Performance Evaluation of Glass Fiber Reinforced Concrete using Manufactured Sand: A Systematic Lite by IRJET Journal

Performance Evaluation of Glass Fiber Reinforced Concrete using Manufactured Sand: A Systematic Literature Review

Siddharth C. Patel 1

Dr. Kamal Singh2 , Achyut Kumar Singh3

1M.Tech Transportation Engg., Dept. of Civil Engineering, MANIT Bhopal, India

2Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, MANIT Bhopal, India

3M.Tech Transportation Engg., Dept. of Civil Engineering, MANIT Bhopal, India

Abstract – Glass Fiber Reinforced Concrete (GFRC) has emergedasahigh-performancematerialinconstructionwith improved mechanical properties in terms of strength, crack resistance, and durability. At the same time, Manufactured Sand (M-Sand) has gained popularity as a sustainable materialintheconstructionsectorwiththeimplementationof environmental regulations and scarcity of river sand.

Pavement Quality Concrete (PQC) for highways and airfields demands high strength, durability, and resistance to environmental effects. This study is a systematic literature reviewofexisting experimentalresearchaimed atevaluating the mechanical properties, durability, and pavement properties of glass fiber reinforced concrete when M-Sand is used as a fine aggregate. The results show that an optimal glass fiber content of 0.5% to 1.5% by weight of cement gives the best results. M-Sand also gives better strength results compared to conventional river sand. Application of M-Sand and GFRC together shows immense potential for the construction of sustainable rigid pavements. However, research needs to be focused on Pavement Quality Concrete usingOPCandPPCcement,100%M-Sand,andoptimizedglass fiberstodevelopdesignguidelinesforIndianpavementdesign codes.

Key Words: Glass Fiber Reinforced Concrete (GFRC), Manufactured Sand (M-Sand), Pavement Quality Concrete, Compressive Strength, Flexural Strength, Durability, Skid Resistance, Rigid Pavement, Fiber Reinforced Concrete

1. INTRODUCTION

Rigidpavementsarelargelyadoptedinhighwayandairport infrastructureowingtotheirlongservicelifeandabilityto sustain heavy traffic loads. Cement concrete is the most extensively used construction material worldwide [6], valued for its compressive strength, durability, and versatility.

However,plaincementconcreteinherentlysuffersfromlow tensilestrength,brittleness,lowductility,limitedfatiguelife, andlowimpactresistance[3].PavementQualityConcrete (PQC), intended to resist flexural and fatigue failures, is increasinglythreatenedby environmentalissues,material availability,andprematurecracking.

The over-exploitation of river sand for construction has major environmental concerns, prompting bans and the search for viable alternatives such as Manufactured Sand [17]. M-Sand, produced by crushing hard granite rock through controlled processes, offers consistent gradation, angular particle shape, and improved surface texture, translating into better bonding with cement paste and superior mechanical performance compared to river sand [3][8].Borigarlaetal.[8]demonstratedthat100%M-Sand replacementinM40concreteyieldedcompressivestrength 12.54%higherthanconventionalriversandconcrete[16]. Fiber Reinforced Concrete (FRC) is intended to overcome thesedeficienciesbyusingdiscretefibersthatbridgecracks, arrest their propagation, and enhance post-cracking behavior. Glass Fiber Reinforced Concrete (GFRC) has attracted considerable research attention due to its high tensile strength (approximately 1020 to 4080 MPa), corrosionresistance,lightweight,andeaseofmixing[17]. Alkali-resistantglassfibersaremostlyusedinconcreteas reinforcementduetotheirresistanceagainstalkaliattacks causedbyPortlandcement[14,15].

This systematic literature review evaluates published experimental evidence on: (i) The effect of glass fiber content on mechanical strength parameters [1 to 7]; (ii) DurabilitypropertiesincludingUPV,acidresistance,chloride penetration, and shrinkage [1,2,4,5]; and (iii) Pavementspecific properties such as skid resistance, temperature differential,andfatiguelife[3,8],withparticularattentionto theroleofM-Sandasfineaggregate.

2. OBJECTIVES OF THE REVIEW

Theprimaryobjectivesofthissystematicliteraturereview are:

 To compile and critically analyze published experimental data on the effect of varying glass fiber content on the compressive, tensile, and flexural strengthofconcrete.

 ToassessthedurabilityperformanceofGFRC,including UPV, rebound hammer results, chloride penetration resistance, sorptivity, acid resistance, and drying shrinkage[1,2,4,5].

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056

Volume: 13 Issue: 04 | Apr 2026 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072

 To evaluate the pavement-specific performance of MSand modified concrete, including skid resistance, temperaturedifferential,andfatiguebehavior[3,8].

 To identify the optimum glass fiber content for mechanical and durability performance based on a synthesisofreviewedstudies.

 TohighlightthecombinedadvantagesofusingM-Sand asfineaggregateinGFRCsystemsforpavementquality concreteapplications.

3. REVIEW METHODOLOGY

This review follows a systematic literature review (SLR) methodologyadaptedforcivilengineeringresearchpapers. PaperswereidentifiedfromIRJET,Elsevier,ResearchGate, andIndianRoadsCongressdatabases.

3.1 Inclusion Criteria

 Experimentalstudiesonglassfiberreinforcedconcrete (GFRC).

 Studies investigating M-Sand as full or partial replacementofnaturalriversand[1,2,3,8].

 Papers covering at least one of compressive strength, splittensilestrength,flexuralstrength,UPV,durability, orpavementperformancecharacteristics.

 Peer-reviewedjournalarticles,conferencepapers,and indexedpublicationsfrom2015to2025.

3.2DataExtraction

Foreachincludedstudy,thefollowingdatawereextracted: authors and year, concrete grade, cement type, fine aggregatetype,glassfibertypeandcontent(%byweightof cement), water-cement ratio, superplasticizer usage, test results at 7 and 28 days, and key conclusions regarding optimalfibercontent[1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8].

3.3 Proposed Testing Program

The following experimental research methodology is proposed for investigating Glass Fiber Reinforced M-Sand BasedPavementQualityConcrete:

 MaterialSelection&Characterization:Testingcement (PPC), M-Sand, glass fibers, and admixtures for consistency,gradation,andstrengthproperties.

 Mix Design of Concrete as per IS 10262:2019 with OPC/PPC cement, Manufactured Sand, coarse aggregate, glass fiber, and water-cement ratio of 0.36–0.40.

 Casting & Curing: Cubes (150×150×150 mm), cylinders(150Dia×300mm),beams(100×100×500 mm),andslabs(500×500×150mm)curedat7,14, and28days.

 MechanicalTesting:Compressivestrength(IS516), Splittensilestrength(IS5816),Flexuralstrength(IS 516/IRC:44).

 DurabilityStudies:Waterabsorption(ASTMC642), skid resistance (British Pendulum), abrasion resistance(ASTMC944),shrinkagecracking(ASTM C157).

 Data Analysis: Optimization of fiber dosage and comparisonofmixesusingstatisticalanalysis.

Table-I:ProposedTestingProgram Test

Category Test Conducted Standard/ Reference Age/ Condition Fresh Properties Slumptest IS1199 Fresh concrete Fresh Properties Density&air content IS1199 Fresh concrete

Mechanical Compressive strength IS516 7&28 days

Mechanical Flexural strength (MOR) IS516/ IRC:44 28days

4. MATERIALS USED IN VARIOUS STUDIES

4.1

Cement

Most reviewed studies used OPC 53 grade cement conforming to IS 12269:2013. Portland Pozzolana Cement (PPC) conforming to IS 1489:1991 was used in studies involving supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs). Studies by Gayathri et al. [2] and Partheeban et al. [1] incorporatedternaryblendswithPPC,flyash,andAlccofine (specificgravity2.88).

4.2 Fine Aggregate

Riversand(ZoneIandZoneIIperIS383:1970)wasused asconventionalfineaggregateinmostearlystudies[4,5,6,7]. M-Sand by crushed granite with controlled gradation was usedas100%replacementofriversandbyGayathrietal.[2], Rage Meenakshi & Rajesh [3], and Borigarla et al. [8]. The physical properties of M-Sand (specific gravity: 2.62–2.71; finenessmodulus:2.71)arecomparabletoriversand,while itsangularmorphologyincreasesbondstrengthwithcement paste.

4.3 Coarse Aggregate

Locally available crushed granite aggregates of 20 mm nominalmaximumsize(IS383:1970)wereusedconsistently in all reviewed studies [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8]. Specific gravities rangedfrom2.68to2.82.

4.4 Glass Fibers

Themostusedglassfiberacrossallreviewedstudieswas AlkaliResistant(AR)Cem-FILglassfiber,featuringafilament diameter of 14 microns, length of 12 mm, aspect ratio of 857:1,tensilestrengthof2500MPa,modulusofelasticityof 70GPa,andspecificgravityof2.68to2.78.Fiberswereadded

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056

Volume: 13 Issue: 04 | Apr 2026 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072

byweightofcementatdosagesrangingfrom0.25%to2.5% acrossthereviewedliterature.

4.5 Admixtures

Superplasticizers were used in all studies involving MSand and higher fiber contents to maintain workability. Conplast SP430(1% bycement weight) was used byRage Meenakshi & Rajesh [3], a Sicca-based superplasticizer by Sharmaetal.[4],andnaphthalenesulfonateformaldehyde (Tecmix550)at1.5%byBorigarlaetal.[8]

5. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: MECHANICAL STRENGTH

5.1 Compressive Strength

Compressive strength is the primary mechanical parameter for concrete design (IS 516:1959) and was evaluated in all reviewed studies. The common trend indicatesanincreaseinCompressiveStrengthwithglassfiber contentuptoanoptimumvalue,beyondwhichstrengthis constant or reduced due tofiber balling, poor workability, andincompletecompaction.

Keyobservations:RageMeenakshi&Rajesh[3]reported the highest CS at 1.5% GF in M-Sand-based M30 concrete (62.42 MPa) a 21.06% improvement over the control. Sharmaetal.[4]foundoptimalCSof40.62MPaat0.7%GFin M20concrete,representinga20%increase.VamsiKrishnaet al.[6]reported72MPaat1%GFinM80HSC.Hemalatha& Rose[5]confirmedthatCSincreasedat1%GF(48.88MPa) inM40concreteanddeclinedbeyondthisthreshold.

5.2

Split Tensile Strength

Splittensilestrength(STS)isevaluatedperIS5816and wasinvestigatedinmostreviewedstudies[4,5,6,7,8].Glass fiberscontributesignificantlytotensileperformancethrough crack-bridging. Sharma et al. [4] demonstrated STS improvementsofupto55.4%at0.7%GF(5.05MPavs.3.60 MPa for control) in M20 concrete. Hemalatha & Rose [5] reportedSTSof7.96MPaat1.0%GFinM40concrete a 37.9% improvement over control. Borigarla et al. [8] recordedSTSof5.41MPainM-SandM40concrete(noGF), demonstrating the inherent benefit of angular M-Sand particles.

5.3 Flexural Strength

Flexuralstrength(ModulusofRupture)isthemostcritical parameterforrigidpavementdesignperIRC44:2017andIS 516.Satputeetal.[7]reportedthehighestFSof9.93MPaat 2.0%hybridGF+steelfiberinM30concrete a36.8%

Table-II:MechanicalCharacteristicsStrengthSummary

Author(s) &Year [Ref.]

Fine Aggrega te& Cement

Sharmaet al.(2017) [4]

Hemalath a&Rose (2016) [5]

Rage Meenaks hi& Rajesh (2023) [3]

Vamsi Krishna etal. (2015) [6]

Gayathri etal. (2025) [2]

Kambleet al.(2024) [16]

Partheeb anetal. (2021) [1]

Borigarla etal. (2022) [8]

Satputeet al.(2016) [7]

improvement due to combined crack-bridging effects. Gayathri et al. [2] and Partheeban et al. [1] reported FS of 3.89 MPa at 0.5% GF in M-Sand M30 concrete, satisfying IRC:SP:62-2014 requirements for low-volume roads. Borigarlaetal.[8]reportedFSof7.55MPainM-SandM40

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056

Volume: 13 Issue: 04 | Apr 2026 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072

concrete without glass fiber, confirming M-Sand itself contributestoimprovedflexuralperformance.

6. DURABILITY STUDIES

Durability investigations have shown reduced permeability, controlled microcracking, and improved resistanceofGFRCtoharshenvironments.

Table-III:DurabilityPerformanceSummaryofReviewed Studies

Author(s) [Ref.] Durability Test KeyFinding Optimal GF Grade

Sharmaet al.[4] UPV 3983–4586 m/s(Goodto Excellentas perIS13311)

Sharmaet al.[4] Rebound Hammer Values22.46–25.91;max diff.-0.70%

Hemalatha &Rose[5] Acid Attack (HCl)

Weightlossof 0.34kg (controlmix) to0.47kg (1%GF)at 28d

Gayathriet al.[2] RCPT& Sorptivity Reduced chloride penetration with0.5%GF andAlccofine

Gayathriet al.[2] Drying Shrinkage Improved withfiber inclusion

M20

M40

destructive compressive strength values (maximum differenceof0.70%).Reboundvaluesincreasedfrom22.46 (0% GF) to 25.91 (0.7% GF), indicating increased surface hardnesswithfiberaddition,validatingthereboundhammer asaviablenon-destructiveevaluationtechniqueforGFRC.

6.2 Chloride Penetration and Durability (RCPT & Sorptivity)

Gayathrietal.[2]andPartheebanetal.[1]employedthe Rapid Chloride Penetration Test (RCPT) and sorptivity measurementstoassessdurabilityofternaryblendconcrete with M-Sand, RCA, and 0.5% GF. The combination of 10% Alccofine with glass fibers produced the most significant improvement in chloride penetration resistance. Ultrafine AlccofineparticlesfillcapillaryporesandformdenseC-S-H gel(confirmedbySEM),whileglassfiberslimitcrackwidth andreduceporenetworkconnectivity.

6.3 Acid Attack Resistance

M30

Appadurai, A.S.etal. [17] RCPT& Alkalinity Reduced chloride penetration highalkalinity - M30

Partheeban etal.[1] RCPT Improved chloride penetration resistance with0.5%GF 0.50% M30

Borigarla etal.[8] Skid Resistance M-Sand:88 mm(dry)/ 64mm(wet) best performance

Borigarla etal.[8] Temp. Differential M-Sandslab: 11.1°Cis lowestwithin IRC58:2011 limit

N/A M40

Hemalatha et al. [5] investigated immersion in 5% hydrochloric acid (HCl) solution for 28 and 60 days, measuring weight loss as a durability index. Weight loss increasedprogressivelywithGFcontent(0.47kgat1%GFvs. 0.34kgforcontrolat28days).However,thebest1%GFmix showedadequateacidresistanceformoststructuraluses.

7. PAVEMENT SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

7.1

Skid Resistance

Skid resistance is an important pavement safety parameter.Borigarlaetal.[8]investigatedskidresistanceof M40gradeconcreteusingaBritishPendulumSkidResistance Tester. M-Sand modified concrete achieved 88 mm on dry surfacesand 64 mmon wet surfaces, compared to74 mm (dry)and55mm(wet)forconventionalriversandconcrete anincreaseof18.9%ondryand16.4%onwetsurfaces. Thebetterskidresistanceisattributedtotheangularshape of M-Sand particles, resulting in better macro-texture on pavementsurfaces.

7.2 Temperature Differential

N/A M40

Borigarla etal.[8] Fatigue Life M-Sand: 42,749cycles atSR0.65 highest amongmixes N/A M40

6.1 Rebound Hammer Test

Sharma et al. [4] performed rebound hammer testing, finding close correlation between rebound numbers and

Temperature differential is the temperature difference between the two surfaces of a pavement section causing warping and cracking. Borigarla et al. [8] monitored temperature differentials across 500×500×150 mm slabs overfourmonths.Themaximumtemperaturedifferencewas highestinconventionalconcreteslabs(12.1°C)andlowestin M-Sandconcreteslabs(11.1°C).Allvaluesremainedwithin the IRC 58:2011 permissible limit of 17.3°C. Kamble et al. [16]alsoinvestigatedtemperatureeffectsonM40PQCusing single-layer and composite sections incorporating steel fibers,glassfibers,andGGBS,confirmingSF+GFcomposite sectionsexhibitedbetterflexuralstrengthsandtemperature differentialscomparedtoplainPQC.

Volume: 13 Issue: 04 | Apr 2026 www.irjet.net

7.3 Fatigue Behavior

Fatigue life is a fundamental design parameter for rigid pavements. Borigarla et al. [8] conducted fatigue testing underrepeatedflexuralloadingatstressratiosof0.65,0.75, and 0.85. M-Sand modified concrete exhibited the highest fatiguelifeatallstressratios:42,749cyclesatSR0.65,16,550 atSR0.75,and747atSR0.85 consistentlyoutperforming Quarry dust concrete (33,960; 11,750; 570 cycles) and conventional concrete (24,974; 8,000; 340 cycles).induced distressunderheavytraffic.

TABLEIV:COMPREHENSIVESUMMARYOFREVIEWED LITERATUREOF

STUDIES

Author (s)and Year

Parthee banetal. [1] 2021

Gayathri etal.[2]

8. DISCUSSION

8.1

Optimal Glass Fiber Content

Collective findings of all reviewed studies indicate that optimalglassfibercontentfallsintherangeof0.5%to1.5% by weight of cement, depending on concrete grade and aggregatetype:

 Forlower-gradeconcrete(M20toM30)withriversand: 0.7%–1.0%GF[4,5].

 ForM30concretewithM-Sand:1.5%GFformaximumCS [3],while0.5%GFisoptimalforcombinedstrengthdurabilityinternaryblends[1,2].

 For high-strength concrete (M80): 1.0% GF for mechanicalproperties[6].

 Forhybridfibersystems(GF+steel):2.0%totalfiber[7].

Beyond the optimal dosage, a consistent reduction in workability leads to incomplete compaction and reduced strength [4,5,7]. Use of superplasticizers (1 to 1.5% by cementweight)isessentialtomaintainadequateworkability athigherfibercontents.

8.2 Role of M-Sand

The reviewed literature [1,2,3,8] proves that M-Sand consistentlyimprovesthemechanicalpropertiesofconcrete compared to river sand. Benefits include: (i) increased compressivestrengthduetointerlockingproperties[3,8];(ii) better skid resistance due to rough micro-texture [8]; (iii) lowertemperaturedifferentialinpavementslabs[8];and(iv) increasedfatiguelife[8].Appaduraietal.[17]showedthatMSand concrete for M20 to M30 grade exhibited very low chloridepermeabilityandhighalkalinity,provingM-Sandisa sustainablebestoptionasareplacementforriversand.

8.3 Implications for Pavement Engineering

Fromatransportationengineeringperspective,theuseofMSandandGFRCisapromisingapproachforpavementquality concrete.Flexuralstrengthof3.89MPaat0.5%GFinM30 concrete with M-Sand [1,2] meets IRC:SP:62-2014 requirements for low-volume roads. The better skid resistance of M-Sand concrete (88 mm) vs. conventional concrete(74mm)ondrysurfaces[8]translatesdirectlyinto improved road safety. The lower temperature differential (11.1°Cvs.12.1°C)resultsinlowerwarpingstressesperIRC 58:2011designprovisions.Thesuperiorfatigueresistance (42,749cyclesvs.24,974atSR0.65)allowslongerpavement lifeorthinnerslabs.

9. RESEARCH GAPS IDENTIFIED

Basedonthecomprehensivereviewofexistingstudies, thefollowingsignificantresearchgapshavebeenidentified:

 Existingstudiesrarelyaddresspavementspecific performance indicators such as fatigue life, temperature gradient-induced stresses, warping behavior,andabrasionresistancesimultaneously.

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056

Volume: 13 Issue: 04 | Apr 2026 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072

 Allexistingstudiesarebasedonshort-term laboratory tests. Long-term tests considering thermal cycling,moisturevariations,andseasonaltemperature gradientsareneeded.

 Furtherresearchisneededtoincorporate fatigue damage models, mechanistic-empirical design approaches, and performance-based specifications for fiber-reinforced PQC under real traffic loading conditions.

 The combined effects of chloride attack, freeze-thawcycles,sulfateexposure,andcarbonationon M-Sand and fiber-reinforcedconcrete require detailed investigation.

 CurrentIndianpavementdesigncodes(IRC 58:2011, IRC 44:2017) do not explicitly incorporate provisionsforfiber-reinforcedPQCusingalternativefine aggregateslikeM-Sand.

 No existing study has simultaneously measuredskidresistance,temperaturedifferential,and fatigueinM-SandGFRCforPQCapplications.

10. FUTURE RESEARCH SCOPE

Basedonthereviewedliteratureandidentifiedgaps,the followingfutureresearchdirectionsarerecommended:

 ExperimentalinvestigationofM-Sand-GFRC (0.5to1.5%GF)mixinM30GradePQCwithPPCcement, alongwithskidresistance,temperaturedifferential,and fatigueproperties.

 Investigationoflong-termdurabilitytests of M-Sand GFRC beyond 90 days under simulated pavement exposure conditions (freeze-thaw cycles, wet/drycycles,sulfatesolutions).

 Lifecycleassessment(LCA)andcost-benefit analysis of M-Sand GFRC pavements compared to conventionalriversandPQC.

 Optimization studies using Response Surface Methodology (RSM) or machine learning techniquestopredictoptimalGFcontentforcombined mechanical-pavementperformance.

 FieldtrialsofGFRCwithM-Sandonactual pavementsections tovalidate laboratoryperformance underrealtrafficandenvironmentalconditionsperIRC designprovisions.

 Developmentofupdateddesignguidelines and incorporation of fiber-reinforced PQC provisions into Indian Standards (IS) and Indian Roads Congress (IRC)codes.

11. CONCLUSIONS

Basedonthesystematicreviewofexperimentalstudies onGlassFiberReinforcedConcretewithManufacturedSand, thefollowingconclusionsaredrawn:

 Optimal glassfibercontent:Theoptimum GF dosage is 0.5%–1.5% by weight of cement. For MSand-basedM30concrete,1.5%GFisoptimalforpure compressive strength [3], while 0.5% GF with supplementary cementitious materials offers the best combinedstrength-durabilityperformance[1,2].

 Compressivestrength:Glassfiberadditions at optimal dosages improve 28-day Compressive Strengthby4.3%to21.1%overcontrolmixes[4,5,6,7], withM-Sand-basedconcreteexhibitinghighervalues(up to62.42MPainM30with1.5%GF[3]).

 Tensile and flexural strength: Glass fibers contribute disproportionately to tensile performance, with STS improvements of up to 55.4% [4] and FS improvementsofupto36.8%[7]atoptimaldosages.

 Durability: GFRC exhibits improved UPV values(3983–4586m/s,GoodtoExcellentperIS13311) [4], reduced chloride penetration and sorptivity with Alccofine supplementation [1,2], and good rebound hammercorrelationwithdestructivestrength[4].

 Pavement performance: M-Sand modified concretedemonstratessuperiorskidresistance(88mm dry / 64 mm wet), lower temperature differential (11.1°Cvs.12.1°Cconventional),andsignificantlyhigher fatigue life (42,749 cycles at SR 0.65 vs. 24,974 conventional)[8].

 Sustainablesuitability:M-Sandprovidesa sustainable alternative to river sand, and glass fibers improve tensile strength, flexural behavior, and crack resistance. The combination satisfies IRC:SP:62-2014 flexural strength requirements and offers measurable advantages in skid resistance, thermal behavior, and fatigueresistance[1,2,3,8].

 Researchgapsexist:FurtherstudiesonM30 grade PQC with PPC cement, 100% M-Sand, and optimizedglassfibercontentarenecessarytoprovide design recommendations for Indian pavement design codes.

REFERENCES

[1]Partheeban,P.,etal.(2021)."Performanceevaluationof geopolymerconcreteusingE-wasteandM-sand."Research onEngineeringStructures&Materials,7(2),183–198.

[2]Gayathri,R.,etal.(2025)."Performanceassessment of ternary blended fiber-reinforced recycled aggregate concrete."ResearchonEngineeringStructures&Materials.

[3] Rage Meenakshi, K., & Rajesh, G. (2023). "A study on reinforcedconcretewithglassfibers."JournalofEngineering Sciences,14(01).

[4]Sharma,A.,Kumar,P.,&Sharma,J.(2017)."Experimental studyonstrengthofconcretewithadditionofchoppedglass

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056

Volume: 13 Issue: 04 | Apr 2026 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072

fiber." International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology(IRJET),4(12),837–842.

[5]Hemalatha,S.,&LeemaRose,A.(2016)."Anexperimental study on glass fibre reinforced concrete." International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET), 3(4),2285–2289.

[6] Vamsi Krishna, B., & Kameswara Rao, M. (2015). "A comparative and experimental study on the mechanical properties of various steel and glass fiber reinforced high strengthconcrete."ResearchGateConferencePaper.

[7]Satpute,P.C.,Kulkarni,V.P.,Mehetre,A.J.,&Kokate,M.D. (2016). "Experimental study on properties of concrete by usingglassandsteelfibers."IJLERA,1(5),16–28.

[8]Borigarla,B.,Buddaha,T.,SaiKiran,G.,&Hait,P.(2022). "Experimental study on replacing sand by M-Sand and quarry dust in rigid pavements." Materials Today: Proceedings,60,658–667.

[9]Ghugal,Y.M.,&Deshmukh,S.B.(2006)."Performanceof Alkali-ResistantGlassFiberReinforcedConcrete."Journalof ReinforcedPlasticsandComposites,25(6),617–630.

[10] Chaitanya, J.D., Abhilash, G.V.S., Khan, P.K. & Sai, G.M. (2016). "Experimental Studies on Glass Fiber Concrete." AmericanJournalofEngineering,5(5),100–104.

[11]Wu,Z.,Shi,C.,Khayat,K.H.,&Xie,L.(2022)."Effectof FiberContentonMechanicalPropertiesofAlkali-Resistant GlassFiberReinforcedConcrete."Materials,15(15),5111.

[12]Ruben,N.,Venkatesh,C.,Durga,C.S.S.,&Chand,M.S.R. (2021). "Comprehensive study on performance of glass fibers-basedconcrete."InnovativeInfrastructureSolutions, 6(2).

[13]Ragi,S.(2015)."AComparativeandExperimentalStudy on the Mechanical Properties of Various Steel and Glass FiberReinforcedHighStrengthConcrete."

[14] Abbas, S.N., et al. (2022). "An Investigation of Mechanical Properties of Fly Ash Based Geopolymer and GlassFibersConcrete."Sustainability,14,10489.

[15] Xiaochun, Q., Xiaoming, L., & Xiaopei, C. (2017). "The applicability of alkaline-resistant glass fiber in cement mortarofroadpavement."Int.J.PavementRes.Technol.,10, 536–544.

[16]Kamble,S.Y.,Jagadeesh,H.S.,&Raghavendra,C.R."Study oninfluenceoftemperatureinPavementQualityConcrete forsingleandcompositesectionswithadmixedconcreteof M-40Grade."

[18] IS 10262:2019 – Concrete Mix Proportioning –Guidelines.BureauofIndianStandards,NewDelhi.

[19]IS456:2000–PlainandReinforcedConcrete–Codeof Practice.BureauofIndianStandards,NewDelhi.

[20] IRC 15:2017 – Code of Practice for Construction of JointedPlainConcretePavements.IndianRoadsCongress, NewDelhi.

[21] IRC 44:2017 – Guidelines for Cement Concrete Mix DesignforPavements.IndianRoadsCongress,NewDelhi.

[22]IRC58:2011–GuidelinesfortheDesignofPlainJointed RigidPavementsforHighways.IndianRoadsCongress,New Delhi.

[23]IS383:2016–CoarseandFineAggregateforConcrete. BureauofIndianStandards,NewDelhi.

[24]IS1489(Part1):2015–PortlandPozzolanaCement(Fly AshBased).BureauofIndianStandards,NewDelhi.

[25] IS 13311 (Part 1):1992 – Non-Destructive Testing of Concrete – Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity. Bureau of Indian Standards,NewDelhi.

[17] Appadurai, A.S., Sundaresan, A.A., & Nammalvar, A. (2024)."Mechanicalcharacterizationanddurabilitystudies on concrete developed with M-Sand and River Sand." Matéria(RioDeJaneiro),29(4).

2026, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 8.315 | ISO 9001:2008