PSI - Issue 70

V. Preethi et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 70 (2025) 271–278

272

1. Introduction Concrete has been one of the most widely used construction materials over the past five decades. Over the past forty to fifty years, significant advancements have been made in concrete technology, allowing for the development of performance based concrete mixes specially tailored to particular applications using conventional raw materials. High-strength, ultra-high-strength and rapid hardening concretes are prime examples of such innovations, offering remarkable early-age strength (Thunuguntla et al., 2025). However, despite its versatility, traditional concrete faces several engineering limitations. These include low tensile strength, inherent brittleness, low shear strength, limited resistance to impact and fatigue. The presence of fibers helps bridge microcracks, redistribute stresses, and convert the brittle nature of concrete into a more ductile and resilient material. Addition of fibers enhances several mechanical characteristics of concrete, such as its split tensile, flexural and compressive strength, energy absorption capacity, and its ability to resist cracking after the initial fracture. The type, geometry, and material properties of the fiber must be sensibly selected to match the specific needs of the intended purpose. Commonly used fibers include glass, steel, basalt, synthetic, and natural variants. Among these, glass fibers stand out as an exceptional reinforcement material. They are characterized by a high modulus of elasticity, excellent tensile strength, low density, corrosion resistant and negligible water absorption. When alkali-resistant glass fibers (GF) are used in concrete, they significantly enhance the stiffness and strength of the traditional concrete. Due to their very small diameter, glass fibers achieve better dispersion throughout the concrete mix. Glass fiber reinforced concrete (GFRC), which is essentially ordinary concrete with addition of glass fibers, has been widely adopted in the construction sector over recent three to four decades. Khan and Ali (2016) analyzed and compared the mechanical performance of GFRC and natural fiber reinforced concrete for potential application in the construction of a bridge deck. Ayub et al. (2014) assessed the microstructure and mechanical behavior of high performance fiber-reinforced concrete with chopped glass fibers up to 3% volume fraction. Jiang et al. (2014) examined how fiber length and volume proportion impact the mechanical strength of GFRC. In the realm of materials engineering, researchers often develop numerous types of mathematical models to establish a relationship between the behavior of a composite material and its distinct components. In recent years, Response Surface Methodology (RSM) have emerged as a powerful alternative for predicting the mechanical properties of fiber reinforced concrete. Unlike traditional models that require explicit mathematical formulations, RSM is capable of identifying hidden relationships within complex datasets, producing reliable outputs even in scenarios where traditional methods do not offer a proper relationship. The structure of RSM is shown in Fig. 1(a). RSM excel at generalizing solutions for new, unseen cases, making them particularly well-suited for applications involving intricate or ambiguous data. Ofuyatan et al. (2022) investigated the use of RSM for predicting the behavior of self-compacting concrete where fly ash was used as a partial substitute for cement, successfully developing response surfaces for key performance metrics. Additionally, Belaadi et al., (2023) applied RSM techniques to estimate the compressive strength of in-situ concrete by correlating results from non-destructive testing methods such as the Rebound hammer and UPV tests. The primary objective of this research is to develop a RSM model to predict the compressive, split tensile, and flexural strengths of GFRC. This model is constructed using a comprehensive dataset compiled through an extensive review of existing literature. The flow chart of Design Expert Software is presented in Fig. 1(b).

Fig. 1 (a). Structure of RSM

Fig. 1(b). Flow chart of Design Expert Software