Case Studies in Construction Materials 15 (2021) e00566

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Case Studies in Construction Materials

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

Case study

Flexural performance of ferrocement based on sustainable

high-performance mortar
Eethar Thanon Dawood *, Abdalaziz Saad Shawkat, Mafaz Hani Abdullah
Building and Construction Eng. Technical College of Mosul, Northern Technical College of Mosul, Northern Technical University, Iraq

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

Keywords: The selection of the building material for economic and sustainable construction requires un­
Ferrocement derstanding the material behavior. Therefore, this research studied the behavior of eco-friendly
Metakaoline high-performance mortar(HPM) that is used for producing ferrocement. The experimental pro­
Silica fume
gram has been divided into four phases. The first phase involved the investigation of optimal non-
Sisal fibers
Cost analysis
reinforced HPM which contains 20 % of Supplementary Cementitious Materials (SCM). The
second phase studied the behavior of HPM reinforced with different percentages (0.5 %–1.5 %) of
natural sisal fibers(NSF). The third phase exhibited the performance of ferrocement, produced
from the optimal non-reinforced and reinforced HPM, under bending stresses. The last phase
introduced the economic feasibility of research work. The results showed that using silica fume
and metakaolin by 9% and 11 % by weight of cement, respectively, improved the properties of
HPM better than other percentages used. The flexural strength, flexural toughness, splitting
tensile strength, and elastic modulus increased with adding of NSF in contrast to flowability,
compressive strength, and UPV. Moreover, the flexural behavior of ferrocement units improved
with the incorporation of NSF. The cost analysis between conventional reinforced concrete and
ferrocement panels as a roofing system showed that the initial cost and a dead load of roof
decrease by about 27 % and 83 % respectively.

1. Introduction

Plain cementitious matrix (non-reinforced mortar or concrete) is a brittle and non-deformable material with low tensile strength
[1]. The ductility, resistance to crack propagation, and tensile strength of non-reinforced cement-based composites are very low in
comparison with reinforced concrete or mortar. Micro-cracks or flaws show in such matrices even before any load is applied, because of
its inherent microstructure and volumetric changes during manufacturing [2]. In reinforced concrete or mortar, the failure type is
ductile due to the ductile nature of reinforcement but it suffers an extensive amount of cracking. The increase of crack width and
deflection lead to damaging non-structural members and impair the structural members due to corrosion of steel bars. Consequently,
such structures need good repairing materials and working hands for maintaining and saving them. This requires an additional cost
with the construction cost. To overcome such problems and increase the service life of the structures, high-performance building
material, which can also partially replace reinforced concrete, has to search out.
Ferrocement has been developed mainly during the past three decades and yet has become a very advanced building material in
design and fabrication [3]. The construction with Ferrocement approach has a beneficial effect on cost reduction, environmental

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (E.T. Dawood).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2021.e00566
Received 21 November 2020; Received in revised form 19 February 2021; Accepted 4 May 2021
Available online 10 May 2021
2214-5095/© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
E.T. Dawood et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 15 (2021) e00566

impact, and it is very useful for emergency shelters and low-cost housing for disaster-affected cities [4]. It consists of hydraulic cement
mortar reinforced with closely spaced layers of relatively small wire diameter mesh [5]. The potential use of ferrocement as a
promising building material has been studied by many researchers [6–8]. Alnuaimi et al. [9] introduced a study of the performance
ferrocement in the roofing systems. The study showed that the cement mortar reinforced with steel fibers can be used for producing
ferrocement roof panels. Besides, the flexural strength of ferrocement units can be improved by increasing the number of steel wire
mesh layers. Mughal et al. [10] conducted a comparison between ferrocement units reinforced with polypropylene(FP) and galvanized
iron meshes(FG). It has been noticed that the mechanical behavior of FG in compression test and bending test is better than that of FP.
However, FP showed better ductility properties in comparison with FG. Memon et al. [11] studied the behavior of high workability
mortar used for producing ferrocement. Different amounts of SCM (slag) and superplasticizer were used to design high workability. It
can be seen from this study that the workability of mortar improves with using the superplasticizer. Moreover, thin ferrocement el­
ements can be cast by using high-strength SCM-cement mortar.
Mousavi [12] has reported the effect of silica fume(SF) and steel fibers on the properties of ferrocement. The use of SF (15 % by
weight of cement), and strengthening cementitious matrix by 4% steel fibers have a positive impact on the crack resistance and flexural
strength of ferrocement. Smarzewski [13] has studied the influence of SF on the mechanical behavior of high-performance concrete. It
has been found that the compressive strength, splitting tensile strength, and elastic modulus increases with the presence of SF.
Although the use of SF in cement-based composites improves overall its properties [14], a high dosage of SF may cause the heat of
hydration which leads to potential hazards related to shrinkage problem [15]. Therefore, many researchers have focused on the use of
substitute materials for the use of SF which has a positive impact on the environment and on the properties of cementitious matrix
[16–18]. Metakaolin is one of the best materials used for such considerations. Tebbal and Rahmouni [19] have evaluated the me­
chanical properties of mortar containing metakaolin(MK). According to this study, the utilization of MK as a partial replacement of
cement can improve the compressive strength and decreases the workability and porosity of the mortar. Kavitha et al. [20] have proved
the validity of using MK with other SCM(fly ash) as a partial compensation of cement in high-performance concrete. The use of a
suitable mixture of SCM (MK with fly ash) improves compressive strength, flexural strength, tensile strength, and durability of
concrete.
Several researchers [21–23] have presented studies on the possibility of using natural fibers in cement mortar and concrete. Okeola
et al. [24] have evaluated the behavior of concrete reinforced with sisal fibers. It can be observed from this study that the incorporation
of sisal fibers(NSF) into concrete leads to enhance the tensile strength and elastic modulus. In contrast the workability and compressive
strength of concrete decrease with incorporating NSF. Castoldi et al. [25] have compared the mechanical behavior of concrete rein­
forced with polypropylene and sisal fibers separately. It has been found that the sisal fibers can provide the same level of flexural
strength as synthetic fibers such as polypropylene fibers and gain ductility and flexural toughness to concrete. The use of natural,
renewable, and low-cost fibers instead of high-cost commercial fibers has many benefits like reducing Carbon dioxide(CO2) released
from industrial processes, saving raw materials, and saving money [26].
Therefore, the main objectives of this work are to prepare sustainable high-performance building material reinforced with natural
fibers, produce ferrocement units depend on the building material prepared and test their flexural performance. In addition to
comparing the cost between traditional construction and Ferrocement technology.

Table 1
Physical properties and chemical composition of Cement used in this study.
Physical Characteristics Result Limitation of the ASTM C-150 [9]

Initial setting time (minutes) 110 Minimum 45 min

Final setting time (minutes) 170 Maximum 375 min
Blaine’s fineness (cm2/Kg) 3560 Minimum 2800 cm2/Kg
Soundness by Autoclave Method (%) 0.03 Less than 0.8 %
Compressive strength (MPa), at age:
3 days 26 12
7days 33.65 19

Chemical Composition Content (%) Limitation of the ASTM C-150 [9]

Lime (CaO) 61.46 –

Silica (SiO2) 19.53 –
Alumina (Al2O3) 4.92 –
Iron oxide (Fe2O3) 3.44 –
Sulfur Tri oxide (SO3) 2.25 ≤ 3.5 %
Magnesium (MgO) 3.82 ≤ 6.0 %
Alkalies (Na2O+0.658K2O) 0.58 ≤ 0.6 %
Loss of ignition (L.O.I.) 2.8 ≤ 3.0 %
C3S 57.39 –
C2S 13.53 –
C3A 7.20 –
C4AF 10.46 –

2
E.T. Dawood et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 15 (2021) e00566

2. Experimental study

2.1. Materials

Locally available cement was used to produce Ferrocement units. Such cement was obtained from delta cement factory (Sulai­
maniyah province in north of Iraq). The physical characteristics and chemical composition are shown in Table 1. The results of both
physical and chemical properties are in compliance with ASTM C-150 [27]. Silica fume(SF) was used as a supplementary cementitious
material, the material characteristics are shown in Table 2. Metakaolin(MK) was activated by grinding and thermal activation pro­
cesses (at 750◦ C for 1 h), the material characteristics are shown in Table 3. The natural sand used as fine aggregate was supplied from
Kanhash region at Ninaveh province. The fineness modulus and relative density of sand are 2.63 and 2.65, respectively. Super­
plasticizer(HRWR) was used to achieve the desired flowability of the mixes. The commercial name of HRWR is Conplast SP430. This
type of superplasticizer is conformed to ASTM C494 type F [28]. The technical properties of that superplasticizer are shown in the
Table 4.
Natural Sisal Fiber (NSF): Sisal fiber is a soft fiber derived from decorticated leaves of sisal plant (a type of weeds widely grow in the
hedges). The fibers bunch cut to the desire length (15 mm).each chopped fiber has a circular cross section with average diameter (0.12
mm).the properties of sisal fibers are shown in Table 5.
Mesh reinforcement: Ferrocement‘s reinforcement is usually in the form of sheets of continuous mesh manufactured from single
stand filaments. Square galvanized woven mesh (chicken wire) has been chosen in this work. The mesh was coated with PVC to
eliminate the adverse effect of gas bubble generation may occur due to the reaction between coating zinc and cement [29]. The
properties of mesh and stress – strain curve of single wire of the mesh shown in Fig. 1 and Table 6. The engineering strain was
considered in the curve mentioned above.

2.2. Mixing procedure

The mixing procedure was divided into three steps and the total time spent was 120 s. Firstly, Cement, SF, MK, and Sand placed in a
mixing bowl and mixed by mixer for 30 s. Then, Sisal fibers added to the mixture and mixed for 30 s. Finally, Water contained HRWR
added to the mixture and mixed for 60 s to obtain high-performance mortar. It should be mentioned that the mixer used was in
compliance with ASTM C305 [30].

2.3. Mix proportion

The mix design of HPM suitable for the fabrication of Ferrocement structural elements depends on many factors such as; a)
Rheological performance: which means that the mortar should have an adequate level of flowability that enable the mortar to
encapsulated the mesh completely. b) Mechanical properties : Ferrocement construction require a mortar mix suitable for heavy duty.
c) Economic consideration: means that HPM mix should has the lower consumption of cement and require the least amount of
superplasticizer(HRWR) to achieve the desired workability.
According to the previous studies [31,32], it seems that using mix proportion 1:2.25 with water to binder(w/b) ratio 0.4 was the
optimum choice for all considerations. Therefore, the mix proportion mentioned above was considered in this research. HRWR was
used to decrease the w/b ratio at the same level of flowability (110 % ± 5%). The addition of 0.6 % of HRWR to the mix decreased the
w/b ratio to 0.38 and keeping the same level of flowability. As the first phase in this research, non-reinforced HPM mixes, that are
contained different amounts of SF and MK separately, have been prepared as shown in Tables 7 and 8.
Observing Tables 9 and 10, it seemed that the optimum pozolanic activity of silica fume and metakaolin occurred when using them
at (6 %–12 %) and (9 %–15 %) respectively, for this reason, trial mixes were performed with 20 % replacement of cement, this
percentage included co-incorporation of both SCM(SF and MK) at the different percentage as shown in Table 11. The election of control
mix in this work depended on two factors: the optimum mechanical properties and the minimum requirement of HRWR to achieve the
desired workability. Therefore, the MS4 mix was adopted as a reference (control) mix, because it reveals the optimal performance as

Table 2
Material Characteristics of Silica fume(SF).
Form Description or value

Color/ Appearance Dark Grey Powder

Specific Gravity 2.17
Blaine’s fineness (cm2/Kg) 17700
Loss of Ignition 2.4%
Strength Activity Index @ 28 days by ASTM C 1240 [52] 108%
Water requirement 100%
Lime (CaO) 1.0%
Silica (SiO2) 90%
Alumina (Al2O3) 1.1%
Iron Oxide (Fe2O3) 1.7%
Chloride content Nil

3
E.T. Dawood et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 15 (2021) e00566

Table 3
The physical properties and chemical composition of Metakaolin(MK).
Form Agglomerated

Color / Appearance Off White Powder

Specific Gravity 2.45
Blaine’s fineness 6300
Retained on sieve No. 325 0.7%
Strength Activity Index @ 28 days by ASTM C618 [53] 97%
Loss on ignition 0.34%
Lime (CaO) 0.73%
Silica (SiO2) 55.78%
Alumina (Al2O3) 39.16%
Iron Oxide (Fe2O3) 2.67%
Potassium Oxide (K2O) 0.45 %
Magnesium Oxide (MgO) 0.12 %
Sulphate (SO3) 0.21%

Table 4
Technical description of superplasticizer(HRWR).
Appearance Brown liquid instantly dispersible in water
Subsidiary Effect Approximately 1.5 % entrapped air over control
Structure of the material Polymer based
Relative Density 1.2 ± 0.01 at 30◦ C
Chloride Content Nil
For moderate flowability (0.6− 1.2 liter/100 Kg cement)
Dosage
For high flowability (1.2− 2 liter/100 Kg cement)
Shelf life 12 Months

Table 5
Properties of Natural Sisal Fibers(NSF).
The property Value

Average Length (mm) 15

Nominal Diameter (μm) 120
Lf 125
Aspect ratio ( )
Df
Average Tensile strength (GPa) 0.4
Average Modulus of elasticity (GPa) 15
Density (g/cm3) 1.4
Absorption% 7.25 %
Material Structure Cellulose Mainly
Shape Chopped Strand

Fig. 1. Stress –Strain Diagram for Single Wire of Mesh.

4
E.T. Dawood et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 15 (2021) e00566

Table 6
. Properties of Mesh Reinforcement.
Properties Value

Average diameter (mm) 0.6

Square Hole Dimension (mm × mm) 12 × 12
Ϭy (MPa) 370
Ϭmax (MPa) 560

Table 7
Mix Proportion for Silica Fume(SF) Mortar.
Index Cement (Kg/m3) SF (Kg/m3) Sand (Kg/m3) HRWR % w/b*

S0 646 0 1453 0.6 0.38

S1 607 39 1453 1 0.38
S2 588 58 1453 1.1 0.38
S3 568 78 1453 1.3 0.38
S4 549 97 1453 1.4 0.38
*
W/b ratio is water/cement + SF.

Table 8
Mix Proportion for Metakaolin(MK) Mortar.
Index Cement (Kg/m3) MK (Kg/m3) Sand (Kg/m3) HRWR % w/b*

M0 646 0 1453 0.6 0.38

M1 607 39 1453 0.6 0.38
M2 588 58 1453 0.7 0.38
M3 568 78 1453 0.7 0.38
M4 549 97 1453 0.8 0.38

W/b* ratio is water/cement + Mk. The w/b ratio kept constant while adjusting the dosage of HRWR to achieve the desired workability.

Table 9
Tests Results for Silica Fume(SF) Mortar.
ϬCompressive (Mpa) ϬSplitting Tensile (Mpa) ϬFlexural (Mpa)
Index SF %
7 days 28 days 7 days 28 days 7 days 28 days

S0 0 32.1 42.4 4.6 5.5 2.6 2.9

S1 6 37 50.2 5.2 6.2 2.7 3.2
S2 9 35.3 48 5.3 6.4 2.8 3.4
S3 12 34.2 46.3 5.2 6.3 2.8 3.3
S4 15 33.8 45.5 4.9 6.1 2.8 3.2

Table 10
Tests Results for Metakaolin(MK) Mortar.
ϬCompressive (Mpa) ϬSplitting Tensile (Mpa) ϬFlexural (Mpa)
Index MK %
7 days 28 days 7 days 28 days 7 days 28 days

M0 0 32.1 42.4 4.6 5.5 2.6 2.9

M1 6 32.6 43.2 4.8 5.7 2.7 3.1
M2 9 33.7 44.6 5.1 6.1 2.7 3.2
M3 12 34.5 46.2 4.9 6.0 2.8 3.4
M4 15 32.8 43.5 4.7 5.9 2.7 3.2

shown in Table 12; Furthermore, natural sisal fibers (NSF) were used for strengthening optimal HPM in the second phase of the
research. Different volume fractions of sisal fibers were used to investigate the optimal reinforced HPM as shown in Table 13.
In the third phase of the research, ferrocement units have been prepared depend on the test results obtained from non-reinforced
and reinforced HPM. Moreover, the produced ferrocement units have been compared based on the results of modulus of rupture test.

2.4. Samples preparation and curing

After completing the mixing of materials, fresh mortar properties were examined, namely the flow test. Cubes (50 × 50 × 50 mm)

5
E.T. Dawood et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 15 (2021) e00566

Table 11
Mix Proportion for non-reinforced HPM.
Index Cement (Kg/m3) SF % MK % Sand (Kg/m3) HRWR % w/b*

MS0 646 0 0 1453 0.6 0.38

MS1 517 6 14 1453 1.2 0.38
MS2 517 7 13 1453 1.2 0.38
MS3 517 8 12 1453 1.3 0.38
MS4 517 9 11 1453 1.3 0.38
MS5 517 10 10 1453 1.4 0.38
MS6 517 11 9 1453 1.5 0.38
MS7 517 12 8 1453 1.5 0.38
*
W/b ratio is water/cement + SF + MK.

Table 12
Tests Results for non-reinforced HPM.
ϬCompressive (Mpa) ϬSplitting Tensile (Mpa) ϬFlexural (Mpa)
Index SF % MK %
7 days 28 days 7 days 28 days 7 days 28 days

MS0 0 0 32.1 42.4 4.6 5.5 2.6 2.9

MS1 6 14 36.6 49.7 5.3 6.3 2.9 3.1
MS2 7 13 36.9 50 5.4 6.5 3 3.3
MS3 8 12 37.5 50.4 5.5 6.7 3 3.3
MS4 9 11 38.1 52 5.7 6.8 3 3.4
MS5 10 10 37 50.7 5.5 6.7 3.1 3.5
MS6 11 9 36.2 50.2 5.5 6.6 3 3.3
MS7 12 8 35.1 47.8 5.4 6.4 3 3.2

Table 13
Mix Proportion for reinforced HPM Mix.
Index Cement (Kg/m3) SF % MK % NSF % Sand (Kg/m3) HRWR % w/b

F0 517 9 11 0 1453 1.3 0.38

F1 517 9 11 0.5 1453 1.5 0.38
F2 517 9 11 0.75 1453 1.6 0.38
F3 517 9 11 1 1453 1.8 0.38
F4 517 9 11 1.25 1453 1.8 0.38
F5 517 9 11 1.5 1453 2 0.38

were cast for compressive strength; furthermore, Cubes (100 × 100 × 100 mm) were cast for ultrasonic pulse velocity. Cylinders were
cast (100 Ø × 200 h mm) and (150 Ø × 300 h mm) for splitting tensile strength and static modulus of elasticity tests respectively,
Prisms (40 × 40 × 160 mm) were cast for flexural strength and flexural toughness tests; whereas, the ferrocement specimens (450 ×
450 × 25 mm) was designed according to ACI-R549 [6], their molds made of film faced plywood sheets had a thickness about 18 mm.
All specimens were pour in one layer then compacted by vibration for about (15–30) seconds until the mortar surface freed from air
bubbles. The specimens were stored at the laboratory for 24 ± 2 h. The specimens were extracted from molds approximately 24 h. after
casting and placed in a small water tank as a moist curing method with a specific temperature about 23 ± 2 ◦ C in compliance to ASTM C
192 [33].

2.5. Engineering tests procedure

The flowability (workability) test of mortar mixes was performed according to ASTM C 1437 [34]. The flow test made up from flow
table and accessory instruments according to ASTM C 230 [35]. The compressive strength test was achieved according to ASTM C 109
[36]. For each age of test (7, 28 & 90 days) the average of three specimens was adopted to evaluate the compressive strength.
The splitting tensile strength test was performed on cylinder specimens in compliance with ASTM C 496 [37]. The cylinder
specimens (100 Ø × 200 H mm) and the average of three specimens was used to determine the value of such test.
Whereas, The prisms of 40 × 40 × 160 mm were used to evaluate the flexural strength and flexural toughness tests using simply
supported beam with third-point loading in accordance with ASTM C 348 [38] and ASTM C1018 [39], respectively, and the average of
three specimens were used for each test age. The cylinder specimens (150 Ø × 300 H mm) were used for static modulus of elasticity
according to ASTM C469 [40] and the average of three specimens was used to determine the value of such test. The test of ultrasonic
pulse velocity test was conducted on cubic specimens of 100 mm according to ASTM C597 [41].

6
E.T. Dawood et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 15 (2021) e00566

3. Results and discussion of experimental work

3.1. Rheological characteristics of HPM

3.1.1. Flowability test

Table 14 presented the flowability of HPM mixes reinforced with natural sisal fibers(NSF). The flowability of HPM mixes was
reduced with increasing the content of NSF as shown in mentioned Table. The inclusion of 0.5 %, 0.75 %, 1%,1.25 %, and 1.5 % NSF
led to decrease the flowability of mix F1, F2, F3, F4, and F5 by 4.17 %,4.17 %, 8.33 %, 12.5 %, and 16.67 % respectively in comparison
with control mix(F0). This can be attributed to the amount of cellulose which forms 43%–56% by weight of sisal fibers [42]. The large
number of hydrophilic hydroxyl groups containing cellulose make sisal fibers are water-absorbent [43]. The increasing dosage of
superplasticizer (HRWR) in HPM mixes(F0, F1, F2, F3, F4, and F5) from 1.3 % to 2% was necessary for obtaining the required grade of
flowability and to ensure the homogenous distribution of the fibers inside the high-performance mortar. Although all mixes still
workable after the addition of sisal fiber, but indeed, they need an additional effort for transporting, molding and compacting. This
deleterious effect on workability as a result of fibers absorption of some free water demanded for mortar formation and lubrication.

3.2. Hardened properties of reinforced HPM

3.2.1. Compressive strength

The results of compressive strength at ages (7, 28 and 90) days with various volume fraction of NSF are shown in Table 15 and
Fig. 2.
The results of the compressive strength of HPM mixes indicate that the increase in volume fraction of NSF decreased the
compressive strength slightly. For HPM reinforced with various ratios of NSF (0.5, 0.75, 1, 1.25 and 1.5 %) as volume fraction, the
results in Table 15 showed that there is a slight reduction in compressive strength with increasing the fiber content. This adverse effect
can be attributed to low stiffness of natural fibers and to the reduction in adhesive properties between the mortar and the surface of the
fiber [24,44,45]. Consequently, the void ratio of mortar is increased. This finding is in agreement with previous study [24]. The
reduction in compressive strength of the HPM with 1% sisal fibers (F3) at 90 days was up to 8% compared with the control mix (F0) as
shown in Fig. 3.

3.2.2. Splitting tensile strength

The splitting tensile strength results for HPM at various ages (7, 28 and 90) days with different percentages of sisal fibers are shown
in Table 16 and Fig. 4. The results were agreeable with previous work in this regard [46].
Generally, the inclusion of NSF to the HPM mixes causes a significant enhancement in the splitting tensile strength compared with
control mix (F0). The ratio of increment at 90 days was up to 38 % and 22 % for mixes with volume fraction 0.75 % (F2) and 1.0 (F3)
respectively, as shown in Table 16 and Fig. 5. The improvement in the splitting tensile strength may be due to the capability of sisal
fibers to bridge across the cracks and impart the ductility to the cement composites [47].
For HPM reinforced with natural sisal fiber, the splitting tensile strength improved significantly compared control mix (F0), the
splitting tensile strength of the HPM at 90 days is up to 38 % for mix with 0,75 % NSF (F2) compared with the control mix (F0) as shown
in Fig. 5; Meanwhile, The splitting tensile strength at 90 days enhanced by about 2.7 % for the mix with 1.5 % NSF (F5) compared with
the control mix (F0), Due to the agglomeration and non-uniformly distribution of Natural fibers inside the cementitious matrix [48].

3.2.3. Flexural strength

The results of flexural strength of HPM at 7, 28 and 90 days are shown in Table 17 and Fig. 6. For HPM, flexural strength enhanced
with the incorporation sisal fibers, these results were similar to results obtained from previous research by Supraja [49].
The substantial improvement in flexural strength was about 66 % for mix reinforced with 1.0 % sisal fibers (F3) compared with the
control mix (F0). Moreover, the incorporation of 0.75 % sisal fibers (F2) enhanced the flexural strength by about 58 % compared with
the control mix (F0) as shown in Table 17 and Fig. 7.
These significant improvements can be attributed to the hydrogen bond between the hydroxyl group on the cellulose fiber surface
and hydroxyl group in the cement matrix [50]; Meanwhile, using a high volume fraction of sisal fiber(NSF) weakens the performance
of the cement-based composites [25]as shown in F4 and F5. This can be ascribed to; heterogeneous distribution of the fibers, lumping of

Table 14
Flowability of HPM mixes.
Mix No. Cement (Kg/m3) SF, % MK, % Sand (Kg/m3) NSF, % HRWR,% W/B* Flowability, %

F0 517 9 11 1453 0 1.3 0.38 120

F1 517 9 11 1453 0.5 1.5 0.38 115
F2 517 9 11 1453 0.75 1.6 0.38 115
F3 517 9 11 1453 1 1.8 0.38 110
F4 517 9 11 1453 1.25 1.8 0.38 105
F5 517 9 11 1453 1.5 2 0.38 100
*
W/B = Water to binder (cement + SF + MK) ratio.

7
E.T. Dawood et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 15 (2021) e00566

Table 15
Average Compressive Strength of reinforced HPM.
Compressive Strength (MPa)
Mixes % NSF Volume Fraction
7 days 28 days 90 days

F0 0 38.1 52 58.8
F1 0.5 36.7 50.5 56.2
F2 0.75 35.2 49.8 55.7
F3 1 34.8 48.7 54
F4 1.25 33.3 46.3 52.5
F5 1.5 32.5 44.9 50.3

Fig. 2. Progress of Compressive Strength for reinforced HPM.

Fig. 3. Relative Compressive Strength for reinforced HPM Mixes at 90 Days.

fibers which leads to a decrease in the contact area between NSF’s surface and cementitious matrix causing a weak point inside the
mixture, and the high void ratio of sisal fibers which makes these fibers hydrophilic leading to reduce the interfacial bond [51].
Consequently, the presence of the high amount of such fibers in the sample (F4 and F5) section subjected to bending stresses gives the
strength less than that of containing an acceptable amount of NSF (F3).

3.2.4. Flexural toughness

The results of flexural toughness of HPM reinforced with various volume fraction of NSF (0, 0.5, 0.75, 1, 1.25 & 1.5 %) at 90 days
are shown in Table 18. The results were evaluated with accordance to ASTM C 1018 [39]. Noticing the load-deflection relationship
shown in Fig. 8, it can be seen that the performance of the fibrous mortar mixes changes remarkably after appearing the first crack;

8
E.T. Dawood et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 15 (2021) e00566

Table 16
Average Splitting Tensile Strength of reinforced HPM.
Splitting Tensile Strength (MPa)
Mixes % NSF Volume fraction
7 days 28 days 90 days

F0 0 3 3.4 3.6
F1 0.5 3.5 3.8 4
F2 0.75 3.7 4.3 5
F3 1 3.6 4 4.4
F4 1.25 3.3 3.7 3.9
F5 1.5 3.2 3.5 3.7

Fig. 4. Progress of Splitting Tensile Strength for reinforced HPM mixes.

Fig. 5. Relative Splitting Tensile Strength for reinforced HPM Mixes at 90 Days.

meanwhile, control mortar mix revealed a brittle failure after cracking. Also, it can be seen that the performance of the fibrous mortar
mixes changes remarkably after appearing the first crack.
The fibrous mortar revealed a post-crack performance that modified from strain softening to strain hardening, this modification is
depending on factors such as dispersion quality and volume fraction [52], Also, the flexural toughness for HPM reinforced with 1% NSF
(F3) at 90 days was noticed to be the highest compared with other mixes. The toughness indices I5 and I10 of such mix were 4.6 and 6,
respectively, this improvement was due to arresting the cracks by the fibers cross the crack section, and also preventing the separation
of the section [53]. The energy absorption significantly improved with the inclusion of sisal fiber, especially in F3 and F4 mixes. This
enhancement can be attributed to the suitable amount of fibers used in these mixes which did not lead to clumping and balling the
fibers during the mixing process [54]. The toughness gain of reinforced cementitious matrix does not depend on the presence of high

9
E.T. Dawood et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 15 (2021) e00566

Table 17
Average Flexural Strength of reinforced HPM.
Flexural Strength (MPa)
Mixes % NSF Volume fraction
7 Days 28 Days 90 Days

F0 0 5.7 6.8 7.2

F1 0.5 8.2 9.7 10.7
F2 0.75 9.5 11.1 11.4
F3 1 9.8 11.7 12
F4 1.25 6.8 8.3 8.7
F5 1.5 6 7.3 7.4

Fig. 6. Progress of Flexural Strength for reinforced HPM.

Fig. 7. Relative Flexural Strength for reinforced HPM Mixes at 90 Days.

dosages of the fibers in such matrix. The higher amounts of fibers may lead to less effectiveness, due to the interaction between fibers
and cementitious matrix [25,55,56], as shown in F5.

3.2.5. Static Modulus of elasticity

The results of static modulus of elasticity for HPM at 90 days are shown in Table 19. Similar results were reported by Okeola [24].
Generally, the static modulus of elasticity of cement composites affected by gradation of aggregate, curing age w/c, which all
affected the compressive strength [57]. Observing Fig. 9, It seems that the static modulus of elasticity increasing with the inclusion of
sisal fiber despites, the decreasing of compressive strength with the inclusion of sisal fibers, this effect can be attributed to the role of
sisal fiber in attaining lower strain at the maximum compressive stress as compared with control mix (F0). For HPM reinforced with

10
E.T. Dawood et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 15 (2021) e00566

Table 18
Average Flexural Toughness Indices of reinforced HPM.
Toughness Indices
Mixes % NSF as Volume fraction
I5 I10 R5,10*

F0 0 1 1 0
F1 0.5 4.2 5.3 22
F2 0.75 4.3 5.5 24
F3 1 4.6 6 28
F4 1.25 4.4 5.8 28
F5 1.5 3.9 4.8 18
*
R5,10 is residual strength factor equal to 20(I10-I5).

Fig. 8. Influence of Sisal Fiber on Flexural Toughness for HPM Mixes at 90 Days.

Table 19
Average Modulus of Elasticity of reinforced HPM.
Mixes % NSF as Volume fraction Static Modulus of Elasticity at 90 days (GPa)

F0 0 35.3
F1 0.5 40.6
F2 0.75 41.4
F3 1 43.1
F4 1.25 39.7
F5 1.5 36.5

Fig. 9. Relative Modulus of Elasticity for reinforced HPM Mixes at 90 Days.

11
E.T. Dawood et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 15 (2021) e00566

NSF, the inclusion of sisal fiber reveal good improvements in static modulus of elasticity compared with control mix (F0). The modulus
of elasticity enhanced by about 17 % and 22 % due to the inclusion of 0.75 % NSF (F2) and 1% NSF (F3), respectively, compared with
the control mix.

3.2.6. Ultrasonic pulse velocity (UPV)

This test was used to determine the integrity of structural HPM reinforced with natural sisal fibers(NSF). At 90 days of curing, the
samples are approximately reached their final strength and completed their microstructure. Consequently, the UPV test was deter­
mined at the age mentioned above. The results of this test are shown in Table 20 and Fig. 10. For HPM reinforced with NSF, the UPV
value decreases as the volume fraction of NSF increase, this indicated to the high porosity of sisal fibers, that when incorporated in
mortar increase the void ratio of the mixture and causing a reduction in the density of mortar and consequently, decreasing the UPV
[58]. The same trend was observed in the compression test for HPM reinforced mortar. Thus, this confirms the accuracy of the results
obtained from the compression test. The highest reduction of UPV was achieved by the addition 1.5 % of Sisal fibers (F5) about 6%
compared with control mix (F0), it’s indicate that the addition 1.5 % of Sisal fibers (F5) lead to insufficient dispersion of the fibers inside
the HPM as shown in Fig. 10.

3.3. Hardened properties of ferrocement units

3.3.1. Modulus of rupture

A total of 18 ferrocement units were produced and tested. Three samples of each F0 and F1 reinforced with one, two, or three
reinforcement meshes were examined. The average value obtained from the tested Ferrocement units are shown in Table 21 and
Fig. 11.
Observing Table 21 and Fig. 11, it can be seen that increasing the number of reinforcement layers improve the modulus of rupture
of Ferrocement units, the highest strength for both plain and fibrous Ferrocement was achieved by using three reinforcement layers, it
has a significantly improvement as compared with using one layer; whereas, a slightly was achieved as compared with using two layers
especially when using fibrous mortar, Similar performance was reported by Howlader [59]. Also, it be can noticed that the relationship
between the strength development in plain mortar and increasing the number of layers is approximately linear, so that the strength
increases about 6–8% when adding one additional layer to the Ferrocement units. The fiber role was very remarkable in the post crack
zone, after the crack initiated the bonding between fibers and cementitious matrix could be support the additional load before failure
[60]. The fibrous Ferrocement is more homogenous and its failure was occurred due to the development of one major crack; whereas,
the plain Ferrocement fails due to numerous cracks along the load subjection line as shown in Fig. 12. These results approached to
those obtained by other researches [12,59], which investigated the flexural response of Ferrocement panels reinforced by steel fibers.

3.4. Cost estimation and feasibility study

A simple design of one floor small studio flat was adopted as a case study to conduct a comparative study of roofing system in term
of cost, Fig. 13 illustrates the design of small flat with 36 m2 in area, the comparison should be conducted between two roofing options.

1 Option (A): Roofing with conventional reinforced concrete designed according to ACI 318− 11 [61] (as shown in Fig. 14) using
M25 grade concrete by the common stages: (shuttering, rebars installation, casting fresh concrete, curing and formwork lifting after
(14–21) days to ensure sufficient strength.
2 Option (B): roofing with composite system {Ferrocement units + steel beams (I-section 4 inch)} as the following stages; (installing
I-Section beams uniformly above the bearing wall with longitudinal and transverse spacing 1.5 m.

3.4.1. Direct cost comparison

The direct cost of constructing the roof for an economic architectural design of studio flat for Option (A) and Option (B) were
demonstrated in Tables 22 and 23 respectively, these costs affected by the raw materials prices and the wages of the required staff to
construct the roof. The market price at 2019 was adopted to estimate the required raw materials and labor cost accurately to elect the
most adequate roofing option. It seems to be the using of Option (B) as a roofing system decrease the initial cost about 2 % compared
with Option (A), this sale was within the range of cost reduction while using Ferrocement roofing system, found by Al-Rifaie [62].

Table 20
Average Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity for reinforced HPM.
Mixes % NSF as Volume fraction Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity at 90 days (m/s)

F0 0 4870
F1 0.5 4640
F2 0.75 4630
F3 1 4630
F4 1.25 4600
F5 1.5 4580

12
E.T. Dawood et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 15 (2021) e00566

Fig. 10. Relative Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity for the HPM Mixes at 90 Days.

Table 21
Average Modulus of Rupture for Ferrocement Units.
HPM Mix Number of Layers of Mesh Reinforcement Modulus of Rupture at 28 Days (MPa)

F0 1 12.1
F0 2 12.8
F0 3 13.6
F3 1 14.5
F3 2 16.4
F3 3 16.8

Fig. 11. The Effect of Internal Reinforcement and Addition of Sisal Fiber on Modulus of Rupture of Ferrocement Units at 28 Days.

3.4.2. Indirect cost comparison

The indirect cost is an additional cost to the entire cost, mostly paid daily for managing the construction procedure and guarding
the site; therefore it is assessed as a percentage of the total direct (0.5 % per one day in this study), the duration was computed to be 21
and 2 days for Option (A) and Option (B) respectively, indirect cost and the duration of constructing was assessed after consulting the
engineering bureaus in Mosul city and acquainting on similar projects. Tables 22 and 23 show the indirect cost for both options, since
option B is easily and quickly assembled as compared with Option (A), its duration and indirect costs were less than Option (A).
Conceivably, the reduction of constructing stages and the energy consumption led to decreasing the duration of constructing, direct
costs and indirect costs. It is necessary to notify the customer about the initial cost of affordable housing; for that reason the total cost
for both options was estimated accurately; furthermore, the dead load for each option was determined as shown in Table 24 to evaluate
its influence on bearing walls and footing system. It seemed that the dead load in option B was about 18 % compared with dead load of

13
E.T. Dawood et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 15 (2021) e00566

Fig. 12. The Failure Modes; (A) Fibrous ferrocement, (B) Plain ferrocement.

Fig. 13. The Architectural Design of The Flat Studio 36 m2.

option A, which means that the roofing with conventional reinforced concrete needing a larger section of bearing walls and footing
[61].

3.4.3. Feasibility indicators

Numerous indicators such as project life time and annual maintenance costs should be determined in order to undertaking the cost
comparative between two roofing options and to elect to most suitable option, The fundamentals of technical and economic feasibility
studies in Iraq [63] was adopted in this regard.

3.4.3.1. Project useful lifespan. The fundamental of assessment of technical feasibility in Iraq [63] set a range of extinction for concrete
building from (0.3− 0.5) % per year, the extinction rate for option a was chosen to be 0.3 % because of the high durability of reinforced
concrete; Whereas, there was no clear studies for evaluating the expected life of Ferrocement; However, the Ferrocement extinction

14
E.T. Dawood et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 15 (2021) e00566

Fig. 14. The Roofing Options; Option (A) and Option (B).

rate assumed as the same of reinforced concrete 3.5 % because they fabricated from the same materials but with less thickness,
consequently, it was assumed that the expected lifespan about 40 and 35 years for option A and option B respectively.

3.4.3.2. Annual maintenance cost. The maintenance cost affect by the quality control of construction and maintenance. There is no
enough research about evaluating the maintenance cost, therefore, it was assumed equal to the extinction rate (3% & 3.5 %) according
to the Iraqi fundamental of assessing technical feasibility studies [63].

3.4.4. Cost analysis

The cost comparison was conducted between two roofing systems with respect to previous factors for each option, starting with
computing the initial cost of constructing for each option followed by evaluating the expected lifespan and the interest rate and then
estimating the annual maintenance cost and finally, converting the total cost for each option to equivalent annual annuities using the
following formula 4.1. since the options differs in their expected lives, Equivalent Annual Annuities approach is most suitable for cost
comparative for projects having different lives [63], this approach was adopted In order to elect the appropriate option. The annual
cost, annual maintenance cost and the summation of these costs, which represented to total annuities along the lifespan were presented
in Tables 25 and 26 for Option (A) and Option (B) respectively.

(1 + i)n × i
R = F1 (4.1)
(1 + i)n − i

Where:
R: The annual cost of n of the years I.D,
F1 : The Total initial cost I.D, and

15
E.T. Dawood et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 15 (2021) e00566

Table 22
The Estimated Quantities and Cost for Option (A).
Details Unit Unit Price I.D* Amount Total Price I.D

A) Material
Cement Ton 95,000 3 285,000
Sand m3 20,000 1.71 34,200
Gravel m3 10,000 3.43 34,200
Steel ton 700,000 0.41 287,000
Sum = 640,900 I.D
Wastage 10 % = 0.10 × 640,900 = 64,090 I.D
Total sum = 640,900 + 64,090 = 704,990 I.D

B) Labors
Foreman daily 60,000 1 60,000
Unskilled Labor daily 20,000 12 240,000
Mixer + Wench daily 100,000 1 100,000
Rebars Installation ton 90,000 0.41 36,900
Shuttering m2 8,000 36 288,000
Sum = 724,900 I.D
Total sum = 704,990 + 724,900 = 1,429,890 I.D

C) Indirect Cost
Indirect Cost = 0.005 × 21 × 1,429,890 = 150,138 I.D
Total Initial Cost 1,429,890 + 150,138 = 1,580,028 I.D
Cost per 1 m2 =44,890 I.D
*
I.D is Iraqi dinar.

Table 23
The Estimated Quantities and Cost for Option (B).
Details Unit Unit price I.D Amount Total price I.D

A) Material
Cement Ton 95,000 0.465 44,175
Silica Fume 9 % by weight Kg 1,000 52.2 52,200
Metakaolin 11 % by weight Kg 500 63.9 31,950
Sand m3 20,000 0.75 15,000
Chicken wire mesh m2 1,000 72 72,000
HRWR liter 1,000 12.6 12,600
I-section 4 inch depth m 6000 84 504,000
Sisal fiber 1.0 % V.F Kg 500 12.6 6,300
Sum = 738,225 I.D
Wastage 10 % = 0.10 × 738,225 = 73,823 I.D
Total sum = 738,225 + 73,823 = 812,048 I.D

B) Labors
Foreman daily 60,000 2 120,000
Unskilled Labor daily 20,000 6 120,000
Mixer daily 50,000 1 50,000
Crane daily 50,000 1 50,000
Sum = 340,000 I.D
Total sum = 812,048 + 340,000 = 1,152,048 I.D

C) Indirect Cost
Indirect Cost = 0.005 × 2 × 1,152,048 = 11,520 I.D
Total Initial Cost = 1,152,048 + 11,520 = 1,163,568 I.D
Cost per 1 m2 =32,321 I.D

Table 24
The Dead Loads of Roofing Options.
Dead load
Roofing Options
Total dead load (Kg) Per 1 m2 (Kg/m2)

A 13460 374
B 2411 67

i: the rate of interest = 8%

The variation of equivalent annual annuities with the lifespans illustrated in Fig. 15, it seems that the annuities decrease with the
progress of projects lives and Option (B) was cheaper than Option (A) tell the end of project lifespan 35 years.

16
E.T. Dawood et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 15 (2021) e00566

Table 25
The Equivalent Annual Annuities for Option (A).
Lifespan (Years) Annual Cost (I.D) Annual Maintenance Cost (I.D) Total Annuities (I.D)

2 886,031 26,580 912,611

4 477,043 14,311 491,354
6 341,784 10,253 352,037
8 274,948 8,248 283,196
10 235,470 7,064 242,534
15 184,593 5,537 191,130
20 160,929 4,827 165,756
25 148,015 4,440 152,455
30 140,349 4,210 144,559
35 135,571 4,067 139,638
40 132,501 3,975 136,476

Table 26
The Equivalent Annual Annuities for Option (B).
Lifespan (Years) Annual Cost (I.D) Annual Maintenance Cost (I.D) Total Annuities (I.D)

2 652,493 22,837 675,330

4 351,305 12,295 363,600
6 251,697 8,809 260,506
8 202,478 7,086 209,564
10 173,405 6,069 179,474
15 135,939 4,757 140,696
20 118,511 4,147 122,658
25 109,001 3,815 112,816
30 103,356 3,617 106,973
35 99,837 3,494 103,332

Fig. 15. The Variation of Equivalent Annual Annuities along with the Lifespan.

4. Conclusions

Depending on the experimental program and cost analysis, some significant conclusions can be drawn as follows:

1 Co-incorporations of metakaolin(MK) and silica fume(SF) in mortar as a partial replacement of cement alleviate the deleterious
effect of SF on workability, enhance the mechanical performance compared with the sole incorporation of SF or MK. The use of
mixture 9%SF and 11 %MK gives the mortar the best performance at age 28 days.
2 The inclusion of natural sisal fiber in High performance mortar(HPM) slightly decreases the compressive strength and UPV.
regardless the curing age, such reduction increases with the increase of volume fraction.
3 Strengthening the HPM with 1% of sisal fibers improves flexural strength, splitting tensile strength and elastic modulus by about 22
%, 66 % and 22 % respectively in comparison with non-reinforced mortar at age of 90 days.

17
E.T. Dawood et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 15 (2021) e00566

4 The flexural toughness of HPM is improved with fibers; the use of 1% natural sisal fibers prevents the crack initiation and makes a
remarkable enhancement on post-crack zone.
5 The ferrocement units with 1 % sisal fiber and PVC coated steel wire mesh has been well reinforced compared with plain fer­
rocement units.
6 The addition of extra reinforcing layer to the plain ferrocement units increases linearly the flexural strength about (6–8) % for each
additional layer.
7 The use of more than two reinforcing layers in fibrous ferrocement makes lesser development compared with such use in plain
ferrocement.
8 Roofing by ferrocement panels decreases the initial cost and dead load of roof about 27 and 83 % respectively, compared to roofing
by conventional reinforced concrete.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors report no declarations of interest.

Acknowledgement

The work described in this paper has been conducted in the laboratory of Technical engineering college of Mosul. This research
represents a part of the Master’s thesis work for the second author.

References

[1] G. Plizzari, S. Mindess, Fiber-reinforced concrete. Developments in the Formulation and Reinforcement of Concrete, Elsevier LTD, 2019, pp. 257–287, https://
doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102616-8.00011-3 [Internet] Available from:.
[2] M.B. Varma, M. Hajare, Ferrocement: Compsite material and its applications, Int J pure Appl Res Eng Technol. 3 (8) (2015) 296–307.
[3] Awal ASMA, M.S. Rahman, M.B. Hossain, Development of ferrocement technology for low-cost farm structures, J. Bangladesh Agri. Univ. 2 (2) (2004) 343–349.
[4] W.N. Al-Rifaie, S. Kalaf, Experimental investigation of Long-span roofing system, in: Proceedings of the Seventh International Symposium on Ferrocement and
Thin Reinforced Cement Composites (FERRO-7), Singapore, 2001.
[5] ACI 549R-97, State-of-the-Art Report on Ferrocement Reported by ACI Committee 549, 1997.
[6] A.S. Burakale, P.P.M. Attarde, M.D. Patil, Ferrocement Construction Technology and its Applications – A Review, Int. Res. J. Eng. Sci. Technol. Innov. 7 (7)
(2020) 4178–4189.
[7] J. Revathy, P. Gajalakshmi, M.A. Ahmed, Flowable nano SiO2 based cementitious mortar for ferrocement jacketed column, Mater Today Proc 22 (2019)
836–842, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2019.11.020 [Internet] Available from:.
[8] M.J. Miah, M.J.S. Miah, W.B. Alam, Monte F. Lo, Y. Li, Strengthening of RC beams by ferrocement made with unconventional concrete, Mag Civ Eng. 89 (5)
(2019) 94–105.
[9] A.S. Alnuaimi, A. Hago, K.S. Al-jabri, Flexural behaviour of ferrocement roof panels, High Perform Struct Mater III. 85 (2006) 93–102.
[10] U.A. Mughal, M.A. Saleem, S. Abbas, Comparative study of ferrocement panels reinforced with galvanized iron and polypropylene meshes, Constr. Build. Mater.
210 (2019) 40–47, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.03.147 [Internet] Available from:.
[11] N.A. Memon, S.R. Sumadi, M. Ramli, Performance of high wokability slag-cement mortar for ferrocement, Build. Environ. 42 (2007) (2006) 2710–2717.
[12] S.E. Mousavi, Flexural response and crack development properties of ferrocement panels reinforced with steel fibers, J Build Eng (2017) 1–20, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jobe.2017.06.010 [Internet] Available from:.
[13] P. Smarzewski, Influence of silica fume on mechanical and fracture properties of high performance concrete, Procedia Struct Integr 17 (2019) (2019) 5–12,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prostr.2019.08.002 [Internet] Available from:.
[14] R. Siddique, M.I. Khan, Supplementary cementing materials, engineering materials, chapter 2. Silica Fume, @ Springer-Verlag Berlin, Heidelberg, 2011,
pp. 67–119, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-17866-5_2.
[15] G.A. Rao, Investigations on the performance of silica fume-incorporated cement pastes and mortars, Cem Concr Res. 33 (2003) 1765–1770.
[16] A. Al Menhosh, Y. Weng, Y. Wang, The Mechanical Properties of the Concrete Using Metakaolin Additive and Polymer Admixture, J Eng (United Kingdom)
(2016) 2016, https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/1670615. Available from:.
[17] A.I. Jubeh, D.M. Al Saffar, B.A. Tayeh, Effect of recycled glass powder on properties of cementitious materials contains styrene butadiene rubber, Arab J Geosci.
12 (2) (2019) 2–6, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-018-4212-0. Available from:.
[18] M.M. López, Y. Pineda, O. Gutiérrez, Evaluation of durability and mechanical properties of the cement mortar added with slag blast furnace, Procedia Mater Sci
9 (2015) 367–376, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mspro.2015.05.006 [Internet] Available from:.
[19] N. Tebbal, Z. Rahmouni, Rheological and Mechanical Behavior of Mortars with Metakaolin Formulation, Procedia Comput. Sci. 158 (2019) (2019) 45–50,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2019.09.026 [Internet] Available from:.
[20] O.R. Kavitha, G. Shyamala, G. Iyappan, K.R. Kumar, Influence Of Fly Ash And Metakaolin On High Performance Concrete, Int. J. Sci. Technol. Res. 9 (02) (2020)
5582–5586.
[21] Abiola OS. 8 - natural fibre cement composites, Advanced High Strength Natural Fibre Composites in Construction, Elsevier Ltd, 2017, pp. 205–214, https://doi.
org/10.1016/B978-0-08-100411-1.00008-X [Internet] Available from:.
[22] H. Syed, R. Nerella, S.R.C. Madduru, Role of coconut coir fiber in concrete, Mater Today Proc 27 (xxxx) (2020) 1–7, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
matpr.2020.01.477 [Internet] Available from:.
[23] M. Oveas, G.D. Singh, An Experimental Investigation on Hair Fibre as Fibre Reinforcement in Concrete, Asian J. Curr. Eng. Maths 85 (2019) 1–8.
[24] A.A. Okeola, S.O. Abuodha, J. Mwero, Experimental investigation of the physical and mechanical properties of sisal fiber-reinforced concrete, Fibers 6 (2018)
2–16, https://doi.org/10.3390/fib603005. Available from:.
[25] R.S. Castoldi, L.M.S. Souza, F.A. Silva, Comparative study on the mechanical behavior and durability of polypropylene and sisal fiber reinforced concretes,
Constr. Build. Mater. 211 (2019) 617–628, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.03.282 [Internet] Available from:.
[26] S. Irem, D. Verma, in: L.M.T. Martínez (Ed.), Construction Materials Reinforced With Natural Products, ©Springer Nature, Switzerland AG, 2019, https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-3-319-68255-6_75. Handbook of Ecomaterials, 2017. Available from:.
[27] ASTM C150, Standard Specifications for Portland Cement, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, United States, 2012.
[28] ASTM C.494 494, Standard Specification for Chemical Admixtures for Concrete, Annual book of ASTM Standards, 2002.
[29] ACI committee 549 –Guide for the design, Construction, and Repair of Ferrocement, 1999, p. 3.
[30] ASTM C.305 305, Practice for Mechanical Mixing of Hydraulic Cement Pastes and Mortars of Plastic Consistency, Annual book of ASTM Standards, 1994.
[31] E.T. Dawood, M. Ramli, High strength characteristics of cement mortar reinforced with hybrid fibres, Constr. Build. Mater. 25 (5) (2011) 2240–2247 [Internet].

18
E.T. Dawood et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 15 (2021) e00566

[32] E.T. Dawood, T.W. Ghanim, The Utilization of High Performance Mortar For Repairing Damaged Concrete, M.Sc. Thesis, Technical college of Mosul, Northern
Technical University, 2017.
[33] ASTM C192, Standard Practice for Making and Curing Concrete Test Specimens in the Laboratory, Annual book of ASTM Standards, 2002.
[34] ASTM C. 1473, Standard Test Method for Flow of Hydraulic Cement Mortar, Annual book of ASTM Standards, 2002.
[35] ASTM C230, Standard Specification for Flow Table for Use in Tests of Hydraulic Cement, Annual book of ASTM Standards, 2003.
[36] ASTM C109, Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Hydraulic Cement Mortars (Using 2-in. or [50-mm] Cube Specimens), Annual book of ASTM
Standards, 2002.
[37] ASTM C496, Standard Test Method for Splitting Tensile Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens, Annual book of ASTM Standards, 2002.
[38] ASTM C.348 348, Standard Test Method for Flexural Strength of Hydraulic-Cement Mortars, Annual book of ASTM Standards, 2002.
[39] ASTM C1018, Standard Test Method for Flexural Toughness and First-Crack Strength of Fiber- Reinforced Concrete (Using Beam With Third-Point Loading),
Annual book of ASTM Standards, 1997.
[40] ASTM C.469 469, Standard Test Method for Static Modulus of Elasticity and Poisson’s Ratio of Concrete in Compression, Annual book of ASTM standards, 2002.
[41] ASTM C.597 597, Standard Test Method for Pulse Velocity Through Concrete, Annual book of ASTM standards, 2002.
[42] S.L. Fávaro, T.A. Ganzerli, A.G.V. de Carvalho Neto, O.R.R.F. da Silva ER, Chemical, morphological and mechanical analysis of sisal fiber-reinforced recycled
high-density polyethylene. eXPRESS, J. Polym. Sci. Polym. Lett. Ed. 4 (8) (2010) 465–473, https://doi.org/10.3144/expresspolymletthttps://10.3144/expr.
Available from:.
[43] Y. Li, Y.O. Shen, The use of sisal and henequen fibres as reinforcements in composites, Biofiber Reinforc. Com. Mater. (2015) 165–210, https://doi.org/
10.1533/9781782421276.2.165. Available from:.
[44] F.O. Okafor, The Structural Properties and Optimum Mix Proportions of Palmnut Fibre-Reinforced Mortar Composite, Elsevier, Cement Conc. Res. 26 (1996)
1045–1055.
[45] R. Fujiyama, F. Darwish, M.V. Pereira, Mechanical characterization of sisal reinforced cement mortar, Theor. Appl. Mech. Lett. 4 (2014) 1–5.
[46] F.D.A. Silva, R. Dias, T. Filho, J..De Almeida, M. Filho, E..De Moraes, R. Fairbairn, Physical and mechanical properties of durable sisal Fiber – cement
composites, Elsevier, Constr Build Mater. 24 (2010) 777–785.
[47] Kv Sabarish, Experimental investigation on strength and durability properties of sisal Fiber reinforced concrete, Inter. J. Chem. Sci. 14 (2016) 241–246.
[48] J.H. Savastano, P.G. Warden, R.S. Coutts, Potential of Alternative Fibre Cements as Building Materials for Developing Areas, Elsevier, Cem. Conc.Comp. 25
(2003) 585–592.
[49] A. Supraja, K. Akhilesh, Strength properties of sisal Fiber concrete with 30 % partial replacement of ground granulated blast furnace slag, Inter. J. Eng. Res.
Technol. (IJERT). 6 (2017) 417–426.
[50] F. Lv, J. Qian, D. Liu, Study on mechanical properties and mechanism of sisal Fiber cement mortar, Adv. Mat. Res. 1045 (2014) 111–114.
[51] J.C. Maso, Interfaces in cementitious composites, RILEM Proc (2005).
[52] K. Ghavami, P. Lima, Flexural Toughness Of Sisal And Coconut Fibre Reinforced Cement Mortar Composites, Nat. Poly. Comp. 4 (2002) 465–472.
[53] S.A. Yaseen, An experimental investigation into the mechanical properties of new natural Fiber reinforced mortar, Eng. Tech. J. 31 (2013) 1870–1881.
[54] K.H. Al Rawi, M.A.S. Al Khafagy, Effect of adding sisal Fiber and iraqi bauxite on some properties of concrete, J Tech. 24 (2011) 58–73.
[55] A. Bentur, S. Mindess, Fibre Reinforced Cementitious Composites, second ed., Taylor & Francis, 2007.
[56] T. Soetens, S. Matthys, Different methods to model the post-cracking behaviour of hooked-end steel fibre reinforced concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 73 (2014)
458–471, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.09.093. Available from:.
[57] K. Krizova, R. Hela, Evaluation of static Modulus of elasticity depending on concrete compressive strength, Int. J. Civ. Environ. Eng. 9 (2015) 654–657.
[58] T.H. Panzera, A.L. Christoforo, F.P. Cota, P.H.R. Borges, C.R. Bowen, Ultrasonic pulse velocity evaluation of cementitious materials, Adv. Comp. Mater. 10
(2011) 411–436.
[59] M.K. Howlader, M.H. Rashid, Z. Alam, Effect of Saline Water on the Flexural Performance Of Ferrocement Wall Panel, Inter. J. Adv. Struct. Geotech. Eng. 2
(2013) 95–100.
[60] T.J. Bessell, The interfacial bond strength of sisal-cement composites using a tensile test, J. Mater. Sci. Lett. 1 (1982) 244–246.
[61] ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, USA, 2011.
[62] W.N. Al-Rifaie, W.K. Ahmed, L.E. Ibraheem, Ferrocement in Eco-Housing System, Inter. J. Renew. Res. 4 (2014) 151–158.
[63] The Fundamentals of Assessing Technical and Economic Feasibility Studies in Iraq, Republic of Iraq, Ministry of Planning, 1984.

19