ACI JOURNAL TECHNICAL PAPER

Title no. 80-30

Durability of Some Glass Fiber Reinforced Cement Composites

by J_ Bijen

A number of glass fiber reinforced cement composites currently on pounds under moist conditions. This discovery has ini-
the market were investigated with regard to the alteration of mechan- tiated new research aimed at the elimination of this
ical properties over time. Among these were several so-called alkali-
resistant glass fibers (AR-GFRC) and a system consisting of £-glass
problem.
fibers with a polymer-modified cement matrix [Forton (P)GFRC]. In 1979 a polymer-modified glass fiber reinforced ce-
Properties such as strain at ultimate tensile stress, bending strength, ment system, developed in the laboratories of the
and impact strength were initially higher for the AR-GRFC than for Building Materials Division of the Dutch company
the (P)GFRC. However, the AR-GFRC system showed a consider- DSM, was commercialized under the name of Forton:
able decrease of these properties over time, resulting over the long
term in a lower level than for (P)GFRC. Various alkali-resistant glass
a polymer-modified glass fiber reinforced cement (P-
fiber reinforced cements showed a difference in the level of deterio- GFRC). s-w This cement composite contains E-glass fi-
ration. bers instead of AR-glass fibers and a thermoplastic
polymer in the form of water-dispersed particles (la-
Keywords: alkalies; cements; ductility; durability; glass fibers; impact strength; tex). This polymer emulsion is mixed with cement and
reinforcing materials; tensile properties. sand to form a mortar. It is claimed that when the glass
fiber bundles are mixed with this mortar, the glass fi-
ber filaments are surrounded by the polymer particles
Research significance
and thus are screened off and protected against the mi-
The research presented is believed to be the first pub-
gration of cement hydration products, as well as possi-
lished direct comparison of the durability of commer-
ble chemical attack. The Forton system was patented by
cially available GFRC systems.
DSM and is exclusively marketed by Forton B. V. and
BACKGROUND affiliated companies worldwide. Also in 1979, Pilking-
It was not until 1972, when the British company,
ton Brothers Ltd. introducted a second-generation AR-
Pilkington Brothers Ltd., introduced to the market a glass fiber, Cem-FIL 2. This glass fiber has an organic
glass fiber with a better alkaline resistance than previ- coating that contains chemical groups that interfere
with the accretion of calcareous compounds. 11 • 12
ously available, that the use of glass fiber reinforced
In the examination presented here, a comparison was
cement composites gained acceptance. Pilkington's AR-
made between the durability of Forton E-glass fiber (P-
glass fiber was patented by the British Research Estab-
GFRC and AR-GFRC using Cem-FIL 1, Cem-FIL 2,
lishment and marketed under the tradename Cem-FIL
and Minelon-L glass fibers). Although from a scientific
1. Subsequently, Japanese companies introduced simi-
viewpoint the phenomena occurring at and in the glass
lar glass fibers on the market.
Although it was demonstrated in numerous publica- fibers are interesting, and indirect durability testing, as
tions that these fibers have a better alkali-resistance 1•4 in the pullout test (SIC test) described in Reference 13
than A- and E-glass fibers, it has been shown that ten- may be useful, the performance of a product should b~
sile strength, flexural stren~th, deformation capacity, evaluated in terms of the properties of the composite
and impact resistance decrease in AR-glass fiber rein- itself. Therefore, the goal of the examination was to
determine the degree to which strength and deforma-
forced cement as a function of time. For example, the
literature reports a loss of bending strength from 35 to bility change with time under different climatological
40 MPa (5075 to 5800 psi) after one month to 15 to 19 conditions.
MPa (2175 to 2755 psi) after 10 years of exposure in the
British climate. 5
Received May 3, 1982~ and reviewed under Institute publication policies.
Research has established that this deterioration is at- Copynght © 1983: Amencan Concr_ete Institute. All rights reserved, including
tributable to gradual "filling-up" of the interfilament the makm~ of cop1es unless perm1ss1on IS obtained from the copyright propri-
etors. Pertment d1scuss1on will be published in the May-June 1984 ACI JouR-
spaces of the glass fiber bundles with calcareous com- NAL if received by Feb. I, 1984.

ACI JOURNAL I July-August 1983 305

J. Bijen is director of the Dutch building research and development institute
Table 1 - Composition of AR-GFRC and Forton
lntron. He is actively engaged in research on fiber reinforced cement and con- (P)GFRC
crete and many other composite materials.
AR glass GFRC Forton (P)GFRC

RESEARCH CONDITIONS Glass fiber content v/v,

percent by volume 5 5
Sample preparation Water-cement ratio 0.3 0.3
The AR-GFRC and (P)GFRC samples were pro- Sand-cement ratio 0.2 0.2
Polymer content v/v, percent 15
duced using the spray-up technique without dewater- Melment/cement m/m,
ing. This method and the method of sampling are con- percent by mass 0.04
Apparent density dry, kg/m' 1960 1750
sidered in detail in Reference 14. The glass fiber bun- (lb per yd') (3300) (2950)
dles had a length of 26 mm (1.02 in).
Table 2 - Glass chemical analysis m/m, percent
Composition by mass
The composition of the Forton (P)GFRC is given in AR-glass AR-glass AR-glass
Table 1; the cement used was portland cement B, de- Composition E glass Cem-FIL I Cem-FIL 2 Minelon-L
scribed in Dutch Standard NEN 3550. The chemical SiO. 53.8 59.4 60.0 62.6
composition of the glass fibers is shown in Table 2. The Fe,O, 0.3 - - 0.3
TiO, 0.2 0.1 0.1 -
AR-glass fibers were Cem-FIL 1 and Cem-FIL 2, pro- AI,O, 12.7 0.7 0.7 1.6
duced by PilkL1gton Brothers Ltd. The E-glass fibers ZrO. 0.1 18.0 18.0 14.1
caci 20.9 5.1 4.7 6.9
and the polymer emulsion were supplied by Forton MgO 0.4 - - 0.1
B.V. The sand used had a maximum diameter of 0.5 Na.O 1.4 14.9 14.2 12.1
mm, with a grain size distribution corresponding with
K.O 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.3
Lf,o, - - - -
the finest fraction of the sand described in Dutch Stan- B,O, 8.5 - - -

dards NEN 3550. The coefficient of variation in the Total 98.9 98.5 98.0 98.0
glass fiber percentage was 0.3 percent. LOI 1.0 1.5 1.2 1.1
To obtain a similar workability for the AR-GFRC as
the (P)GFRC at the same water-cement ratio, a super- testing machine, Type 1474. The clamp-to-clamp dis-
plasticizer at 4 percent by weight of the cement was tance was 130 mm (5.11 in.). Displacement was mea-
added. The superplasticizer was Melment L10, a 20 sured with a type 1400.651 strain meter (Zwick), of
percent m/m solution of a sulfonated melamine form- which the measurement points were 100 mm (3.94 in.)
aldehyde condensate. apart. The cross head speed was 0. 5 mm/min.
Behavior in flexure was determined on test speci-
Curing
mens of 150 x 50 x 8 mm (5.91 x 1.97 x 0.31 in.),
After production the AR-GFRC specimens were
subjected to four-point bending in accordance with
cured for 7 days at 20 C (68 F) and 95 percent relative
Reference 16. Half the specimens were loaded with the
humidity and for the next 21 days at 20 C (68 F) and 65
top face in tension and the other half with the bottom
percent relative humidity. The (P)GFRC was cured 28
face in tension. The cross head speed was 2 mm/min
days at 20 C (68 F) and 65 percent relative humidity, in
(0.08 in./min).
accordance with the requirements of Forton B. V.
Impact resistance was determined following the
On the basis of the results obtained over three years,
method described in ASTM D 256 (Charpy) with un-
no definitive conclusion can be drawn as to the long-
notched specimens. Dimensions of the specimens were
term behavior of the material. To gain more informa-
120 x 25 x 8 mm (4.72 x 0.98 x 0.31 in.). The span
tion on this point, an accelerated aging test program
length was 70 mm (2.76 in.).
was conducted on the various GFRC's under investiga-
Before testing all the specimens were ground on both
tion.
sides to obtain a smooth surface. Test results discussed
The test was developed by Pilkington. 13 •15 For GFRC
are the average for six samples.
with Cem-FIL 1 AR-glass fiber, this test was supposed
to provide some indication of the effects of aging of the
Results
material over longer periods of natural weathering,
Fig. 1 shows typical stress-strain curves for Cem-FIL
e.g., 30 years. In these tests, 28 day old specimens
I AR-GFRC and Forton (P)GFRC after 28 days (a) and
cured at 20 C (68 F) are submerged in water at 50 (122
after further aging of ten weeks at 50 C (122 F) (b). Fig.
F). The specimens are tested after 1, 4, 10, and 26
2 and 3 give comparative values for tensile and bending
weeks of submersion. The AR-GFRC composites in-
strength of composites aged submerged at 20 C (68 F)
corporating Cem-FIL 2 and Minelon-L fibers are only
water temperature and at 20 C (68 F) and 65 percent
considered in the accelerated aging tests because of their
relative humidity. Fig. 4 shows the results concerning
recent introduction to the market and their present ag-
impact strength.
ing periods at 20 C (68 F) are too short to draw conclu-
Results of the accelerated tests where the specimens
sions.
had been submerged in 50 C (122 F) water are shown in
Mechanical testing Fig. 5 through 10. Shown in these charts as a function
Tensile tests were performed on strips of 300 x 25 x of time under these aging conditions are the tensile
8 mm (11.8 x 0.98 x 0.31 in.) with a Zwick universal strength, strain at ultimate tensile strength, limit of

306 ACI JOURNAL I July-August 1983

 v; ~

,....-.-- i-oRTON P\F~ 2250 j I i'RECURI~ LIKE

/ 28 DAYS ~ 14 ..., FIG, JA.
I 20 c (68 F) 65:: R/1,
2CC0 __j , 10 WEEKS UNDER

I
I WATEl 50 c <122 Fl.
I CEM-FI L 1 AR-<FRC 12-1
I 7 DAYS 20'C (l)g'F) £5% Rf', 1750....., FoRTON (p)~fRC

I
I 21 DAYS 20'C (ffi'F) 65% RH,
~
'
I i
I
/
I ~lSOC -110~
I
I
I
-'
!21250 j ;
8--: I
I
I ::: !
I
I:sJJ- /
1
1CCO ~ 6~
; I
I
1- CEM-FIL l

758- 6-/ I 750~

i
I A.~-<FRC

~~ I I I

5'))-
25:-
I'
2-.-,//
~
500-

250.,
.
4-i

· z...;
I I
1
I
I

I
I
I

0 -1
10
---STRAIN ~Q/oo]

Fig. 1-Typica/ tensile stress-strain curve for Cem-FIL AR-GFRC and Forton
(P)GFRC after (a) 28 days curing at 20 C (68 F) and (b) the next 26 weeks under
water at 50 C (122 F)

~ ~ ri\lC~Rj_ffj~ i<i ~~
CUJ-FJL 1 ~P.-G."RC:7 DAYS 20 C (f>'l f) 95~ RH, f'Rl.CUR!lfl:_
21 DAYS 20 C (OIJ FJ G57, RH. WJ-FIL ] M-Q''lC: 7 DAYS 20 ( (68 f) %% RH,
f/JXJ ftHTW (PJGFRC: Zl Jl•\YS 70 C ((8 F) G5'; ~l. fiD 21 DAYS 20 C (68 Fl 654 RH
40 4D FORTON (PJffRC:23 DAYS 20 C (68 FJ 65% !1/i,
00 00
~
\1
~5UIJ ~SITU
\1 \1
!? 30 2 30
ill ill

1~ 14lD

mJ 20 filRTDN <PJGFRC ----- 51XXJ20

00 00
\1
~2000 ~2ITU
~ ~ FORTON (P)~ ___ _
FoRTON (~~- __ !1
\1 10 --- ---- 10
::: :::
11ITU CEI+FIL 1 M-{fR( 11ITU

0 0
12 24 36 424 12
- - - M)tflHS
- - - - rorm-ts

Fig. 2-Bending and tensile strength development as a Fig. 3-Bending and tensile strength development as a
function of time, curing under water at 20 C (68 F) function of time, curing at 20 C (68 F) and 65 percent
relative humidity
proportionality in tensile testing, Young's modulus de- slight decrease is observed. The tensile strength of the
duced from the tensile stress-strain curve, bending AR-GFRC decreases with time. Under conditions of
strength, and the impact strength. accelerated aging, this decline is found to proceed much
faster than for Forton (P)GFRC (Fig. 5). As a loga-
DISCUSSION rithmic function of time, the tensile strength (Fig. 5) of
Behavior under tensile loading Cem-FIL 2 decreases more or less the same as that of
The AR-GFRC and Forton (P)GFRC tested have al- Cem-FIL 1 AR-GFRC but on a higher level. A remark-
most the same tensile strength after curing for 28 days able difference observed under accelerated aging con-
(Fig. 2). When aged under conditions of 20 C (68 F), ditions is that Forton (P)GFRC does not show a signif-
the Forton (P)GFRC shows a slight increase in tensile icant change in properties after one week, while most
strength, while under accelerated aging conditions, a properties in the AR-GFRCs have not obtained a con-
ACI JOURNAL I July-August 1983 307
 -- - - 70 C H.S I l (.',: Ril. fFEC_URJ_IiG__;_
22 --- --- LU ( ((>') F) UIVlR I·J\TLR, FoRTON<P>GFRC:23 DAYS 20 c (ffi r> 6S% RH.
g;
M-GFRC:l DAYS 20 C <&3 F) 95~ Rli,
21 DAYS 20 c <63 F) 65% RH.
20
Cu-rFIL 1 M-GF~: 7 DAYS 20 C (ffi F) ~X ~
71 lli\YS 20 ( (h') F) 65: aJ, 1G
13 FoRTON (P)(ii-RC: 28 lli\YS 20 ( <l8 F) 6~~ ~1.
'"i
~
2000 14
,z:~
16
I

~ 12
~-1'\
~ 14
~
~
~
~ 1500
10
:
I
., •
l <P>GFRC

":1 I
I
'\
•
it 12
~ ~:~1
~ ~ ~I ' •

§I
0:1 ' .
10 1£1
1000

OL--L------t----~~--~--+---
0 10 26
04-----_J__________~----~~----~--~~ ---WEEKS
1 12 36 4S
- - PDITliS

Fig. 4-lmpact strength development as a function of Fig. 5-Tensi/e strength development under accelerated
time aging at 50 C (122 F) under water

f'R_~_CJ.!Bj_Nli:_ fB.LCV.'\1/!:i.:..
FoRTON <P>GFRC: 28 DAYS 20 C (ffi F> liS% RH. FORrorl <P>GFRC: 28 DAYS 20 C (ffi' F> 6S7. RH.
AR-GFRC: 7 DAYS 20 c (ffi Fl 95% PJJ, P.HIIlC: 7 DAYS 20 c (&:J F) 95~ RH,
21 DAYS 20 c (68 Fl 654 RH. 2i r>ws 20 C (li) F> tiS% RH.
1200

-
010
~
~
-...... ...............
~
I
8 I.
~ 1\
~
I
6
I
I \
~
~
._ \
5·~ 4 ~I' ' , \
~I
.
1-

z
§I
&'I
'", ,
~
I .
I
I
I
\ FoRlON <PlGFRC
I
I
I
0
0 1
AR--GFRC
----WEEKS

200
Fig. 6-Development strain at ultimate tensile stress
under accelerated aging at 50 C (122 F) under water
o- oL_~-------+------~----~--~----
0 10
---WEEKS

Fig. 7-Deve/opment of limit proportionality in tensile

testing under accelerated aging at 50 C (122 F) under
water
308 ACI JOURNAL I July-August 1983
 PHLCLii1mG.:. CL
<
V>
0. :E
FornoH (~)GI ::c: ?8 lJI,Ys /0 C ([,~ f) l•'>:; I<H.
60 E'Rill!Rlri!li
M-G~ RC: 7 ot,Ys 211 c <&J r> %~ ru1, FoRTON <PlGF~C_ 23 DAYS 20 c (68 f) o5% RH.
71 DAYS ZO ( ((J f) (bk Rll, A,q-Gr!K: 7 DAYS 20 c (63 f) ryj~ RH,
50 I 21 DAYS 20 C (fi) f) 65~ RH,
W!-F I L I N:-l>FRC I
I
I
32
40
~
1'-..

4lD 28 ~
+=..:.-::,.
''
3 30 : ""-.
i3
~
24 :
I
"':.,,
•
I
~:
V>
-!:!
~
300J
20
I
I
I
I
20 a: (EM-FILl

I
::! I .4R-GFRC
I "-I
I l
I I 11! NELON P.R-GFRC
lo I 1500 10 I
I I
!!!I l
2000 -I I
"'I l
12 §I FORmN lPlGFf( l
&I
I 0 0 -'---'-----+---~--+---1--
~------ 10 26
I ---WEEKS
I
1000 I
I
I Fig. 9-Bending strength development under acceler-
I ated aging at 50 C (122 F) under water
I
I
I
I
I
I
ID 26 ~
0
---WEEKS 15 !\ FoRmN <PlGFRC: Zl DAYS 20 C lf8 Fl 65% RH.
\\\ /\Hflle: 7 DAYS 20 c <6.~ Fl 9){; RH,
Fig. 8-Tensile Young's modulus development under \ 2J DAYS 2fl ( ((3 f) 65! ~!.
accelerated aging at 50 C (122 F) under water \
\
\
stant level even after 26 weeks of accelerated aging (Fig.
\
5 through 10). \
At 28 days, the deformation capacity (Fig. 6) of the \ Ce-1-m 2 A.R-GFRC
\
AR-GFRC is about twice as high as that of Forton \ \
- CEM\< 1L AR-GCRC
(P)GFRC. However, under conditions of accelerated \ \
aging, the deformation capacity of the AR-GFRC de-
clines faster than that of Forton (P)GFRC. The ulti- .l_
!!! 11INELON
mate level of the Forton (P)GFRC is higher. Thus, af-
~WI AR-GCRC
ter 26 weeks in accelerated aging the deformation ca- &I
pacity of the Forton (P)GFRC is about five times
higher than that of AR-GFRC. For Forton (P)GFRC,
~ ........ _.... '·
: ...............
the deformation capacity declines from 5 to 2.3°/ oo• that
of AR-GFRC from 9 to 0.4°/00' This decline is more I FORTON (PlGFRC
rapid for the Minelon AR-GFRC than for the Cem-FIL
1 or Cem-FIL 2, which shows a relatively small de- 1 10 26
crease in the first week. The difference in the deforma- ---WEEKS

tion capacity after 28 days is attributable to the differ-

ence in the degree of fiber pullout and a consequent Fig. 10-Impact strength development under acceler-
ated aging at 50 C (122 F) under water
loss in pseudoductility of the composite. 18 • 19
The limit of proportionality (Fig. 7) does not show that of the Forton (P)GFRC; polymer in the matrix of
any coherent behavior for the AR-GFRCs nor for the the latter reduces the modulus, as is expected with
Forton (P)GFRC. The drop observed for Minelon AR- polymer-modified mortars. 17
GFRC can indicate a destructive effect of accelerated Both the decrease in deformation capacity as well as
aging to the composite. Young's modulus (Fig. 8) also in impact strength are due to an increase in the bond
increases over time for all GFRCs but only to a limited between fibers and matrix. 19 The better bond is the re-
extent for (P)GFRC. The increase in the Young's mod- sult of the filling up of the space around and between
ulus will be due to both an increase of modulus of the the filaments of the fiber bundle with mainly calcar-
matrix as well as an improvement in the fiber-matrix eous compounds. Apparently this phenomenon occurs
bond. The modulus of the AR-GFRCs is higher than to a lesser degree for (P)GFRC than for AR-GFRC.
ACI JOURNAL I July-August 1983 309
Bending strength with the exception of impact strength.
The relative bending strength development of the In the accelerated aging tests, it appears that Mine-
GFRCs investigated (Fig. 2 and 9) indicates the logical lon-L AR-GFRC deteriorates faster than Cem-FIL 1.
consequences of the tensile stress-strain behavior, as The rate of decrease in the properties of Cem-FIL 1
previously discussed. 18 Initially, the AR-GFRCs have a does not differ very much from that of Cem-FIL 2;
higher bending strength than the Forton (P)GFRC; this however, the resulting levels are lower for Cem-FIL 1.
is due to their greater strain capacity. Under dry aging After 26 weeks of accelerated aging tensile strength,
conditions at 20 C (68 F) and 65 percent relative hu- strain at ultimate tensile stress, bending strength, and
midity, the bending strength of the AR-GFRC exam- impact strength of all AR-GFRCs have dropped below
ined (Cem-FIL 1) even increases during the first those of Forton (P)GFRC. The impact resistance tests
months. show that all the GFRCs examined become brittle in the
Over time, the bending strength of AR-GFRC de- long term.
clines more than that of Forton (P)GFRC. In the end,
the bending strength of the AR-GFRC is lower than
REFERENCES
that of the Forton (P)GFRC. The rate of decline de- I. Majumdar, A. J., and Nurse, R. W., "Glass Fiber Reinforced
pends on the curing conditions. For Cem-FIL 1, the Cement," Materials Science and Engineering (Lausanne), No. 15,
break-even point is reached after approximately 1 year 1974, pp. 107-127.
at 20C (68 F) and 65 percent relative humidity, and 2. Das, C. R., "Chemical Durability of Sodium Silicate Glasses
Containing Al,O, and ZrO,," Journal, American Ceramic Society, V.
submerged under water of 20 C (68 F) for half a year. 64, No.4, Apr. 1981, pp. 188-193.
For Forton (P)GFRC, the bending strength does not 3. Chakraborty, L. J.; Das, D.; Basu, S.; and Paul, A., "Corro-
decrease further after 1 year at 20 C (69 F) in either ag- sion Behavior of a ZrO,-Containing Glass in Aqueous Acid and Al-
ing environments. kaline Media and in a Hydrating Cement Paste," International Jour-
nal of Cement Composites (Harlow, Essex}, V. I, No. 3, 1979, pp.
103·109.
Impact resistance 4. Lamer, L. J.; Speakman, K.; and Majumdar, A. 1., "Chemical
Interaction Between Glass Fiber and Cement," Journal of Non-
After initial curjng for 28 days, it appears the impact
Crystalline Solids (Amsterdam}, No. 20, 1976, pp. 43-74.
resistance of the AR-GFRCs is about three to four 5. "Properties of GFRC: Ten-Year Results," Information Paper
times higher than that of the Forton (P)GFRC (Fig. No. IP 36/79, Building Research Establishment, Garston, Watford,
10). The impact resistance of the AR-GFRC declines Nov. 1979, 4 pp.
rapidly, however, even after aging under 20 C (68 F) 6. Stucke, M.S., and Majumdar, A. J., "Microstructure of Glass
Fibre Reinforced Cement Composites," Journal of Materials Science
water for 3 years, Cem-FIL 1 GFRC has a higher im-
(London), No. II, 1976, pp. 1019-1030.
pact resistance than Forton (P)GFRC. Both materials 7. Mills, R. H., "Preferential Precipitation of Calcium Hydroxide
have become relatively brittle by then. In the 50 C (122 on Alkali Resistant Glass Fibers," Cement and Concrete Research, V.
F) accelerated aging test, the impact resistance of Cem- II, No. 5/6, Sept./Nov. 1981, pp. 689-697.
FIL 1 and Minelon-L AR-GFRC drops below that of 8. Bijen, J ., "E-Glass Fibre Reinforced Polymer Modified Ce-
ment," Proceedings, International Congress on Glass Fibre Rein-
Forton (P)GFRC after 10 weeks. Cem-FIL 2 reaches
forced Cement (London, Oct. 1979}, Glass Fibre Reinforced Cement
the level of Forton (P)GFRC after about 26 weeks. Association, Bucks, 1980, pp. 62-67.
The impact resistance development is similar to the 9. Bijen, 1., "Glass Fiber Reinforced Cement, Improvements by
development of the deformation capacity or, even Polymer Addition," Proceedings, Symposium L, Advances in Ce-
more, to that of the energy of failure, although the lat- ment-Matrix Composites (Boston, Nov. 1980), Materials Research
ter shows a smaller decrease. However, some prudence Society, University Park, 1980, pp. 239-249.
10. Bijen, 1., and Jacobs, M., "Properties of Glass Fibre Rein-
is required when translating the energy of failure into forced Polymer Modified Cement," Journal of Materials and Struc-
impact resistance, because one is a static load value tures, V. 15, No. 89, Sept.-Oct. 1981, pp. 445-452.
while the other is more a dynamic load value. II. Dutch Patent Application 7515240, Pilking Brothers Limited,
Dec. 1975.
12. Dutch Patent Application 7608114, Pilkington Brothers Lim-
CONCLUSIONS ited, July 1976.
The AR-GFRC composites investigated produced 13. Litherland, K. L.; Oakley, D. R.; and Proctor, B. A., "The
Use of Accelerated Aging Procedures to Predict the Long Term
with Cem-FIL 1, Cem-FIL 2, and Minelon-L fibers Strength of GRC Composites," Proceedings, Symposium L., Ad-
have essentially the same tensile strength as Forton vances in Cement-Matrix Composites (Boston, Nov. 1980}, Materials
(P)GFRC after curing for 28 days. However, at 28 days Research Society, University Park, 1980, pp. 61-74.
the deformation capacity and impact resistance of the 14. "Recommended Practice for Glass Fiber Reinforced Concrete
AR-GFRCs are considerably higher. As a result, the Panels," Journal, Prestressed Concrete Institute, V. 26, No. I, Jan.-
Feb. 1981, pp. 25-93.
early bending strength is also higher. 15. Proctor, B. A., "Properties and Performance of GRC," Fi-
Over time these properties decline to a greater extent brous Concrete, Ci80, The Construction Press, Lancaster, 1980, pp.
for AR-GFRC than ·for Forton (P)GFRC. The tensile 69-86.
strength of Forton (P)GFRC does not decline at all 16. Singh, B.; Walton, P. L.; and Stucke, M. S., "Test Methods
when aged under 20C (68 F) conditions. After a period Used to Measure the Mechanical Properties of Fiber Cement Com-
posites at the Building Research Establishment," Proceedings, RI-
of between 6 and 12 months, depending on the aging LEM Symposium on Testing and Test Methods of Fiber Cement
conditions, Cem-FIL 1 performs more poorly than Composites (Sheffield, 1978}, The Construction Press, Lancaster,
Forton (P)GFRC in all the mechanical tests conducted 1978, pp. 377-387.

310 ACI JOURNAL I July-August 1983

 17. Dingley, R. B., "The Structure and Properties of Hydraulic ites (Sheffield, 1978), The Construction Press, Lancaster, 1978, pp.
Cement Pastes Modified by Polymer Latex," Thesis, Department of 429-438.
Mechanical Engineering, University of Southampton, Apr. 1974. 19. Bartos, P., "Review Paper: Bond in Fiber Reinforced Cements
18. Laws, V., and Walton, P.L., "The Tensile Bending Relation- and Concretes," International Journal of Cement Composites and
ship for Fiber Reinforced Brittle Matrices," Proceedings, RILEM Lightweight Concrete (Harlow, Essex), V. 3, No.3, Aug. 1981, pp.
Symposium on Testing and Test Methods of Fiber Cement Compos- 159-178.

ACI JOURNAL I July-August 1983 311