See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/265376259

Behavior of Multilayer Composite Ferrocement

Slabs with Intermediate Rubberized Cement
Mortar Layer
ARTICLE AUGUST 2014
DOI: 10.1007/s13369-014-1171-y

DOWNLOADS

VIEWS

10

41

2 AUTHORS, INCLUDING:
Aziz Ibrahim Abdulla
University of Tikrit
8 PUBLICATIONS 3 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE

Available from: Aziz Ibrahim Abdulla

Retrieved on: 16 August 2015

Behavior of Multilayer Composite

Ferrocement Slabs with Intermediate
Rubberized Cement Mortar Layer
Aziz Ibrahim Abdulla & Hadeel Reiadh
Khatab

Arabian Journal for Science and

Engineering
ISSN 1319-8025
Arab J Sci Eng
DOI 10.1007/s13369-014-1171-y

1 23

Your article is protected by copyright and

all rights are held exclusively by King Fahd
University of Petroleum and Minerals. This eoffprint is for personal use only and shall not
be self-archived in electronic repositories. If
you wish to self-archive your article, please
use the accepted manuscript version for
posting on your own website. You may
further deposit the accepted manuscript
version in any repository, provided it is only
made publicly available 12 months after
official publication or later and provided
acknowledgement is given to the original
source of publication and a link is inserted
to the published article on Springer's
website. The link must be accompanied by
the following text: "The final publication is
available at link.springer.com.

1 23

Author's personal copy

Arab J Sci Eng
DOI 10.1007/s13369-014-1171-y

RESEARCH ARTICLE - CIVIL ENGINEERING

Behavior of Multilayer Composite Ferrocement Slabs with

Intermediate Rubberized Cement Mortar Layer
Aziz Ibrahim Abdulla Hadeel Reiadh Khatab

Received: 15 March 2013 / Accepted: 31 July 2013

King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals 2014

Abstract Laboratory investigation was undertaken to study

the behavior of multilayer composite ferrocement slabs. The
slabs include two ferrocement layers with an intermediate
rubberized cement mortar layer. The aim of this investigation is to find out the effect of an intermediate layer rubberized cement mortar (RCM) on the behavior of multilayer
ferrocement slabs subject to static and dynamic loads. Different rubber ratios, different thickness of RCM layer, and
shear connectors to connect the upper and lower reinforcement layers were used. The specimens were cast in 500
500 mm, with an overall thickness not exceeding 50 mm.
Compressive strength, modulus of rupture, and impact resistance were also tested for RCM cubes, prisms, and cylindrical
cement mortar specimens to illustrate mechanical properties
for using cement mortar. The increase in the RCM layer thickness, with an increase in the crumb rubber ratio, and using
shear connectors; it increases impact energy to cause first a
crack and then full perforation. Static test results show that
thicker RCM layers reduce yield load and slab stiffness at
yield, but using shear connectors increases yield load and
slab stiffness. The results show that the RCM layer enhances
the impact resistance of the ferrocement composite slab. The
results also show the effect of the shear connector is small
in static and dynamic loads: that are using a RCM with the
thickness 0.4 of the total thickness of the slab; or those using
a rubber ratio that is more than or equal to 50 % in the RCM
layer.

Keywords

Ferrocement Impact Rubber Slab

1 Introduction
A. I. Abdulla (B) H. R. Khatab
Civil Engineering Department, College of Engineering,
Tikrit University, Tikrit, Iraq
e-mail: aziz_914@hotmail.com
H. R. Khatab
e-mail: lan914@gmail.com

Ferrocement is a form of reinforced concrete that differs from

conventional reinforced concrete primarily by way of dispersal and the arrangement of reinforcement. Ferrocement
is defined as a type of reinforced concrete, commonly constructed of hydraulic cement mortar reinforced with closely
spaced layers of relatively small diameter wire mesh. The

123

Author's personal copy

Arab J Sci Eng

mesh may be made of metallic or other suitable materials.

Cement mortar may contain discontinuous fibers [1]. Ferrocement also called thin reinforced cementitious composite
[2].
To the best of the authors knowledge, little research about
the behavior of multilayer reinforced concrete slabs, and no
research about the behavior of multilayer ferrocement slabs
with an intermediate RCM layer under static or impact load
has been reported. The main reason for using multilayers is
to increase impact resistance and enhance thermal insulation
when using an intermediate insulating layer. Using crumb
rubber from waste car tires is considered to be an environmentally friendly method, as it recycles car tires in cement
mortar. Using crumb rubber in mortar increases the cement
mortar impact resistance and thermal insulation.
Understanding the response of concrete slabs to impact
is essential in order to determine the thickness and position
of the protective layer of different types of fortifications [3].
Numerous studies were conducted on the behavior of reinforced concrete targets subjected to missile impact, but these
focused mainly on the concrete properties; and how to prevent excessive local damage and collapse of the target by
enhancement of the concretes properties [4]. It is well known
that local damage to reinforced concrete structures consists
of spalling of concrete from the impacted area, scabbing of
concrete from the back face, and penetration of the projectile through the structure. Many techniques for improving
the impact resistance of reinforced concrete slabs focus on
reducing local damage. One method is using a steel plate
to line the impacted and/or rear face of reinforced concrete
slabs; another technique is to fit the slab concrete within
a double-layered composite slab with an elastic absorber
while employing fiber-reinforced concrete or high-strength
concrete as the slab materials [5]. Of the many measurements available for withstanding impact loads, the use of
double-layered reinforced concrete slabs with an absorber is
expected to have higher resistance in reducing or preventing
local damage.
This paper presents the results of an experimental investigation on the impact and static resistance of multilayer ferrocement slabs. Multilayer ferrocement slabs consist of top
and bottom ferrocement slabs and/or an intermediate layer
of rubberized cement mortar (RCM). The results were also
compared with control slabs of one or two layer ferrocement
slabs without an intermediate layer. The effect of intermediate layer thickness, rubber ratio in the intermediate layer,
and shear connectors were mainly investigated.
The mechanical properties of cement mortar and rubberized cement mortar (RCM) were investigated. 50 50
50 mm cubes were used to compute compressive strength
at 7 and 28 days. Prisms of 40 40 160 mm were used
to compute modulus of rupture at 7 and 28 days. Cylindrical
cement mortar and RCM specimens of 150 mm diameter and

123

60 mm thickness were used to compute the impact resistance

of mortar at 28 days, according to ACI-544.

2 Experimental Work
2.1 Materials
Cement Ordinary Portland cement, commercially known as
UCC Tasloja (a product of Iraq), was used. Its chemical and
physical properties conform to Iraqi Standard Specification
No. 5 [6]; see Table 1.
Fine Aggregate Graded fine aggregate passing through a 2.36mm sieve was used. Table 2 lists the grading, the physical,
and the chemical test results of the sand used in this work.
Crumb rubber The crumb rubber was processed by a grinding machine and a granulator. The crumb rubber passed through
a 2.36-mm sieve is used. Its properties, according to [7] and
[8], are as listed in Table 3.
Cement mortar Two types of mixes in casting the slab specimens were used. First, in the upper and lower ferrocement
layers, the mix was 1:2 ratio by weight (cement:sand) with a
w/c ratio equal to 0.5. The second, used in the middle layer,
was rubberized cement mortar (RCM) with a mix of 1:3 ratio
by weight (cement:sand), and rubber 25, 50%, as well as a
ratio of 75 % of fine aggregate volume, with a w/c ratio equal
to 0.55, 0.6, and 0.65, respectively.
The mortar mixes were prepared following ASTM C 305,
the water cement ratio as mentioned above was incorporated
in all mixes to maintain approximately the same degree of
workability [9]. The consistency of mortar is expressed as
a mortar flow, determined according to the procedures of
ASTM C 230 and C1437. The mortar mixes were poured
and compacted in 50 mm cubes and 40 40 160 mm
prisms in accordance with ASTM C 109 and ASTM C 348,
respectively.
Reinforcement Figure 1 shows common welded wire mesh
with openings 13 mm square, 1 mm diameter, f y = 441 MPa,
and f u = 489 MPa. A skeletal deformed steel bar with an
average diameter of 6 and 150 mm spacing, f y = 380 MPa,
and f u = 450 MPa is also shown in Fig. 1. Figure 1 also shows
the section in mold and slab. The steel mold was perforated
in two rows along the lengths of its sides, with the perforation
holes equally spaced and each row leveled in height, holding
the reinforcement layers. Top, bottom and intermediate RCM
layers are also illustrated in Fig. 1.
The mesh reinforcements were cut to suitable sizes and
shapes. The reinforcement layers were wire-connected to
each side of the mold, and through the mold holes; fixing
the distance between the layers.

Author's personal copy

Arab J Sci Eng

Table 1 Chemical and physical

properties of cement

Oxides composition

Content %

Silica, SiO2

Limit of (ICOSQC,1984)

13.3

21 % Max.

Alumina, Al2 O3

4.7

8 % Max.

Iron oxide, Fe2 O3

2.9

6 % Max.

Magnesia, MgO

2.3

5 % Max.

1.1

2.8 % Max.

Sulfate, SO3
CaO

65.5

Loss on ignition, (L.O.I)

0.97

4 % Max.

Insoluble material

1.02

1.5 % Max.

Lime saturation factor, (L.S.F)

0.9

(0.661.02)

Physical properties

Test results

Limit of (ICOSQC,1984)

Specific surface area (Blaine method) (m2 /kg)

301.5

230 m2 /kg lower limit

Setting time (vacate apparatus)

Initial setting, (h:min)

0:55

Not less than 45 min

Final setting, (h:min)

7:00

Not more than 10 h

For 3-day

28.7

15 MPa lower limit

For 7-day

39.3

23 MPa lower limit

Compressive strength (MPa)

Table 2 Grading, physical and

chemical properties of fine
aggregate

Fineness modulus (FM) = 2.36

Grading

Physical and chemical properties

#Sieve

Cumulative passing (%)

Limit of ASTMC33

Properties

Results

No. 4

100

95100

Specific gravity

2.60

No. 8

100

2.2

80100

Absorption %

No. 16

82.5

5085

Dry loose unit weight (kg/m3 )

1,590

No. 30

48.5

2560

Sulfate content (as SO3 ) (%)

0.08

No. 50

24.5

530

Material <0.075 m %

1.3

No. 100

8.5

010

N0. 200

05

Table 3 Properties of crumb rubber

Description

Content

Average bulk specific gravity

1.10

Moisture content (%)

1.10

Ash contents (%)

Average absorption (%)

1.4

Fineness modulus

3.4

Rubber hydrocarbon (%)

40

Specific gravity

1.07

Polymer (%)

54

Limits of ASTM

protect the composite slab from slip and uplift displacement.

The shear connector bars used in this paper are sections of
the skeletal reinforcement, and so have the same properties
as described in the reinforcement section of the paragraph
above.
2.2 Testing Programs

42

Shear Connectors Eight deformed steel bar shear connectors,

6 mm in diameter and 40 mm length (see Fig. 1), were used in
casting the specimens, and linked by link-wire to the skeletal
deformed steel. Shear connectors were used to connect the
reinforcement of the top and bottom ferrocement layers to

2.2.1 Mechanical Properties of Cement Mortar and RCM

Compressive strength The compressive strength was determined according to ASTM C109 [10]. This test was conducted on 50 50 50 mm cubes.
Modulus of rupture The modulus of rupture was measured
for 40 40 160 mm prisms, according to ASTM C 348
[11]. The prisms were subjected to central point loading with
a span of 100 mm.

123

Author's personal copy

Arab J Sci Eng
Fig. 1 Details of the
reinforcements with sections in
mould and slab

Holes to fixed wire mesh

50 mm
7.5 mm
7.5 mm

500 mm

500 mm

shear
connectors

Wire mesh

Skeletal
diameter of 6 mm
and 150 mm spacing
RCM
Intermediate layer

Shear Connectors

Skeletal

Ferrocement Top layer

Ferrocement bottom layer

Impact resistance (ACI method) The impact machine was

manufactured according to ACI-544 [12]. The samples were
placed on the steel ring within the positioning lugs and with
their finished face upwards. The positioning bracket was then
bolted in place. A 4.54 kg hammer fell consecutively from a
457 mm height onto a 64 mm diameter steel ball standing at
the center of the 150 mm diameter, 60-mm-thick cylindrical
cement mortar specimen (disc), subjecting the specimen to
repeated impact blows [13]. The equipment for the impact
test is shown in Fig. 2.
2.2.2 Testing of Slab Specimens
Slab specimens under impact load The simplest and most
widely used test is the drop weight method. The next simplest is the Charpy-type impact test, which can determine
the relative performance of composites through the energy
required to cause first crack and perforation [14]. The impact
energy absorbed may be computed through the following
expressions [15] and [16]:
U = n m V2 /2

123

(1)

U = n W h,

(2)

where
U Impact energy in joules (N m).
n
Number of blows.
m Mass of the hammer in kg.
V Velocity of the hammer at impact in m/s. V2 = 2gh.
W Weight of the hammer in N.
h
Height of drop in m.
g
Earths acceleration.
The impact machine is shown in Fig. 2. It has:
1.
2.
3.
4.

A base to fix specimens

A projectile weight (1.53 kg)
A tube to drop the projectile from 1,000 mm height
A steel frame to hold the tube and the base of the specimen.
5. The slab models struck by the ball. The slabs were simply
supported on all sides. The edge provided about a 25mm wide support, which prevents the slab corners from
lifting, and c-clamps with screws were attached to the
slab corners. A test ball hit the slab center, and a vertical
tube of 80 mm inner diameter guided the projectile. The

Author's personal copy

Arab J Sci Eng
Fig. 2 a Impact test machine
for cylindrical cement mortar
specimens. b Impact test
machine for slabs

Polly
Rope

Tube

Steel Ball (64)

Hammer (4.54 kg)

Clamp
specimens
150 mm diam.
60 mm thickness

Steel ring

balls impact energy was 13.9 J and the impact velocity

was 4.439 m/s. Slab failure is defined as full penetration
through the slab thickness.

Steel disc 50 mm diam.,

30 mm thickness

P
Ferrocement slab

Deflection device

Slabs specimens under static loads All slabs were subjected

to static load by the Universal Testing Machine. Each slab
was subjected to a central punch load with an average speed
of 1 kN/min by means of a 50-mm-diameter circular steel
disk. The load was read by a digital data logger connected to
a load cell, and the central deflections were recorded using
a dial gauge fixed to the frame by means of a magnetic base
(see Fig. 3).

Spring
Angle 25 mm
Rod 3 mm
Deflection arm

Load cell

3 Results and Discussions

Ferrocement slab

3.1 Mechanical Properties of Cement Mortar and RCM

Compressive strength Figure 4 shows the relationship between
age and the compressive strength of cement mortar and RCM
cubes. The test results show compressive strength at 7 and 28
days for RCM to be less than that of normal cement mortar.
At 7 days, mortar with 25 % crumb rubber has about half
the compressive strength of normal mortar. 50 % crumb rubber content decreases compressive strength by about 71 %,
compared with normal mortar. Using 75 % crumb rubber
content does so by about 84, 64 and 45 % when compared to
normal mortar, with a 25 and 50 % rubber content, respectively.
At 28 days, the compressive strength of normal mortar was
almost halved in mortar with a 25 % crumb rubber content

Fig. 3 Static load test details

(40 % of the specimens had 25 % crumb rubber content).

Mortar with 50 % crumb rubber had 69 % less compressive
strength than normal mortars. Increasing the crumb rubber
content to 75 % produced a 77 % decrease from the compressive strength of normal mortar.
Modulus of rupture Figure 5 shows the relationship
between the age and the modulus of rupture for cement/sand
mortar and RCM prisms. The modulus of rupture seems to
decrease with increased crumb rubber ratio. 25 % crumb

123

Author's personal copy

Arab J Sci Eng

Fig. 4 Effect of rubber ratio to the compressive strength at 7 and 28

days age for cement mortar and RCM

Fig. 5 Effect of crumb rubber ratio to the modulus of rupture for

cement mortar and RCM

rubber content decreases the modulus of rupture by 29, 50 %

crumb rubber content decreases the modulus of rupture by
about 66 and 52 % compared with normal mortar, and 25 %
containing crumb rubber mortar, respectively, at 7 days. 75 %
crumb rubber content decreases the modulus of rupture by
80, 72, and 42 %, compared with normal mortar, with a 25,
and 50 % crumb rubber content, respectively. At 28 days, the
modulus of rupture in normal mortar decreased by 58 % in
mortar with a 25 % crumb rubber content, 69 % in mortar
with a 50 % crumb rubber content, and 94 % in mortar with
a 75 % crumb rubber content.
Impact resistance (ACI) The results show the cylindrical
cement mortar specimens withstanding a greater number of
blows compared to RCM before the first crack appeared.
Increased crumb rubber ratio increased the impact tolerance,
raising the slab failure threshold. Figure 6 shows how the
crumb rubber ratio and the number of blows relate at 28 days
of age.
3.2 Ferrocement Slabs Under Impact Loads and Static
Loads
Slabs under impact loads The impact energy for first crack
and perforation for ferrocement slabs and multilayer composite ferrocement slabs is shown in Table 4. When comparing
the reference slabs (one-layer or double-layer ferrocement
slabs) with the slabs that contain a rubberized cement layer,

123

Fig. 6 Relationship between crumb rubber ratio and no. of blows for
cylindrical cement mortar and RCM specimens

we find the effect of the rubberized layer is to increase the

impact energy required to cause the first crack and the perforation. This increment depends on the existence of shear
connectors, the thickness of the rubberized cement layer and
the crumb rubber ratio. For the crack pattern and the shape
of failure for the front and rear face of slabs, see Appendix
A. Appendix A clearly shows that the failure shape depends
on the RCM layer and shear connector. Also, the failure for
ferrocement is always local, with no visible yield line from
center to corners. Yield lines only appear in the front face for
double-layer slabs without an RCM layer and in the presence
of a shear connecter (S40 Sh1 and S5oSh1). This is because
of the absence of an RCM layer, where the latter (shear connector) works as an absorber and distributes the hoop wave
of the impact load. The yield line pattern may also appear
when using a top ferrocement layer with a small thickness,
as for the (S52 Sh1 P1 ) slab.
Slabs Under Static Loads This test produced the loaddeflec
tion relationship for all the slabs and for the following results
(see Table 5):
The increase in the RCM layer thickness decreases the
yield load and the yield toughness; see Figs. 7, 8. The reason for this is because of the low compressive strength of
the RCM layers compared with the layers of ferrocement,
as well as due to the decrease in thickness of the top and
bottom ferrocement layers.
50 % increase in the rubber ratio decreases the yield load
and the yield toughness; see Figs. 9, 10. The reason for this
is also due to the low compressive strength of the RCM
layers compared with the layers of ferrocement.
Shear connecters increase yield load and toughness
because the shear connectors decrease the slip and uplift
displacement between the layers; see Figs. 7, 8, 9, 10.

Crack pattern for all slabs are shown in Appendix B. There

is no major difference in crack pattern as all the cracks start
from centre and progress to the edges in a winding path.

Author's personal copy

Arab J Sci Eng
Table 4 Impact test results
Symbol of slab

Slab thickness (mm)/no. of layers

Number of blows for**

Impact energy (J) for**

First crack

First crack

Perforation

Perforation

S20

20/1

12

21

180

315

S30

30/1

23

40

345

600

S40 Sh0

40/2

189

856

2, 835

12, 840

S40 Sh1

40/2

346

1,139

5, 190

17, 085
14, 955

S50 Sh0

50/2

265

997

3,975

S50 Sh1

50/2

413

1, 227

6,195

18,405

*S51 Sh1 P0

50/3

494

1,402

7,410

21, 030

S51 Sh0 P0

50/3

312

1,165

4,680

17, 475

S51 Sh1 P1

50/3

573

1,741

8,595

26, 115

S51 Sh0 P1

50/3

452

1,445

6,780

21,675

S52 Sh1 P0

50/3

508

1,572

7,620

23,580

S52 Sh0 P0

50/3

476

1, 310

7, 140

19, 650

S52 Sh1 P1

50/3

644

1,988

9,660

29,820

S52 Sh0 P1

50/3

531

1,617

7,965

24,255

* S: ferrocement slab; 5 or 4 or 3 or 2: refers to total slab thickness; 50or1or2 : RCM thickness 0 = no RCM layer, 1 = 1cm, 2 = 2 cm; Sh0,1 : Sh, refers
to shear connector and 0 mean without shear connector, and 1 mean with shear connector; P0,1 : P refers to rubber ratio, so 0 refers to 25 %, and 1
to 50 % ratio of crumb rubber in intermediate layer
** All results represent the average of two slabs
Table 5 Static test results
Symbol of slab

Yield load L (KN)

Deflection y (mm)

Yield toughness

Stiffness (KN/mm)

I.S.R

S2o

11.9

2.36

19.3

5.04

6.41

S3o

14

2.47

24.45

5.67

9.98

S4o Sho

27.2

2.06

52.989

13.20

50.60

S4o Sh1

28.4

2.15

36.53

13.21

85.00

S5o Sho

28.8

3.3

62.69

8.73

41.82

S5o Sh1

30.2

3.64

83.99

8.30

56.36

S51 Sh1 Po

25.5

85.375

6.38

72.65

S51 Sho Po

23.6

82.37

5.90

49.58

S51 Sh1 P1

22

4.5

59.49

4.89

86.82

S51 Sho P1

21.4

3.96

48.63

5.40

80.01

S52 Sh1 Po

19.5

5.7

63.63

3.42

64.24

S52 Sho Po

21.6

5.7

72.76

3.79

61.89

S52 Sh1 P1

16

3.8

32.97

4.21

131.00

S52 Sho P1

17.9

4.2

37.3

4.26

128.49

** All results represent the average of two slabs

3.3 Impact and Static Test Relationship (I.S.R)

The authors suggest a new relational link between impact and
the static behavior of ferrocement slabs. This is a relationship
without units, and can be determined from:
I.S.R =

I
,
L y

(3)

where I: impact energy for first crack (N mm), L: load at yield

(N),  y: deflection at yield (mm)

The relationship shows that, for slabs with an RCM layer,

the I.S.R increases with an increase in the crumb rubber ratio,
an increase in the RCM layer thickness, and the use of shear
connectors; see Table 5 for I.S.R. values. This equation gives
a good indication of the behavior of multilayer ferrocement
slabs with and without an intermediate layer. In addition, this
equation can help to compute ferrocement layer thicknesses
under static and impact loads in future design procedures.
Figure 11 shows the effect of slab type and shear connectors in relation to the I.S.R. value. This figure clearly shows

123

Author's personal copy

Arab J Sci Eng

Fig. 7 Effect of RCM layer thickness and shear connecter on multilayer ferrocement slabs behavior under static load with 25 % crumb
rubber ratio in RCM layer

Fig. 10 Effect of crumb rubber ratio (with 20 mm intermediate layer

thickness) on multilayer ferrocement slabs behavior under static load

I.S.R.

140
120

Without Shear Connector

100

With shear connector

80
60
40
20
0

Fig. 8 Effect of RCM layer thickness and shear connecter on multilayer ferrocement slabs behavior under static load with 50 % crumb
rubber ratio in RCM layer

Slabs label
Fig. 11 Effect of slab type and shear connector to I.S.R. value

tors and 40 and 50 mm thicknesses have less impact energy

to cause first crack and penetration than do slabs with shear
connecters. Increased slab thickness increases the yield stress
and the yield toughness. Slabs with 50 mm and which have
two layers linked by shear connectors have a higher yield
load and yield toughness than do the other reference slabs
(see Tables 4, 5).
Fig. 9 Effect of crumb rubber ratio (with 10 mm RCM layer thickness)
on multilayer ferrocement slabs behavior under static load

4 Conclusions
that the shear connector is very important for double-layer
slabs without an RCM and for multilayer ferrocement slabs
with an RCM layer and 25 % or less crumb rubber ratio. Thus,
in the slabs with a high thickness of RCM and a high crumb
rubber ratio; the shear connector produces small differences
in the slabs behavior, according to the I.S.R. value.
3.4 Double-Layer Ferrocement Slabs (Without an RCM
Layer)
The impact energy for first crack and penetration increases
when slab thickness increases. Slabs without shear connec-

123

1. The increased crumb rubber ratio decreased the compressive strength and the modulus of rupture of the RCM at 7
and 28 days. The impact test of cylindrical mortar specimens shows that increases in the crumb rubber content
delays the appearance of first crack and final failure.
2. Increase in the RCM thickness decreases the yield load
and the yield toughness in static tests, and increases the
impact energy to cause first crack and full penetration.
3. Increased crumb rubber ratio decreases the yield load and
the yield toughness in static tests and increases the impact
energy to cause first crack and full penetration.

Author's personal copy

Arab J Sci Eng

5. When using an RCM thickness 0.4 of the total thickness

of the slab, or using a rubber ratio more than or equal to
50 % in the RCM layer, the effect of the shear connector
is small in static and dynamic loads.
A Appendix A: Crack pattern for slabs under impact
Load

S40Sh1

S5
oS
h

S5oSh0

S3 0

S20

Front Face

Rear Face

Front Face

S40Sh0

Rear Face

4. When the crumb rubber ratio is constant and the RCM

thickness is also constant, slabs that have shear connectors need more impact energy to cause first crack and full
penetration. Shear connectors also increase the yield load
and the yield toughness in static load tests.

123

Author's personal copy

S5
1S
h1
P

Front Face

S51Sh1Po

Rear Face

Front Face

S51
Sho
Po

S52Sh1Po

Rear Face

Arab J Sci Eng

123

S5
1S
ho

S5
2S
ho

Author's personal copy

S52 Sh0 P1

S52Sh1P1

Front Face

Rear Face

Front Face

Rear Face

Arab J Sci Eng

123

Author's personal copy

Arab J Sci Eng

B Appendix B: Crack pattern for multilayers

ferrocement slabs

References
1. Jagannathan, A.: Impact study on ferrocement slabs reinforced with
polymer mesh. Intern. J. Appl. Eng. Res. 3(12), 17531763 (2008)
2. Sakthivel, P.; Jagannathan A.: Corrosion-free cementitious composites for sustainability. In: Proceedings of the 37th Conference

123

on Our World in Concrete & Structures, CI-Premier PTE LTD, Singapore (2012)
3. Mohamed, M.E., et al.: Numerical simulation of projectile penetration in reinforced concrete panels. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Aerospace Sciences and Aviation Technology, Cairo, Egypt (2009)

Author's personal copy

Arab J Sci Eng
4. Kamal, I.; Eltehewy, E.: Projectile penetration of reinforced concrete blocks: test and analysis. Theor. Appl. Fract. Mech. 60(1),
3137 (2012)
5. Shirai, T., et al.: Experiment and numerical simulation of doublelayered RC plates under impact loadings. Nucl. Eng. Des. 176(3),
195205 (1997)
6. ICOSQC, I.C.O.f.S.a.Q.C., Portland Cement: Iraqi Standard Specification No.5, Iraqi Ministry of Planning, Iraq, p. 8 (1984)
7. ASTM-D5603-01, Classification for Rubber Compounding
Materials-Recycled Vutcanizate Particulate Rubber, ASTM International West Conshohocken, PA (2004)
8. ASTM-D297, Test Methods for Rubber Products-Chemical Analysis, ASTM International West Conshohocken, PA (2004)
9. Shannag, M.; Mourad S.: Flowable high strength cementitious
matrices for ferrocement applications. Constr. Build. Mater. 36,
933939 (2012)
10. ASTMC109, Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of
Hydraulic Cement Mortar (Using 50 mm Cube Specimens, ASTM
International West Conshohocken, PA (2004)

11. ASTM-C348, Standard Test Method for Flexural Strength of

Hydraulic Cement Mortar, ASTM International West Conshohocken, PA (2004)
12. ACI-Committe544, State-of-the-Art Report on Fiber Reinforced
Concrete-ACI 544.1R-96, American Concrete Institute, USA
(2002)
13. Badr, A.; Ashour A.F.; Platten A.K.: Statistical variations in impact
resistance of polypropylene fibre-reinforced concrete. Intern. J.
Impact Eng. 32(11), 19071920 (2006)
14. Balaguru, P.N., Shah, S.P.: Fiber-Reinforced Cement Composites.
(1992)
15. Ramakrishna, G.; Sundararajan, T.: Impact strength of a few natural
fibre reinforced cement mortar slabs: a comparative study. Cement
Concr. Comp. 27(5), 547553 (2005)
16. Mohammadi, Y., et al.: Impact resistance of steel fibrous concrete
containing fibres of mixed aspect ratio. Constr. Build. Mater. 23(1),
183189 (2009)

123