Effect of calcined diatomaceous earth, polypropylene fiber, and glass fiber on the mechanical properties of ultra-high-performance fiber-reinforced concrete

Muttaqin Hasan; Taufiq Saidi; Azzaki Mubarak; Muhammad Jamil

doi:10.1515/jmbm-2022-0275

Article Open Access

Effect of calcined diatomaceous earth, polypropylene fiber, and glass fiber on the mechanical properties of ultra-high-performance fiber-reinforced concrete

Muttaqin Hasan , Taufiq Saidi , Azzaki Mubarak and Muhammad Jamil

Published/Copyright: January 25, 2023

Published by

Become an author with De Gruyter Brill

Submit Manuscript Author Information

From the journal Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Materials Volume 32 Issue 1

Abstract

In this study, the effects of calcined diatomaceous earth (CDE), polypropylene fiber (PF), and glass fiber (GF) on the mechanical properties of ultra-high-performance fiber-reinforced concrete (UHPFRC) were observed, and a total of 33 UHPFRC mixtures, consisting of 3 mixtures without fiber, 15 mixtures with PF, and 15 mixtures with GF were prepared. Subsequently, the fresh concrete mixtures were tested for flow, while the hardened concrete specimen’s mechanical properties were analyzed. These tests include compression, splitting tensile, and flexural tests. The test results showed that the use of 5 and 10% CDE as a binder for cement replacement improved the compressive strength, splitting tensile strength, and flexural strength of the UHPFRC. Furthermore, the addition of PF and GF contents of up to 1% of the concrete volume increased the compressive strength of the UHPFRC, while their contents of up to 1.5% improved their splitting tensile strength and flexural strength. It is also important to note that the workability of the UHPFRC reduced as the fiber and CDE contents increased. Finally, based on the experimental data tested in this study, the relationship between splitting tensile strength, flexural strength, and compressive strength of the UHPFRC containing PF and GF were proposed. Moreover, the reduction in flow value, which is a function of the volumetric content of both PF and GF, with the CDE contents was also proposed.

Keywords: fiber; calcined diatomaceous earth; mechanical properties

1 Introduction

Ultra-high-performance fiber-reinforced concrete (UHPFRC) represents the highest development of high-performance concrete. It is produced by combining fibers and cementitious materials to achieve high strength and extraordinary durability [1,2,3,4]. To improve the homogeneity of the UHPFRC, traditional coarse aggregates are replaced with fine sand [5]. Furthermore, a low water-to-binder ratio, ranging between 0.15 and 0.25, is used in its production, then a superplasticizer (SP) is required to improve its workability, fluidity, and particle packing density [1,6,7,8]. Due to the concrete’s low water-to-binder ratio and compact structure, its resistance to water permeability, chloride ion penetration, carbonation, corrosion, and other chemical attacks are better [9,10]. It also has excellent autogenous healing capability compared to conventional concrete [11]. The strength of the UHPFRC solely depends on the raw materials, preparation method, curing method (autoclave, steam, or standard curing), fiber type, and the possibility of using pressure and thermal treatment [12,13]. The presence of fiber in the UHPFRC also improves its fracture performance, impact resistance, and dynamic properties [13]. Previous studies reported that the UHPFRC has very low absorption capacity and permeability [14,15] which improves its resistance to chloride penetration and frost damage [16,17,18,19,20,21]. Therefore, the application of the UHPFRC in civil structures can improve the resistance capacity of the structures under extreme mechanical loadings and environmental actions, which is mainly attributed to the contributions made by the fibers. Moreover, due to the UHPFRC’s superior properties and low permeability, it can also be applied for durability, mechanical resistance improvement, restoration, and strengthening of existing reinforced concrete structures [22].

Generally, the production of ultra-high-strength concrete requires a very large quantity of cement, which acts as the binder, at approximately 1,000 kg/m³ [23,24,25,26,27,28]. This type of concrete is not an environmentally-friendly construction material considering the fact that each ton of cement produced emits 900 kg of CO₂ into the atmosphere, hence accounting for a total of 5–7% of global CO₂ emissions [29]. To reduce cement consumption, many studies, which proposed the replacement of some amount of cement with pozzolanic materials as a binder, have been conducted. Some of these materials include industrial by-products such as fly ash, ground granulated blast-furnace slag, and silica fume [30,31,32,33,34,35,36]. Moreover, some waste or recycled materials such as palm oil fuel ash, rice husk ash, waste ceramics, and glass powder have been used [37,38,39,40,41]. Other materials utilized as a binder to replace cement in the production of ultra-high-strength concrete are natural pozzolans including limestone and quartz powders [33,42–44]. Diatomaceous earth is classified as a natural class N pozzolanic material [45] which has a relatively high silica content [46–48]. Several studies have been conducted where calcined diatomaceous earth (CDE) was used as a replacement for cement in the production of high-strength concrete and mortar mixtures [49–52], but none has focused on its use in the UHPFRC mixtures.

Following this, steel fiber is the type of fiber that is mostly used in previous studies for the improvement of the UHPFRC properties. The contents, geometry, orientation, alignment, distribution, and surface morphology of this fiber significantly affect the mechanical properties of the UHPFRC [53–61]. For example, a study by Yu et al. [1] reported that using straight steel fiber with a length of 13 mm and a diameter of 0.2 mm at up to 2.5% of the total concrete volume improved the UHPFRC’s compressive and flexural strengths by about 38–58 and 45–125%, respectively, depending on the amount of cement and the type and amount of pozzolanic material used. During fatigue loading, the addition of steel fibers in UHPFRC mixtures resulted in a significantly high endurance limit [62]. In another study, Yu et al. [13] reported that the combination of 1.5% of long steel fiber (length of 13 mm and diameter of 0.2 mm) and 0.5% of short steel fiber (length of 6 mm and diameter of 0.16 mm) in the UHPFRC made better improvements to its flexural strength. Furthermore, using a combination of 2% steel fiber and nano-silica as a binder resulted in better improvement of the concrete’s compressive and flexural strengths compared to a mixture without nano-silica [43]. The production of UHPFRCs using hybrid steel fibers, such as a combination of short straight, long straight, and hook fibers, improves the concrete’s strength compared to those made using a single type of fiber [7]. In a study conducted by Li et al. [63], it was stated that the combination of 2% steel fiber with 0.5% polyethylene fiber, i.e., a hybrid fiber, effectively enhanced the UHPFRC’s flexural performance. However, the CO₂ emission for steel fiber is around 1,600 kg per ton of fiber produced, which makes this fiber an environmentally unfriendly material [64]. Moreover, the addition of steel fiber to the UHPFRC mixtures is a key important factor that reduces ion resistance in the marine environment due to the corrosion induced in the fiber [65]. The other types of fibers usually used in fiber-concrete production are polypropylene fiber (PF) and glass fiber (GF) [66]. PF is considered an environmentally friendly fiber because the CO₂ emission during its production is only 78 kg per ton [67] whereas that of the whole glass product is 490 kg per ton [68]. While the steel fiber was added to 2.5% of the concrete’s volume, the PF was added only up to 0.4% and it improved the flexural strength by 20%. Compared to the UHPFRC consisting of 2% steel fiber alone, the addition of 0.4% volume of PF increased the concrete’s flexural strength by 44% [43]. Another study reported that the addition of 1% steel fiber in the high-strength concrete mixture improved its compressive and flexural strengths by 11.5 and 55.8% [69]. Similarly, including micro silica at 35% and volumetric polypropylene content at 2.75% of the total concrete’s volume improved the compressive and splitting tensile strengths by 32 and 46%, respectively [70]. Meanwhile, the GF content is usually 1.5% of the concrete’s volume [71,72], but the maximum content available in previous literature was up to 6% [73]. By using 1.5% GF, the compressive and flexural strengths improved by 28 and 69% [73]. Although the addition of GF can improve the strength and durability of concrete, it can also reduce the flowability [74].

In this study, CDE was utilized to replace cement up to 10 wt%, and PF and GF were added up to 2.5% of the concrete’s volume to produce an environmentally friendly UHPFRC and a cleaner environment for the society to live in. Furthermore, there is presently no study conducted where CDE was used as a binding material with PF and GF in UHPFRC production. Therefore, it is captivating to investigate how the addition of CDE as a cement substitute and PF or GF content affects the workability of fresh UHPFRC and the mechanical properties of hardened UHPFRC, such as compressive strength, splitting tensile strength, and flexural strength. Finally, based on the results of the mechanical characteristics tests, the relationship between the UHPFRC’s splitting tensile, flexural, and compressive strengths was established.

2 Research significance

In this research, the compressive, flexural, and splitting tensile strengths of the UHPFRC with the addition of PF and GF together with CDE were examined. Flexural strength is a very important parameter for the prediction of the first crack that occurs in reinforced concrete structures while compressive strength is the key parameter for design. Moreover, in this study, the equations indicating the relationships between the flexural, splitting tensile, and compressive strengths were also developed. Using these equations, there is no need to input the data of the flexural strength and splitting tensile strength for the stress and deformation analysis of existing, new design, or strengthening of reinforced concrete structures made of UHPFRC in both simple calculation and finite element analysis. Hence, the input data needed for the analysis is only the compressive strength, after which the flexural strength and splitting tensile strength can be calculated by applying the equations. Furthermore, the UHPFRC’s flow is presented in this study, and the relationships between flow value and volumetric content of fibers as well as CDE content were established, and this is very important for concrete placing in real structures.

3 Materials and methods

3.1 Materials

The materials used in this study include ordinary Portland cement (OPC), CDE, river sand (RS), iron ore powder (IOP), water, SP, PF, and GF.

3.1.1 OPC

The OPC was obtained from PT Solusi Bangun Andalas. It had a specific gravity and specific surface of 3.16 and 539.80 m²/kg, respectively and was used as a binder. The maximum grain size of the OPC was 112.5 μm with a particle size distribution obtained from analyzing the particles sizes (MicroBrook 2000 L PSA) as shown in Figure 1. The chemical composition obtained from the X-ray fluorescence (XRF) test (TORONTECH TT-EDXPRT.XRF) and the mineralogical composition determined based on SNI 15-2049 of OPC are shown in Table 1.

Figure 1

Particle size distribution of the materials.

Table 1

Chemical and mineralogical composition of OPC and CDE

Chemical composition	OPC (%)	CDE (%)
SiO₂	17.25	78.73
Al₂O₃	2.32	0.39
Fe₂O₃	4.67	2.89
MgO	2.13	1.11
SO₃	2.56	0.39
CaO	70.34	16.34
K₂O	0.73	0.15
Mineralogical composition	(%)	NA
C₃S	68.72	NA
C₂S	17.34	NA
C₃A	6.45	NA
C₄AF	7.44	NA

3.1.2 CDE

The diatomaceous earth used was obtained from Beureunuet Village, Aceh Besar Regency. This material was ground to powder and filtered using a #200 sieve. Subsequently, the acquired powder was baked at 100°C for 24 h and then calcined at 650°C for 5 h in a laboratory furnace to produce CDE, a mineral additive that was utilized to partially replace cement. The specific surface, specific gravity, and absorption capacity of the CDE were 2.18 m²/kg, 675.60 m²/kg, and 6.54%, respectively. The CDE’s largest grain size, as represented by its particle size distribution in Figure 1, was 143 μm. Furthermore, the findings of the X-ray diffraction (XRD) test performed on the CDE’s crystal structure and mineralogical characterization using a Maxima XRD-7000 equipment are shown in Figure 2. The chart illustrates that the main crystalline minerals were lead-silver-thallium antimony sulfide, graphite, and silica in the form of quartz. The three strongest peaks were found at 2θ = 27.755, 26.583, and 29.901. Additionally, the surface texture, which includes the topography and morphology, as well as the particles’ shape and size were investigated using a scanning electron microscope (SEM) picture and the results, as depicted in Figure 3, show that the material particles have a cellular structure with nano-sized pores.

Figure 2

XRD pattern of CDE.

Figure 3

SEM image of CDE.

3.1.3 RS

RS that was employed in this study was obtained from the Krueng Aceh River, which was used as an aggregate. The sand was also sieved before use, with a maximum diameter of 766.2 μm with particle size distribution as shown in Figure 1. The specific surface and specific gravity for the RS were 2.65 and 370.00 m²/kg, respectively.

3.1.4 IOP

Furthermore, the IOP used was produced from an iron ore mine located in Leupung Village, Aceh Besar District. The material’s particles were mashed and sieved to have a maximum diameter of 231 μm and were then used as a filler. The particle size distribution of the IOP is shown in Figure 1. Meanwhile, its specific gravity and specific surfaces were 3.57 and 574.20 m²/kg, respectively.

3.1.5 Water

Drinking water was supplied by PDAM (Local Water Company) with a specific gravity of 1.00. This was used for mixing the UHPFRC.

3.1.6 SP

A polycarboxylate-based SP was obtained from PT. Sika Indonesia with a specific gravity of 1.06 and was applied in order to adjust the concrete’s workability. This type of SP can be categorized as a high-range water reducer admixture.

3.1.7 PF

Following this, the PF utilized in this study had a diameter, length, specific gravity, tensile strength, and elastic modulus of 18 μm, 2 mm, 0.9, 300–400 MPa, and 6,000–9,000 MPa, respectively. This material was obtained from PT. Fosroc Indonesia. Figure 4 shows the PF.

Figure 4

Polypropylene fiber.

3.1.8 GF

The ARG 2400 Tex GF with a diameter, specific gravity, tensile strength, elastic modulus, and ZrO₂ content of 13 ± 2 μm, 2.7, 550 MPa, 10,000 MPa, and 16.7%, respectively, was used in this study, as shown in Figure 5. The GF was in the form of a long roll and was cut into 10 mm lengths before use.

Figure 5

Glass fiber.

3.2 Mix proportion

A total of 33 UHPFRC mixtures were prepared in this study. They consisted of 3 mixtures without fiber, 15 with PF, and 15 with GF as shown in Table 2. The mixtures’ code represents the CDE content which is a ratio of the CDE weight to the total binder weight. Also, the fiber content is the fiber volume to the total volume ratio of the UHPFRC mixtures. For example, the mixture CDE10GF15 indicates that the UHPFRC mixture contains 10% of CDE and 1.5% of GF. Therefore, the mixture CDE00F00 is a UHPFRC mixture without CDE or fiber and is used as a control mix (reference mixture). As shown in Table 2, 3 levels of CDE contents (0, 5, and 10%) and 6 levels of fiber contents (0, 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2, and 2.5%) were used. In this study, the maximum cement weight replaced with CDE was 10%. This replacement level was selected because earlier studies reported that when CDE content of 10% was added to cement pastes and high-strength concrete, the maximum compressive strength was reached [49,75]. For higher replacement levels, however, further study is recommended. Furthermore, the proportion of the binder (OPC and CDE), filler (IOP), and aggregate (RS) was determined using the modified Andreasen and Andersen model [76–79]. The amount of water was calculated based on a water-binder ratio (w/b) of 0.2. The proportion of the SP was set at a constant value of 1.5% binder weight for all the mixtures.

Table 2

Mix proportion of UHPFRC for 1 m³ volume

Mixtures	CDE content (%)	Fiber content (%)	OPC (kg)	CDE (kg)	IOP (kg)	RS (kg)	Water (kg)	SP (kg)	PF (kg)	GF (kg)
CDE00F00	0	0	872.00	0.00	87.20	1220.80	174.40	13.08	—	—
CDE05F00	5	0	828.40	43.60	87.20	1220.80	174.40	13.08	—	—
CDE10F00	10	0	784.80	87.20	87.20	1220.80	174.40	13.08	—	—
CDE00PF05	0	0.5	872.00	0.00	87.20	1220.80	174.40	13.08	4.50	—
CDE00PF10	0	1.0	872.00	0.00	87.20	1220.80	174.40	13.08	9.00	—
CDE00PF15	0	1.5	872.00	0.00	87.20	1220.80	174.40	13.08	13.50	—
CDE00PF20	0	2.0	872.00	0.00	87.20	1220.80	174.40	13.08	18.00	—
CDE00PF25	0	2.5	872.00	0.00	87.20	1220.80	174.40	13.08	22.50	—
CDE05PF05	5	0.5	828.40	43.60	87.20	1220.80	174.40	13.08	4.50	—
CDE05PF10	5	1.0	828.40	43.60	87.20	1220.80	174.40	13.08	9.00	—
CDE05PF15	5	1.5	828.40	43.60	87.20	1220.80	174.40	13.08	13.50	—
CDE05F20	5	2.0	828.40	43.60	87.20	1220.80	174.40	13.08	18.00	—
CDE05PF25	5	2.5	828.40	43.60	87.20	1220.80	174.40	13.08	22.50	—
CDE10PF05	10	0.5	784.80	87.20	87.20	1220.80	174.40	13.08	4.50	—
CDE10PF10	10	1.0	784.80	87.20	87.20	1220.80	174.40	13.08	9.00	—
CDE10PF15	10	1.5	784.80	87.20	87.20	1220.80	174.40	13.08	13.50	—
CDE10PF20	10	2.0	784.80	87.20	87.20	1220.80	174.40	13.08	18.00	—
CDE10PF25	10	2.5	784.80	87.20	87.20	1220.80	174.40	13.08	22.50	—
CDE00GF05	0	0.5	872.00	0.00	87.20	1220.80	174.40	13.08	—	13.50
CDE00GF10	0	1.0	872.00	0.00	87.20	1220.80	174.40	13.08	—	27.00
CDE00GF15	0	1.5	872.00	0.00	87.20	1220.80	174.40	13.08	—	40.50
CDE00GF20	0	2.0	872.00	0.00	87.20	1220.80	174.40	13.08	—	54.00
CDE00GF25	0	2.5	872.00	0.00	87.20	1220.80	174.40	13.08	—	67.50
CDE05GF05	5	0.5	828.40	43.60	87.20	1220.80	174.40	13.08	—	13.50
CDE05GF10	5	1.0	828.40	43.60	87.20	1220.80	174.40	13.08	—	27.00
CDE05GF15	5	1.5	828.40	43.60	87.20	1220.80	174.40	13.08	—	40.50
CDE05GF20	5	2.0	828.40	43.60	87.20	1220.80	174.40	13.08	—	54.00
CDE05GF25	5	2.5	828.40	43.60	87.20	1220.80	174.40	13.08	—	67.50
CDE10GF05	10	0.5	784.80	87.20	87.20	1220.80	174.40	13.08	—	13.50
CDE10GF10	10	1.0	784.80	87.20	87.20	1220.80	174.40	13.08	—	27.00
CDE10GF15	10	1.5	784.80	87.20	87.20	1220.80	174.40	13.08	—	40.50
CDE10GF20	10	2.0	784.80	87.20	87.20	1220.80	174.40	13.08	—	54.00
CDE10GF25	10	2.5	784.80	87.20	87.20	1220.80	174.40	13.08	—	67.50

3.3 Preparation of specimens

The UHPFRC specimens were produced by mixing all the materials in a mixer according to the procedure proposed by Yu et al. [1]. This procedure involves placing all the solid materials, including the OPC, CDE, IOP, and RS, and adding 80% of the mixing water in a mixer and stirring at low speed for 30 s as indicated in Figure 6. Finally, the remaining mixing water, SP, and fiber were added together in the mixer and stirred at low speed for 180 s and later at high speed for 120 s.

Figure 6

Mixing of UHPFRC mixture.

The UHPFRC mixtures were cast into already prepared steel molds. For each mixture, five cylinder specimens with a diameter of 50 mm and a height of 100 mm, five cube specimens with a size of 75 mm, and five beam specimens with a dimension of 75 m × 75 mm × 350 mm were prepared. The cylinder, cube, and beam specimens were used for the splitting tensile, compression, and flexural tests, respectively. Moreover, the molds were removed after 24 h of casting and the specimens were then cured in fresh water for 28 days in a bathtub. A day before the mechanical properties were tested (compression, splitting tensile, and flexural tests), the specimens were removed from the bathtub and wiped with a cloth to dry.

3.4 Test procedures

3.4.1 Flow test

The flow test of the fresh concrete was conducted based on the procedures stated in ASTM C1437-07 [80] using the apparatus described in ASTM C230/C230M-08 [81]. Afterward, the freshly mixed concrete was placed in the steel cone in 2 layers and each layer was tamped 20 times. The surface of the concrete mixture at the top of the cone was leveled after which the cone was lifted for the concrete mixture to flow around and the flow table was immediately vibrated 25 times in 15 s. The concrete mixture’s flow diameter was measured four times at various locations, and the average value was noted. The flow value was, therefore, calculated in percentage using the following equation:

(1) F v = D avg − D o D o × 100 % ,

where F _v is the flow value, D _avg is the average flow diameter, and D _o is the inner diameter of the bottom of the steel cone.

3.4.2 Compression test

The compression test of the UHPFRC was conducted when the specimens were 28 days old using a universal testing machine. The process involved removing the specimens from the bath and wiping them with a cloth to dry a day before the test. The specimen was positioned between two plates of the compression test equipment, and a compressive load was applied until the specimen failed in order to ascertain its compressive strength.

3.4.3 Splitting tensile test

Similarly, when the specimens were 28 days old, a general testing apparatus was also used to perform the splitting tensile test. The cylinder specimens were laid out on the testing machine’s plate for the splitting tensile strength test, and a load was applied from the top until the specimen was split into two pieces.

3.4.4 Flexural test

The flexural test was also carried out on the specimen after 28 days, and the four-point bending test was used to determine the flexural strength. Furthermore, the beam was supported with two simple supports which made the span of the beam 300 mm. Two equal loads, which were 75 mm from each support were then applied through a loading machine until the specimen was crushed into two parts.

4 Results and discussion

4.1 Test results

Table 3 displays the results of the flow and mechanical characteristic tests conducted on all UHPFRC mixtures. It is also very important to note that the compressive, splitting tensile, and flexural strengths shown are the average values of five specimens tested. According to what is seen in the table, all the mixtures had compressive values greater than 90 MPa, as well as splitting tensile and flexural strengths which are greater than 10 MPa.

Table 3

Test results of flow and mechanical properties of all UHPFRC mixtures

Mixtures	Flow (%)	Compressive strength (MPa)	Splitting tensile strength (MPa)	Flexural strength (MPa)
CDE00F00	121.50	100.06	11.33	11.14
CDE05F00	111.90	102.20	12.15	11.92
CDE10F00	105.00	106.60	12.61	12.91
CDE00PF05	116.08	101.67	11.83	12.15
CDE00PF10	109.35	104.53	12.33	12.47
CDE00PF15	102.18	97.42	12.50	13.00
CDE00PF20	94.83	97.12	11.83	11.80
CDE00PF25	85.80	94.69	11.16	10.74
CDE05PF05	108.03	104.50	12.34	12.58
CDE05PF10	101.94	108.57	12.90	13.24
CDE05PF15	93.27	101.53	13.27	14.50
CDE05F20	83.49	99.56	12.34	12.50
CDE05PF25	75.81	96.73	11.96	11.52
CDE10PF05	101.24	108.50	12.81	13.57
CDE10PF10	97.36	115.00	13.40	14.80
CDE10PF15	87.65	109.38	14.00	16.00
CDE10PF20	77.43	106.42	13.00	14.00
CDE10PF25	68.33	105.69	12.41	11.70
CDE00GF05	111.7	103.41	11.82	11.57
CDE00GF10	97.29	111.59	12.01	11.99
CDE00GF15	90.94	108.32	12.50	12.98
CDE00GF20	81.45	99.00	11.49	12.55
CDE00GF25	70.85	97.90	11.09	11.07
CDE05GF05	98.09	107.00	12.61	12.45
CDE05GF10	86.48	117.00	13.00	13.40
CDE05GF15	78.88	109.00	13.70	14.80
CDE05GF20	70.58	100.00	12.70	13.00
CDE05GF25	65.64	99.00	12.03	11.65
CDE10GF05	91.98	112.00	12.94	13.46
CDE10GF10	82.09	122.00	13.70	15.00
CDE10GF15	73.72	113.00	14.30	16.50
CDE10GF20	67.10	103.00	13.20	14.00
CDE10GF25	62.45	100.00	12.38	11.75

4.2 Effect of CDE, PF, and GF on the flow of fresh UHPFRC

Figure 7 shows that the UHPFRC flow value decreased as the CDE increased. But all the mixtures flowed easily and were compact when cast in the molds. These outcomes were consistent with those of other earlier investigations [48,75,82]. Additionally, the kind, particle size, shape, texture, or internal structure of the pozzolan, as well as the replacement level, affects the water demand when utilizing natural pozzolans [83,84]. There are two reasons behind the low flow of UHPFRCs containing CDE. They are as follows:

CDEs are water-absorbing materials [85]. As presented in Section 2.1.2, the CDE used in this study had an absorption capacity of 6.54% which means that some of the water in the mixture was absorbed by the material’s particles during the mixing process. The amount of absorbed water increased as the CDE content increased. This resulted in a lower amount of free water content, which also led to a lowered flow value.
The CDE has finer particles and a larger specific surface area compared to the OPC, as shown in Figure 1. Accordingly, since more water is required to wet the greater surface area, the presence of a large surface for the fine particles resulted in the adsorption of more free water and SP on the area, resulting in a decrease in free water content and an increase in water demand [86–88]. If the water and superplasticizer used in all mixtures are constant as demonstrated in this study, then the flow value will decrease with an increase in CDE content as shown in Figure 7. Furthermore, in order to have the same workability for UHPFRCs with different CDE contents, then a higher volume of SP will be required for those with high CDE contents.

Figure 7

Effect of fiber addition on the flow of UHPFRC for (a) PF and (b) GF.

Figure 7 also shows that the workability of the UHPFRC decreased as the volumetric content of fibers was increased. Similar results were also obtained in a previous study [70,74]. There are three reasons behind the lower flow value of concrete mixtures containing fiber. They are as follows [89]:

By applying fibers, the cohesive forces were increased between the fibers and matrix. This is due to the fiber’s shape, which is much more elongated compared to the shape of aggregates, and the surface area, which is also higher than that of aggregates at the same volume.
The stiffness of the fibers can change the granular skeleton structures and push apart the particles which are relatively large than the fiber’s length.
When improving the anchorage between the fiber and its surrounding matrix, the fiber often deforms.

Only short, straight fibers were used in this study, which suggests that the higher cohesive forces between the fibers and concrete matrix, caused by the presence of these fibers and the increased interior surface area, are to blame for the UHPFRC’s lower workability. Therefore, as the fiber content is increased, the cohesive forces also increase, and then the flow decreases. A similar phenomenon was also reported with normal concrete [90].

Regardless of the CDE content, the decrease in flow resulting from the increase in the fiber’s volumetric contents, for both PF and GF, has a similar trend. To determine the decrease in the flow value as a function of fiber content, the UHPFRC flow value for each mixture with a varied CDE percentage was normalized with that of the UHPFRC without fiber as shown in Figure 8. Furthermore, regression analysis was used to represent the flow value as a function of fiber content as follows:

Figure 8

The reduction in UHPFRC flow as a function of fiber content for (a) PF and (b) GF.

For PF,

(2) F vf = F vo ( 1 − 0 . 070 f p − 0 . 024 f p 2 ) ,

and for GF,

(3) F vf = F vo ( 1 − 0 . 235 f g + 0 . 028 f g 2 ) ,

where F _vf is the flow of fibrous UHPFRC, F _vo is the flow of the UHPFRC without fiber and calculated as a function of the CDE content as shown in Eq. (4) and Figure 9, f _p is the PF content, and f _g is the GF content.

(4) F vo = 121.5 – 2.19 c + 0.054 c 2

where c is the CDE content. It is important to note that Eqs. (2)–(4) are applicable when all other UHPFRC forming materials are constant. Following this, the coefficient of determination (R ²) of Eqs. (2)–(4) are 0.985, 0.988, and 1.000, respectively, indicating that good regression predictions are close to the actual data points. More quantity of SPs can be added to the UHPFRC with higher fiber contents to increase its workability but this is not within the scope of this study, hence it is recommended for further investigation.

Figure 9

Flow of UHPFRC without fiber as a function of CDE content.

4.3 Effect of CDE, PF, and GF on compressive strength of the UHPFRC

The compressive strengths of the UHPFRC as a function of the volumetric contents of PF and GF are presented in Figures 10 and 11, respectively. It was discovered that the use of CDE as a cement replacement at 5 and 10% was able to increase the compressive strength of the UHPFRC with the highest recorded at 10%. This was due to the presence of a higher finer particle quantity in the CDE compared to the OPC, which produced more cavities to be filled, thereby, making the UHPFRC denser with higher strength. Furthermore, the use of CDE also led to the occurrence of a second reaction between the silica present in the material and the calcium hydroxide from the cement hydration to form calcium silicate hydrate which also makes the UHPFRC denser [43], thereby, increasing its compressive strength.

Figure 10

The effect of CDE and PF on the compressive strength of UHPFRC.

Figure 11

The effect of CDE and GF on the compressive strength of UHPFRC.

Figures 10 and 11 also show that within the limitation of this study, the UHPFRC’s compressive strength increased with an increase in the volumetric fiber content of approximately 1% for both the PF and GF, and then decreased again when the fiber content was above 1%. Additionally, the parabolic tendency of the compressive strength to increase or decrease was observed. The presence of fibers in the UHPFRC mixture can prevent and restrict the development of cracks when the applied compressive load is increased. Peradventure any cracks occur, the fiber can bridge them, and thereby, improve the compressive strength. The reduction in the compressive strength of the UHPFRC mixtures with 1.5% and above fiber content in this study was probably associated with the low flow of the mixture which makes the concrete to be less solid, thereby, leading to lower strength. As a result, it is recommended that a follow-up study should be conducted where all the mixtures will have the same flow level by adding more SPs to the UHPFRC with higher fiber content. Figures 10 and 11 also show that at 1% fiber content, the compressive strength of the UHPFRC with PF reached 115 MPa, while that of the one with GF reached 122 MPa. The GF was able to increase the UHPFRC’s strength more than PF in all the observed cases. This is understandable considering the fact that the strength of the GF used in this study was higher than that of the PF. A similar result was also reported in a previous study [91]. Furthermore, the combination of CDE and fibers significantly influenced the UHPFRC’s compressive strength more than the use of fibers only. This is attributable to the CDE’s nano-silica concentration and the various impacts of fibers. The tight entanglement of the fibers in the matrix, which is caused by the nucleation action of nano-silica in concrete, greatly increases the energy absorption capacity of the concrete, hence increasing the amount of energy required to break the UHPFRC. The combined effects of CDE and PF as well as CDE and GF were able to raise the compressive strength of the UHPFRC by 15 and 22%, respectively, compared to the control mix.

4.4 Effect of CDE, PF, and GF on splitting tensile strength of UHPFRC

The splitting tensile strength of the UHPFRC as a function of the volumetric contents of PF and GF are presented in Figures 12 and 13, respectively. Similar to compressive strength, it was discovered that the use of CDE as a cement substitute at 5 and 10% was also able to increase the splitting tensile strength of the UHPFRC with the highest strength recorded at 10%. Figures 12 and 13 also show that within this study’s limitation, the UHPFRC’s tensile strength increased when the volumetric fiber content was up to 1.5% for both the PF and GF and then decreased when the fiber content was above 1.5%. Furthermore, the same parabolic tendency of the splitting tensile strength increasing or decreasing was observed while the fiber content was being increased. Concrete is a non-homogeneous material whose tensile strength is usually randomly distributed among its elements including cement matrix, aggregate, and interface, and cracks start to occur when the tensile stress at the elements reached their tensile strength. The presence of fibers in the UHPFRC mixture can bridge any cracks that may occur and retard their propagation. As a result, the fracture process of concrete under tension is changed from a brittle failure to plastic behavior, thereby improving its tensile strength. The reduction in the tensile strength of the UHPFRC comprising 2 and 2.5% fiber content in this study is also associated with the concrete’s low flow, which has the ability to make the concrete mixture to be less solid, thereby, leading to lower strength. Following this, Figures 12 and 13 indicated that at 1.5% fiber content, the tensile strength of the UHPFRC with PF reached 14 MPa, while that of the UHPFRC with GF reached 14.3 MPa. The GF was also able to significantly increase the UHPFRC’s tensile strength than PFs in all observed cases due to the fact that the tensile strength of the GF used in this study was higher than the strength of the PF. Just like compressive strength, the influence of utilizing a combination of CDE and fibers on the tensile strength of the UHPFRC is higher than using only fibers. This is due to the multiple effects of fibers and nano-silica in the CDE as described above. Compared to the control mix, the combined effect of CDE and PF was able to improve the tensile strength of the UHPFRC by 23.6%, while the combined effect of CDE and GF improved it by 26.2%.

Figure 12

The effect of CDE and PF on the splitting tensile strength of UHPFRC.

Figure 13

The effect of CDE and GF on the splitting tensile strength of UHPFRC.

4.5 Effect of CDE, PF, and GF on the flexural strength of UHPFRC

The flexural strength of the UHPFRC as a function of the volumetric content of PF and GF are presented in Figures 14 and 15, respectively. Similar to the compressive strength, it was discovered in this study that the use of CDE as a cement replacement at 5% and 10% was also able to increase the UHPFRC’s flexural strength with the highest recorded strength at 10%. Figures 14 and 15 also show that the flexural strength of the UHPFRC increased when the volumetric fiber content was increased up to 1.5% for both the PF and GF, and then decreased at a fiber content volume above 1.5%. Also, the parabolic tendency of the flexural strength to increase or decrease as the fiber contents were increased was observed. In this study, a concrete beam under positive bending moment was used in the flexural test which produced some tensile stress in the bottom fiber, and compressive stress in the top fiber, and caused the concrete to fail under tension. The fracture process of concrete undergoing bending (flexural load) is almost similar to concrete under tension. Therefore, when cracks start and propagate, the presence of fibers in the UHPFRC mixture can bridge the cracks and retard their propagation, and the fracture process of concrete under flexural strength is changed from brittle failure to plastic behavior hence improving the flexural strength. Adding fiber to the UHPFRC not only improves its flexural strength but also its energy absorption capacity [9]. Same as splitting tensile strength, the reduction in the flexural strength for 2 and 2.5% fiber content in this study was also associated with the low flow of the UHPFRC, which makes the concrete mixture to be less solid, thereby, leading to lower strength. Furthermore, Figures 13 and 14 also show that at 1.5% fiber content volume, the flexural strength of the UHPFRC with PF and GF reached 16 MPa and 16.5 MPa, respectively. The GF was also able to produce more increase in the UHPFRC’s flexural strength than PF in all the observed cases due to the fact that the tensile strength of the GF used in this study was higher than that of the PF. Similar results were also reported in previous studies [91]. Furthermore, just like the compressive strength, the influence of combining CDE and fibers on the tensile strength of the UHPFRC is more than that of fibers only. This is also attributed to the multiple effects of fibers and nano-silica in the CDE as described above. Compared to the control mix, the combined effect of CDE and PF was able to improve the flexural strength of the UHPFRC by 43.6%, while the combined effect of CDE and GF increased it by 48.1%. The improvement in flexural strength is higher than the improvement in compressive strength and splitting tensile strength and this result is in line with the findings of previous studies [1,37,57].

Figure 14

The effect of CDE and PF on the flexural strength of UHPFRC.

Figure 15

The effect of CDE and GF on the flexural strength of UHPFRC.

4.6 Relationship between splitting tensile strength, flexural strength, and compressive strength

In practice, the strength of concrete is usually tested under compression to get its compressive strength. Meanwhile, the tensile and flexural strengths, if required for simple analysis or finite element analysis of reinforced concrete structures, are calculated based on the available equation provided by building codes. From the results of this study, it can be seen that the splitting tensile strength and flexural strength are higher compared to those calculated by the equation recommended in the building codes. Therefore, it is necessary to propose the equation for the relation between splitting tensile, flexural, and compressive strengths of the UHPFRC.

ACI 318-19 recommended the relationship between the splitting tensile strength (f _sp) and compressive strength ( f c ' ) as f _sp = 0.56( f c ' )^0.5 for normal concrete, while ACI 363R-10 recommended the relationship as f _sp = 0.59( f c ' )^0.5 for high-strength concrete [92,93]. However, the splitting tensile strength obtained from this study is much higher than the ones calculated by those two equations. The following equation was proposed to have the best curve fitting with the experimental results for the UHPFRC tested in this study:

(5) f sp = 0.42 ( f c ' ) 0.73 ( MPa ) .

The plot data for the relationship between splitting tensile strength and compressive strength of UHPFRC obtained in this study together with Eq. (5) is shown in Figure 16.

Figure 16

Relationship between splitting tensile strength and compressive strength.

For the relationship between flexural strength (f _r) and compressive strength ( f c ' ), ACI 318-19 recommended the formula f _r = 0.62( f c ' )^0.5 for normal concrete, while ACI 363R-10 recommended the relationship as f _r = 0.94( f c ' )^0.5 for high-strength concrete [92,93]. Again, the equations predicted a much lower flexural strength compared to that obtained in the test results. Therefore, the relationship between the flexural strength and compressive strength of the UHPFRC is proposed as follows (Figure 17):

(6) f r = 0.44 ( f c ' ) 0.73 ( MPa ) .

Figure 17

Relationship between flexural strength and compressive strength.

Finally, considering the fact that the flexural and splitting tensile strengths of concrete represent its strength under tension, the two strengths, which were obtained by Eqs. (5) and (6) were almost the same. The flexural strength was a bit higher than the splitting tensile strength. Furthermore, the ratio between these strengths of the UHPFRC was analyzed as a function of fiber content in this study and is plotted in Figure 18. The figure shows that the ratio was almost equal to 1.0, except for fiber content of 1.5% whose ratio between the flexural and splitting tensile strengths ranged between 1.04 and 1.15.

Figure 18

The ratio of flexural strength to splitting tensile strength at different fiber contents.

5 Discussion

Table 4 shows the comparison of compressive, splitting tensile, and flexural strengths improvement achieved by the addition of GF and PF in this study with that of previous studies. Each study reported different improvements in compressive, flexural, and splitting tensile strengths. Additionally, the optimum fiber content, which resulted in the highest concrete strength was also different. The improvement and optimum strength of the concrete are solely dependent on the composition and proportion of the ingredient used in the concrete mixtures. For example, in the study conducted by Tayeh et al. [70], micro silica incorporated into the concrete mixture produces multiple effects between the silicon and fiber, resulting in a higher optimum fiber content (2.75%) and improves compressive strength and splitting tensile strength by 32 and 46%, respectively. Similarly, in this study, the presence of micro silica in the CDE had multiple effects on the fibers, resulting in optimum fiber content from 1.0 to 1.5%. From what is depicted in Table 4, it is important to note that although some studies show greater improvement in compressive strength compared to tensile/flexural strength, most studies show that the improvement in tensile/flexural strength is higher than that of compressive strength, which is in line with the findings of this study.

Table 4

Comparison of concrete strength improvement due to the addition of GF and PF obtained in this study with that of previous studies

References	Type of fibers	Optimum fiber content (volume %)	Improvement (%)
References	Type of fibers	Optimum fiber content (volume %)	f c '	f _sp	f _r
Present study	GF	(1.0–1.5)	22	26.2	48.1
Yuan and Jia [66]	GF	1.35	53.5	28.2	39.4
Hussain et al. [69]	GF	1	9.5	NA	36.3
Kizilkanat et al. [94]	GF	(0.5–1.0)	6.3	26.7	30
Asokan et al. [95]	GF	5	14.3	8.6	NA
Ajay and Kumar [96]	GF	1	5	23	119.5
Atewi et al. [97]	GF	1.5	3.5	25.8	14
Sanjeev and Nitesh [98]	GF	0.04	20	13.9	17.7
Nematollahi et al. [99]	GF	1.25	8.7	NA	33.8
Present study	PF	(1.0–1.5)	15	23.6	43.6
Yu et al. [43]	PF	0.4	2	NA	20
Hussain et al. [69]	PF	1	3.3	NA	26.5
Tayeh et al. [70]	PF	2.75	32	46	NA
Mastali and Dalvand [100]	PF	0.7	15.6	NA	19.3
Hazlin et al. [101]	PF	0.15	NA	61	NA
Jhatial et al. [102]	PF	0.2	44.5	55.8	NA
Alsadey and Salem [103]	PF	2	12	NA	NA
Jayaram et al. [104]	PF	1	10.8	27.6	3.5

Table 5 compares the tensile strength prediction equation established in this study with those recommended in some building codes and proposed in previous studies. The plots of all comparisons within the range of the compressive strength obtained in this study are shown in Figure 19. In most of the equations, the splitting tensile strength was developed as a function of the compressive strength. Only equations established by Wafa and Ashour, Song and Huang, El-Din et al., Musmar, and Thomas and Ramaswamy [120] included the volumetric content of fiber (V _f) as a parameter to calculate the splitting tensile strength. Moreover, El-Din et al., Musmar, and Thomas and Ramaswamy [118–120] also included the fiber aspect ratio (ratio between fiber length (l _f) and diameter (d _f)) in their equations. Furthermore, Figure 19 shows that the equations recommended by the available building codes [92,93,105–109] and that of most previous studies [110–115] led to a much lower prediction of the UHPFRC’s splitting tensile strength. These predictions, which were made using the equation proposed in this study, are similar to those proposed by Wafa and Ashour [116], Song and Hwang [117], and Musmar [119] whose equations included the volumetric content of fiber. Due to the simplicity of the equation presented in this study, it is recommended that this equation be used in practice.

Table 5

Equations for predicting splitting tensile strength obtained in this study and existing models

References	Equations for prediction of splitting tensile strength
Present study	f _sp = 0.42( f c ' )^0.73
ACI 318-19 [92]	f _sp = 0.56( f c ' )^0.5
ACI 363R-10 [93]	f _sp = 0.59( f c ' )^0.5
CEB-FIB [105]	f _sp = 0.3( f c ' )^2/3
NZS 3101 [106]	f _sp = 0.36( f c ' )^0.5
JSCE [107]	f _sp = 0.23( f c ' )^2/3
DIN 1045-1 [108]	f _sp = [2.12ln(1 + f c ' /10)]/0.9
fib 2010 [109]	f _sp = 2.12ln(1 + f c ' /10)
Rashid et al. [110]	f _sp = 0.47( f c ' )^0.56
Mokhtarzadeh and French [111]	f _sp = 0.32( f c ' )^0.63
Carino and Lew [112]	f _sp = 0.272( f c ' )^0.71
Ahmad and Shah [113]	f _sp = 0.462( f c ' )^0.55
Arιoglu [114]	f _sp = 0.321( f c ' )^0.661
Arιoglu et al. [115]	f _sp = 0.387( f c ' )^0.63
Wafa and Ashour [116]	f _sp = 0.58( f c ' )^0.5 + 3.02(V _f)²
Song and Hwang [117]	f _sp = 0.63( f c ' )^0.5 + 3.01 (V _f)–0.02(V _f)²
El-Din et al. [118]	f _sp = 0.076 [ f c ' + 10√F (3–20/ f c ' )]; F = (l _f/d _f)(V _f)(b _f)
Musmar [119]	f _sp = (0.6 + 0.4V _f l _f/d _f) √ f c ' Z
Thomas and Ramaswamy [120]	f _sp = 0.63( f c ' )^0.5 + 0.288(V _f)(l _f/d _f)( f c ' )^0.5 − 0.02(V _f)²

Figure 19

Comparison of splitting tensile strength obtained with the present study model and existing models.

The comparison of the flexural strength prediction equation proposed in this study with the equations recommended in some building codes, as well as with those proposed in some previous research, is shown in Table 6 and plotted in Figure 20. This figure shows that the equations recommended in available building codes [92,93,105,106,121] and proposed by some researchers [122–125] are underestimated for predicting the flexural strength of the UHPFRC. These low-predicting equations were recommended in the building codes and previous studies because some of them were established for normal concrete’s flexural strength prediction [92,106,121] and some others acted as flexural strength predictors of high-strength concretes [93,105] which are not suitable for UHPFRC. Admittedly, the presence of fibers in UHPFRC makes it have a much higher flexural strength compared to others. Only the equations proposed by Ismeik [126] and Bhanja and Sengupta [127] almost had similar predictions to the equation established in this study, although, their predicting accuracy still fell below the required estimation when the proposed equation was used. Meanwhile, incorporating granulated waste PET bottles as fine aggregate improved the flexural strength significantly [125] and the strength obtained was higher than that of this study.

Table 6

Equations for prediction of flexural strength obtained in the present study and existing models

References	Equations for prediction of flexural strength
Present study	f _r = 0.44( f c ' )^0.73
ACI 318-19 [92]	f _r = 0.62( f c ' )^0.5
ACI 363R-10 [93]	f _r = 0.94( f c ' )^0.5
CEB-FIB [105]	f _r = 0.81( f c ' )^0.5
NZS 3101 [106]	f _r = 0.6( f c ' )^0.5
IS 456 [121]	f _r = 0.7( f c ' )^0.5
Singh et al. [122]	f _r = 0.8( f c ' )^0.5
Akhnoukh and Buckhalter [123]	f _r = 0.78( f c ' )^0.5
Ahmed et al. [124]	f _r = 1.055( f c ' )^0.5
Juki et al. [125]	f _r = 0.466( f c ' )^0.73
Ismeik [126]	f _r = 1.2( f c ' )^0.5
Bhanja and Sengupta [127]	f _r = 0.275( f c ' )^0.81

Figure 20

Comparison of flexural tensile strength obtained with the proposed model and existing models.

6 Conclusion

In conclusion, UHPFRC specimens were produced using 0, 5, and 10% CDE as a binder for cement replacement. Moreover, PF and GF were added at a variation of 0, 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, and 2.5% to each mixture, and the flow, compressive strength, splitting tensile strength, and flexural strength were tested afterward. Based on the test results, within the limitation of this study, the following conclusions were drawn:

The use of 10% CDE as cement replacement resulted in the higher compressive, splitting tensile, and flexural strengths of the UHPFRC.
The compressive strength of the UHPFRC increased as the PF and GF were increased to approximately 1.0% of the overall concrete’s volume, but decreased when the fiber content was above 1.0%. The maximum compressive strength was reached by the mixture of 10% CDE and 1.0% fibers and improved by 15 and 22%, respectively, for PF and GF.
The splitting tensile and flexural strengths of the UHPFRC increased following an increase in the PF and GF up to 1.5% of the total concrete volume. However, when the content was above 1.5%, both the flexural and splitting tensile strengths were reduced again. The highest of these strengths were obtained with the mixture having 10% CDE and 1.5% fibers. The splitting tensile strength was improved by 23.6 and 26.2%, while flexural strength was improved by 43.6 and 48.1%, respectively, for PF and GF.
The use of 10% CDE as a cement substitute and the addition of PF or GF reduced the flowability of the UHPFRC. The diatomaceous earth content was taken into account when formulating the equations to estimate the decrease in the flow value with increase in the fiber content.
Finally, the splitting tensile and flexural strengths of the UHPFRC obtained were much higher than those present in the building codes. Therefore, they were proposed as a function of 0.73 compressive strength power. The results of splitting tensile strength obtained by the equation proposed in this study were almost the same as those of Wafa and Ashour [116], Song and Hwang [117], and Musmar [119] which take into account the effects of fiber content and aspect ratio. Due to the simplicity of the equations established in this study, it is recommended that those equations be used in the practice.

7 Further study recommendations

Due to the limitation of this study, the following are recommended for further study:

The maximum CDE content in this study was 10% of the total binder weight. Further study should be conducted where the CDE content will be higher than 10% in the UHPFRC mixtures to obtain the effect of high cement substitute on the mechanical properties of the concrete.
In this study, the SP’s volume was kept constant for all UHPFRC mixtures which resulted in a lower flow with increase in the fiber and CDE contents. It is, therefore, recommended that further study should be carried out to maintain the same flow value for all mixtures by adjusting the SP dosage. This signifies that the dosage will be increased as the fiber and CDE contents are increased. Due to the same flow, it is presumable that the mechanical properties of the UHPFRC will improve as the fiber content increase.
Finally, the maximum compressive strength was attained at 1.0% fibers, while the maximum splitting tensile strength and flexural strength were attained at 1.5% fibers, as the fiber content grew at a rate of 0.5% for each increment. In order to achieve the ideal fiber content, it is advised to increase the fiber content by 0.2% rather than 0.5% in future research.

List of symbols and abbreviations

Al₂O₃: aluminium oxide
b _f: bond factor depending on the type of fibers
c: CDE content
CaO: calcium oxide
C₃A: tricalcium aluminate
C₄AF: tetracalcium aluminoferrite
CDE: calcined diatomaceous earth
CO₂: carbon dioxide
C₂S: dicalcium silicate
C₃S: tricalcium silicate
D _avg: The average flow diameter
d _f: diameter of fiber
D _o: inner diameter on the bottom of the steel cone
F: Defined as (l _f/d _f)(V _f)(b _f)
f c ': compressive strength
Fe₂O₃: ferric oxide
f _g: glass fiber content
f _p: polypropylene fiber content
f _r: flexural strength
f _sp: splitting tensile strength
F _v: flow value
F _vf: flow of fibrous UHPFRC
F _vo: flow of UHPFRC without fiber
GF: glass fiber
IOP: iron ore powder
K₂O: potassium oxide
l _f: length of fiber
MgO: magnesium oxide
OPC: ordinary Portland cement
PF: polypropylene fiber
R²: coefficient of determination
RS: River sand
SEM: scanning electron microscope
SiO₂: silicon dioxide
SO₃: sulfur trioxide
SP: superplasticizer
UHPFRC: ultra-high-performance fiber-reinforced concrete
V _f: volumetric content of fiber
XRD: X-ray diffraction
XRF: X-ray fluorescence
ZrO₂: zirconium dioxide
θ: angle between an incident beam of X-ray and a crystallographic reflecting plane.

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by a grant provided by the Directorate General of Higher Education, Research, and Technology, Ministry of Education, Culture, Research, and Technology, Republic of Indonesia (contract number: 145/E5/PG.02.00.PT/2022) and Research and Community Service Center of Universitas Syiah Kuala (contract number: 47/UN11.2.1/PT.01.03/DPRM/2022). The authors are grateful to Mr. Satria Putra, Mr. Zikri Maulana, Mr. Mahlil, and Mr. Razali for their assistance with the experimental work.

Author contributions: All authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this manuscript and approved its submission.
Conflict of interest: Authors state no conflict of interest.

References

[1] Yu R, Spiesz P, Brouwers HJH. Mix design and properties assessment of ultra-high performance fibre reinforced concrete (UHPFRC). Cem Concr Res. 2014;56:29–39.10.1016/j.cemconres.2013.11.002Search in Google Scholar

[2] Amran M, Huang SS, Onaizi AM, Makul N, Abdelgader HS, Ozbakkaloglu T. Recent trends in ultra-high performance concrete (UHPC): Current status, challenges, and future prospects. Constr Build Mater. 2022;352:129029.10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2022.129029Search in Google Scholar

[3] Mueller U, Portal NW, Chozas V, Flansbjer M, Larazza I, da Silva N, et al. Reactive powder concrete for facade elements – a sustainable approach. J Facade Des Eng. 2016;4:53–66.10.3233/FDE-160051Search in Google Scholar

[4] Alkaysi M, El-Tawil S, Liu Z, Hansen W. Effects of silica powder and cement type on durability of ultra high performance concrete (UHPC). Cem Concr Compos. 2016;66:47–56.10.21838/uhpc.2016.87Search in Google Scholar

[5] Richard P, Cheyrezy M. Composition of reactive powder concretes. Cem Concr Res. 1995;25:1501–11.10.1016/0008-8846(95)00144-2Search in Google Scholar

[6] Shi C, Wu Z, Xiao J, Wang D, Huang Z, Fang Z. A review on ultra high performance concrete: Part I. Raw materials and mixture design. Constr Build Mater. 2015;101:741–51.10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.10.088Search in Google Scholar

[7] Yu R, Spiesz P, Brouwers HJH. Development of ultra-high performance fibre reinforced concrete (UHPFRC): Towards an efficient utilization of binders and fibres. Constr Build Mater. 2015;79:273–82.10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.01.050Search in Google Scholar

[8] Yu R, Spiesz P, Brouwers HJH. Effect of nano-silica on the hydration and microstructure development of Ultra-High Performance Concrete (UHPC) with a low binder amount. Constr Build Mater. 2014;65:140–50.10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.04.063Search in Google Scholar

[9] Akeed MH, Qaidi S, Ahmed HU, Faraj RH, Mohammed AS, Emad W, et al. Ultra-high-performance fiber-reinforced concrete. Part IV: Durability properties, cost assessment, applications, and challenges. Case Stud Constr Mater. 2022;17:e01271.10.1016/j.cscm.2022.e01271Search in Google Scholar

[10] Valcuende M, Lliso-Ferrando JR, Ramón-Zamora JE, Soto J. Corrosion resistance of ultra-high performance fibre-reinforced concrete. Constr Build Mater. 2021;306:124914.10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.124914Search in Google Scholar

[11] Doostkami H, Roig-Flores M, Serna P. Self-healing efficiency of ultra high-performance fiber-reinforced concrete through permeability to chlorides. Constr Build Mater. 2021;310:125168.10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.125168Search in Google Scholar

[12] Akeed MH, Qaidi S, Ahmed HU, Faraj RH, Majeed SS, Mohammed AS, et al. Ultra-high-performance fiber-reinforced concrete. Part V: Mixture design, preparation, mixing, casting, and curing. Case Stud Constr Mater. 2022;17:e01363.10.1016/j.cscm.2022.e01363Search in Google Scholar

[13] Yu R, Spiesz P, Brouwers HJH. Static properties and impact resistance of a green ultra-high performance hybrid fibre reinforced concrete (UHPHFRC): Experiments and modeling. Constr Build Mater. 2014;68:158–71.10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.06.033Search in Google Scholar

[14] Tayeh BA, Bakar BHA, Johari MAM, Voo YL. Mechanical and permeability properties of the interface between normal concrete substrate and ultra high performance fiber concrete overlay. Constr Build Mater. 2012;36:538–48.10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.06.013Search in Google Scholar

[15] Pierard J, Cauberg N. Evaluation of durability and cracking tendency of ultra-high performance concrete. Creep, shrinkage and durability mechanics of concrete and concrete structures. London, UK: Taylor and Francis Group; 2009. p. 695–70010.1201/9780203882955.ch92Search in Google Scholar

[16] Bonneau O, Vernet C, Moranville M, Aitcin P. Characterization of the granular packing and percolation threshold of reactive powder concrete. Cem Concr Res. 2000;30:1861–7.10.1016/S0008-8846(00)00300-8Search in Google Scholar

[17] Bonneau O, Lachemi M, Dallaire E, Dugat J, Aitcin P. Mechanical properties and durability of two industrial reactive powder concretes. ACI Mater J. 1997;94:286–90.10.14359/310Search in Google Scholar

[18] Liu J, Song S, Wang L. Durability and micro-structure of reactive powder concrete. J Wuhan Univ Technol Mater Sci Ed. 2009;24:506–9.10.1007/s11595-009-3506-1Search in Google Scholar

[19] Vernet P. Ultra-durable concretes: Structure at the micro- and nano-scale. Mater Res Soc. 2004;29:324–7.10.1557/mrs2004.98Search in Google Scholar

[20] Shaheen E, Shrive N. Optimization of mechanical properties and durability of reactive powder concrete. ACI Mater J. 2006;103:444–51.10.14359/18222Search in Google Scholar

[21] Gao R, Liu Z, Zhang L, Stroeven P. Static properties of reactive powder concrete beams. Key Eng Mater. 2006;302:521–7.10.4028/0-87849-983-0.521Search in Google Scholar

[22] Huang Y, Grünewald S, Schlangen E, Luković M. Strengthening of concrete structures with ultra high performance fiber reinforced concrete (UHPFRC): A critical review. Constr Build Mater. 2022;336:127398.10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2022.127398Search in Google Scholar

[23] Toledo Filho RD, Koenders EAB, Formagini S, Fairbairn EMR. Performance assessment of ultra high performance fiber reinforced cementitious composites in view of sustainability. Mater Des. 2021;36:880–8.10.1016/j.matdes.2011.09.022Search in Google Scholar

[24] Habel K, Viviani M, Denarié E, Brühwiler E. Development of the mechanical properties of an ultra-high performance fiber reinforced concrete (UHPFRC). Cem Concr Res. 2006;26:1362–70.10.1016/j.cemconres.2006.03.009Search in Google Scholar

[25] El-Dieb AS. Mechanical, durability and microstructural characteristics of ultrahigh-strength self-compacting concrete incorporating steel fibres. Mater Des. 2009;30:4286–92.10.1016/j.matdes.2009.04.024Search in Google Scholar

[26] Tayeh BA, Abu Bakar BH, Megat Johari MA, Voo YL. Mechanical and permeability properties of the interface between normal concrete substrate and ultra-high performance fibre concrete overlay. Constr Build Mater. 2012;36:538–48.10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.06.013Search in Google Scholar

[27] Hassan AMT, Jones SW, Mahmud GH. Experimental test methods to determine the uniaxial tensile and compressive behaviour of ultra-high performance fibre reinforced concrete (UHPFRC). Constr Build Mater. 2012;37:874–2.10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.04.030Search in Google Scholar

[28] Park SH, Kim DJ, Ryu GS, Koh KT. Tensile behaviour of ultra-high performance hybrid fibre reinforced concrete. Cem Concr Compos. 2012;34:172–84.10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2011.09.009Search in Google Scholar

[29] Benhelal E, Zahedi G, Shamsaei E, Bahadori A. Global strategies and potentials to curb CO2 emission in cement industry. J Clean Prod. 2013;51:142–61.10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.10.049Search in Google Scholar

[30] Mobasher B, Li A, Yao Y, Arora A, Neithalath N. Characterization of toughening mechanisms in UHPC through image correlation and inverse analysis of flexural results. Cem Concr Compos. 2021;122:104157.10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2021.104157Search in Google Scholar

[31] Bahedh MA, Jaafar MS. Ultra high-performance concrete utilizing fly ash as cement replacement under autoclaving technique. Case Stud Constr Mater. 2018;9:e00202.10.1016/j.cscm.2018.e00202Search in Google Scholar

[32] Teng L, Valipour M, Khayat KH. Design and performance of low shrinkage UHPC for thin bonded bridge deck overlay. Cem Concr Compos. 2021;118:103953.10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2021.103953Search in Google Scholar

[33] Liu Y, Wei Y. Effect of calcined bauxite powder or aggregate on the shrinkage properties of UHPC. Cem Concr Compos. 2021;118:103967.10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2021.103967Search in Google Scholar

[34] Corinaldesi V, Moriconi G. Mechanical and thermal evaluation of ultra high performance fiber reinforced concretes for engineering applications. Constr Build Mater. 2012;26:289–94.10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.06.023Search in Google Scholar

[35] Yoo DY, Shin W. Improvement of fiber corrosion resistance of ultra-high-performance concrete by means of crack width control and repair. Cem Concr Compos. 2021;121:104073.10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2021.104073Search in Google Scholar

[36] Qaidi SMA, Atrushi DS, Mohammed AS, Ahmed HU, Faraj RH, Emad W, et al. Ultra-high-performance geopolymer concrete: A review. Constr Build Mater. 2022;346:128495.10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2022.128495Search in Google Scholar

[37] Aldahdooh MAA, Muhamad Bunnori N, Megat Johari MA. Development of green ultra-high performance fiber reinforced concrete containing ultrafine palm oil fuel ash. Constr Build Mater. 2013;48:379–89.10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.07.007Search in Google Scholar

[38] Vigneshwari M, Arunachalam K, Angayarkanni A. Replacement of silica fume with thermally treated rice husk ash in reactive powder concrete. J Clean Prod. 2018;188:264–77.10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.04.008Search in Google Scholar

[39] Vejmelková E, Keppert M, Rovnaníková P, Ondráček M, Keršner Z, Černý R. Properties of high performance concrete containing fine-ground ceramics as supplementary cementitious material. Constr Build Mater. 2012;34:55–61.10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2011.09.018Search in Google Scholar

[40] Hussain ZA, Aljalawi NMF. Behavior of reactive powder concrete containing recycle glass powder reinforced by steel fiber. J Mech Behavior. Mater. 2022;31:233–9.10.1515/jmbm-2022-0025Search in Google Scholar

[41] Pyo S, Wille K, El-Tawil S, Naaman AE. Strain rate dependent properties of ultra high performance fiber reinforced concrete (UHPFRC) under tension. Cem Concr Compos. 2015;56:15–24.10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2014.10.002Search in Google Scholar

[42] Habert G, Denarié E, Šajna A, Rossi P. Lowering the global warming impact of bridge rehabilitations by using ultra high performance fibre reinforced concretes. Cem Concr Compos. 2013;38:1–11.10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2012.11.008Search in Google Scholar

[43] Yu R, Tang P, Spiesz P, Brouwers HJH. A study of multiple effects of nano-silica and hybrid fibres on the properties of ultra-high performance fibre reinforced concrete (UHPFRC) incorporating waste bottom ash (WBA). Constr Build Mater. 2014;60:98–110.10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.02.059Search in Google Scholar

[44] Zhu Y, Zhang Y, Hussein HH, Liu J, Chen G. Experimental study and theoretical prediction on shrinkage-induced restrained stresses in UHPC-RC composites under normal curing and steam curing. Cem Concr Compos. 2020;110:103602.10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2020.103602Search in Google Scholar

[45] ASTM C618-19. Standard Specification for Coal Fly Ash and Raw or Calcined Natural Pozzolan for Use in Concrete. West Conshohocken (PA): ASTM International; 2019.Search in Google Scholar

[46] Hasan M, Saidi T, Muyasir A, Alkhaly YR, Muslimsyah M. Characteristic of calcined diatomaceous earth from Aceh Besar District–Indonesia as cementitious binder. IOP Conf Ser Mater Sci Eng. 2020;933:012008.10.1088/1757-899X/933/1/012008Search in Google Scholar

[47] Papadakis VG, Tsimas S. Supplementary cementing materials in concrete Part I: Efficiency and design. Cem Concr Res. 2002;32:1525–32.10.1016/S0008-8846(02)00827-XSearch in Google Scholar

[48] Kastis D, Kakali G, Tsivilis S, Stamatakis MG. Properties and hydration of blended cements with calcareous diatomite. Cem Concr Res. 2006;36:1821–26.10.1016/j.cemconres.2006.05.005Search in Google Scholar

[49] Hamou AT, Petrov N, Luke K. Properties of concrete containing diatomaceous earth. ACI Mater J. 2003;100:73–8.10.14359/12465Search in Google Scholar

[50] Hasan M, Muyasir A, Saidi T, Husaini H, Azzahra R. Properties of high strength concrete with calcined diatomaceous earth as cement replacement under compression. Defect Diffus Forum. 2020;402:7–13.10.4028/www.scientific.net/DDF.402.7Search in Google Scholar

[51] Hasan M, Riski DDR, Saidi T, Husaini H, Rahman PN. Flexural and splitting tensile strength of high strength concrete with diatomite micro particles as mineral additive. Defect Diffus Forum. 2020;402:50–5.10.4028/www.scientific.net/DDF.402.50Search in Google Scholar

[52] Saidi T, Hasan M. The effect of partial replacement of cement with diatomaceous earth (DE) on the compressive strength and absorption of mortar. J King Saud Univ Eng Sci. 2022;34:250–9.10.1016/j.jksues.2020.10.003Search in Google Scholar

[53] Rossi P. Influence of fibre geometry and matrix maturity on the mechanical performance of ultra-high-performance cement-based composites. Cem Concr Compos. 2013;37:246–8.10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2012.08.005Search in Google Scholar

[54] Teng L, Huang H, Du J, Khayat KH. Prediction of fiber orientation and flexural performance of UHPC based on suspending mortar rheology and casting method. Cem Concr Compos. 2021;122:104142.10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2021.104142Search in Google Scholar

[55] Huang H, Gao X, Khayat KH. Contribution of fiber alignment on flexural properties of UHPC and prediction using the composite theory. Cem Concr Compos. 2021;118:103971.10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2021.103971Search in Google Scholar

[56] Yoo DY, Jang YS, Chun B, Kim S. Chelate effect on fiber surface morphology and its benefits on pullout and split tensile behaviors of ultra-high-performance concrete. Cem Concr Compos. 2021;115:103864.10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2020.103864Search in Google Scholar

[57] Pae J, Lee N, Kim S, Moon J. Effect of casting geometry on distributions of segmented steel fibers in ultra-high performance fiber-reinforced concrete. Constr Build Mater. 2022;350:128872.10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2022.128872Search in Google Scholar

[58] Tran DA, Shen X, Sorelli L, Ftima MB, Brühwiler E. Predicting the effect of non-uniform fiber distribution on the tensile response of ultra-high-performance fiber reinforced concrete by magnetic inductance-based finite element analysis. Cem Concr Compos. 2023;135:104810.10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2022.104810Search in Google Scholar

[59] Meng S, Jiao C, Ouyang X, Niu Y, Fu J. Effect of steel fiber-volume fraction and distribution on flexural behavior of ultra-high performance fiber reinforced concrete by digital image correlation technique. Constr Build Mater. 2022;320:126381.10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.126281Search in Google Scholar

[60] Fang C, Ali M, Xie T, Visintin P, Sheikh AH. The influence of steel fibre properties on the shrinkage of ultra-high performance fibre reinforced concrete. Constr Build Mater. 2020;242:117993.10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.117993Search in Google Scholar

[61] Yang J, Chen B, Nuti C. Influence of steel fiber on compressive properties of ultra-high performance fiber-reinforced concrete. Constr Build Mater. 2021;302:124104.10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.124104Search in Google Scholar

[62] Ríos JD, Cifuentes H, Blasón S, López-Aenlle M, Martínez-De La Concha A. Flexural fatigue behaviour of a heated ultra-high-performance fibre-reinforced concrete. Constr Build Mater. 2021;276:122209.10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.122209Search in Google Scholar

[63] Li Y, Yang EH, Tan KH. Flexural behavior of ultra-high performance hybrid fiber reinforced concrete at the ambient and elevated temperature. Constr Build Mater. 2020;250:118487.10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.118487Search in Google Scholar

[64] Kim SW, Jang SJ, Kang DH, Ahn KL, Yun HD. Mechanical properties and eco-efficiency of steel fiber reinforced alkali-activated slag concrete. Mater. 2015;8:7309–21.10.3390/ma8115383Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[65] Song Q, Yu R, Shui Z, Rao S, Fan D, Gao X. Macro/micro characteristics variation of ultra-high performance fibre reinforced concrete (UHPFRC) subjected to critical marine environments. Constr Build Mater. 2020;256:119458.10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.119458Search in Google Scholar

[66] Yuan Z, Jia Y. Mechanical properties and microstructure of glass fiber and polypropylene fiber reinforced concrete: An experimental study. Constr Build Mater. 2021;266:121048.10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.121048Search in Google Scholar

[67] Jhatial AA, Goh WI, Mastoi AK, Traore AF, Oad M. Environmental assessment and mechanical properties of polypropylene fibres reinforced ternary binder foamed concrete. Env Sci Pollut Res. 2022;29:2985–3007.10.1007/s11356-021-15076-xSearch in Google Scholar PubMed

[68] Hu P, Li Y, Zhang X, Guo Z, Zhang P. CO2 emission from container glass in China, and emission reduction strategy analysis. Carbon Manag. 2018;9:303–10.10.1080/17583004.2018.1457929Search in Google Scholar

[69] Hussain I, Ali B, Akhtar T, Jameel MS, Raza SS. Comparison of mechanical properties of concrete and design thickness of pavement with different types of fiber-reinforcements (steel, glass, polypropyl). Case Stud Constr Mater. 2020;13:e00429.10.1016/j.cscm.2020.e00429Search in Google Scholar

[70] Tayeh BA, Akeed MH, Qaidi S, Bakar BHA. Influence of microsilica and polypropylene fibers on the fresh and mechanical properties of ultra-high performance geopolymer concrete (UHP-GPC). Case Stud Constr Mater. 2022;17:e01367.10.1016/j.cscm.2022.e01367Search in Google Scholar

[71] Blazy J, Blazy R, Drobiec L. Glass fiber reinforced concrete as a durable and enhanced material for structural and architectural elements in smart city–A review. Mater. 2022;15:2754.10.3390/ma15082754Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[72] Wang W, Wang H, Chang K, Wang S. Effect of high temperature on the strength and thermal conductivity of glass fiber concrete. Constr Build Mater. 2020;245:118387.10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.118387Search in Google Scholar

[73] Madhkhan M, Katirai R. Effect of pozzolanic materials on mechanical properties and aging of glass fiber reinforced concrete. Constr Build Mater. 2019;225:146–58.10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.07.128Search in Google Scholar

[74] Ahmad J, González-Lezcano RA, Majdi A, Kahla NB, Deifalla AF, El-Shorbagy MA. Glass fibers reinforced concrete: Overview on mechanical, durability and microstructure analysis. Mater. 2022;15:5111.10.3390/ma15155111Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[75] Hasan M, Saidi T, Husaini H. Properties and microstructure of composite cement paste with diatomaceous earth powder (DEP) from Aceh Besar district–Indonesia. Asia-Pacific J Sci Technol. 2022;27:APST-27-01-03.Search in Google Scholar

[76] Funk JE, Dinger DR. Predictive process control of crowded particulate suspensions, applied to ceramic manufacturing. Boston, USA: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 1994.10.1007/978-1-4615-3118-0Search in Google Scholar

[77] Brouwers HJH. Particle-size distribution and packing fraction of geometric random packings. Phys Rev E. 2006;74:031309.10.1103/PhysRevE.74.031309Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[78] Saidi T, Hasan M, Riski ADD, Ayunizar RR, Mubarak A. Mix design and properties of reactive powder concrete with diatomaceous earth as cement replacement. IOP Conf Ser Mater Sci Eng. 2020;933:012007.10.1088/1757-899X/933/1/012007Search in Google Scholar

[79] Alkhaly YR, Hasan M. Characteristics of reactive powder concrete comprising synthesized rice husk ash and quartzite powder. J Clean Prod. 2022;375:134154.10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.134154Search in Google Scholar

[80] ASTM C1437-07. Standard Test Method for Flow of Hydraulic Cement Mortar. West Conshohocken (PA): ASTM International; 2007.Search in Google Scholar

[81] ASTM C230/230M-08. Standard Specification for Flow Table for Use in Tests of Hydraulic Cement. West Conshohocken (PA): ASTM International; 2008.Search in Google Scholar

[82] Hasan M, Saidi T. Properties of blended cement paste with diatomite from Aceh Province Indonesia. IOP Conf Ser Mater Sci Eng. 2020;796:012034.10.1088/1757-899X/796/1/012034Search in Google Scholar

[83] Dedeloudis C, Zervaki M, Sideris K, Juenger M, Alderete N, Kamali-Bernard S, et al. Natural pozzolans. RILEM State-of-the-Art Rep. 2018;181–231.10.1007/978-3-319-70606-1_6Search in Google Scholar

[84] Ulusu H, Aruntas HY, Gencel O. Investigation on characteristics of blended cements containing pumice. Constr Build Mater. 2016;118:11–9.10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.05.030Search in Google Scholar

[85] ElSayed EE. Natural diatomite as an effective adsorbent for heavy metals in water and wastewater treatment (a batch study). Water Sci. 2018;32:32–43.10.1016/j.wsj.2018.02.001Search in Google Scholar

[86] Özcan F, Emin, Koç M. Influence of ground pumice on compressive strength and air content of both non-air and air entrained concrete in fresh and hardened state. Constr Build Mater. 2018;187:382–93.10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.07.183Search in Google Scholar

[87] Vimonsatit V, Chindaprasirt P, Ruangsiriyakul S, Sata V. Influence of fly ash fineness on water requirement and shrinkage of blended cement mortars. KKU Eng J. 2015;42:311–6.Search in Google Scholar

[88] Wu Z, Shi C, Khayat KH, Wan S. Effects of different nanomaterials on hardening and performance of ultra-high strength concrete (UHSC). Cem Concr Compos. 2016;70:24–34.10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2016.03.003Search in Google Scholar

[89] Grünewald S. Performance-based design of self-compacting fibre reinforced concrete. Delft, the Netherlands: Delft University of Technology; 2004.10.1617/2912143624.030Search in Google Scholar

[90] Edgington J, Hannant DJ, Williams RIT. Steel fibre reinforced concrete. Fibre Reinforced Materials. Lancaster, England: The Construction Press; 1974. p. 112–8.Search in Google Scholar

[91] He J, Chen W, Zhang B, Yu J, Liu H. The mechanical properties and damage evolution of UHPC reinforced with glass fibers and high-performance polypropylene fibers. Mater. 2021;14:2455.10.3390/ma14092455Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[92] ACI 318-19, Building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI 318M-14). Farmington Hills (MI): ACI Committee; 2019.Search in Google Scholar

[93] ACI 363R-10. Report on high-strength concrete. Farmington Hills (MI): ACI Committee; 2010.Search in Google Scholar

[94] Kizilkanat AB, Kabay N, Akyüncü V, Chowdhury S, Akça AH. Mechanical properties and fracture behavior of basalt and glass fiber reinforced concrete: An experimental study. Constr Build Mater. 2015;100:218–24.10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.10.006Search in Google Scholar

[95] Asokan P, Osmani M, Price A. Improvement of the mechanical properties of glass fibre reinforced plastic waste powder filled concrete. Constr Build Mater. 2010;24:448–60.10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2009.10.017Search in Google Scholar

[96] Ajay L, Kumar MA. Experimental study on mechanical properties of concrete strengthened with alkali resistant glass fibers. Test Eng Manag. 2020;83:16295–8.Search in Google Scholar

[97] Atewi YR, Hasan MF, Güneyisi E. Fracture and permeability properties of glass fiber reinforced self-compacting concrete with and without nanosilica. Constr Build Mater. 2019;226:993–1005.10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.08.029Search in Google Scholar

[98] Sanjeev J, Nitesh KJNS. Study on the effect of steel and glass fibers on fresh and hardened properties of vibrated concrete and self-compacting concrete. Mater Today Proc. 2020;27:1559–68.10.1016/j.matpr.2020.03.208Search in Google Scholar

[99] Nematollahi B, Sanjayan J, Chai JXH, Lu TM. Properties of fresh and hardened glass fiber reinforced fly ash based geopolymer concrete. Key Eng Mater. 2013;594–595:629–33.10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.594-595.629Search in Google Scholar

[100] Mastali M, Dalvand A. Fresh and hardened properties of self compacting concrete reinforced with hybrid recycled steel–polypropylene fiber. J Mater Civ Eng. 2017;29:04017012.10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0001851Search in Google Scholar

[101] Hazlin AR, Iman A, Mohamad N, Goh WI, Sia LM, Samad AAA, et al. Microstructure and tensile strength of foamed concrete with added polypropylene fibers. MATEC Web Conf. 2017;103:01013.10.1051/matecconf/201710301013Search in Google Scholar

[102] Jhatial AA, Goh WI, Mohamad N, Rind TA, Sandhu AR. Development of thermal insulating lightweight foamed concrete reinforced with polypropylene fibres. Arab J Sci Eng. 2020;45:4067–76.10.1007/s13369-020-04382-0Search in Google Scholar

[103] Alsadey S, Salem M. Influence of polypropylene fiber on strength of concrete. Am J Eng Res. 2016;5(7):223–6.Search in Google Scholar

[104] Jayaram M, Naresh J, Thipparthi K, Kiran K. Assessment on mechanical properties of concrete with polypropylene fiber. IOP Conf Ser Earth Env Sci. 2022;982:012004.10.1088/1755-1315/982/1/012004Search in Google Scholar

[105] CEB-FIP Model Code for Concrete Structures 1990. Evaluation of the Time Dependent Behaviour of Concrete. Bulletin d’Information No. 199, Comite European du Béton/Fédération Internationale de la Precontrainte, Lausanne; 1991.Search in Google Scholar

[106] NZS 3101. New Zealand Standard: Concrete structures standard, SNZ Wellington, New Zealand; 2006.Search in Google Scholar

[107] JSCE (Japan Society of Civil Engineers). Standard Specifications for Concrete Structures –Design, JSCE Guidelines for Concrete No. 15 Tokyo, Japan; 2007.Search in Google Scholar

[108] DIN 1045–1. Plain, Reinforced and Prestressed Concrete Structures – Part 1: Design and Construction. Berlin, Germany: Beuth Verlag; 2008.Search in Google Scholar

[109] fib 2010, Model Code for Concrete Structures 2010. Switzerland: Fédération Internationale du Béton, Lausanne; 2013.10.1002/9783433604090Search in Google Scholar

[110] Rashid MA, Mansur MA, Paramasivam P. Correlations between mechanical properties of high-strength concrete. J Mater Civ Eng. 2002;14(3):230–8.10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2002)14:3(230)Search in Google Scholar

[111] Mokhtarzadeh A, French C. Mechanical properties of high-strength concrete with consideration for precast applications. ACI Mater J. 2000;97(2):136–47.10.14359/816Search in Google Scholar

[112] Carino NJ, Lew HS. Re-examination of the relation between splitting tensile and compressive strength of normal weight concrete. ACI J Proc. 1982;79(3):214–19.10.14359/10900Search in Google Scholar

[113] Ahmad SH, Shah SP. Structural properties of high strength concrete and its implications for precast prestressed concrete. PCI J. 1985;30(6):92–119.10.15554/pcij.11011985.92.119Search in Google Scholar

[114] Arιoglu E. Discussion of relationship between splitting tensile strength and the compressive strength by V. Yerlici and U. Ersoy. IMO Tech J. 1995;4:1059–62.Search in Google Scholar

[115] Arιoglu Z, Girgin C, Arιoglu E. Evaluation of ratio between splitting tensile strength and compressive strength for concretes up to 120 MPa and its application in strength criterion. ACI Mater J. 2006;103(1):18–24.10.14359/15123Search in Google Scholar

[116] Wafa FF, Ashour SA. Mechanical properties of high-strength fiber reinforced concrete. ACI Mater J. 1992;89(4):449–55.10.14359/2390Search in Google Scholar

[117] Song PS, Hwang S. Mechanical properties of high-strength steel fiber-reinforced concrete. Constr Build Mater. 2004;18(9):669–73.10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2004.04.027Search in Google Scholar

[118] El-Din HKS, Heba AM, Khater MAE, Ahmed S. Effect of steel fibers on behavior of ultra high performance concrete. In: First International Interactive Symposium on UHPC, USA, 2016.Search in Google Scholar

[119] Musmar M. Tensile strength of steel fiber reinforced concrete. Contemp Eng Sci. 2013;6(5):225–37.10.12988/ces.2013.3531Search in Google Scholar

[120] Thomas J, Ramaswamy A. Mechanical properties of steel fiber-reinforced concrete. J Mater Civ Eng. 2007;19(5):385–92.10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2007)19:5(385)Search in Google Scholar

[121] IS 456, Indian Standard Plain and Reinforced Concrete – Code of Practice, 4th Revision – Code of Practice, 4th Revision, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi; 2007.Search in Google Scholar

[122] Singh B, Ojha PN, Trivedi A, Patel V, Arora VV. Development of empirical equations for prediction of flexural and split tensile strength for normal and high strength concrete with granite and calc-granulite aggregate. Indian Concr J. 2021;95(11):36–46.Search in Google Scholar

[123] Akhnoukh AK, Buckhalter C. Ultra-high-performance concrete: constituents, mechanical properties, applications and current challenges. Case Stud Constr Mater. 2021;15:e00559.10.1016/j.cscm.2021.e00559Search in Google Scholar

[124] Ahmed M, El Hadi KM, Hasan MA, Mallick J, Ahmed A. Evaluating the co-relationship between concrete flexural tensile strength and compressive strength. Int J Struct Eng. 2014;5(2):115–31.10.1504/IJSTRUCTE.2014.060902Search in Google Scholar

[125] Juki MI, Awang M, Mahamad MKA, Boon KH, Othman N, Kadir AB, et al. Relatioship between compressive, splitting tensile and flexural strength of concrete containing granulated waste polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles as fine aggregate. Adv Mater Res. 2013;795:356–9.10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.795.356Search in Google Scholar

[126] Ismeik M. Effect of mineral admixtures on mechanical properties of high strength concrete made with locally available materials. Jordan J Civ Eng. 2009;3(1):78–90.Search in Google Scholar

[127] Bhanja S, Sengupta B. Influence of silica fume on the tensile strength of concrete. Cem Concr Res. 2005;35(4):743–7.10.1016/j.cemconres.2004.05.024Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2022-10-08

Revised: 2022-11-17

Accepted: 2022-12-25

Published Online: 2023-01-25

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Articles in the same Issue

https://doi.org/10.1515/jmbm-2022-0275

Keywords for this article

fiber; calcined diatomaceous earth; mechanical properties

Creative Commons

BY 4.0