Construction and Building Materials 308 (2021) 125035

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

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

Fiber-reinforced lightweight concrete formulated using multiple residues

Fred Guedes Cunha , Z.L.M. Sampaio , A.E. Martinelli *
Materials Science and Engineering Post-graduate Program, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte, Av. Sen. Salgado Filho 3000 - Candelária, Natal-RN 59078-
970, Brazil

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

Keywords: Waste from mineral extraction and the manufacturing industry can be used to produce lightweight concrete.
Lightweight concrete Moreover, fiber-reinforcing lightweight concrete is capable of reducing structural weight and piece sections,
Multiple residues resulting in a variety of applications such as flooring, shotcrete and precast concrete. This work aimed at studying
Mechanical properties
fiber-reinforced lightweight concrete mixtures prepared with the combined addition of multiple residues, i.e.,
Fibers
Toughness
rubber, limestone and porcelain dust residues along with expanded clay. 0.2% to 0.6 vol% steel, polypropylene,
glass and carbon fibers, were studied. A reference fiber-free lightweight mixture with compressive strength of 32
MPa was also produced. The physical characteristics of the mixtures were evaluated by consistency tests, void
indices, water absorption and density measurements. The mechanical characterization was carried out by
compressive, flexural and fracture strength in addition to toughness tests. The results indicated that the addition
of fibers decreased the workability of the concrete, but improved flexural and fracture strength along with
toughness. The effects of fiber volume and properties, such as shape factor, tensile stress and elastic modulus on
the properties of the resulting materials were evaluated. Steel and carbon fibers resulted in the best fracture
strength properties, due to their high modulus of elasticity and tensile strength.

1. Introduction decreases the crack opening, thus improving its fatigue strength [18].
The modulus of elasticity in the post-cracking zone of the cyclically
The production of Portland cement involves high-energy consump­ stressed fiber reinforced concrete is influenced by the maximum defor­
tion and significant environmental degradation, accounting for about mation of the specimen and the size of the crack in the matrix rupture
8% of global carbon dioxide emissions in the atmosphere [1]. Thus, [18]. In fiber-reinforced concrete, the energy required to overcome the
considerable research has been driven towards developing new fiber reinforcement mechanisms established after the matrix cracking is
cementing mixtures using residues to reduce the environmental impact much higher than the energy absorbed in the matrix rupture. Therefore,
of cement production [2–7]. Advances have also been reported in energy absorption capacity is the main property, which benefits from
decreasing the weight of concrete mixtures by using lightweight ag­ fiber reinforcement [19]. Fiber performance in a composite can be
gregates, which usually impairs the compressive strength, the most assessed by its toughness, as most of the energy for rupture comes from
important property in project design and quality control [8–15]. In the adhesion between the fiber and the matrix.
addition, flexural and fracture strength along with toughness have also Adding fibers to concrete affects its strength and modulus of elas­
been addressed in several studies aiming at applications such as pave­ ticity depending on the volume of fibers used. Fibers may increase the
ments, tunnels, pipes, and slope coating, among others [16]. In light­ incorporated air content, which deleteriously influence the packing of
weight concrete, fracture takes place due to aggregate rupture, which the mixture. Depending on the preparation and densification, packing
makes them less resistant to fracture and to flexural stresses than con­ optimization of the mixture can be achieved, increasing not only
ventional concrete, which fails in the matrix-aggregate interface strength and modulus, but also compressive toughness [20]. Fiber vol­
[14,17]. ume and aspect ratio also have an effect on the flexural strength of
To overcome this shortcoming, different types of fibers can be added concrete, since long fibers tend to align on the length of the specimen,
to concrete, particularly lightweight mixtures, increasing its energy further increasing the flexural strength [18]. Variations in flexural
absorption capacity after matrix cracking [17]. The addition of fibers strength of the order of 10 to 30% can be expected in concretes with low

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: martinelli.ufrn@gmail.com (A.E. Martinelli).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.125035
Received 19 May 2021; Received in revised form 21 September 2021; Accepted 22 September 2021
Available online 1 October 2021
0950-0618/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
F.G. Cunha et al. Construction and Building Materials 308 (2021) 125035

fiber content because of the variation in fiber distribution and number of 2. Materials and methods
fibers in the rupture plane. Greater workability of the concrete improves
fiber alignment towards the length of the specimen, being transverse to 2.1. Starting materials
the point of load application, which increases the flexural strength [21].
The addition of fibers up to 1.5% by volume has resulted in flexural Single-batch Portland CPII-Z-32 cement produced by Cimpor (João
strength increases of the order of 100% [22,23]. Increases in tensile and Pessoa, Brazil) was used in the preparation of multiple residue light­
flexural strength with increasing fiber contents and for fibers with high weight concrete (MRLC) samples. The residues used were all from
shape factors have also been reported with the most pronounced effect Northeastern Brazil. The polished porcelain tile residues (PPR) were first
on concretes with lower strengths [24]. The addition of fibers into oven dried at approximately 100 ◦ C for 24 h and then crushed for 3 h in a
lightweight concrete also affects its porosity and mechanical properties, cylindrical ball mill with a drum diameter of 20.0 cm and a height of
water absorption and density, significantly influencing the characteris­ 28.5 cm, half filled with the porcelain residue and ceramic balls with
tics of fresh concrete and the cement hydration process. Hardened diameters ranging from 1.4 cm to 3.9 cm. Limestone residues (LSR) were
concrete is tested at 28 days of age, at which time the coarse aggregates sieved through a 4.8 mm mesh sieve to remove impurities and larger
still absorb water, resulting in a difference in the water absorption particles. Tire rubber residues (TRR) were used in the form of small
content, porosity and specific mass of the order of 10 – 20% [18]. filaments obtained from a grinding process without any further treat­
The most relevant properties for the basic classification of fibers are ment. Coarse sand was sieved in a 4.8 mm mesh sieve to fulfill ASTM
their modulus of elasticity and mechanical strength, as they define the C33/C33M-18 [36], previously oven dried around 100 ◦ C for at least 24
reinforcement capacity that can be provided to the concrete [18,21]. On h, and then stored at around 30 ◦ C. EC1506 expanded clays (Fig. 1.a)
the other hand, the higher the volume of fibers, the lower its workability with particles ranging from 6 to 15 mm in diameter and EC0500 clays
[18]. Other aspects such as fiber type and geometric characteristics, (Fig. 1. b) with particles up to 5 mm, supplied by Cinexpan (São Paulo,
mixing and release form, and water reducing admixtures may also affect Brazil), were used to fully replace the conventional coarse aggregate
the workability of fiber-reinforced concrete [21,25,26]. The main fibers (granite gravel) and partly coarse sand, i.e., the fine aggregate (Fig. 1. c),
widely used in construction include steel (SF), polypropylene (PPF), respectively. FF4 steel fiber and FPP FIBROMAC 12 AF polypropylene
alkali-resistant glass (GF) and carbon fibers (CF). Steel fibers are the fiber, both manufactured by Maccaferri (São Paulo, Brazil) were used to
most commonly used ones in concrete structural elements. Due to their reinforce the multiple residue lightweight concrete (FRMRLCs) samples.
high elastic modulus, they improve properties such as toughness, crack Glass fibers (GF) from Mult Building (Fortaleza, Brazil) (FIBRALIT CO)
growth resistance, flexural strength, and impact and fatigue strength and chopped carbon fibers (CF) from Texiglass (Vinhedo, Brazil) (TP1-6)
[27–31]. The combination of steel and polypropylene fibers has also were also used. Optical images of the fibers can be seen in Fig. 2.
been studied [32]. Polypropylene fibers have low modulus and are Matchem Maxifluid px 1100 superplasticizer was added to all samples at
commonly used for shrinkage crack control, which occur during initial a ratio of 1% by weight of cement, as recommended by the manufac­
cement hydration [33]. Alkali-resistant glass fibers generally improve turer. The admixture was diluted in mixing water and added in two
the physical characteristics of concrete, particularly preventing cracking steps.
and micro cracking in the concrete surface [34]. Carbon fibers are Selected characteristics of the starting materials used to prepare the
usually 5–10 µm in diameter and depict an important combination of concrete mixtures, as estblished by Sampaio et al are listed in Tables 1
properties including low density, low thermal expansion, high elastic and 2 [8], whereas images of the aggregates are illustrated in Fig. 1.
modulus and chemical resistance at elevated temperatures, yielding Fiber properties are listed in Table 3 and images in Fig. 2.
superior mechanical behavior to reinforced concrete, though linked to
high production costs [35].
2.2. Mixture
Therefore, the main objective of the present study is to determine the
effects of adding different contents of fibers commonly used in the
The proportions of the starting materials used for the reference
construction industry on the fresh and hardened properties of a novel
concrete mixture (RM) were studied by Sampaio et al [8] and are listed
lightweight concrete mixture containing multiple residues. The same
in Table 4. Steel (RMRSF), polypropylene (RMRPPF), glass (RMRGF)
matrix was used for all fibers, therefore, the amount of recycled aggre­
and carbon (RMRCF) fibers were individually added in the proportions
gates was constant along this study.
of 0.2%, 0.4% and 0.6% by volume of concrete (Table 5). These fibers
were chosen as they are widely used in the construction industry and
readily available commercially. Their volume was based on RILEM, ACI,

Fig. 1. Images of (a) EC1506; (b) EC0500 and (c) sand.

2
F.G. Cunha et al. Construction and Building Materials 308 (2021) 125035

Fig. 2. Images of (a) steel, (b) carbon, (c) polypropylene and (d) glass fibers.

Table 1 Table 3
Selected characteristics of starting materials [8]. Fiber properties as informed by the corresponding manufacturers.
EC0500 EC1506 PPR LSR TRR Sand Cement Steel Polypropylene Glass Carbon

Maximum 6.3 19.0 – 4.8 4.8 4.8 – Average Length (mm) 60 12 12 6

diameter Equivalent diameter (mm) 0.75 0.018 0.015 0.007
Fineness 4.85 6.47 2.35 2.78 3.60 2.29 1.80 Density (g/cm3) 7.84 0.90 2.70 1.80
modulus Shape factor 80 667 800 857
Unity mass 0.64 0.51 1.25 1.55 0.65 1.46 1.42 Tensile strength (MPa) >1100 300 1698 3530
Density 1.23 0.93 2.60 2.62 0.95 2.63 3.01 Elastics modulus (GPa) 210 3 72 240

sand and manually spread throughout the mixer drum to homogenously

Table 2
disperse the fibers, to avoid fiber agglomeration.
Compressive strength and Le Chatelier expansibility of cement [8].
Cement Compressive strength Expansibility at 7 days
(MPa) (mm)
2.3. Characterization of concrete samples
3 days 7 days 28 days
22.57 29.15 37.92 2
The workability of the mixtures was analyzed by the slump test,
following the recommendations of ASTM C143/C143M [37]. The sam­
EUROCODE, and ASTM which recommend additions between 0.25 and ples were molded and cured according to ASTM C31/C31M guidelines
1% by volume of concrete. [38]. The specimens were weighed after molding to measure the specific
Dry expanded EC1506 and EC0500 clays were preliminarily cast in mass of fresh concrete, demolded after 48 h and immersed in a tank
the horizontal axis of a concrete mixer with capacity for 120 L and mixed containing water at ~ 26 ◦ C for 28 days and then tested. Ten cylindrical
for 1 min. Then 50% of the water volume plus 1% of the Maxifluid px samples of the reference mixture measuring 10 × 20 cm2 (diameter ×
1100 superplasticizer were added to the mixer. The PPR, LSR, TRR height) were molded for the compressive strength, porosity, absorption,
residues along with cement were then mixed together for 2 min. Finally, void ratio and density tests, performed according to ASTM Standard
the sand and the remaining water were added and mixed for another 3 C39/C39M [39] and ASTM C642–13 [40], respectively. In addition, 4
min. The mixtures with fiber addition were placed together with the prismatic samples measuring 10 × 10 × 40 cm3 were used for flexural

3
F.G. Cunha et al. Construction and Building Materials 308 (2021) 125035

Table 4
Reference concrete mixture.
Mixture Cement (kg) Sand EC0500 (kg) EC1506 (kg) w/c PPR LSR TRR
(kg) (kg) (kg) (kg)

RM 535.71 444.64 468.79 200.93 0.50 26.79 64.29 5.36

(5%) (12%) (1%)

3. Results and discussion

Table 5
Fiber-reinforced concrete mixtures. Amount of fibers in kg/m3.
The reference and fiber-reinforced concrete mixtures were evaluated
Mixture Fiber % Steel Polypropylene Glass Carbon both in the fresh and hardened states. The slump of the mixtures was
RMRSF02 0.2 15.68 – – – reduced with the addition of fibers, due to the corresponding increase in
RMRSF04 0.4 31.36 – – – surface area for a constant w/c ratio of the reference mixture. The
RMRSF06 0.6 47.04 – – – addition of 0.6% of both GF and CF resulted in the lowest workability,
RMRPPF02 0.2 – 1.80 – –
RMRPPF04 0.4 – 3.60 – –
1.0 and 0.5 cm in the slump test, respectively (Fig. 4). These mixtures
RMRPPF06 0.6 – 5.40 – – cannot be used. The GF and CF with higher shape factors, and therefore
RMRGF02 0.2 – – 5.40 – greater surface area compared to SF and PPF, presented the largest
RMRGF04 0.4 – – 10.80 – variations in workability as the fiber contents increased. High shape
RMRGF06 0.6 16.20
– – –
factors increase the demand for water, which lowers the workability
RMRCF02 0.2 – – – 3.60
RMRCF04 0.4 – – – 7.20 when the water/cement ratio is constant.
RMRCF06 0.6 – – – 10.80 The addition of fibers to concrete mixtures generally increased the
porosity and, therefore the void ratio, regardless of the fiber type
(Fig. 4). The homogenization of fibers with coarse and fine aggregates
tensile strength tests, and 4 prismatic samples 10 × 10 × 40 cm3, with a requires adequate mixing volumes, otherwise, the number of voids in­
central notch 2.5 mm thick and 50 mm deep for fracture testing. The crease due to poor packing of aggregates, binder and fibers, which in­
surfaces of the prismatic specimens were capped. Thirteen samples were creases the concrete porosity and, consequently, decreases its durability.
produced in total, i.e., a fiber-free reference mixture (RM) and 12 fiber- Following the increase in the void ratio, the fiber-reinforced mixtures
reinforced samples, three for each fiber content studied. generally presented greater water absorption with respect to the refer­
The flexural and fracture tensile strength tests followed the RILEM ence mixture (Fig. 5). This is due to the compaction limitation imposed
TC 162-TDF [21], ASTM C 293 [41], JSCE-SF4 [42], and ASTM C 1609/ by the addition of fibers [44]. Moreover, small contents of high shape
C 1609M-12 [43] standards. The first two standards refer to 3-point factor fibers result in low water absorption content and void ratio. An
bending tests using prismatic samples. The flexural toughness corre­ exception to that was observed for the SF-mixtures due to the high fiber
sponds to the area under the stress–strain curve (Fig. 3). The deforma­ length, which impaired compaction.
tion limit of the specimen, considered to obtain the area, is established The density of the concrete mixtures slightly decreased with the
as L/150 according to JSCE-SF4 [42], i.e, 2.0 mm for this study. The addition of fibers, since light fibers were generally used, except for SF
toughness factors were calculated according to Equation (1). (Fig. 6). High void ratios and lightweight fibers are responsible for the
Tb l general density behavior. The density of the fiber-containing mixtures
σb = ∙ (1) varied from 7% (1600–1720 kg/m3) to 12% (1600 to 1790 kg/m3) of the
δtb bh2
density of the reference mixture as a function of fiber nature and con­
where tent. These values fall within the limits established by the ACI 213-R03
l: length of specimen (mm); [45] and by the ASTM C 330-04 [46].
b: width of specimen (mm); The compressive strength of the reference mixture at 28 days was 32
h: depth of specimen (mm); MPa, confirming the results obtained by Sampaio [8]. The addition of
σ b : toughness factor (MPa); fibers to the reference concrete decreased the compressive strength of
Tb : flexural toughness (J); the material (Fig. 7). This result is clearly related to the previously
δtb : deflection = l/150 (mm). discussed properties, i.e., void ratio and porosity. A decrease in
compressive strength of around 13% is observed with the addition of SF,
GF and CF. This loss was even greater for PPF (approximately 32%). The
compressive strength was reduced as the proportion of fibers in the
mixture was increased, possibly motivated by the difficulty of homo­
geneous dispersion of comparatively high volumes of fibers, also
responsible for low workability and incomplete compaction. There is
also a direct relationship between the density of lightweight concrete
and its compressive strength [18]. Conversely, RMRSF mixtures depic­
ted the opposite trend due to fiber density. Poor fiber bundling increases
the number of voids and consequently decreases the compressive
strength. Despite the reduction in compressive strength, the mechanical
behavior of the fibers and the fiber–matrix load transfer also affected the
mechanical properties of the concrete. The addition of fibers reduced the
compressive strength of the concrete. High modulus and high tensile
strength fibers, such as steel and carbon depicted lower compressive
strength losses compared to the others (Table 3).
The increase in fracture tensile strength caused by the addition of
fibers can be seen in Fig. 8. This trend is especially visible as the volume
Fig. 3. Flexural toughness in a typical load vs deflection plot. .
Adapted from [42]
of fibers and, therefore, the concentration of fibers on the fracture plane

4
F.G. Cunha et al. Construction and Building Materials 308 (2021) 125035

Fig. 4. Slump and void ratio of RM and RMRF concrete.

Fig. 5. Void ratio and water absorption of RM and RMRF concrete.

increased and for fibers with high elastic modulus and high tensile obtained for PPF to the order of 5.6% for RMRPPF06 and only 1.9% for
strength, as reported by Figueiredo [17] and Abbass et al. [24]. Wu et al. RMRPPF02 can be explained by the small volume of fibers used in
[47] upon studying the influence of the addition of steel and carbon comparison to studies by Bentur and Mindess [18].
fibers in the proportions of 0.30–0.90% by volume of the mixture in PPF fibers ruptured before they could act towards the stress distri­
lightweight concrete formulated with expanded clays of different par­ bution after the formation of the first cracks, because of their low elastic
ticle sizes. Similar findings were reported by Li Jing et al. [48] when modulus and tensile strength. Glass fibers presented average gains of
investigating a method for evaluating the toughness of steel fiber- around 28% in flexural strength in relation to the reference concrete.
reinforced lightweight concrete containing 0.5–2.5% of the mixture The addition of CF provided an average gain of around 65%; higher than
volume. the values obtained by Chen and Liu [25] who obtained tensile strength
The concretes with the addition of SF showed a mean gain in flexural gains of 16% for a CF volume of 1% added to lightweight concrete made
strength of around 40%, except for RMRSF02, which had a low value of from expanded clay. However, their work was carried out using fibers of
around 3.61 MPa, possibly due to poor fiber distribution in the mixture. 5 mm in length and tensile stress of 2500 MPa, lower than those used
This was even lower than the reference concrete. The lowest values herein, i.e., length of 6 mm and tensile stress of 3530 MPa (Table 3).

5
F.G. Cunha et al. Construction and Building Materials 308 (2021) 125035

Fig. 6. Density and void ratio of RM and RMRF concrete.

Fig. 7. Compressive strength and density of RM and RMRF concrete.

Conventional concrete mixtures usually depict compressive-to- reinforced concrete in relation to the reference mixture by 59% for CF,
flexural strength ratio of around 0.08–0.1 [14]. The lightweight refer­ 16% for SF, 18.5% for PPF and 16.5% for GF. However, these values are
ence mixture formulated herein depicted ratio of ~0.15, possibly lower than the strength gains in the flexural strength tests, because of
resulting from good bonding between binder and aggregates [14]. There the presence of a notch, which reduces the amount of fibers in the crack
was a general increase in flexural strength by the addition of fibers. The propagation section. RMRPPFs mixtures showed gains in fracture tensile
contents of fibers also affected the flexural strength as it determined the strength, possibly due to a higher concentration of fibers in the notch tip
number of fibers in the rupture plane. These values correspond to or better fiber matrix bonding, as observed in scanning electron
compressive-to-flexural strength ratio increases of 41% for RMRLCs, 4% microscopy.
for RMRSFAs, 28%for RMRPPFs and 65%for RMRGFs. The standard The presence of a notch and whether it was molded or later cut in the
deviation varied as a function of the fiber volume and dispersion in the specimens significantly affects the results of the flexural and fracture
matrix with respect to the load point and stress distribution. The addi­ tests. Another explanation for the loss in strength between the flexural
tion of fibers increased the fracture tensile strength of the fiber and fracture tests can be attributed to fiber flexibility and, therefore,

6
F.G. Cunha et al. Construction and Building Materials 308 (2021) 125035

Fig. 8. Flexural strength and fracture tensile strength of RM and RMRF concrete.

Fig. 9. Scanning electron microscopy images (a) RMRSF06, (b) RMRCF06, (c) RMRGF06 and (d) RMRPPF06 samples.

7
F.G. Cunha et al. Construction and Building Materials 308 (2021) 125035

their ability to accommodate to the mold. The differences were greater seen in the RMRCF06 (Fig. 9b) and RMRGF06 (Fig. 9c) samples
for fibers with lower flexibility, namely the SF and GF. This fact can also compared to the RMRPPF06 (Fig. 9d) sample, which explains the
be observed in the results obtained by Dias et al. [49], who reported different gains in fracture strength observed.
fracture tensile strength values from 0.96 to 5.01 MPa for steel fibers, Fiber reinforcements markedly increased the toughness and tough­
and from 1.23 to 5.60 MPa for polypropylene fibers, considering the ness factor of the lightweight concrete samples as a function of fiber
same fiber content. Polypropylene fibers were more resistant to crack volume (Fig. 10). High standard deviations were observed for the
growth than steel fibers in fracture tests in prismatic specimens RMRCF samples due to their lower workability, especially as the volume
measuring 10 × 10 × 40 cm3, even though the SF have higher modulus of fibers in the mixture increased. Composite packing and randomness of
of elasticity and tensile stress. On the other hand, Salvador and Fig­ fiber distribution with respect to the load point directly affected the
ueiredo [50] reported strengths from 1.70 to 2.86 MPa for steel fibers fracture tensile strength of the RMRFs. The results are compatible with
and 0.75 to 2.17 MPa for polypropylene fibers, using 15 × 15 × 50 cm3 the nature of the fibers, that have different mechanical properties and
prismatic specimens, demonstrating a direct effect of the specimen size shape characteristics, which are important features to determine the
in relation to the fiber distribution [21,22], as well as the presence of a efficiency of the fiber subsequently to matrix rupture. Thus, highest
notch in the fracture test. toughness values were observed for RMRSFs and RMRCFs, because of
The strength of fiber-reinforced concrete tends to convey to a com­ the high values of elastic modulus and tensile stress of the corresponding
mon value as the fiber content increased. For instance, the strength of fibers. Yoo-Jae Kim [53] also observed higher toughness values for CF
0.2% RMRSF was higher than that of RMRPPF; however, the difference reinforced concretes compared to PPF reinforced ones. Li et al. [54]
decreased as the volume of fibers increased up to 0.6%. This behavior is produced tougher concretes using SF than PPF, a fact also observed by
likely related to poorer packing of the SF for larger volumes compared to Salvador [50] for larger volumes of fibers.
the PPF; as confirmed by the void ratio, water absorption and true Examples of force vs displacement test results for RMRF samples are
density measurements. The fracture strength of GF samples ranged from shown in Fig. 11 for the reference concrete and different types of fiber
4.01 to 4.57 MPa, corresponding to 7% to 22% increase compared to the reinforcement. Toughness was estimated from the area under the plot
RM, and closely matching the values obtained by Varma and Kumar for the displacement range from 0 to 2 mm. The role of the fibers after
[51], who reported strengths between 4.30 and 6.86 MPa, with gains of matrix fracture is clearly seen. The reference sample depicted brittle
17–20% with respect to their reference sample with compressive behavior (Fig. 11a). CF showed the highest fracture strengths (Fig. 11b),
strength ranging from 20 to 60 MPa. The reference concrete used herein followed by SF (Fig. 11c), confirming the superior effect of high tensile
depicted 32 MPa. The addition of carbon fibers to the reference mixture strength and high modulus fibers on the toughness values. GF had
improved its fracture strength from 21% to 84%, following the increase virtually no effect on toughness (Fig. 11d), whereas PPF showed little
in fiber volume. This is in good agreement with the work of Abdulkader fracture strength after rupture (Fig. 11e).
et al. [52], who reported tensile strength increases of 58% and flexural
strength at fracture increases of about 35%. It should be noted that the 4. Conclusions
notch-free flexural test resulted in the same maximum stress value (Fck
= 3.74 MPa) for the RM, which could show good quality in the pro­ Different contents of a variety of commercially-available fibers,
duction of RMRF’s in shaping the specimens and in the performed tests. typically used in civil construction, were added to a lightweight concrete
Scanning electron microscopy images of 0.6% fiber-reinforced frac­ mix containing various residues. The following conclusions could be
tured samples are shown in Fig. 9. Aggregates, pores, cement paste and established from the results:
fibers can be clearly identified due to their morphological differences,
except for Fig. 9a (SF) due to fiber size. Relatively high porosity can be

Fig. 10. Fracture toughness and fracture toughness factors of RM and RMRF concrete.

8
F.G. Cunha et al. Construction and Building Materials 308 (2021) 125035

Fig. 11. Typical force vs. displacement plots for samples (a) RM, (b) RMRCF, (c) RMRSF, (d) RMRGF, and (e) RMRPPF.

1) The addition of fibers reduced the slump of the concrete mix because The reduction in the compressive strength is also related to the dif­
the w/c ratio was constant for all mixes but fibers characterized by ficulty of homogenization imposed by the addition of comparatively
high shape-factors increase the demand for water. high volumes of fibers.
2) The increase in contents of all types of fibers increased the water 5) The flexural strength increased with the increase in the contents of
absorption and the void index of the reinforced concrete since the fibers, caused by the presence of a greater number of fibers in the
addition of fibers negatively affects the packing of the mixture. rupture plane. The flexural strength was also influenced by the
3) The addition of light fibers did not significantly affect the density of modulus of elasticity and tensile stress of the fibers. Increases in
the reinforced mixtures, which ranged from 1,600 kg/m3 to 1,720 flexural strength of up to 65% were observed for carbon fibers, 40%
kg/m3, while that of the reference mixture was 1,790 kg/m3. for steel fibers, 30% for glass fibers, and 6% for polypropylene fibers.
4) The compressive strength of fiber-reinforced concretes generally Moreover, the ratio between compressive strength and flexural
decreased with respect to the reference mix. The strength reduction strength of lightweight multi-residue concrete increased with the
is a function of the mechanical properties of the fiber and its volume addition of fibers.
in the mixture, and ranged from zero (0.2 and 0.4% of steel fibers) to 6) The fracture tensile strength and, therefore, the toughness of light­
approximately 40% for the addition of 0.6% of polypropylene fibers. weight multi-residue concretes increased with the addition of fibers,

9
F.G. Cunha et al. Construction and Building Materials 308 (2021) 125035

especially for fibers with high modulus of elasticity and tensile [19] J.A.O. Barros, J. Figueiras, Flexural behavior of SFRC – Testing and modeling,
J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 11 (4) (1999) 331–339.
strength. The addition of fibers increased fracture tensile strength by
[20] A. Medeiros, X. Zhang, G. Ruiz, R.C. Yu, M.S.L. Velasco, Effect of the loading
59% for carbon fibers, 18.5% for polypropylene fibers, 16.5% for frequency on the compressive fatigue behavior of plain and fiber reinforced
glass fibers, and 16% for steel fibers with respect to the reference concrete, Int. J. Fatigue 70 (2015) 342–350.
mixture. [21] RILEM TC 162-TDF - “Test and Design Methods for Steel Fiber Reinforced
Concrete: Bending Test - Final Recommendation”- Materials and Structures, 35 (9):
7) The addition of carbon or steel fibers resulted in interesting combi­ (2002) 579-582.
nations of mechanical properties to reinforce lightweight multi- [22] ACI (American Concrete Institute), ACI 544.1R-96. “State-of-the-art Report on fiber
residue concrete mixtures. reinforced concrete”. USA - 2006.
[23] ACI (American Concrete Institute), ACI 544.4R-88, “Design Considerations for
Steel Fiber Reinforced Concrete”. USA – 2006.
CRediT authorship contribution statement [24] W. Abbass, M.I. Khan, S. Mourad, Evaluation of mechanical properties of steel fiber
reinforced concrete with different strengths of concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 168
(2018) 556–569.
Fred Guedes Cunha: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, [25] B. Chen, J. Liu, Contribution of hybrid fibers on the properties of the high-strength
Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing - original draft, Writing - review lightweight concrete having good workability, Cem. Concr. Res. 35 (2005)
& editing, Visualization. Z.L.M. Sampaio: Methodology, Validation, 913–917.
[26] A. Sivakumar, Influence of hybrid fibres on the post crack performance of high
Investigation. A.E. Martinelli: Conceptualization, Resources, Writing - strength concrete: part 1 – experimental investigations, J. Civil Eng., Constr.
original draft, Writing - review & editing, Supervision. Technol. 02 (2011) 59–147.
[27] ACI (American Concrete Institute), ACI 544.1R-96 - State-of-the-art Report on fiber
reinforced concrete. USA, 2006.
[28] M. Zhao, M. Zhao, M. Chen, J. Li, D. Law, An experimental study on strength and
Declaration of Competing Interest
toughness of steel fiber reinforced expanded-shale lightweight concrete, Constr.
Build. Mater. 183 (2018) 493–501.
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial [29] S. Iqbal, A. Ali, K. Holschemager, T.A. Bier, Mechanical properties of steel fiber
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence reinforced high strength lightweight self-compacting concrete (SHLSCC), Constr.
Build. Mater. 98 (2015) 325–333.
the work reported in this paper. [30] A.T. Noaman, B.H. Abu Bakar, H. Akil, A.H. Alani, Fracture characteristics of plain
and steel fibre reinforced rubberized, Constr. Build. Mater. 152 (2017) 414–423.
[31] Enzo Martinelli, Antonio Caggiano, Hernan Xargay, An experimental study on the
Acknowledgments
post-cracking behaviour of hybrid industrial/recycled steel fibre-reinforced
concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 94 (2015) 290–298.
This study was financed in part by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoa­ [32] Antonio Caggiano, Serena Gambarelli, Enzo martinelli, Nicola Nisticó, Marco
PepeExperimental characterization of the post-cracking response in Hybrid Steel/
mento de Pessoal de Nível Superior – Brasil (CAPES) – Finance Code 001.
Polypropylene Fiber-Reinforced Concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 125 (2016)
1035–1043.
References [33] S. Mindess, Fibre reinforced concrete – myth and reality, ASME – American society
of Civil Engineers, 1994.
[34] S.T. Tassew, A.S. Lubell, Mechanical properties of glass fiber reinforced ceramic
[1] R. Lucy, Climate change: The massive CO2 emitter you may not know about,
concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 51 (2014) 215–224.
Journal Science & Environment (2018).
[35] Machado, Ari. Refuerzo de Estructuras de Concreto Armado con Fibras de Carbono,
[2] F. Cheng-Chih, R. Huang, H. Hwang, S.-J. Chao, The effects of different fine
Editora PINI. http://techne.pini.com.br/engenhariacivil/125/artigo285695-7.aspx
recycled concrete aggregates on the properties of mortar, Materials (Basel) 8
(2016).
(2015) 2658–2672.
[36] ASTM C33/C33M - 18: Specifications for concrete aggregates. USA, 2018.
[3] K. Robalo, H. Costa, Ricardo do Carmo, Eduardo Júlio, Experimental development
[37] ASTM C143/C143M − 15a: Standard Test Method for Slump of Hydraulic-Cement
of low cement content and recycled construction and demolition waste aggregates
Concrete. USA, 2015.
concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 273 (2021), 121680.
[38] ASTM C31/C31M – 19: Standard Practice for Making and Curing Concrete Test
[4] S. Zhang, Z. Glouleh, Yixin Shao, Use of eco-admixture made from municipal solid
Specimens in the Field. USA, 2019.
waste incineration residues in concrete, Cem. Concr. Compos. 113 (2020), 103725.
[39] ASTM Standard C39/C39M - 17b: Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength
[5] Valdés Andrés, Robles Desirée, González Julia, Gómez M. Isabel, Romero M.
of Cylindrical Concrete Speciman. USA - 2017.
Ignacio, De Belie Nele, del Pozo Júlia, Mechanical and microstructural properties
[40] ASTM C642 – 13: Standard Test Method for Density, Absorption, and Voids in
of recycled concretes mixed with ceramic recycled cement and secondary recycled
Hardened Concrete, USA, 2013.
aggregates. A viable option for future concrete. Constr. Build. Mater., 270 (2021)
[41] ASTM C293/ C293M-16 – Standard Test Method for Flexural Strength of Concrete
121455.
(Using Simple Beam with Center-Point Loading, USA - 2016.
[6] Y.F. Silva, D.A. Lange, S. Delvasto, Effect of incorporation of masonry residue on
[42] JSCE-SF4. Method of tests for flexural strength and flexural toughness of steel fiber
the properties of self-compacting concretes, Constr. Build. Mater. 196 (2019)
reinforced concrete, (1984) 58-66.
277–283.
[43] ASTM C1609/C1609 M – 12 - Standard Test Method for Flexural Performance of
[7] M. Bassani, J.C.D. Garcia, F. Meloni, G. Volpatti, D. Zampini, Recycled coarse
Fiber Reinforced Concrete (Using Beam with Third-Point Loading). In: Book of
aggregates from pelletized unused concrete for a more sustainable concrete
ASTM Standards, USA, (2005) 827-834.
production, J. Cleaner Prod. 219 (2019) 424–432.
[44] X. Liu, T. Wu, Y. Liu, Stress-strain relationship for plain and fibre-reinforced
[8] Z.L.M. Sampaio, A.E. Martinelli, T.S. Gomes, Formulation and characterization of
lightweight aggregate concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 225 (2019) 256–272.
structural lightweight concrete containing residues of porcelain tile polishing, tire
[45] ACI (American Concrete Institute) - ACI 213.R03/2003 – Guide for structural
rubber and limestone, Ceramica 63 (368) (2017) 530–535.
lightweight aggregate concrete, USA - 2003.
[9] N. Dulsang, P. Kasemsiri, P. Posi, S. Hiziroglu, P. Chindaprasirt, Characterization of
[46] ASTM C 330-04: Standard specification for lightweight aggregates for structural
an environment friendly lightweight concrete containing ethyl vinyl acetate waste,
concrete, USA - 2004.
Mater. Des. 96 (2016) 350–356.
[47] T. Wu, X. Yang, H. Wei, X. Liu, Mechanical properties and microstructure of
[10] K. Piszcz-Karás, M. Klein, J. Hupka, J. Luczak, Utilization of shale cuttings in
lightweight aggregate concrete with and without fibers, Constr. Build. Mater. 199
production of lightweight aggregates, J. Environ. Manage. 231 (2019) 232–240.
(2019) 526–539.
[11] R. Ahmmad, T.Z.M. Jumaa, U.J. Alengaram, S. Bahri, M.A. Rehman, H.B. Hashim,
[48] J.J. Li, C.J. Wan, J.G. Niu, L.F. Wu, Y.C. Wu, Investigation on flexural toughness
Performance evaluation of palm oil clinker as coarse aggregate in high strength
evaluation method of steel fiber reinforced lightweight aggregate concrete, Constr.
lightweight concrete, J. Cleaner Prod. 112 (2016) 566–574.
Build. Mater. 131 (2017) 449–458.
[12] J.M. Khatib, B.A. Herki, A. Elkordi, Use of recycled plastics in-efficient concrete
[49] C.M.R. Dias, A.D. Figueiredo, V.M. Jonh, Comparative evaluation of post-clack
Woodhead Publishing Series in Civil and Structural Engineering, (2019) 137-165.
behaviour of steel and high modulus polypropylene fiber reforced concrete,
[13] Angelin Andressa, Lintz Rosa, Osório Wislei, Gachet Luísa, Evaluation of efficiency
Brazilian Concrete Congress (48), 2006.
factor of a self-compacting lightweight concrete with rubber and expanded clay
[50] R.P. Salvador, A.D. Figueiredo, Comparative evaluation of the mechanical
contents, Constr. Build. Mater., 257 (2020) 119573.
behaviour of synthetic and steel fiber-reinforced concrete, Rev. Mater. 18 (2)
[14] P.K. Mehta, P.J.M. Monteiro, Concrete: Structure, Properties, and Materials, 2nd
(2013) 1273–1285.
ed., Pearson College Div, 1992.
[51] A.U. Varma, A.D. Kumar, Glass fibre reinforced concrete, J. Eng. Res. Appl. 3
[15] A.M. Neville, Properties of Concrete, 5th ed., Bookman, 2011.
(2013) 1914–1918.
[16] H.P. Behbahani, B. Nematollahi, M. Farasatpour, “Steel Fiber Reinforced Concrete,
[52] Abdulkader, I.A. Al-Hadithi, Ibrahem, A.S. Al-Jumaily, Noor S.N. Al-Samarai
A Review”. - Published at ICSECM (2011).
Mechanical Properties of Chopped Carbon Fiber Lightweight Aggregate Concrete
[17] A.D. Figueiredo, M.R. Ceccato, Workability analysis of steel fiber reinforced
concrete using slump and Ve-be test, Mater. Res. 18 (2015) 1284–1290.
[18] A. Bentur, S. Mindess, Fibre Reinforced Cementitious Composites, 2nd Edition:
2007.

10
F.G. Cunha et al. Construction and Building Materials 308 (2021) 125035

Containing Acrylic Polymer - University of Anbar-College of Engineering, Journal [54] J. Li, J. Niu, C. Wan, X. Liu, Z. Jin, Comparison of flexural property between high
for Scientific Engineering, 6 (3): (2013) 358. performance polypropylene fiber reinforced lightweight aggregate concrete and
[53] Yoo-Jae Kim, Jiong Hu, Soon-Jae Lee, and Byung-Hee You, Mechanical Properties steel fiber reinforced lightweight aggregate concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 157
of Fiber Reinforced Lightweight Concrete Containing Surfactant, Department of (2017) 729–736.
Engineering Technology, Texas State University, San Marcos, TX 78666, USA –
2010.

11