## 4 Test Results
### Flexural Test Performance
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Type**} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{**Toughness (kN-mm)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(f_{c}\) **(MPa)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(f_{r}\) **(MPa)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(f_{r}\) **(MPa)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(R_{c3}\) **(\%)**} \\ \cline{3-4} \cline{6-8}  & & **0–Peak** & & & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{5}{*}{OPC} & N/A & - & - & - & - & 44.67 & 3.35 & - \\  & PE & 0.364 & 2.445 & 3.374 & 3.880 & 44.98 & 3.71 & 5.67 \\  & Typar & 0.564 & 2.721 & 6.515 & 9.027 & 44.98 & 3.84 & 20.43 \\  & Bituthene & 0.248 & 2.536 & 3.534 & 4.182 & & 3.67 & 6.15 \\  & Preprufe & 0.405 & 2.778 & 6.135 & 9.104 & & 3.96 & 19.86 \\ \hline \multirow{5}{*}{SF20} & PE & 0.304 & 3.897 & 11.756 & 15.392 & & 4.01 & 37.96 \\  & Typar & 0.613 & 4.649 & 15.713 & 21.361 & & 4.69 & 44.86 \\  & Bituthene & 0.309 & 3.522 & 10.638 & 14.297 & & 3.93 & 35.07 \\  & Preprufe & 0.457 & 3.316 & 10.338 & 15.249 & & 3.97 & 36.86 \\ \hline \multirow{5}{*}{MF1.0} & PE & 0.986 & 2.852 & 5.776 & 7.464 & & 4.41 & 12.87 \\  & Typar & 1.463 & 3.462 & 10.151 & 14.450 & & 4.64 & 28.47 \\  & Bituthene & 0.277 & 2.755 & 6.541 & 9.007 & & 4.27 & 17.75 \\  & Preprufe & 0.368 & 2.638 & 7.255 & 11.263 & & 4.10 & 25.19 \\ \hline \multirow{5}{*}{MF2.8} & PE & 1.318 & 4.157 & 12.408 & 16.193 & & 4.97 & 20.44 \\  & Typar & 0.394 & 4.128 & 14.991 & 21.309 & & 4.61 & 45.19 \\ \cline{1-1}  & Bituthene & 0.770 & 3.762 & 12.382 & 17.305 & & 4.76 & 35.41 \\ \cline{1-1}  & Preprufe & 0.818 & 3.937 & 14.543 & 21.519 & & 4.38 & 48.26 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Summary of flexural test performance. Figure 6: Load-displacement curve during crack propagation (MF 2.8). Figure 9 shows the results comparing the toughness between the steel fiber reinforced specimen (SF20) and the OPC specimen. The performance of the waterproof reinforcement applied to the specimen reinforced with steel fiber shows a continuous toughness improvement as it passes the maximum load. The tendency to change by the type of waterproof reinforcement is similar, and it shows the best toughness increase in the test body reinforced with Typar. Figure 10 shows the results of comparing the toughness between the organic fiber-reinforced specimen (MF1.0) and the OPC specimen. The toughness at the maximum load showed that the specimens reinforced with PE and Typar were very large, but it can be seen from the 0.5 mm section that the tendency to change toughness is altered in a similar way to the other reinforcements. Since the concrete matrix has no significant effect on the increase in strength and toughness due to fiber reinforcement up to the fracture [9; 39], it is judged to be the result of the resistance ability of the waterproof reinforcement. Among the waterproof reinforcement materials, it showed that the most toughness increase in the test body was reinforced with Typar. Figure 11 shows the experimental results comparing the toughness between the test specimen (MF2.0) and the OPC specimen, which increased the mixing ratio of organic fibers. At the  
Figure 8: Toughness improvement with different types of waterproofing reinforcement. Figure 7: Flexural strength comparison with different types of waterproofing reinforcement. maximum load, it tends to be similar to the MF1.0, but the performance of the specimen reinforced with PE, Bittuthene, and Preprufe was excellent. In the section of 0.5 mm or more, the tendency to increase in toughness due to the waterproof reinforcement was similar. It showed better toughness than the test specimen of MF1.0. Figure 11: toughness ratio between MF2.8 and OPC with waterproof reinforcement. Figure 9: toughness ratio between SF20 and OPC with waterproof reinforcement.