20320140502015

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print),

ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 5, Issue 2, February (2014), pp. 146-157 © IAEME

146

INFLUENCE OF THERMAL DISTRESS ON STRENGTH OF LAMINATED

CEMENT COMPOSITES

Md. Zakaria Hossain

(Associate Professor, Department of Environmental Science and Technology, Graduate School of

Bioresources, Mie University, 1577 Kurima Machiya-cho, Tsu city, Mie 514-8507, Japan

ABSTRACT

Thermal distress such as variation of temperature that occurred regularly due to the day-night

cycles may cause the reduction of service life of building materials made of laminated cement

composites. Influence of thermal distress on flexural ultimate strength of laminated cement

composites has been investigated experimentally. Five types of composite panels containing

reinforcement layers of one, two, three, four and five have been constructed and tested. Five stages

of thermal distresses such as zero cycles (28 days curing), 30 cycles, 60 cycles, 90 cycles and 120

cycles have been applied on the specimens. Each cycle consisted of 48 hours duration having 24

hours in oven of 110oC and 24 hours in room temperature of 15

oC. For comparison, control

specimens without thermal distress having same cycles of thermal distress consisted of 24 hours

water curing and 24 hours 15oC room temperature have been demonstrated. Test results revealed that

the flexural ultimate strength of the laminated cement composites increased with the increase in

cycles for all the specimens. It was observed that the thermal distress altered the behavior of

laminated cement composites and lead to strength increment as compared to control specimens.

Results obtained are encouraging especially for the manufacture of building components with

laminated cement composites where fluctuation of temperatures occurs.

Keywords: Laminated Composites, Ultimate Strength, Thermal Distress, Flexural Behavior

I. INTRODUCTION

Laminated cement composites offer a variety of advantages over traditional construction

materials such as it has improved dimensional stability, moisture resistance, decay resistance and fire

resistance when compared to wood; has enabled faster, lower cost, lightweight construction when

compared to masonry; has improved toughness, ductility, flexural capacity and crack resistance when

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

AND TECHNOLOGY (IJCIET)

ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print)

ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online)

Volume 5, Issue 2, February (2014), pp. 146-157

© IAEME: www.iaeme.com/ijciet.asp

Journal Impact Factor (2014): 3.7120 (Calculated by GISI)

www.jifactor.com

IJCIET

©IAEME



147

compared to cement-based materials without fibers or reinforcement [1]-[5]. Thermal distress such

as variation of temperature that occurred regularly due to the day-night cycles may cause the

reduction of service life of the composite structures [6]-[9]. It is necessary to investigate the behavior

of such kind of composites for its effective design and construction [10]-[15]. Flexural load-

deflection behavior as well as flexural ultimate strength plays a vital role on structures during

construction and on service after the construction [16]-[20]. It should be pointed out here that in spite

of the volume of information available, little or no research work is reported in the literature on the

effect of heating cycles on the flexural ultimate strength of laminated composite materials [20]-[27].

The objectives of the present study are as follows: 1) to study the influence of thermal distress of

laminated cement composite under elevated temperature, 2) to compare the flexural ultimate strength

of laminated cement composites treated under thermal distress and normal conditions. In view of the

above objectives, an experimental investigation was carried out for two groups of specimens called

as control and thermal distress. Thermal distress used in this investigation was applied in five stages

heating period separated by varying number of heating cycles. Each heating cycle was 48hours in

which 24 hours in oven of 110oC and 24 hour in room temperature of 15

oC. On the other hand,

another group of specimens (control specimens in water curing) were prepared and investigated

having same cycles of thermal distress in order to verify the results between the heating and non-

heating specimens. Basic curing for 28 days in water is considered as zero cycle. After that the

heating and non-heating cycles were demonstrated.

Each group of specimens consisted of five stages of number of cycles such as zero cycles (28

days curing), 30 cycles, 60 cycles, 90 cycles and 120 cycles. The layers of the laminated composite

were varying as one-layer, two-layers, three-layers, four-layers and five-layers. This provided the

reinforcement ratio as 0.375%, 0.75%, 1.13%, 1.5% and 1.88% for the laminated composites

containing layer of one to five respectively.

II. EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM

The details of the experimental program are given in Table 1 and Table 2. The tests were

carried out on two identical specimens for each group with heating and curing cycles. For better

comparison, another two identical specimens with same cycles in natural drying and curing were also

used without heating. Therefore, four specimens were used in a batch. For the heating group, each

cycle was 48 hours duration consisting of 24 hours of heating in oven with constant temperature of

1100C and 24 hours of wetting in fresh water. On the other hand, for another group (here called as

the air drying in room temperature), each cycle was 48 hours duration consisting of 24 hours of air-

drying in room temperature of 150C and 24 hours of wetting in fresh water. A total of 100 specimens

were prepared, 50 specimens for heating and curing cycles and another 50 specimens for natural air-

drying and curing cycles. The number of reinforcements layers, chosen for this investigation were 1,

2, 3, 4 and 5; whereas the thickness of the test panels was kept constant as 30 mm for all the

specimens to investigates the influence of the effective reinforcement on the flexural ultimate

strength of the laminated composites.



148

TABLE I

CONTROL – NON-HEATING GROUP EACH CYCLE CONSISTS OF 48 HOURS DURATION HAVING 24

HOURS IN WATER CURING AND 24 HOUR IN ROOM TEMPERATURE OF 150C (C MEANS CONTROL

SPECIMENS)

Non-heating

Cyclesa

One-

layer

Two-

layers

Three-

layers

Four-

layers

Five-

layers

C0-cycle Two

panels

Two

panels

Two

panels

Two

panels

Two

panels

C30-cycles Two

panels

Two

panels

Two

panels

Two

panels

Two

panels

C60-cycles Two

panels

Two

panels

Two

panels

Two

panels

Two

panels

C90-cycles Two

panels

Two

panels

Two

panels

Two

panels

Two

panels

C120-cycles Two

panels

Two

panels

Two

panels

Two

panels

Two

panels

aC0-cycle = 28-days water curing + 2 days room drying, C30-cycles = 28-days curing + 2 days drying

+ 30-days water curing, C60-cycles = 28-days curing + 2 days drying + 60-days water curing, C90-

cycles = 28-days curing + 2 days drying + 90-days water curing, C120-cycles = 28-days curing + 2

days drying + 120- days water curing

TABLE II THERMAL DISTRESS- HEATING GROUP EACH CYCLE CONSISTS OF 48 HOURS DURATION HAVING 24

HOURS IN OVEN OF 1100C AND 24 HOUR IN ROOM TEMPERATURE OF 15

0C (H MEANS HEATING)

Heating

Cyclesb

One-

layer

Two-

layers

Three-

layers

Four-

layers Five- layers

H0-cycle Two

panels

Two

panels

Two

panels

Two

panels

Two

panels

H30-cycles Two

panels

Two

panels

Two

panels

Two

panels

Two

panels

H60-cycles Two

panels

Two

panels

Two

panels

Two

panels

Two

panels

H90-cycles Two

panels

Two

panels

Two

panels

Two

panels

Two

panels

H120-cycles Two

panels

Two

panels

Two

panels

Two

panels

Two

panels

bH0-cycle = 28-days water curing + 2 days room drying, H30-cycles = 28-days curing + 2 days

drying + 30-days heating, H60-cycles = 28-days curing + 2 days drying + 60-days heating, H90-

cycles = 28-days curing + 2 days drying + 90-days heating, H120-cycles = 28-days curing + 2 days

drying + 120- days heating



149

III. MATERIALS AND METHODS

A. Layer Properties

The layers of the laminated cement composite were made using the fine wire mesh as shown in

Fig. 1. The properties of the reinforcement obtained through the experiments are given in Table 3.

Fig. 1: Reinforcement used for making layer in laminated composite

TABLE III PROPERTIES OF REINFORCEMENT USED IN LAMINATION

Properties Values

Diameter (mm) 1.00

C/c spacing (mm) 10.00

Young's modulus (kN/mm2) 138.00

Poison's ratio 0.28

B. Mortar and Mix proportions Layer Properties Ordinary Portland cement and river sand with maximum size of 2.38 mm was used. The

fineness modulus of the sand was found to be 2.33. The water to cement ratio and cement to sand

ratio were kept as 0.5 by weight for all the mixes. In each casting, two elements of plain mortar of

size 100×200 mm with thickness of 30 mm and three cylinders of diameter 100 mm and length 120

mm were also cast and tested to find out the compressive strength, modulus of elasticity and

Poisson's ratio of the mortar. The details of the mortar properties obtained in the laboratory

experiments are given in Table 4.

TABLE IV PROPERTIES OF MORTAR USED IN LAMINATION

Properties Values

Compressive strength (N/mm2) 27.84

Young's modulus (kN/mm2) 15.47

Poison's ratio 0.19

IV. CASTING OF TEST PANELS

The test panels were cast in wooden moulds with open tops as shown in Fig.2. Each of the four

sidewalls and the base of the mould were detachable to facilitate the demoulding process after its

initial setting. At first, the mortar layer of 2 mm thickness was spread in the wooden mould and on



150

this base layer the first mesh was laid. Another layer of mortar then covered the mesh layer, and the

process was repeated until the specimen contains the desired number of mesh layers. Thus, the mesh

layers, leaving a cover of 2 mm at the top and bottom surfaces, equally divided the thickness of 30

mm. The specimens were air-dried for 24 hours for initial setting and then immersed in water for

curing. The specimens were removed from water after 28 days and were air-dried for 48 hours in

room temperature of about 150C and relative humidity of about 40%. The 28 days curing period with

48 hours room drying is common for all the specimens which is considered as the zero cycle. The

actual cycles of thawing/wetting and drying/wetting were started after this basic period.

Fig. 2: Cast of laminated cement composite

V. TESTING OF PANELS

Panels were tested under one-way flexure with their two edges simply supported over a span of

360 mm. The distance between the two loading points is 120 mm with moment arms of 120 mm at

both sides of the loading points. The tests were performed with a loading speed of 1mm per minute

and the readings were taken at an interval of 0.1 kN. At various stages of loading, the deflections

were measured with the mechanical dial gauges having a least count of 0.01 mm at the mid-section

of the element. A proving ring of 50 kN capacity was used for accurate measurement of the applied

loads. Before testing, all the elements were painted white for clearly observation of the cracking

patterns. In general, most of the elements produced initial cracks (visible to the naked eye) without

any cracking noise. The crack patterns of some tested elements in flexure are shown in Fig.3 and

Fig.4.

Fig. 3: Cracking patterns of composites under normal curing (control) (W means water)



151

Fig. 4: Cracking patterns of composites under thermal distress (H means heating)

VI. CALCULATION OF LAYER REINFORCEMENT

The layer reinforcement of the cement composite defined as the ratio of the area of

reinforcement to the total area of specimen in the same direction. The percent effective

reinforcement Rr for cement composite element in any direction can be written as

tD

NAR

L

r

100= (1)

where, A is the area of reinforcement strands in square centimeters, NL is the number of layers, t is

the thickness of the cement composite in centimeters and D is the center to center distance of mesh

wires in centimeters. The numerical value 100 has mainly appeared due to conversion of effective

reinforcement in percent. By using the above equation, the effective reinforcement of laminated

cement composites containing one, two, three, four and five layers are calculated as 0.375%, 0.75%,

1.25%, 1.5% and 1.875%, respectively.

VII. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The flexural ultimate strength of control specimens and thermal distress are given in Table 5

and Table 6 respectively. It is observed that the flexural ultimate strength of laminated cement

composites are increased with the increase in number of layers of reinforcement as well as the

number of cycles for both non-heating and heating conditions.

TABLE VI FLEXURAL ULTIMATE STRENGTH OF CONTROL SPECIMENS

Lc

0

Cycle

30

Cycles

60

Cycles

90

Cycles

120

Cycles

L1 10.30 10.25 11.09 10.60 12.30

L1 10.70 11.15 10.87 13.00 12.70

L2 10.01 10.30 10.78 11.40 12.09

L2 11.70 11.54 11.32 12.30 13.13

L3 10.90 9.87 13.20 12.01 12.80

L3 11.04 12.11 9.82 11.93 12.70

L4 11.30 11.00 10.23 12.05 12.40

L4 11.50 12.26 13.35 12.51 13.44

L5 13.06 13.00 13.11 13.80 12.70

L5 11.64 11.86 11.83 11.24 13.26

Lc = Layer, Values are in N/mm

2



152

TABLE VII

FLEXURAL ULTIMATE STRENGTH OF SPECIMENS UNDER THERMAL DISTRESS

Lc

(0

Cycle)

30

Cycles

60

Cycles

90

Cycles

120

Cycles

L1 8.90 12.02 13.40 14.20 17.40

L1 12.10 11.18 11.80 14.00 15.00

L2 10.30 10.09 13.60 13.90 17.80

L2 11.60 13.85 12.06 15.14 15.32

L3 10.23 11.56 12.80 14.62 17.01

L3 12.37 17.72 13.24 15.36 16.95

L4 12.41 13.09 12.30 15.76 16.50

L4 11.35 13.01 15.36 14.92 17.88

L5 13.06 12.50 15.07 16.80 16.09

L5 11.64 15.06 13.09 15.14 19.87

Lc = Layer, Values are in N/mm

2

For clear perception, the average values of flexural ultimate strength are plotted in Fig.5 and

Fig.6 for laminated cement composites of control specimens and thermal distress, respectively.

Figures 5 and 6 indicated that the average values of flexural ultimate strength are higher for

specimens under thermal distress than that of control specimens. This is obvious due to the maturity

of mortar matrix with the increase in number of cycles for both control and thermal distress. It is

interesting to note that increase in ultimate strength is uniform for specimens under thermal distress

whereas it is little more for control specimens at reinforcement 1.875%.

Fig. 5: Ultimate strength vs. laminate reinforcement for control specimens

Fig. 6: Ultimate strength vs. laminate reinforcement for thermal distress

8.0

9.0

10.0

11.0

12.0

13.0

14.0

0.000 0.375 0.750 1.125 1.500 1.875 2.250

Rr(%)

σu

(M

Pa)

0 cycle 30 cycles

60 cycles 90 cycles

120 cycles

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

20.0

0.000 0.375 0.750 1.125 1.500 1.875 2.250

Rr(%)

σu (

MP

a)

0 cycle 30 cycles60 cycles 90 cycles120 cycles



153

In order to find out the difference of the strength increment between the control and thermal

distress, the increment in ultimate strength with the number of cycles for both the control and

thermal distress are shown in Figs.7-11 for layer reinforcement of 0.375%, 0.75%, 1.125%, 1.50%

and 1.875% respectively.

Fig. 7: Relationships of strength increment and number of cycles for 0.375% layer reinforcement



The relationships of strength increment with the variation of lumber of layers and number of

cycles for depicted in Figs.7-11 showed a significant increment in strength for thermal distress as

compared to control specimens. Both the curves for control and thermal distress are smooth nature

with the increase in number of cycle for layer reinforcement of 0.375%, 1.125% and 1.50%. In case

0.75% and 1.875% layer reinforcement, a slight fluctuation is observed at 60 cycles. However, this is

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

0 30 60 90 120 150

Number of thermal cycle (N)

Incre

am

en

t in

σu (

MP

a)

Control

Thermal distress

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

0 30 60 90 120 150


Incre

amen

t in

σu

(M

Pa)

Control

Thermal distress

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

0 30 60 90 120 150


Incre

ament

in σ

u (

MP

a)

Control

Thermal distress



154

not significant and thermal distress did not show any loss of composite action due to thawing effect.

It should be noted that the composite action remained increase at the higher reinforcement under

thermal distress.



To be more clarified, the rate of increment in ultimate strength with the increase in thermal

distress is plotted in Fig.12. As it can be observed, the rate of increment of ultimate strength is more

for higher percentage of layer reinforcement. This clearly indicated that the bond of composite

between the reinforcement and mortar increased with the increase in layer reinforcement and number

of cycles. As discussed earlier, this may be owing to the strength-gained by the mortar component

with the increase in cycles.

Fig. 12: Rate of strength increment vs. number of cycles for different layer reinforcement

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

0 30 60 90 120 150


Incre

am

en

t in

σu (

MP

a)

Control

Thermal distress

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

0 30 60 90 120 150


Incre

am

ent

in σ

u (M

Pa) Control

Thermal distress

y = 0.0287x

y = 0.0316x

y = 0.0341x

y = 0.0353x

y = 0.0384x

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

0 30 60 90 120 150


Rate

of in

cre

am

ent in

σu (M

Pa)

0.375(%)

0.75(%)

1.13(%)

1.5(%)

1.875(%)



155

For the sake of convenient design of structures, the percentage rate of increment in ultimate

strength i.e. angle of slope of the rate of increment curve in percent for the laminated cement

composites with the increase in percentage of reinforcement are depicted in Fig.13. From this figure,

it is found that the percentage rate of increment in ultimate strength increased with the increase in the

reinforcement percentage. A close inspection of the results given in Fig.13 indicated that slight

variation is found at 1.5%, however, it again resumed increasing pattern at 1.87% reinforcement.

This discrepancy is mainly appeared owing to the bonding phenomena between the mesh and mortar.

Fig. 13: Percentage rate of strength increment vs. layer reinforcement (Ir=Increment)

VIII. CONCLUSIONS

1. Thermal distress did not show any negative impact on the ultimate strength of laminated

cement composite reinforcement with fine wire mesh.

2. In general, the flexural ultimate strength of the laminated cement composites increased with

the increase in cycles for all the specimens.

3. It was observed that the thermal distress altered the behavior of laminated cement composites

and lead to strength increment as compared to control specimens.

4. The rate of increment in ultimate strength is about 3.4 MPa for composite of 0.375% layer

reinforcement and about 5.0 MPa for composite of 1.875% layer reinforcement when the

number of cycles increased from zero cycle (28days curing plus 2 days room drying) to 120

cycles.

5. The percentage rate of strength increment can be noted as 2.8% to 3.4% when the number of

layers of reinforcement increased from one layer to five layers.

XIX. ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The research reported in this paper is partly supported by the Research Grant No. 22580271

with funds from Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research, Japan. The writer gratefully acknowledges

these supports. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in this paper are those of the

authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the sponsor.

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00

Rr(%)

Pe

rcen

t ra

te o

f in

cre

am

en

t in

σu

(%

)

Ir(%)



156

XX. REFERENCES

[1] Abdullah and M.A. Mansur, “Effect of Mesh Orientation on Tensile Response of

Ferrocement,” J. of Ferrocement, Vol. 31, no.4, pp.289-298, 2001.

[2] ACI 544.1R, State-of-the-Art Report on Fiber Reinforced Concrete, American Concrete

Institute, Detroit, Michigan, 1996.

[3] ACI Committee 549, Guide for Design, Construction, and Repair of Ferrocement, ACI

Structural J., Vol. 85, no.1, pp. 325-351, 1998.

[4] L.R. Austriaco, “Evolution of Ferrocement,” J. of Ferrocement, Vol. 31, no.4, pp.281-288,

2001.

[5] P.N. Balaguru and S.P. Shah, Fiber Reinforced Cement Composites, McGraw Hill, New

York, 1992.

[6] A. Bentur and S. Mindess, “Effect of Drying and Wetting Cycles on Length and Strength

Changes of Wood Fiber Reinforced Cement,” Durability of Building Materials, Vol. 2,

pp.37-43, 1993.

[7] M.K. El Debs and A.E. Naaman, “Bending Behavior of Ferrocement Reinforced With Steel

Meshes and Polymeric Fibres,” J. of Cement and Concrete Composites, Vol.17, no.4, pp.

327-328, 1995.

[8] K. Ghavami, R.D.T. Filho, and N.P. Barbosa, “Behavior of Composite Soil Reinforced with

Natural Fibers, J. of Cement and Concrete Composites, Vol.21, no.1, pp.39-48, 1999.

[9] M.Z. Hossain and A.S.M.A Awal, “A Study on Flexural Modulus, Ductility and Field

Applications of Laminated Cementitious Composites,” Malaysian J. of Civil Engineering,

Vol.22, no2, pp.32-43, 2010.

[10] M.Z. Hossain and A.S.M.A Awal, “Experimental Validation of A Theoretical Model For

Flexural Modulus of Elasticity of Thin Cement Composite,” J. of Construction & Building

Materials, Vol.25, no.3, pp.1460-1465, 2011.

[11] M.Z. Hossain and A.S.M.A Awal, “Flexural Response of Hybrid Carbon Fiber Thin Cement

Composites,” Vol.25, no.2, pp.670-677, 2010.

[12] M.Z. Hossain and T. Hasegawa, “A Study on Pre- and Post-Cracking Behavior of

Ferrocement Plates,” J. of Ferrocement, Vol.27, no.2, pp.127-143, 1997.

[13] M.Z. Hossain and T. Hasegawa, “A Comparison of the Mechanical Properties of Ferrocement

in Flexure for Square and Hexagonal Meshes,” J. of Ferrocement, Vol.28, no.2, pp.111-134,

1998.

[14] M.Z. Hossain and and S. Inoue, “Finite Element Analysis of Thin Panels Reinforced With a

Square Mesh,” J. of Ferrocement, Vol.32, no.2, pp.109-125, 2002.

[15] M.Z. Hossain and and S. Inoue, “A Comparison of the Mechanical Properties of Ferrocement

Elements Under Compression for Square and Chicken Meshes,” J. of Ferrocement, Vol. 30.

no.4, pp.319-343, 2000.

[16] M.Z. Hossain and and S. Inoue, “Compression Behavior and Buckling Analysis of

Ferrocement Elements Using the Finite Element Method,” J. of Ferrocement, Vol.30, no.2,

pp.147-166, 2000.

[17] M.Z. Hossain and and S. Inoue, “Effect of Recycled Aggregates on Compression Behavior of

Cement-Based Composite Materials,” J. of Aca. of Engrs. and Assoc. of Sci., Vol.6. No.1-2,

pp.81-90, 2004.

[18] M.Z. Hossain and and S. Inoue, “Young's Modulus and Bearing Capacity of Thin Panels

Reinforced With Geogrid and Hexagonal Meshes,” J. of Rural and Env. Engg., No.44, pp.13-

26, 2003.



157

[19] M.Z. Hossain and M.P. Islam, “Cracking Stress and Bending Moment in Flexural

Ferrocement Elements,” Int. J. of Charac. and Develop. of Novel Mat., 2010, Vol.1, no.4,

pp.1-16, 2010.

[20] M.Z. Hossain, M.Z. and T. Tsukioka, “Development of Design Equations for Flexural

Young’s Modulus of Thin Cementitious Composites Reinforced with Different Types of

Meshes,” J. of Ferrocement, Vol.36, no.3, pp.849-860, 2006.

[21] M.Z. Hossain, T. Sakai, T and P. Paramasivam, “Bearing Capacity of Thin Cementitious

composites Reinforced with Different Types of Meshes,” J. of Ferrocement, Vol.36, no.3,

pp.833-848. 2006.

[22] C.D. Johnston and D.N. Mowat, D.N., “Ferrocement - Material Behavior in Flexure,” J. of

Struc. Div., Vol.100, no.10, pp.2053-2069, 1974.

[23] M.A. Mansur and T. Kiritharan, T., “Shear Strength of Ferrocement Structural Section, J. of

Ferrocement, Vol.31, no.3, pp.195-211, 2001.

[24] P.K. Mehta and P.J.M. Monterio, Concrete: Microstructure, Properties and Materilas,

McGraw Hill, New York, 1993.

[25] A.E. Naaman and K. Chandrangsu, “Bending behavior of Laminated Cementitious

Composites Reinforced with FRP meshes,” ACI Sym. on High Perfor. Fiber Reinf. Thin

Sheet Pro., ACI SP 190, pp.97-116, 2000.

[26] A.E. Naaman, Ferrocement and Laminated Cementitious Composites, Techno Press 3000,

Ann Arbor, Michigan, 2000.

[27] A.E. Naaman, “Ferrocement and Thin Fiber Reinforced Cement Composites: Looking Back,

Looking Ahead,” J. of Ferrocement, Vol.31, no.4, pp.267-280, 2001.

[28] Mohammed Mansour Kadhum, “Effect of Dynamic Load: Impact of Missile on Mechanical

Behavior of Ferrocement – Infrastructure Application”, International Journal of Civil

Engineering & Technology (IJCIET), Volume 4, Issue 2, 2013, pp. 295 - 305, ISSN Print:

0976 – 6308, ISSN Online: 0976 – 6316.

20320140502015

Technology

cycles of thermal distress

laminated composites

flexural behavior

kind of composites

technology ijciet issn

print issn

flexural ultimate strength

daynight cycles