content compared with normal
concrete. However, concrete strength decreased by 5.3% and 6.8% when fiber content
increased to 1% and 1.5%, respectively. The mix concrete which has been used
incorporated with fiber is not the main factor that improves the compressive strength of
FC, but instead it is the size and shape of the fibers. The tensile strength of FC result
presented increases in concrete strength of 9.1%, 14.7%, and 18.2% for concrete with
0.5%, 1%, and 1.5% fiber contents, respectively, compared with normal concrete. Thus,
irregularly shaped PET fibers with high fiber contents are not affected by fiber balling
problem. Therefore, 1.5% of irregular PET capable to present improved result in tensile
strength.
Ramadevi et al. (2012) used specimens with 0.5%, 1%, 2%, 4%, and 6% waste
PET fiber contents in concrete mixtures. The mixtures were designed with a 0.45 water–
cement ratio. The compressive strength increased up to 2% replacement content of waste
PET fibers compared to normal concrete. Increase in fiber content increases concrete
strength. Compared with normal concrete, concrete with 0.5% and 1% fiber contents
exhibited strength increases of 4.03% and 15.4%, respectively. Concrete strength initially
increased and then decreased when the optimum fiber content was achieved. Compressive
strength increased up to 2% replacement volume of fine PET fibers, as mentioned earlier,
and presented decreased strength at 4% and 6% replacement volumes of fiber content.
The authors claimed that optimum fiber content is mainly important in performance FC.
Alavi et al. (2012) investigated the effect of PP fibers on the impact resistance of
FC. Fiber contents of 0.2%, 0.3%, and 0.5% were used. The compressive and tensile
strengths of FC increased by up to 14.4% and 62.1%, respectively, compared with plain
20
concrete. An increase in fiber content tends to increase the compressive strength of
concrete. Long PP fibers can function as fiber bridges during compression. The authors
claimed that long fiber indicated high surface area contacted with concrete. Therefore, it
presented significant friction energy during pullout stress during fiber bridges mechanism.
Foti (2011) used a waste plastic bottle as the recycled fiber material. The waste
bottle was cut into different PET shapes, such as lamellar and ring-shaped. The lamellar
fibers were 30 mm long and 5 mm wide. The RPET fibers had a diamater of 95 mm and
a width of 5 mm. No pozzolanic material and superplasticizer were used in concrete
mixtures. Analysis showed an increase in strength with increasing fiber volume. Concrete
with 0.75% fiber content showed an increased strength of 5% compared with concrete
that contained 0.5% RPET fibers. Lamellar fibers also exhibited an increase in strength
with increasing fiber content. An increased strength of 3% was observed for concrete with
0.75% fiber content compared with concrete with 0.5% fiber content. Ring-shaped fibers
can improve concrete strength with increasing fiber content. The unique ring shape can
function as interlocking fiber bridges among aggregates during tensile stress. The 28 days
tensile strength value of concrete with 0.5% and 0.75% fiber contents exhibited increases
in strength compared with normal concrete. RPET FC with 0.5% and 0.75% fiber contents
presented increases of 20.5% and 40.3% in strength, respectively. Circular fibers can
improve post-cracking strength with low fiber content.
Pelisser et al. (2012) studied recycled PET FC. Fibers with lengths of 10, 15, and
20 mm and volume fractions of 0.18% and 0.3% FC were used. Adding recycled PET
fibers enhanced the energy absorption and toughness characteristic of concrete under
flexural load. The 20 mm-long fibers increased the flexural toughness of I20 indices by
44% and 30.8% compared with the 10 mm-long fibers with 0.18% and 0.3% fiber
contents, respectively. The size of the area fiber contributes significantly to flexural
toughness indices. An increase in fiber length increases the size of the fiber area that
connects to the cement matrix and contributes to the positive results in flexural toughness
indices, particularly in I10 and I20.
Pereira et al. (2011) studied the use of recycled PET fibers. Fiber contents of 0.5%,
1%, and 1.5% were used in mix concrete. Various fiber contents exhibited different
characteristics of flexural toughness indices. Compared with 0.5% and 1% fiber contents,
21
the 1.5% fiber content increased flexural toughness I20 indices by 22.4% and 5.7%,
respectively.
Hasan et al. (2011) studied the mechanical behavior of concrete reinforced with
macro synthetic fibers. Three fiber content percentages, namely, 0.33%, 0.42%, and
0.51%, were used. An improvement of approximately 4% was observed for the specimen
with 0.33% fiber content compared with normal concrete. Gradual improvements of
approximately 6.48% and 6.89% were also achieved for concrete with 0.42% and 0.51%
fibers contents, respectively. The tensile strength of concrete with 0.33% and 0.41% fiber
contents increased by approximately 10% and 15%, respectively. The increase was
attributed to the fiber bridging properties in the concrete. The RC was split during the
tensile strength test. Consequently, the load was transferred to the fibers as a pullout
behavior when the concrete matrix began to crack. The 0.51% FC specimen was decreased
because of inadequate concrete workability at high dosages and full compaction was not
achieved.
Semiha et al. (2010) used granulated blast furnace slag (GBFS) as a replacement
material in concrete incorporated with 1% and 1.6% PET fibers. The 28 days compressive
strength values of the mixtures with only PET aggregates (without sand) were higher by
3.5% compared with those of normal concrete (without PET and sand). The compressive
strength values of the mixtures with PET and sand were higher by 5.1% and 7.2%
compared with PET concrete (PET only) and normal concrete (without PET and sand),
respectively. The increase in compressive strength was attributed to the pozzolanic
material in concrete. Semiha et al. (2010) claimed that adding fly ash to concrete helps
PET bottles incorporated with sand and aggregates. Fly ash which has very small particle
helps in binding and fill small spaces between sand and aggregates. Therefore, the transfer
load process during load strength become efficient from one particle to another particle
on matrix concrete.
Nili et al. (2010) showed the effects of 12 mm-long PP fibers on the impact
resistance of concrete. Four fiber content percentages, namely, 0%, 0.2%, 0.3%, and 0.5%,
were used. An increase of 3% in compressive strength was observed in concrete with 0.2%
fiber content, whereas the increase was 14% in concrete with 0.5% fiber content. Concrete
with 0.2%, 0.3%, and 0.5% fiber contents exhibited increases in tensile strength of 15%,
22
20%, and 27%, respectively. The fibers effectively reduced the brittleness of the
specimens. The failure pattern changed from a single, large crack to a group of narrow
cracks, particularly during the tensile strength test, when fibers were added to concrete.
Ochi et al. (2007) studied recycled PET fibers with a length of 30 mm and a
diameter of 0.7 mm. The fiber surface was indented to provide sufficient friction energy.
Compressive strength averages of 3.5% to 7.9% were obtained for concrete with 0.5% to
1% fiber contents. However, concrete with 1.5% fiber content exhibited a reduced
strength of 0.8% compared with normal concrete. This trend in FC strength is similar to
that in the present study. Maximum fiber content resulted in fiber balling and reduced
concrete strength.
Batayeneh et al. (2007) pointed out the deterioration of concrete compressive
strength with increasing plastic content. The compressive strength of concrete with 20%
plastic was reduced by up to 70% compared with that of normal concrete. Marzouk et al.
(2007) studied the use of plastic bottle waste as a substitute to sand aggregates in
composite materials for building applications. They also showed the effects of PET waste
products on the density and compressive strength of concrete, which both decreased when
PET aggregates exceeded 50% sand volume. Frigione et al. (2010) investigated the
mechanical properties, such as compressive and flexural strengths, of polymer concrete
with unsaturated polyester resin based on recycled PET, which reduced material cost and
conserved energy.
Ahmed et al. (2007) investigated the multiple cracking behavior of hybrid fibers
reinforced with different combinations of steel and PE fibers under four-point bending.
The combination of 0.5% steel and 2% PE exhibited the highest flexural toughness
compared with FC with only steel fibers. Compared with steel fibers, PE fibers prevented
early cracking. However, PET fibers exhibited low tensile strength, which could not be
maintained at high stress loads. The authors claimed that PE fiber easily slipped or loose
interfacial bond between concrete and surface of fiber. The authors suggested to
implement hooked mechanism as fiber bridges as well to prevent loose bond strength.
23
Table 2.5: The mix proportion of plastic FC properties and hardened-state results reported by different researches
Author
Mix design properties (kg/m3) Type of
fiber Size
Vol. of
fiber,
(%)
Com.,
(MPa)
Tensile,
(MPa)
Flexural
Toughness
Cement Water. Sand Agg. Binder SP. w/c I5 I10 I20
Rahmani et al.,
2013 379.6 208.9 580.2 606.0 - - 0.5 PET waste Irregular –
7mm
0.5 31.58 2.91 - - -
1.0 35.36 3.11 - - -
1.5 31.76 3.06 - - -
Irwan et al.,
2013 300 175 980 805
45
(FA) 4.68 0.55
Irregular PET
waste 15 mm
0.5 36.23 3.72 - - -
1.0 37.08 3.91 - - -
1.5 33.73 4.02 - - -
Vikrant et al.,
2013 383 192 672 1100 - - 0.5
Manufactured
polyprpylene
fiber
15 mm
length
0.5
34.09 2.12 - - -
20 mm
length 34.48 2.89 - - -
24 mm
length 35.58 2.97 - - -
Deepa et al.,
2012 300 150 300 240 - - 0.4 Polypropylene
-6 mm
length
0.1 30.98 - - - -
0.2 31.33 - - - -
0.3 32.4 - - - -
Alavi et al.,
2012 385 177.1 920 884 - - 1.94 Polypropylene
12 mm
length
0.2 40.4 3.16 - - -
0.3 42.3 3.69 - - -
0.5 43.8 3.81 - - -
Foti, 2012 4 2 10 8 - - 0.5 Waste bottle
Ring shape
with 3 mm of
width
0.50 36.91 3.65
-
- -
0.75 38.68
4.55 - -
Lamellar with
32 mm of
length and 3
mm of width
0.50 35.33 2.30
-
- -
0.75
36.19 2.34 - -
Note:
Agg is aggregate, SP is superplasticizer, Com is compressive strength, FA is fly ash, and SF is silica fume
23
24
Author
Mix design properties (kg/m3) Type of
fiber Size
Vol. of
fiber,
(%)
Com.,
(MPa)
Tensile, (MPa)
Flexural
Toughness Cement Water. Sand Agg. Binder SP. w/c I5 I10 I20
Oscar et al.,
2012 300 186 690 810 - - 0.62
Manufactured
PP
20 mm
length
0.05 28.7 - - - -
0.18 27.0 - - - -
0.30 29.6 - - - -
Ramadevi et al.,
2012 425.7 191.6 516.2 1179.9 - - 0.45 Waste bottle
Irregular-10
mm
0.5 31.6 1.98 - - -
1.0 40.0 2.03 - - -
2.0 41.6 - - - -
4.0 33.1 - - - -
Pelliser et al.,
2012 300 186 690 810 - - 0.62
Recycled PET
bottle
(Lamellar)
10 mm 0.18
- -
2.9 4.24 5.74
0.30 4.13 5.42 6.29
15 mm 0.18 4.42 5.79 6.1
0.30 6.12 6.58 7.20
20 mm 0.18 5.74 6.58 8.27
0.30 4.40 5.06 8.23
Fratenalli et al.,
2012 340 189.3 923 743
2.4
(FA) - 0.55 Synthetic
30 mm
length 1.0
27.0 - - - -
20 mm
length 31.3 - - - -
10 mm
length 24.3 - - - -
Hasan et al.,
2011
376 131 752 1128 - - 0.45 Macro synthetic 40 mm
length
0.33 40.34 3.91 - - -
0.42 41.43 4.10 - - -
0.51 41.59 4.27 - - -
Pereire et al.,
2011 276 151.8 311 404 - - 0.55
Recycled PET
bottle
(Lamellar)
35 mm
length
0.50 - - 4.8 8.7 18.3
1.00 - - 5.1 9.8 21.2
1.50 - - 5.7 10.5 22.4
Nili et al., 2010
354.2 177 915 879 30.8
(SF) 1.95 0.46 Polypropylene
12 mm
length
0.2 50.29 3.69 - -
0.3 50.88 3.87 - - -
0.5 52.61 4.09 - - -
Note:
Agg is aggregate, SP is superplasticizer, Com is compressive strength, FA is fly ash, and SF is silica fume
Table 2.5: The mix proportion of synthetic FC properties and hardened-state results reported by different researches (continued)
2
4
183
REFERENCES
Abdul K. (2007). Self -compatibility of high volume hybrid fiber reinforced concrete.
Construction and Building Materials, 21 (2007). pp. 1149–1154.
ACI Committee 237R. (2007). ACI 237R-07. Self-consolidating concrete (ACI 237R-07).
American Concrete Institute (ACI), Farmington Hills Mich., United State of
America (USA), pp. 30.
ACI Committee 318. (1995). ACI 318-95. Building code requirements for structural
concrete (ACI-318-05) and commentary (ACI 318R-95). American Concrete
Institute (ACI), Farmington Hills Mich., United State of America (USA), pp. 430.
ACI Committee 363. (2006). ACI 363.1R-06. State-of-the art report on high strength
concrete. American Concrete Institute (ACI). Farmington Hills, MI: United State
of America (USA).
ACI Committee 440. (2006). ACI 440.1R-06. Guide for the design and construction of
concrete reinforced with FRP bars. American Concrete Institute (ACI),
Farmington Hills Mich., United State of America (USA), pp. 45.
Ackay, B. & Tasdemir, M. A. (2012). Mechanical behaviour and fibre dispersion of
hybrid steel fibre reinforced self-compacting concrete. Construction and Building
Materials, 28 (2012). pp. 287-293.
Agamuthu P. & Faizura P.N. (2005). Biodegradability of Degradable Plastic Waste.
Waste management, 23(2), pp. 95-100.
Ahmad, M. di Prisco, C. Meyer, G.A. Plizzari, & S. Shah. (2004). International Workshop
on Advances in Fiber Reinforced Concrete, Bergamo, Italy. 24-25. pp. 135-148.
Ahmed S. F. U, Maelaj M. & Paramasiam P. (2007). Flexural response of hybrid steel-
polythylene fiber reinforced cement composites containing high volume fly ash.
Construction and Building Materials, 21(2007). pp 1088-1097.
184
Al-Manaseer, A.A., Dalal, T.R. (1997). Concrete Containing Plastic Aggregates.
Concrete International, 19(8), pp. 47–52.
Alavi Nia A., Hedayantian M., & Nili M., & Sabet V. A. (2012). An experimental and
numerical study on how steel and polypropylene fibers affect the impact resistance
in fibre-reinforced concrete. International Journal of Impact Engineering. 46
(2012). pp. 62-73.
Albano C, Camacho N, Hernandez M, & Gutierrez A. (2009). Influence of Content and
Particle Size of Waste Pet Bottles on Concrete Behaviour at Different W/C Ratios.
Waste Management, 29 (2009), pp. 2707–2716
Alberti M. G., Enfadaque A., & Galvez J. C. (2014). On the mechanical properties and
fracture behavior of polyolefin fiber-reinforced self-compacting concrete.
Construction and Building Materials, 55 (2014), pp. 274-288.
Ali M., Xioyang Li, & Nawawi chuow (2013). Experimental investigations on bond
strength between coconut fibre and concrete. Material & Design, (2013). pp. 596-
605.
Alvarez, M., Salas, J. & Veras, J. (1988). Properties of Concrete Made with Fly Ash. The
International Journal of Cement Composites and Lightweight Concrete, 10(2), pp.
109-120.
Ashour, S. A., Hasanain, G. S. & Wafa, F. F. (1992). Shear Behaviour of High- Strength
Fiber Reinforced Concrete Beams. American Concrete Structure Structural
Journal, March-April (1992), pp. 176-184
ASTM C1611-05. Standard test method for slump for of self-compacting concrete. The
American Society for Testing and Materials Standard, USA.
ASTM C469 / C469M - 10 Standard Test Method for Static Modulus of Elasticity and
Poisson's Ratio of Concrete in Compression. The American Society for Testing and
Materials Standard, USA.
ASTM C 469-87a. Standard Test Method for Static Modulus of Elasticity and Poisson’s
Ratio of Concrete in Compression. The American Society for Testing and
Materials Standard, USA.
ASTM C-494 Type A & F. Standard Specification for Chemical Admixtures for Concrete.
The American Society for Testing and Materials Standard, USA.
185
ASTM C618-03. Standard Specification for Fly Ash and Raw Calcined Natural Pozzolan
for Use as Mineral Admixture in Portland Cement Concrete. The American Society
for Testing and Materials Standard (ASTM), USA
ASTM D638-10.Standard test method for tensile properties of plastic. The American
Society for Testing and Materials Standard (ASTM), West Conshohocken,
Pennsylvania, USA
ASTM C1018-97. Standard test method for flexural toughness and first crack load
strength of fiber reinforced concrete, The American Society for Testing and
Materials Standard (ASTM), West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, USA
B.W. Jo, S. K. Park, & C. H. Kim. (2006). Mechanical Properties of Polyester Polymer
Concrete Using Recycled Polyethylene Terephthalate. ACI Structural Journal,
103(2), pp. 219– 225
Barros, J., Pereira, E., Ribeiro, A., Chuna, V., & Antunes, J. (2004). Self-Compacting
Steel Fibre Reinforced Concrete for Precasted Sandwich Panels – Experiments and
Numerical Research. Fibre Reinforced Concrete from Theory to Practice
Bataneyh M., Marie I., & Asi (2007). Use of selected waste material in concrete mixes.
Waste Management. 27 (2007), pp. 1870-1876.
Benaicha, M., Jalbaud, O., Hafidi, A. A., & Burtschell, Y. (2013). Rheological and
mechanical characterization of fibre reinforced self-compacting concrete
International Journal of Engineering and Innovation Technology, 2 (2013). pp.
2277-3754
Bilodeau, A. & Malhotra, V. M. (2000). High-Volume Fly Ash System in Concrete
Solution for Sustainable Development. ACI Materials Journal,pp. 41-50
Borosnyói, A. (2002). Serviceability of CFRP prestressed concrete beams. Doctor of
Philosophy (PhD) Thesis, Budapest University of Technology and Economics.
Faculty of Civil Engineering, Budapest, Hungary
British Standard Institution. (2009). Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures: EN 12350
- 1:2009: Testing fresh concrete: Sampling: British standard. London: BSi.
186
British Standard Institution. (2000). Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures: EN 12390
- 3:2000: Testing hardened concrete: Compressive strength for test specimens:
British standard. London: BSi.
British Standard Institution. (2000). Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures: EN 12390
- 6:2000: Testing of hardened concrete: Tensile strength test: British standard.
London: BSi.
British Standard Institution. (1997). Eurocode 2. Design of concrete structures - Part I:
General rules and rules for buildings. British standard. London: BSi.
British Standard Institution. (1983). British Standard: Testing concrete: BS 1881 -
121:1983: Method for determination of static modulus of elasticity in
compression: British standard. London: BSi.
Carino, N.J., and H.S.Lew, 1982. Re-examination of the Relation between Splitting
Tensile and Compressive Strength of Normal Weight Concrete. Journal of
American Concrete Institute, 79(3), May-June (1982). pp. 214-219.
Carrasquillo, R. L., Slate F. O., Nilson, & A. H. (2003). Microcracking and Behaviour of
High Strength Concrete Subjected to Short Term Loading”, ACI Materials
Journal, 78(3), pp. 179-186.
CEB-FIP Model Code. Model code for concrete structures. Comite Euro-International
due Beton/Federation Internationale de la Precontrainte, Paris; 1990
CEN. (1992). "Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures - Part 1.1: General rules and
rules for buildings (EN 1992-1-1:1992)." Comité Europeen De Normalisation,
Brussels, pp.195.
CEN. (2004). "Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures - Part 1.1: General rules and
rules for buildings (EN 1992-1-1:2004)." Comité Europeen De Normalisation,
Brussels, pp. 225.
Chawla, &Y.L. Shen. (2001). Mechanical Behavior of Particle Reinforced Metal Matrix
Composites. Advanced Engineering Materials, 3(6), pp. 357-360.
Choi O. C. & Lee C. (2003). Flexural performance of ring type steel fibre reinforced
concrete. Cement and Concrete Research, 33(2003). pp 841-849.
187
Choi Y.W, Moon D., J. S. Chung, & S. K. Cho. (2005). Effects of Waste PET Bottles
Aggregate on the Properties of Concrete. Cement and Concrete Research, 35(4),
pp. 776–781.
Choi Y. W., Moon D, Kim Y, & Lachemi M. (2009). Characteristics of Mortar and
Concrete Containing Fine Aggregate Manufactured From Recycled Waste
Polyethylene Terephthalate Bottles. Construction Building Material. 23 (2009),
2829–35.
CPH. (2008). "Instrucción de Hormigón Estructural EHE-08." Comisión Permanente
Del Hormigón. Ministerio De Fomento, Madrid (Spain), pp. 722.
Deepa S. Shri, R. Thenmozhi, & M. Anitha. (2012). Mechanical properties of SCC with
polypropylene fibres. Advanced Scientific Reseach & Technology, Vol. 2, No.3
(2012), pp. 375-388.
Dong, J., Wang, Q. & Guan, Z. (2012). Structural behaviour of RC beams with external
flexural and flexural-shear strengthening by FRP sheets. Composites: Part B 44
(2012). pp. 604-612.
Dossland, (2008). Fibre Reinforcement in Load Carrying Concrete Structures. Doctor of
Philosophy (PhD) Thesis. Norwegian University of Science and Technology,
Norway (NTNU).
Doughlas R. (2004). Properties of self-compacting concrete containing type F fly ash.
Master of Applied Science Thesis, Northwestern University, USA.
EFNARC. (2002). “Specification and guidelines for self-compacting concrete”.
European Federation of Supplies of Specialist Construction Chemicals,
Farnham, Surrey, UK.
Eurocede 2: 1992-1-1:2004. Design of Concrete structures. European Standard, London
European Commission DG ENV: 2011. Plastic Waste in the Environment, Institute
European Environmental Policy, France
Fantilli, A.P., Ferretti, D., and Rosati, G. (2005). Effect of Bar Diameter on the Behavior
of Lightly Reinforced Concrete Beams. Journal of Materials in Civil
Engineering, 17(1), pp. 10-18.
188
Ferrara L., Yong Dork P., & Shah Surendra P. (2007). A method for mix design of fiber
reinforced self-compacting concrete. Cement and Concrete Research, 37, pp.
957-971.
Fischer, G. and V. Li (2006). Effect of Fiber Reinforcement on the Response of Structural
Members. Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 74. pp. 258-272.
Foti D. (2011). Preliminary Analysis of Concrete Reinforced With Waste Bottles PET
Fibers. Construction and Building Materials, 25, pp. 1906-1915.
Foti D. (2012). Use of recycled waste PET bottles fibers for the reinforcement of concrete.
Composite Structure.
Fraternali A., Ciancia V., Chechile R., Rizzano G (2011). Experimental Study of Thermo-
Mechanical Properties of Recycled PET Fiber-Reinforced Concrete. Composites
Structures, 93, pp. 2368-2374.
Frigione M. (2010). Recycling of PET Bottles as Fine Aggregates in Concrete. Waste
Management. 110(2), pp. 31-35.
Grace, N. F., Soliman, A. K., Abdel-Sayed, G. & Sale, K. R. (1998). Behaviour and
Ductility of Simple and Continuos FRP Reinforced Beams. Journals of
Composites for Construction. 2 (1998), pp. 149-203.
Grunewald S. & Walvaren (2010). Maximum fiber content and passing ability of self-
compacting fibre reinforced concrete. American Concrete Institution. 274(2), pp.
15-30.
Guo, Z.h. & Zhang X. (1999). Investigation of Complete Stress-Deformation Curves for
Concrete in Tension. ACI Materials Journal, 84(5), pp. 278- 285.
Hassan M.J., Afroz M., & Mahmud H.M.I. (2011). An experimental investigation on
mechanical behavior macro synthetic fiber reinforced concrete. International
Journal of Civil & Environmental Engineering. 11(3), pp. 18-23.
Irwan J.M., N. Othman, H.B.Koh, R.M. Asyraf, S.K. Faisal, & M.M.K. Annas, (2013)
the Mechanical Properties of PET Fiber Reinforced Concrete from Recycled
Bottle Wastes, Advanced Materials Research, Vol. 795, pp. 347-351.
189
Irwan J.M, N. Othman, H.B. Koh, R.M. Asyraf, Faisal S.K, & M.M.K. Annas, (2014).
Maximum crack spacing model for irregular -shaped polyethylene terephthalate
fibre reinforced concrete beam. Advances in Civil, Structural, Environmental &
Bio-Technology, CSEB 2014.
ISIS Canada. (2001). Reinforcing concrete structures with fiber reinforced polymers -
Design manual No. 3. ISIS Canada Corporation. University of Manitoba,
Manitoba, Canada, pp. 158
Jaturapitakkul, C., Kiattikomol, K., Tangchirapat, W. & Saeting, T. (2004). Use of
Ground Coarse Fly Ash as a Replacement of Condensed Silica Fume in Producing
High Strength Concrete. Cement and Concrete Research, 34, pp. 549-555.
Jee, N.Y. Sangchun & Hongbum (2004). Prediction of compressive strength of in situ
concrete based on mixture proportions. Asian Architect Building Engineering, 3,
pp. 9-16.
Jo B, Park S, & Park J. (2008). Mechanical Properties of Polymer Concrete Made With
Recycled PET and Recycled Concrete Aggregates. Construction Building
Material, 22, 2281–91.
Khayat, K. H. (2000). Optimization and performance of air-entrained, self-consolidating
concrete. ACI Materials Journal, Vol. 97, No. 5, pp. 526-535.
Khedar, G.F., A.M. Al-Gabban & M.A. Suhad (2003). Mathematical model for prediction
of cement compressive strength at the ages of 7 and 28 days within 24 hours.
Material structures, 36 (2003). pp. 693-701.
Khunthongkeaw, J., Tangtermsirikul, S. & Leelawat, T. (2006). A study on carbonation
depth prediction for fly ash concrete. Construction and Building Materials, 20(9),
pp. 744-753
Kim (2010). Material and Structural Performance Evaluation of Recycled PET Fiber
Reinforced Concrete. Cement & Concrete Composites, 32, pp. 232-240.
Kim, H. S. & Shin, Y. S. (2011). Flexural behaviour of reinforced concrete (RC) beams
retrofitted with hybrid fiber reinforced polymers (FRPs) under sustaining loads.
Composites Structures. 93 (2011). pp. 802-811.
Légeron, F., Paultre, P. (2000). Prediction of Modulus of Rupture of Concrete. ACI
Materials Journal, 97(2), pp. 193-200.
190
Li, Q. & Ansari, F. (2000). High-Strength Concrete in Uniaxial Tension. ACI Materials
Journal, 97(1), pp. 49-57.
Li (2011). Investigate in quality control of fiber reinforced self-compacting concrete
during construction”, 2nd International Conference on Construction and Project
Management, Vol. 15, Singapore.
Liao W., Chao S., & Naaman A. (2010). Experience sith self-consolidating high
performance fibre reinforced mortar and concrete. American Concrete Institution.
274 (6), pp. 79-94
Lohtia, R. P. & Joshi, R. C. (1995). Mineral Admixtures. Concrete Admixtures Handbook,
Properties, Science, and Technology Second Edition, New Jersey, USA: Noyes
Publications.
Lyslo. A. (2008). Fibre Reinforcement in Load Carrying Concrete Structures.
Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) Thesis, Norweigian University of Science and
Technology, Norway.
Mahdi F, Abbas H, Khan A. Strength characteristic of poymer mortar and concrete using
different compositions of resins derived from post-consumer PET bottle.
Construction Building Material, 2010; 24:25-36
Majdzadeh F. (2003). Fracture toughness of hybrid fibre reinforced self-compacting
concrete, Master Thesis of University of British Columbia.
Malaysian Plastic Forum (2007). Plastic: Safety and Health. Malaysian Plastics
Manufacturers Association (MPMA): Malaysia.
Marzouk, H., Chen, & Z. W. (1995). Fracture Energy and Tension Properties of High-
Strength Concrete. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 7(2), pp. 108- 116.
Marzouk O, Dheilly R, & Queneudec M. (2007). Valorization of Post-Consumer Waste
Plastic in Cementitious Concrete Composites. Waste Management, 27. pp. 310–
318.
Mazaherpour, H., Gahnbarpour, S., Mirmoradi, S. H., & Hosseinpour, I. (2011). The
effect of polypropylene fibres on the properties of fresh and hardened lightweight
self-compacting concrete. Construction and Building Materials, 25 (2011). pp.
351-358.
191
Mehta, P. K., & Monteiro, P. J. M. (2006). Concrete – Microstructure, Properties and
Materials. 3rd ed. United States of America: McGraw Hill.
Mindness, S., Young, J. F. & Darwin, D. (2003). Concrete. 2nd edition. United States of
America: Prentice Hall.
Minelli, F. (2005). Plain and Fibre reinforced concrete beam under shear loading. Doctor
of Philosophy (PhD) Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of
Brescia, Italy.
Mirmiran, A. E., Shahawy, M. & Samaan, M. (1999). Strength and Ductility of Hybrid
FRP-Concrete Beam-Columns. Journals of Structural Engineering. Vol 125, pp
1085-1093.
Mohamed, H. M. & Masmoudi, R. (2010). Flexural strength and behaviour of steel and
FRP-reinforced concrete-filled FRP tube beam. Engineering Structures, 32
(2010). pp. 3789-3800.
MS 522. (2007). Specification for Portland cement composites. Malaysian Standard,
Malaysia.
Mustafa (2007). Hybrid fiber reinforced self-compacting concrete with a high volume
coarse fly ash. Construction and Building Materials, 21, pp. 150–156.
Nawy, E. G. (1996). Fundamentals of High Strength High Performance Concrete.
London, UK: Longman Group Limited.
Neville, A. M., & Brooks, J. J. (2010). Concrete Technology. 2nd edition. United
Kingdom: Longman.
Nili Mahmoud & Afraoughsabet V. (2010). The effects of silica fume and polypropylene
fibers on the impact resistance and mechanical properties of concrete.
Construction and Building Materials, 24. pp. 927-933.
Ochi, T., Okubo, S. & Fukui, K. (2007). Development of Recycled PET Fiber and Its
Application as Concrete- reinforcing Fiber. Cement & Concrete Composites, 29
(2007). pp. 448-455.
Okamura H. (1997). Self-compacting high performance concrete. Concrete International,
19(7), pp. 2103-2112
Oliveira, L. A. P. D., & Gomes, J. P. C. (2011). Physical and mechanical behaviour of
recycled PET fibre reinforced mortar. Construction and Building Materials. 25
(2011). pp. 1712-1717.
192
Oner, A., Akyuz, S. & Yildiz, R. (2005). An Experimental Study on Strength
Development of Concrete Containing Fly Ash and Optimum Usage of Fly Ash in
Concrete. Cement and Concrete Research, 35, pp. 1165– 1171.
Pacheco F.Torgal., Yining Ding, & Said Jalali (2012). Properties and durability of
concrete containing polymetric wastes (tyre rubber and polyethylene terephthalate
bottles). Construction and Building Materials, 30, pp. 714-724.
Packaging Materials Report (2000): 1. Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) for Food
Packaging Applications: International Life Science Institute (ILSI): Europe
Packaging Material Task Force: Brussels, Belgium.
Panyakapo P. & Panyakapo M. (2007). Reuse of Thermosetting Plastic Waste for
Lightweight Concrete. Waste management, 28, pp. 1581-1588.
Park, R., & Paulay, T. (1975). “Reinforced concrete structures”. John Wiley and Sons.
New York, United State of America (USA).1975. pp. 769.
Pelisser F., Oscar Ruben Klagues Montedo (2012). Mechanical properties of recycled
PET fibre in concrete. Materials Research, 15 (4); pp. 679-685.
Pezzi L., P. De Luca, D. Vuono, F. Chiappetta, & A. Nastro. (2006). Concrete Products
with Waste’s Plastic Material (Bottle, Glass, Plate). Materials Science Forum,
514-516(2), pp. 1753– 1757.
Popovics. S. & J. Ujhelyi (2008). Contribution to the concrete strength versus water
cement ratio relationship. Material Civil Engineering, 20, pp. 459-463.
Rahmani E., Dehestani M., Beygi M.H.A., Allahyarhi H., & Nikbin I.M. (2013). On the
mechanical properties of concrete containing waste PET particles. Construction
and Building Materials, 47, pp. 1302-1308.
Ramachandran, V. S. (1995). Concrete Admixtures Handbook. Properties, Science, and
Technology, Park Ridge, New Jersey, U.S.A.: Noyes Publications.
Ramadevi K. & Manju R. (2012). Experimental investigation on the properties of concrete
with plastic PET (bottle) fibre as fine aggregates. International Journal of
Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering, 2(6), pp. 42-46.
193
Ramezanianpur, A. A. & Malhotra, V. M. (1995). Effect of Curing on Compressive
Strength, Resistance to Chloride-Ion Penetration and Porosity of Concretes
Incorporating Slag, Fly Ash or Silica Fume. Cement and Concrete Composites,
17, pp. 125-133.
Raphael, J. M. (1984). Tensile strength of concrete. ACI J Proc, 81 (1984). pp. 158-65.
Rashid, M. A., Mansur, M. A., & Paramasivam, P. (2002). Correlations between
mechanical properties of high-strength concrete. Journal of Materials Civil
Engineering, 14 (2002), pp. 203-38.
Rebeiz K, Serhal S, & Fowler D. (1994). Structural Behaviour of Polymer Concrete
Beams Using Recycled Plastics. ASCE Journal Material Civil Engineering,
6(1994), pp. 150–65
Redon C. & Chermant J. (1999). Damage mechanics applied to concrete reinforced with
amorphous cast iron fibers, concrete subjected to compression, Cement and
Concrete Composites, 21 (3), pp. 197-204.
Richardson A.E. & Sean Landless (2009). Synthetic fibres and steel fibres in concrete
with regard to bond strength and toughness, Built Environment Research, 2 (2)
(2009). pp. 128-140.
RILEM TC-50 FMC (1985). Determination of fracture energy of mortar and concrete by
means of three point bends test on notched beams. Materials and Structure,
18(106), pp 285-290.
Saeed, M. O., Hassan, M. N. & Mujeebu, M. A. (2009). Development of Municipal
Solid Waste Generation and Recyclable Components Rate of Kuala Lumpur:
Perspective Study. Conference Paper. University Science of Malaysia; 1969.
Sahmaran M. & Ozgur Yaman (2007). Hybrid fiber reinforced self-compacting concrete
with a high-volume coarse fly ash. ). Construction and Building Materials, 21,
pp. 150-156.
Sammer Hamoush, William Heard, & Brian Zornig (2010). Effect of matrix strength on
pullout behavior of steel fiber reinforced very-high strength concrete composites.
Construction and Building Materials, 25(1), pp. 39-46.
Sata,V., Jaturapitakkul, C. & Kiattikomol, K. (2007). Influence of Pozzolan from Various
By-Product Materials on Mechanical Properties of High-Strength Concrete.
Construction and Building Materials, 21, pp. 1589-1598.
194
Sedran, T., De Larrard, F., Hourst, F. y Contamines, C. (1996). Mix design of self-
compacting concrete. International RILEM Production Methods and Workability
of Concrete, Edited Bartos, D.L. & Marrs D.J. Editorial: E & FN Spon, Londres,
(1996), pp. 439-450.
Sehaj Singh, Arun Shukla, & Richard Brown (2004). Pullout behaviour of polypropylene
fibers from cementitious matrix, Cement and Concrete Research, 34 (2004), pp.
1919-1925.
Semiha Akçaözog˘lu & Cengiz Duran Atis (2011). Effect of Granulated Blast Furnace
Slag and fly ash addition on the strength properties of lightweight mortars
containing waste PET aggregates. Construction and Building Materials, 25
(2011). pp. 4052-4058.
Sengul, O. & Tasdemir, M. A. (2009). Compressive Strength and Rapid Chloride
Permeability of Concretes with Ground Fly Ash and Slag. Journal of Materials in
Civil Engineering ASCE, 21(2009), pp. 494 – 501.
Shannon O’Connell (2011). Development of a new high performance synthetic fiber for
concrete reinforcement, July 2011, Dalhousie University Hailfax, Nova Scotia.
Siddique R., Khatib J. & Kaur I. (2007). Use of Recycled Plastic in Concrete: A Review.
Waste management, 28 (2007), pp. 1835-1852.
Sikalidis C.A., A. A. Zabaniotou, & S. P. Famellos. (2002). Utilisation of Municipal Solid
Wastes for Mortar Production. Resources, Conservation, and Recycling, 36(2), pp.
155–167.
Silva D, Betioli A, Gleize P, Roman H, Gomez L, Ribeiro J. Degradation of recycled PET
fibres in Portland cement-based materials. Cement Concrete Resources. 2005, 35.
pp. 1741-6.
Singh S.K., Jan. (2010). Polypropylene Fiber Reinforced Concrete, an overview. Central
Building Research Institute, Roorkee & Honorary Secretary Institute of
Engineers. CE&CR, Vol.24, No. 1.
Soroushian, P., Mirza, F. Alhozaimy A. (1995). Permeability characteristic of
polypropylene fibre reinforced concrete. American Concrete Institution Material
Journal, 92(3). pp. 291-295.
195
Som Md., H. (2005). Panduan mudah analisa data mengunakan SPSS Windows. Penerbit
University Teknologi Malaysia Skudai Johor.
Stahli (2008). On flow properties, fibre distribution, fibre orientation and flexural
behaviour of FRC. Materials and Structures, 41 (1). pp. 189-196.
Steven C. Chapra , Raymond P. Canale, Numerical Methods for Engineering with
Personal Computer Applications, McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, NY, 1985.
Suhad M.A. (2001). Mathematical model for the prediction of cement compressive
strength at the ages of 7& 28 days within 24 hours, Master Thesis, Al-
Mustansiriya University, college of engineering, Civil engineering department.
Sulapha, P., Wong, S.F., Wee, T.H. & Swaddiwudhipong, S. (2003). Carbonation of
Concrete Containing Mineral Admixtures. Journal of Materials in Civil
Engineering, pp. 134-143.
Taher Abu Lebdeh, Sameer Hamoush, William Heard, & Brian Zornig (2011). Effect of
matrix strength on pullout behavior of steel fibre reinforced very high strength
concrete composites. Construction and Building Materials, 25, pp. 39-46.
Torrijos, M. C., Barragan, B. E., & Zerbino, R. L. (2008). Physical-mechanical
properties, and mesostructure of plain and fibre reinforced self-compacting
concrete. Construction and Building Materials. 22 (2008). pp. 1780-1788.
Toutanji, H. A., and Saafi, M. (2000). "Flexural behavior of concrete beams reinforced
with glass fiber-reinforced polymer (GFRP) bars." American Concrete Institution
Structural Journal, 97(5). pp. 712-719.
Vikrant S. Vairagade, Kavita S. Kene, Dr. N. V. (2013). Investigation on Compressive
and Tensile Behavior of Fibrillated. Engineering Research and Applications. 2 (3);
pp. 1111-1115.
Wee, T.H., Lu H. R. & Swaddiwudhipong, S. (2000). Tensile Strain Capacity of Concrete
under Various States of Stress. Magazine of Concrete Research, 52(3), pp. 185-
193.
Welle, F. (2011). Twenty years of PET bottle to bottle recycling: An overview.
Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 55 (2011). pp. 865-875.
196
Xu, B. W., & Shi, H. S. (2009). Correlations among mechanical properties of steel fiber
reinforced concrete. Construction and Building Materials. 23 (2009). pp. 3468–
3474.
Yan, L. & Chouw, N. (2013). Compressive and flexural behaviour and theoretical analysis
of flax fibre reinforced polymer tube encased coir fibre reinforced concrete
composite. Materials and Design. 52 (2013). pp. 801-811.
Yang, K. H., Oh, M. H., Kim, M. H. & Lee, H. C. (2010). Flexural behaviour of hybrid
precast concrete beams with H-steel beams at both ends. Engineering Structures,
32 (2010). pp. 2940-2949.
Yang, I. H., Joh, C. & Kim, S. B. (2011). Flexural strength of ultra-high strength concrete
beams reinforced with steel fibers. Procedia Eengineering, 14 (2011). pp. 793-
796.
Zain M.F.M. & S.M. Abd, Sopian, M. Jamil (2008). Mathematical regression model for
the prediction of concrete strength. MAMECTIS'08 Proceedings of the 10th
WSEAS international conference on Mathematical methods, computational
techniques and intelligent systems, pp. 392-396.
Zain M.F.M. & S.M. Abd. (2009). Multiple regression model for compressive strength
prediction of high performance concrete. Applied Sciences, 9(1), pp. 155-160.
Zhang, H., & Wen, Z. (2013). The consumption and recycling collection system of PET
bottles: A case study of Beijing, China. Waste Management, 34 (2014). pp. 987-
998.