Hussein, Luaay

STRUCTURAL BEHAVIOUR OF ULTRA HIGH PERFROMANCE FIBRE
REINFORCED CONCRETE COMPOSITE MEMBERS
By:
Luaay Hussein
B. Sc. in Civil Engineering, University of Baghdad, 1989
MASc. in Civil Engineering, Ryerson University, 2011
A dissertation
presented to Ryerson University
in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of
(Doctor of Philosophy)
in the Program of
(Civil Engineering)
Toronto, Canada, 2015

© Luaay Hussein, 2015
AUTHOR'S DECLARATION FOR ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION
OF A DISSERTATION
I hereby declare that I am the sole author of this dissertation. This is a true copy of the
dissertation, including any required final revisions, as accepted by my examiners.
I authorize Ryerson University to lend this dissertation to other institutions or individuals for the
purpose of scholarly research
I further authorize Ryerson University to reproduce this dissertation by photocopying or by other

means, in total or in part, at the request of other institutions or individuals for the purpose of
scholarly research.
I understand that my dissertation may be made electronically available to the public.
ii
STRUCTURAL BEHAVIOUR OF ULTRA HIGH PERFROMANCE FIBRE
REINFORCED CONCRETE COMPOSITE MEMBERS
Luaay Hussein
PhD, Department of Civil Engineering, Ryerson University, 2015
Abstract
The aging and deterioration of reinforced concrete infrastructures in North America present
major technical and economical challenges to infrastructure owners. To effectively address some
of the challenges, there is a need to develop innovative and cost-effective systems. The main
objective of this research was to develop composite members of ultra-high performance fibre
reinforced concrete and normal strength concrete or high strength concrete (UHPFRC-
NSC/HSC). In order to achieve this objective, the first phase of this research investigates the
structural behaviour of UHPFRC with varying fibre content beams without web reinforcement.
Test results indicated that the addition of 1% of steel fibres effectively improves the shear
strength of UHPC beams by 77% due to the crack-bridging stress that develops across the crack
surface. In the second phase, experimental studies were carried out on UHPFRC-NSC/HSC
prisms and beams without stirrups to investigate the flexural and shear capacity of those
composite members. Each beam specimen was designed to have the UHPFRC layer in tension
and the NSC/HSC layer in compression. Additional varied parameters included fibre volume
content, and shear connectors were investigated. Test results showed that the performance of the
proposed composite system in terms of the flexural and shear capacity was successfully
enhanced. All composite beams failed in shear at a force that is 1.6 to 2.0 times higher than that
of the NSC/HSC beam’s resistance. Test results showed that the effect of using HSC versus
NSC in the composite beam was negligible, and the bond strength between the two concrete
material layers (UHPFRC and NSC/HSC) was significantly high that the addition of shear
connectors was unnecessary. In the third phase, an analytical and finite element models to predict
the ultimate shear capacity of UHPFRC composite beams were proposed and validated with the
experimental results. The results of the finite element analysis showed that the size effect in
structures made of UHPFRC material has little influence on the shear capacity. Finally a
comparison between the finite element model and the analytical model indicated that both
iii
models developed in this research are capable of predicting the shear behaviour of UHPFRC and
UHPFRC-NSC/HSC beams.
iv
Acknowledgment
The author would like to express his deepest appreciation to his supervisor Dr. Lamya Amleh,
for her invaluable advice, guidance, suggestion, patient and encouragement throughout the
execution of this research program. Her unfailing optimism and constant encouragement always
prompted the author to overcome the difficulties in completing this research.
The author would like to express his sincerely thanks to the Civil Engineering Department in
Ryerson University, and to the technicians in the structural, and concrete labs for their invaluable
assistance throughout the execution of this research program.
The author also would like to thank, and acknowledge Lafarge Canada Inc. for providing the
UHPC and expertise of Mr. Gaston Doiron.
Finally, the author is grateful to his family, colleagues, and all friends for their support, and
encouragement throughout this work.
v
Table of Contents
AUTHOR'S DECLARATION FOR ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION OF A DISSERTATION .... ii
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iii
Acknowledgment ............................................................................................................................ v
Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................... vi
List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. x
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ xi
List of Symbols ........................................................................................................................... xvii
Chapter 1 ......................................................................................................................................... 1
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Objectives and Scope of the research ................................................................................... 2
1.2.1 Objectives .................................................................................................................................... 2
1.2.2 Scope ............................................................................................................................................ 3
1.3 Thesis Organization .............................................................................................................. 3
Chapter 2 ......................................................................................................................................... 5
Literature Review............................................................................................................................ 5
2.1 UHPFRC ............................................................................................................................... 5
2.1.1 Historical overview ...................................................................................................................... 5
2.1.2 UHPFRC composition ................................................................................................................. 6
2.1.3 Structural applications.................................................................................................................. 7
2.1.4 Effect of fibres on concrete properties ......................................................................................... 8
2.1.5 Material properties ..................................................................................................................... 17
2.1.5.1 Compressive strength .............................................................................................................. 17
2.1.5.2 Tensile strength ....................................................................................................................... 18
2.1.5.3 Modulus of elasticity ............................................................................................................... 27
2.2 Shear behaviour of reinforced concrete beams ................................................................... 27
2.2.1 Shear stresses distribution and failure of plain concrete beams ................................................. 27
2.2.2 Shear in reinforced concrete beams without shear reinforcement ............................................. 29
2.2.2.1 Inclined cracking pattern and modes of shear failure ............................................................. 29
2.2.2.2 Shear resisting mechanism ...................................................................................................... 33
2.2.3 Shear in reinforced concrete beams with shear reinforcement .................................................. 34
2.2.4 Shear in steel fibre reinforced concrete beams without shear reinforcement............................. 35
2.2.5 Shear strength analysis of SFRC beams..................................................................................... 39
Sharma (1986) ..................................................................................................................................... 39
Mansur, Ong, and Paramasivam (1986).............................................................................................. 40
Narayanan and Darwish (1987) .......................................................................................................... 40
vi
Al- Ta’an and Al-Feel (1990) ............................................................................................................. 43
Ashour, Hasanain, and Wafa (1992) ................................................................................................... 45
Khuntia, Stojadinovic, and Goel (1999) ............................................................................................. 46
Kwak, Eberhard, Woo-Suk Kim, and Jubum Kim (2002) .................................................................. 47
Aoude et al. (2012) ............................................................................................................................. 47
2.3 Composite reinforced concrete beams ................................................................................ 48
2.3.1 Tension tests: ............................................................................................................................. 50
2.3.2 Shear tests: ................................................................................................................................. 51
2.3.3 Splitting prism test ..................................................................................................................... 52
Chapter 3 ....................................................................................................................................... 53
Experimental Program .................................................................................................................. 53
3.1 Material properties .............................................................................................................. 53
3.1.1 Concrete mixture ........................................................................................................................ 53
3.1.2 Selection of fibres type and volume content .............................................................................. 54
3.1.3 Selection of longitudinal steel reinforcement ............................................................................ 55
3.2 Design of beam specimens.................................................................................................. 55
3.2.1 Selection of shear span to effective depth ratio a / d ................................................................ 55
3.2.2 Beam size ................................................................................................................................... 55
3.2.3 Selection of longitudinal steel reinforcement ratio .................................................................... 55
3.3 Preparation of test specimens.............................................................................................. 61
3.4 Test setup and procedure .................................................................................................... 62
3.5 Tests .................................................................................................................................... 64
3.5.1 Mechanical properties of concrete ............................................................................................. 64
3.5.2 Split cylinder test ....................................................................................................................... 64
3.5.3 Flexural test ................................................................................................................................ 66
3.5.4 Bond strength between UHPFRC and NSC/HSC layers ........................................................... 66
Chapter 4 ....................................................................................................................................... 69
Experimental Results of UHPFRC Members ............................................................................... 69
4.1 Cylinder compressive strength ............................................................................................ 69
4.2 Split cylinder tests ............................................................................................................... 70
4.3 Flexural tests ....................................................................................................................... 71
4.4 Behaviour of beam tests ...................................................................................................... 77
4.4.1 Beam US1-0-3.5 ........................................................................................................................ 77
4.4.2 Beam US1-1-3.5 ........................................................................................................................ 79
4.4.3 Beam US1-2-3.5 ........................................................................................................................ 81
4.4.4 Beam US1-2-2.0 ........................................................................................................................ 83
4.4.5 Beam US1-2-1.5 ........................................................................................................................ 85
vii
4.4.6 Beam US2-0-3.0-a ..................................................................................................................... 87
4.4.7 Beam US2-0-3.0-b ..................................................................................................................... 89
4.4.8 Beam US2-1-3.0 ........................................................................................................................ 91
4.4.9 Beam US2-1.5-3.0...................................................................................................................... 93
4.4.10 Beam US2-2-3.0....................................................................................................................... 95
4.4.11 Beams NS2 and HS2 ................................................................................................................ 97
4.5 Comparison of response of UHPFRC beams.................................................................... 101
4.5.1 Crack pattern and mode of failure............................................................................................ 101
4.5.2 Load-deflection response ......................................................................................................... 102
4.5.3 Shear capacity .......................................................................................................................... 103
Chapter 5 ..................................................................................................................................... 105
Experimental Results of UHPFRC- NSC/HSC Members .......................................................... 105
5.1 Cylinder compressive strength .......................................................................................... 105
5.2 Split cylinder tests ............................................................................................................. 106
5.3 Flexural tests ..................................................................................................................... 106
5.4 Behaviour of beam tests .................................................................................................... 111
5.4.1 Beams UNS3-1, UNS3-1D and UNS3-1S ............................................................................... 111
5.4.2 Beams UNS3-1.5, and UNS3-1.5D.......................................................................................... 119
5.4.3 Beams UNS3-2, and UNS3-2D ............................................................................................... 124
5.4.4 Beams UHS3-1, UHS3-1D, UHS3-1S, UHS3-1.5, UHS3-1.5D, UHS3-2, and UHS3-2D ..... 128
5.5 Bond between UHPFRC and NSC/HSC layers ................................................................ 142
5.6 Comparison of response of UHPFRC members ............................................................... 144
5.6.1 Crack pattern and mode of failure............................................................................................ 144
5.6.2 Load-deflection response ......................................................................................................... 145
5.6.3 Shear capacity .......................................................................................................................... 152
Chapter 6 ..................................................................................................................................... 154
Analytical Modeling of UHPFRC & UHPFRC- NSC/HSC Members....................................... 154
6.1 Comparisons with previous models and recommendations .............................................. 154
6.2 Predicting the shear strength of UHPFRC ........................................................................ 154
6.3 Predicting the flexural strength of UHPFRC .................................................................... 161
6.4 Predicting the shear strength of UHPFRC – NSC/HST composite beams ....................... 163
Chapter 7 ..................................................................................................................................... 167
Finite Element Analysis .............................................................................................................. 167
7.1 Description of finite element model ................................................................................. 167
7.2 Material properties ............................................................................................................ 168
7.2.1 Material properties of steel ...................................................................................................... 168
7.2.2 Material properties of UHPFRC .............................................................................................. 170
7.2.2.1 Tension stiffening ................................................................................................................. 173
7.2.2.2 Yield surface definition ......................................................................................................... 175
viii
7.2.2.3 Plastic flow rule .................................................................................................................... 176
7.3 Finite element mesh and geometry description ................................................................ 177
7.4 Verification of FE model for UHPFRC beams ................................................................. 179
7.4.1 Analysis of tested beam US2-1.5-3.0 ....................................................................................... 179
7.4.3 Verification with experimental results of beam Yang et al. (2012) ......................................... 181
7.5 FE model of UHPFRC-NSC/HSC beams ......................................................................... 184
7.5.1. Compressive behaviour ........................................................................................................... 185
7.5.2 Tension behaviour .................................................................................................................... 188
7.6 Verification of FE model for UHPFRC-NSC/HSC beams ............................................... 189
7.7 Parametric study................................................................................................................ 191
7.7.1 Size effect of UHPFRC beams ................................................................................................. 191
7.7.2 Size effect of UHPFRC-NSC beams........................................................................................ 193
7.7.3 Compressive strength of NSC/HSC layer ................................................................................ 194
7.8 Comparison between FE analysis and analytical model ................................................... 195
Chapter 8 ..................................................................................................................................... 198
Summary and Conclusions ......................................................................................................... 198
8.1 Experimental program ...................................................................................................... 198
8.1.1 UHPFRC members .................................................................................................................. 198
8.1.2 UHPFRC-NSC/HSC members ................................................................................................ 199
8.2 Analytical program ........................................................................................................... 200
8.3 Future research .................................................................................................................. 201
REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 203
ix
List of Tables
Table 2.1: Models for predicting the shear strength of FRC beams 49
Table 3.1 Typical composition of Ductal®………………………………………………… 54
Table 3.2 Calculation of beam shear and flexural strength………………………………… 57
Table 3.3 Experimental parameters of specimens of phase 1 ……………………………… 58
Table 3.4 Experimental parameters of test beams of phase 2……………………………… 60
Table 4.1 Cylinder compressive strength test results (MPa)……………………………….. 69
Table 4.2 Split cylinder test results (MPa)…………………………………………………. 71
Table 4.3 Flexural properties and test results of UHPC mixtures………………………….. 73
Table 4.4 Flexural toughness and modulus of rupture of beams…………………………… 74
Table 4.5 Material properties and experimental parameters of specimens………………… 102
Table 4.6 Shear capacity of UHPFRC beams………………………………………………. 104
Table 5.1 Cylinder compressive strength test results (MPa)……………………………….. 105
Table 5.2 Split cylinder test results (MPa)…………………………………………………. 106
Table 5.3 Flexural test results of UHPFRC-NSC/HSC…………………………………….. 107
Table 5.4 Flexural toughness and modulus of rupture of beams…………………………… 107
Table 5.5 Experimental results of test beams………………………………………………. 112
Table 5.6 Shear capacity of UHPFRC-NSC test specimens……………………………….. 152
Table 5.7 Shear capacity of UHPFRC-HSC test specimens……………………………….. 153
Table 6.1 Comparison with previous Investigators and recommendations………………… 155
Table 6.2 Comparison with experimental results…………………………………………... 163
Table 6.3 Material properties and experimental parameters of test beams………………… 166
Table 7.1 Material properties of FE model for reinforcing steel…………………………... 176
Table 7.2 Material properties of FE model for UHPFRC………………………………….. 177
Table 7.3 Shear capacity for UHPFRC for different beam sizes…………………………… 192
Table 7.4 Shear capacity for UHPFRC-NSC for different beam sizes…………………….. 193
Table 7.5 Comparison between FE Analysis and Analytical Model for different UHPFRC
beam sizes…………………………………………………………………………………... 196
Table 7.6 Comparison between FE Analysis and Analytical Model for different
UHPFRC-NSC beam sizes…………………………………………………………………. 196
Table 7.7 Comparison between FE Analysis and Analytical Model for UHPFRC-
NSC/HSC with 2% fibre volume content…………………………………………………... 197
Table 8.1 Summary of proposed models…………………………………………………… 201
x
List of Figures
Figure 2.1 Applications of UHPFRC .............................................................................................. 9
Figure 2.2 Different types of steel fibres grouped according to their bond characteristics (Wille
and Naaman, 2012b) ..................................................................................................................... 10
Figure 2.3 Different types of steel fibres (Wille and Naaman, 2012b)......................................... 10
Figure 2.4 Shear stress slip relationship of smooth (S) and deformed (T2, H) steel fibres
embedded in HSC (60 MPa) and UHPC A (194 MPa) (Wille and Naaman, 2012a) ................... 12
Figure 2.5 Comparison of pullout response of high-strength straight, hooked-end, and twisted
fibres embedded in high-strength concrete (Wille and Naaman, 2012b) ..................................... 12
Figure 2.6 Effect of fibre geometry on pullout behaviour of steel fibres embedded in UHPC-A
(Wille and Naaman, 2012b) .......................................................................................................... 13
Figure 2.7 Effect of fibre inclination for hooked steel fibre in high strength concrete (Banthia and
Trottier, 1994) ............................................................................................................................... 14
Figure 2.8 Different stress-strain curve for brittle matrix composites (Dinh, 2009) .................... 17
Figure 2.9 Tension tests: (a) direct tension test; (b) bending or modulus of rupture test; (c) double
punch test; (d) split cylinder test (Kaufmann, W., 1998).............................................................. 19
Figure 2.10 Direct tensile stress-strain curves for different types of SFRC (ACI Committee 544,
1988) ............................................................................................................................................. 19
Figure 2.11 Tensile stress-crack opening relationship for different Concrete Mixtures (Noghabai,
2000) ............................................................................................................................................. 20
Figure 2.12 – Response of UHPFRC in uniaxial tensile stress state compared to conventional
(CC), fibre- reinforced normal or high-strength concrete (FRC, HSFRC), as well as engineered
cementitious composites (ECC) with short polymeric (PE, PVA) fibres (adapted from
Spasojević, 2008) .......................................................................................................................... 21
Figure 2.13 Idealized simplified response of strain-hardening FRC composites in tension (Wille
et al., 2011) ................................................................................................................................... 22
Figure 2.14 Influence of fibre volume fraction on tensile behaviour. (a) Smooth (S) fibres and (b)
twisted (T) fibres (Wille et al., 2011) ........................................................................................... 22
Figure 2.15 Average fibre tensile stress  fpc within the composite at peak strength  pc (Wille et
al., 2011) ....................................................................................................................................... 25
Figure 2.16 UHPFRC bending beam tests according to ASTM 1609 (a) Test setup and (b)
influence of fibre geometry (Wille et al., 2012a).......................................................................... 27
Figure 2.17 Plain concrete beam subjected to a concentrated load .............................................. 29
Figure 2.18 Flexural and diagonal tension cracks (Winter and Nilson, 1979) ............................. 30
Figure 2.19 Effect of shear span to depth ratio (a/d) on shear strength of beams without stirrups
(Wight and MacGregor, 2012) ...................................................................................................... 31
Figure 2.20 Beams failure mode (ACI- ASCE, 1973) (adapted from Dinh, 2009) ...................... 32
Figure 2.21 modes of failure of short spans with a/d ranging from 1 to 2.5 (ACI- ASCE, 1973) 33
Figure 2.22 Shear resistance components in a cracked concrete beam without shear
reinforcement ................................................................................................................................ 34
Figure 2.23 Internal forces in a cracked concrete beam with stirrups (ACI- ASCE, 1973) ......... 36
Figure 2.24 Beam cross-section area (Yang et al., 2012) ............................................................. 38
Figure 2.25 (a) Patterns of shear failure in specimens with a / d  3 (b) patterns of shear failure in
specimens with a / d  2.5 (Narayanan and Darwish, 1987) ....................................................... 42
xi
Figure 2.26 Forces within fibre reinforced concrete beam with diagonal tension crack (Al- Ta’an
and Al-Feel, 1990) ........................................................................................................................ 44
Figure 2.27 Different types of bond tensile test ............................................................................ 50
Figure 2.28 Different types of bond shear test .............................................................................. 51
Figure 2.29 Bond strength test methods (Momayez et. al., 2005) ................................................ 52
Figure 3.1 Type of steel fibre ........................................................................................................ 54
Figure 3.2 Reinforcement details and test configuration .............................................................. 59
Figure 3.3 (a) Effective tension area b) and c) Shear connections ............................................... 60
Figure 3.4 Test setup for beams in series 1 ................................................................................... 62
Figure 3.5 Test setup for beams in series 2 and 3 ......................................................................... 63
Figure 3.6 Split cylinder test (Wight and MacGregor, 2012) ....................................................... 65
Figure 3.7 Four-point bending test (a) dimensions, and (b) instrumentation ASTM C 1609 (2006)
....................................................................................................................................................... 67
Figure 3.8 Splitting prism test ....................................................................................................... 68
Figure 4.1 Failure modes of concrete cylindrical specimens under compression loading test ..... 70
Figure 4.2 Failure modes of concrete cylindrical specimens under split cylinder tests ............... 71
Figure 4.3 Flexural behaviour of UHPFRC prisms ...................................................................... 73
Figure 4.4 Load versus net deflection relationship for UHPFRC prisms ..................................... 74
Figure 4.5 Comparison between flexural strength of series 0%, 1%, 1.5% and 2% fibre content 74
Figure 4.6 First-crack stress relationship with fibre volume content % ....................................... 75
Figure 4.7 Post-cracking peak stress relationship with fibre volume content % .......................... 76
Figure 4.8 Stress at net deflection values (L⁄600) relationship with fibre volume content % ...... 76
Figure 4.9 Stress at net deflection values (L⁄150) relationship with fibre volume content % ...... 77
Figure 4.10 Load versus central deflection relationship – Beam US1-0-3.5 ................................ 78
Figure 4.11 Crack pattern after failure – Beam US1-0-3.5........................................................... 78
Figure 4.12 Load versus reinforcement strain – Beam US1-0-3.5 ............................................... 79
Figure 4.25 Load versus central deflection relationship – Beam US2-0-3.0-a ............................. 88
Figure 4.26 Crack pattern after failure – Beam US2-0-3.0-a ....................................................... 88
Figure 4.27 Load versus reinforcement strain – Beam US2-0-3.0-a ............................................ 89
Figure 4.28 Load versus central deflection relationship – Beam US2-0-3.0-b ............................ 90
Figure 4.29 Crack pattern after failure – Beam US2-0-3.0-b ....................................................... 90
Figure 4.30 Load versus reinforcement strain – Beam US2-0-3.0-b ............................................ 91
xii
Figure 4.34 Load versus central deflection relationship – Beam US2-1.5-3.0 ............................. 94
Figure 4.35 Crack pattern after failure – Beam US2-1.5-3.0........................................................ 94
Figure 4.36 Load versus reinforcement strain – Beam US2-1.5-3.0 ............................................ 95
Figure 4.40 Load versus central deflection relationship – Beam NS2 ......................................... 98
Figure 4.41 Crack pattern after failure – Beam NS2 .................................................................... 98
Figure 4.42 Load versus reinforcement strain – Beam NS2-0-3 .................................................. 99
Figure 4.43 Load versus central deflection relationship – Beam HS2-0-3 ................................. 100
Figure 4.44 Crack pattern after failure – Beam HS2-0-3............................................................ 100
Figure 4.45 Load versus reinforcement strain – Beam HS2-0-3 ................................................ 101
Figure 4.46 Load versus central deflection relationship for a/d ratio for Series 1 with 2% fibre
volume content ............................................................................................................................ 103
Figure 4.47 Load versus central deflection relationship for different fibre volume contents for
Series 2 with a/d=3.0 .................................................................................................................. 104
Table 4.6 Shear capacity of UHPFRC beams ............................................................................. 104
Figure 5.1 Flexural behaviour of UHPFRC/NSC prisms ........................................................... 109
Figure 5.2 Flexural behaviour of UHPFRC/HSC prisms ........................................................... 110
Figure 5.3 Load versus net deflection relationship for UHPFRC-NSC prisms .......................... 110
Figure 5.4 Load versus net deflection relationship for UHPFRC-HSC prisms .......................... 111
Figure 5.5 Load versus central deflection relationship – Beam UNS3-1 ................................... 113
Figure 5.6 Crack pattern after failure – Beam UNS3-1 .............................................................. 113
Figure 5.7 Load versus central deflection relationship – Beam UNS3-1D ................................ 114
Figure 5.8 Crack pattern after failure – Beam UNS3-1D ........................................................... 114
Figure 5.9 Load versus central deflection relationship – Beam UNS3-1S ................................. 115
Figure 5.10 Crack pattern after failure – Beam UNS3-1S .......................................................... 115
Figure 5.11 Load versus crack width relationship – Beam UNS3-1 .......................................... 116
Figure 5.12 Load versus crack width relationship – Beam UNS3-1D ....................................... 116
Figure 5.13 Load versus crack width relationship – Beam UNS3-1S ........................................ 117
Figure 5.14 Load versus reinforcement strain – Beam UNS3-1 ................................................. 118
Figure 5.15 Load versus reinforcement strain – Beam UNS3-1D .............................................. 118
Figure 5.16 Load versus reinforcement strain – Beam UNS3-1S .............................................. 119
Figure 5.17 Load versus central deflection relationship – Beam UNS3-1.5 .............................. 120
Figure 5.18 Crack pattern after failure – Beam UNS3-1.5 ......................................................... 120
Figure 5.19 Load versus central deflection relationship – Beam UNS3-1.5D ........................... 121
Figure 5.20 Crack pattern after failure – Beam UNS3-1.5D ...................................................... 121
Figure 5.21 Load versus crack width relationship – Beam UNS3-1.5 ....................................... 122
Figure 5.22 Load versus crack width relationship – Beam UNS3-1.5D .................................... 122
Figure 5.23 Load versus reinforcement strain – Beam UNS3-1.5 .............................................. 123
Figure 5.24 Load versus reinforcement strain – Beam UNS3-1.5D ........................................... 123
Figure 5.25 Load versus central deflection relationship – Beam UNS3-2 ................................. 124
Figure 5.26 Crack pattern after failure – Beam UNS3-2 ............................................................ 124
Figure 5.27 Load versus central deflection relationship – Beam UNS3-2D .............................. 125
Figure 5.28 Crack pattern after failure – Beam UNS3-2D ......................................................... 125
xiii
Figure 5.29 Load versus crack width relationship – Beam UNS3-2 .......................................... 126
Figure 5.30 Load versus crack width relationship – Beam UNS3-2D ....................................... 126
Figure 5.31 Load versus reinforcement strain – Beam UNS3-2 ................................................. 127
Figure 5.32 Load versus reinforcement strain – Beam UNS3-2D .............................................. 127
Figure 5.33 Load versus central deflection relationship – Beam UHS3-1 ................................. 128
Figure 5.34 Crack pattern after failure – Beam UHS3-1 ............................................................ 128
Figure 5.35 Load versus central deflection relationship – Beam UHS3-1D .............................. 129
Figure 5.36 Crack pattern after failure – Beam UHS3-1D ......................................................... 129
Figure 5.37 Load versus central deflection relationship – Beam UHS3-1S ............................... 130
Figure 5.38 Crack pattern after failure – Beam UHS3-1S .......................................................... 130
Figure 5.39 Load versus central deflection relationship – Beam UHS3-1.5 .............................. 131
Figure 5.40 Crack pattern after failure – Beam UHS3-1.5 ......................................................... 131
Figure 5.41 Load versus central deflection relationship – Beam UHS3-1.5D ........................... 132
Figure 5.42 Crack pattern after failure – Beam UHS3-1.5D ...................................................... 132
Figure 5.43 Load versus central deflection relationship – Beam UHS3-2 ................................. 133
Figure 5.44 Crack pattern after failure – Beam UHS3-2 ............................................................ 133
Figure 5.45 Load versus central deflection relationship – Beam UHS3-2D .............................. 134
Figure 5.46 Crack pattern after failure – Beam UHS3-2D ......................................................... 134
Figure 5.47 Load versus crack width relationship – Beam UHS3-1 .......................................... 135
Figure 5.48 Load versus crack width relationship – Beam UHS3-1D ....................................... 136
Figure 5.49 Load versus crack width relationship – Beam UHS3-1S ........................................ 136
Figure 5.50 Load versus crack width relationship – Beam UHS3-1.5 ....................................... 137
Figure 5.51 Load versus crack width relationship – Beam UHS3-1.5D .................................... 137
Figure 5.52 Load versus crack width relationship – Beam UHS3-2 .......................................... 138
Figure 5.53 Load versus crack width relationship – Beam UHS3-2D ....................................... 138
Figure 5.54 Load versus reinforcement strain – Beam UHS3-1 ................................................. 139
Figure 5.55 Load versus reinforcement strain – Beam UHS3-1D .............................................. 139
Figure 5.56 Load versus reinforcement strain – Beam UHS3-1S .............................................. 140
Figure 5.57 Load versus reinforcement strain – Beam UHS3-1.5 .............................................. 140
Figure 5.58 Load versus reinforcement strain – Beam UHS3-1.5D ........................................... 141
Figure 5.59 Load versus reinforcement strain – Beam UHS3-2 ................................................. 141
Figure 5.60 Load versus reinforcement strain – Beam UHS3-2D .............................................. 142
Figure 5.61 Splitting tensile tests of composite cubes ................................................................ 143
Figure 5.62 Load versus central deflection relationship comparison for UHPFRC-NSC beams
with 1% fibre volume content ..................................................................................................... 146
with 1.5% fibre volume content .................................................................................................. 147
with 2% fibre volume content ..................................................................................................... 147
without dowels or shear stud....................................................................................................... 148
Figure 5.66 Load versus central deflection relationship comparison for UHPFRC-HSC beams
xiv
without dowels or shear stud....................................................................................................... 150
Figure 5.70 Load versus central deflection relationship comparison for beams with 1% fibre
volume content ............................................................................................................................ 150
Figure 5.71 Load versus central deflection relationship comparison for beams with 1.5% fibre
volume content ............................................................................................................................ 151
volume content ............................................................................................................................ 151
Figure 6.1 Fibre contributions to shear resistance ...................................................................... 157
Figure 6.2 Load versus central deflection relationship for NSC, HSC and UHPC without fibre
content with a/d=3.0 ................................................................................................................... 160
Figure 6.3 Vertical stress and strain distribution: (a) typical reinforced concrete beam section;(b)
strain distribution; (c) actual concrete stresses with fibres; (d) equivalent concrete stresses with
fibres ........................................................................................................................................... 162
Figure 6.4 Fibre contributions to shear resistance ...................................................................... 164
Figure 7.1 Nominal and true stress strain curve for steel reinforcement .................................... 169
Figure 7.2 Plastic Strain- True Stress behaviour for Classical metal plasticity model ............... 171
Figure 7.3 nominal compression stress-strain curve for UHPFRC............................................. 171
Figure 7.4 CDP model input for inelastic compression behaviour for UHPFRC ....................... 172
Figure 7.5 Compression damage parameter input for UHPFRC ................................................ 172
Figure 7.6 CDP model input for inelastic tension behaviour for UHPFRC for different fibre
volume % .................................................................................................................................... 174
Figure 7.7 Tension damage parameter input for UHPFRC for different fibre volume % .......... 174
Figure 7.8 Drucker-Prager yield criteria for different values of K c , (Hibbitt et al., 2011) ........ 175
Figure 7.9 Generated FE mesh of beam US2-1.5-3.0 with element size 30 mm........................ 178
Figure 7.10 Load and boundary condition for FE model............................................................ 178
Figure 7.11 Load versus central deflection for different mesh sizes for beam US2-1.5-3 ......... 179
Figure 7.12 Load versus strain for beam US2-1.5-3 ................................................................... 180
Figure 7.13 Compression damage pattern for Beam US2-1.5-3 ................................................. 180
Figure 7.14 Load versus central deflection for beam US1-2.0-3.5 ............................................. 181
Figure 7.15 Load versus central deflection for beam S34-F15-P0 (Yang et al., 2012) .............. 182
Figure 7.16 Load versus central deflection for beam S34-F20-P0 (Yang et al., 2012) .............. 182
Figure 7.17 Compression damage pattern for beam S34-F20-P0 (Yang et al., 2012) ................ 183
Figure 7.18 Load versus central deflection for beam US2-1.0-3.0 ............................................. 184
Figure 7.19 nominal compression stress-strain curves for NSC and HSC ................................. 186
Figure 7.20 CDP model input for inelastic compression behaviour for NSC and HSC ............. 187
Figure 7.21 Compression damage parameter input for NSC and HSC ...................................... 187
Figure 7.22 Nominal tensile stress-strain curves for NSC and HSC .......................................... 188
Figure 7.23 CDP model input for inelastic tension behaviour for NSC and HSC...................... 189
Figure 7.24 Load versus central deflection for beam UNS3-2 ................................................... 190
Figure 7.25 Compression damage pattern for Beam UNS3-2 .................................................... 191
Figure 7.26 Load versus central deflection for UHPFRC for different beam sizes .................... 192
Figure 7.27 Load versus central deflection for UHPFRC-NSC for different beam sizes........... 194
xv
Figure 7.28 Load versus central deflection for UHPFRC-NSC/HSC beams for different
NSC/HSC compressive strength ................................................................................................. 195
xvi
List of Symbols
a shear span
ac depth of equivalent compression stress block
A area of bond plane
Asf cross-sectional area of the fibre
Ast area of tensile steel reinforcement
b width of the member
bw beam width or web width for I beam,
c depth of neutral axis measured from the top face of the beam
d effective depth of beam
df diameter of the fibre
d cyl diameter of the cylinder
d depth of compression steel reinforcement
dv effective shear depth
Ec elastic modulus of concrete
Ef fibre modulus
Em matrix modulus
Es elastic modulus of steel
F fibre factor
f flexural strength
fr modulus of rupture
f sp split tensile strength
fy steel yield strength,
f ft uniform fibre reinforced concrete stress in tension
f c concrete compressive strength
f fib average fibre pull-out force per fibre
h height of the member
hu thickness of UHPFRC layer.
hn thickness of NSC/HSC layer
l cyl length of the cylinder
I moment of inertia of the cross section
Kc ratio of the second stress invariant on the tensile meridian to that on the
compressive meridian
xvii
k1 constant
lf fibre length
Le fibre embedment length
L fs length of straight portion of fibre
Ls span length of member
M moment on the cross section
Mu ultimate moment of resistance
n ratio of the elastic moduli of fibre and matrix
n fib effective number of fibres per unit area
P applied load
Pmax maximum pull out load
Pu ultimate applied load
Q first moment of area
Sp slip at Pmax
V shear force on the cross section
Vcz shear resistance provided by uncracked concrete above the neutral axis
Va aggregate interlock
Vd dowel action of the tensile reinforcement
Vrt residual tensile stresses across the crack due to bridging action
Vac arch action in deep members
Vsf fibre volume content
vu ultimate shear strength
vc ultimate shear strength without fibres
vf shear contribution of steel fibres
s Poisson’s ratio of steel reinforcement
Poisson’s ratio of concrete
 fibre orientation factor
1 concrete stress block factor
2 concrete stress block factor
ac equivalent compression stress block depth
1 concrete stress block factor
1 fibre length factor for un-cracked composite
2 fibre orientation factor for un-cracked composite
p contribution of hooked ended fibre
c compression strain
xviii
t tensile strains
 cin inelastic strain in compression
 ccr cracking strain in tension
 angel of crack inclination
 flexural reduction factor
c compression stress
t tensile stress
 cc fibre composite tensile strength
 pc post-cracking tensile strength
f fibre tensile strength
 sp splitting tensile strength of plane
 mu ultimate matrix tensile strength of matrix
 cu ultimate tensile strength of the composite
 fu ultimate tensile strength of fibre
 fpc average tensile stress of the fibres
 efficiency of a single fibre
1 fibre length factor
1 effective bond length
2 fibre orientation factor
3 group factor
 longitudinal steel reinforcement ratio
w longitudinal steel reinforcement ratio
 bond strength between fibre and matrix
u utilization factor
xix
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1 Introduction
The aging and deterioration of highway bridge structures in North America present major
technical and economic challenges to bridge owners regarding when and how to upgrade these
damaged structures and extend their service lives at the minimum life cycle cost. These problems
are further compounded by the budgetary constraints that face most highway agencies. Highway
bridge girders are approaching the end of their service life and some of them present serious
structural deficiencies due to the effects of corrosion, overload, inadequate original design, poor
construction, and lack of reliable inspection and effective maintenance. To effectively address
some of the above challenges, there is a need to develop effective management tools as well as
innovative and cost-effective materials, construction techniques and structural systems to build
the next generation of high-performance bridges.
Ultra-high performance fibre-reinforced concrete (UHPFRC) represents a major step forward

when compared to conventional normal strength concrete (NSC) and high strength concrete
(HSC), due to the achievement of very high strength and very low permeability. The UHPC is a
concrete with a compressive strength above 150 MPa, pre-and post-cracking tensile strengths
above 5 MPa, and has enhanced durability via its discontinuous pore structure (Graybeal, 2005).
This “ultra” high strength is achieved through different techniques such as the use of improved
materials, ultra-fine pozzolans (e.g. silica fume), low water-cement ratio, improved quality and
higher dosage of superplasticizer, use of fibres (metallic or synthetic) to increase energy
absorption capacity and decrease brittleness, high cementitious material content, longer mixing
time and heat treatment (Rahman et al., 2005). UHPFRC tensile strength varies from 10 to 30
MPa, and the modulus of elasticity varies between 60 and 100 GPa (Buitelaar et al., 2004). Using
UHPFRC in the construction of new bridges and in the renewal of existing highway bridge
networks could minimize maintenance requirements in the construction of new long lasting
1
bridges and result in lower life cycle costs (Almansour and Lounis, 2010).
UHPC’s initial construction cost is significantly higher than that of normal strength concrete
(NSC), which has limited its use in North America and elsewhere. The structural efficiency and
cost-effectiveness of using UHPFRC in composite construction is investigated in this study, to
address some of the challenges faced by bridge owners. Therefore, to strengthen the bridge zones
that are most exposed to severe environmental deterioration and high mechanical loading, a
system combining NSC/HSC with UHPFRC in a composite construction is intended to optimize
the use of the properties of both materials. In this composite construction, UHPFRC was used in
the parts of the structure that require high mechanical loading and/or low permeability to
detrimental substances, whereas, the other parts were made using NSC/HSC. The proposed
system of composite “UHPFRC-NSC/HSC” structures can be used for the effective construction
of new structures and the rehabilitation of existing structures. Such a composite system will
enable structures (e.g. bridges) with longer service lives, longer spans, lighter weights, and lower
maintenance costs over their life cycle.
1.2 Objectives and Scope of the research

1.2.1 Objectives
The commonly used design codes in North America, ACI-318-11 and CSA A23.3-04 and in
Europe EN 1992-1-1:2004 could not predict the shear capacity of reinforced concrete beams
with a compressive strength exceeding 150 MPa (22 ksi). In addition, the experimental studies of
the shear characteristic for UHPFRC beams are extremely limited. Thus, the primary objectives
of this research are:
1. Investigate the performance and structural behaviour of new composite UHPFRC-NSC, and
UHPFRC-HSC members subjected to shear and bending.
2. Develop an analytical model to predict the shear strength of new composite elements
UHPFRC-NSC, and UHPFRC-HSC beams.
3. Develop a finite element model to predict the shear strength of new composite elements
UHPFRC-NSC, and UHPFRC-HSC beams.
2
In order to understand shear behaviour of composite UHPFRC-NSC, and UHPFRC-HSC
members, the following objectives were investigated:
4. Investigate the shear behaviour of ultra-high performance concrete UHPC beams without
web reinforcement, and ultra-high performance steel fibre reinforced concrete UHPFRC
without web reinforcement.
5. Investigate the concrete contribution to shear strength, and the contribution of steel fibres to
shear strength of UHPC beams and UHPFRC beams without web reinforcement.
6. Investigate the shear failure mechanism, and the ultimate shear strength of UHPFRC beams.
7. Develop an analytical model to predict the shear strength of UHPFRC beams.
8. Develop an analytical model to predict the flexural strength of UHPFRC beams.
1.2.2 Scope
This investigation was limited to simply supported beams subjected to concentrate monotonic
loading. Other loading schemes such as cyclic, reversed cyclic and dynamic loading, which are
substantially different than monotonic loading were not investigated.
This research is also limited to concrete compressive strength between 150 and 200 MPa,
without and with straight steel fibres. However, the results of this investigation can be applicable
to FRC beams constructed with other deformed steel fibres that exhibit bond stress versus slip
response similar to that of straight steel fibres used in this investigation.
1.3 Thesis Organization

This thesis has eight chapters. Following this introductory chapter is Chapter 2, which presents
background information and reviews the various topics that are treated in the thesis. Thereafter,
the thesis is divided into three main phases including experimental, analytical and numerical
investigations:
1. The first phase of the research program investigates the behaviour of UHPFRC members
and UHPFRC composite members:
3
a. Chapter 3 discusses the experimental program including the choice of studied
parameters and the design and testing of beam specimens and determines the
mechanical properties of the materials used in the beam specimens
b. Chapter 4 presents the test results of UHPFRC beams
c. Chapter 5 discusses the test results of UHPFRC composite beams
2. The second phase of the research program presents an analytical models that can be used
to predict the flexural and shear behaviour of UHPFRC beams and an analytical model to
predict the shear behaviour of UHPFRC-NSC/HSC composite beams (Chapter 6)
3. The third phase of the research program presents a finite element model to predict the
shear behaviour of UHPFRC beams and UHPFRC-NSC/HSC composite beams to
investigate the effect of studied parameter on the composite behaviour (Chapter 7)
Chapter 8 provides concluding remarks about the implications of the experimental and
analytical study. Finally, recommendation of future study is presented.
4
Chapter 2
Literature Review
This chapter presents a comprehensive review of the literature regarding the various topics that
were studied in this thesis. The literature review begins with the concept of using UHPFRC as a
structural material and will summarize some of the mechanical properties. Section 2.1 describes
the characteristic of UHPFRC material. Section 2.2 summarizes some of the methods that can be
used to predict the shear behaviour of fibre reinforced concrete beams and presents a summary of
some of the past research that has focussed on the use of steel fibres in Reinforced concrete (RC)
beams. Section 2.3 introduces the concept of composite concrete members and summarizes the
past research that has focussed on composite concrete members.
2.1 UHPFRC
2.1.1 Historical overview
The term ultra-high performance concrete was first used in a publication by de Larrard and
Sedran (1994). Although no precise definition could be found in the reviewed technical literature
to ultra-high performance concrete (UHPC), UHPC is defined as the concrete or cementitious
composites with compressive strength over 150 MPa (22 ksi) and with water to cementitious
ratio (w/c) less than 0.2 (Wille and Naaman, 2012). When steel fibres are added to UHPC to
increase the energy absorption capacity and decrease brittleness, the term ultra-high performance
fibre reinforced concrete (UHPFRC) is used.
UHPFRC development found its origin in early 1970s, Yudenfreund et al. (1972) investigated
high strength pastes with low w/c ratios (w/c = 0.2 to 0.3). They achieved 230 MPa by using
vacuum mixing process to reduce the porosity of the cement paste. Hot temperature and pressure
technique was first applied by Roy et al. (1972), and resulted in high strength cement pastes with
compressive strengths up to 680 MPa. With the development of superplasticizers and pozzolanic
5
admixtures such as silica fume, Birchall et al. (1981) developed polymer modified cementitious
materials called Macro-Defect-Free (MDF) cements, and Bache (1987) developed the densified
small particles (DSP) which use the interaction of superplasticizers and silica fume to decrease
the porosity of the material and to increase the strengths. This led to compressive strengths
between 120 and 250 MPa. This matrix was theoretically investigated and optimized by
DeLarrard and Sedran (1994). Richard and Cheyrezy (1995) introduced reactive powder concrete
(RPC) and reported compressive strengths up to 800 MPa using a temperature of up to 400C,
pressure of 50 MPa, 10% volume content of steel fibres, and steel aggregates. However, these
high strength cement pastes and mortars are very brittle. Consequently, the addition of fibres is
necessary to enhance ductility. Compact reinforced composite (CRC) was developed by Aalborg
Portland (1986) in Denmark. This type of UHPC contains 5 to 10% of steel fibres (6 mm length
and 0.15 mm of diameter) to improve the tensile strength of the material without improving the
ductility of a structure (Bache, 1987). Reactive powder concrete (RPC) was further developed by
Bouygues, France in 1995 which contains maximum 2.5% of steel fibres by volume (13 mm
length and 0.16 mm of diameter) (Richard and Cheyrezy 1995, Orange et al. 2000). The length
of the fibre in RPC is twice longer than CRC. This low fibre content of RPC doesn’t increase the
tensile strength of the matrix, which is around 8 MPa; however, the bond between fibres and the
matrix was found to be improved compared to CRC. The multi-scale cement composite (MSCC)
using a mixture of short and long steel fibres were developed at the LCPC in France and are
known under the name CEMTECmultiscal ® (Rossi 1997, Rossi, 2002)
2.1.2 UHPFRC composition

UHPFRC consists of cement, silica fume, fine sand, fibres, water and superplasticizer. Typical
water/cement ratio is 0.15-0.20.
Cement: The cement content is very high, more than two times higher than that of the normal
strength concrete  700kg / m3 . The cement used in UHPFRC usually has low alkali content, low
to medium fineness and low C3A-content, thus, reducing water need, ettringite formation and
heat of hydration. The homogeneity of the mix was improved by eliminating the coarse
aggregate, and optimizing the packing density. Some researchers used quartz powder of 25% of
cement content as a filler to optimize the packing density (Wille and Naaman, 2012).
6
Silica fume: Silica fume is used in UHPFRC to fill the voids between cement grains. It improves
rheological properties, and it forms hydration products. Silica fume of 25% of cement content is
found to be the optimum filling capacity (Wille and Naaman, 2012). However, the use of silica
fume increases the shrinkage of the mix to be more than that of the conventional concrete with
similar water to binder ratio (Loukili, 1999).
Sand: Sand with a mean particle size smaller than 1 mm is used to produce UHPFRC mix.
Quartz sand is more suitable for UHPFRC due to its high hardness property and its good
interface with the cement paste.
Superplasticizer: Superplasticizers are essential to ensure a good workability of UHPFRC. They

improve rheology of the fresh material and reduce the need for water. Polycarboxylates and
polycarboxylatethers are very efficient superplasticizers .
Fibres: UHPC is a brittle material; therefore, fibres with different geometries and lengths are
added to UHPC to increase the energy absorption capacity and decrease brittleness. Steel fibres
are mostly adapted due its high strength and stiffness. Steel and organic fibres are used in
UHPFRC. Steel fibres in UHPFRC are generally pulled out; therefore, fibre ductility is less
important than it strength. Naaman (2008) developed curves for strain hardening under bending
and uniaxial tension as a function of the fibre properties. Rossi (2002) developed UHPFRC on
the basis of the multiscale concept with several kinds of steel fibres to increase the tensile
strength of the material and the deformation capacity of the structure.
2.1.3 Structural applications

Application of UHPC has been used internationally in the construction of a limited number of
bridges in Canada, the United States, Europe, Asia, and Australia. The first application for a
footbridge was realized with a use of RPC, in Sherbrooke, Canada in 1997 (Fig. 2.1(a)). It is 60
m long and 3.3 m wide post-tensioned truss with 30 mm thick slab. Deck and truss members are
made from UHPFRC, no passive reinforcement was used. Amongst this type of the UHPC
applications are Seonyu footbridge in Seoul, South Korea (Fig. 2.1(b)); the Sakata Maria
footbridge in Sakata city, Japan (Fig. 2.1(c)); the Yokemuri footbridge in Yagamata, Japan; and
7
the Papatoetoe and Penrose footbridges in Auckland, New Zealand (Ahlborn et al., 2008,
Suleiman et al., 2008, Schmidt and Fehling, 2004, Buitelaar, 2004)
The first UHPC highway bridge was opened to traffic in France in 2001 (Hajar et al. 2004), and
at the same time, another UHPC bridge was constructed in Italy with 11.8 m span. (Meda and
Rosati, 2003). In late 2005, a 33.8 m span UHPC bridge was designed and opened to traffic in
Iowa (Bierwagen and Abu-Hawash, 2005).
Other application of UHPC include piles lining in oil production platform in the lake of
Maracaibo in Venezuela in 1992 and 1993 (Buitelaar, 2004), as a rehabilitation material in the
Kinzua Dam Stilling Basin in 1983 (Buitelaar, 2004), and as an architectural shape in tollgate of
Millau Viaduct in France (Fig. 2.1(d)) (Schmidt and Fehling, 2004).
2.1.4 Effect of fibres on concrete properties

The incorporation of steel fibres in the mix design overcomes the brittle behaviour of plain
UHPC under tensile loading, and significantly improves its post-cracking tensile resistance and
toughness. The performance of UHPFRC depends greatly on the bond between steel fibres and
concrete, fibres distribution in the concrete matrix, and the fibre content. The primary role of
steel fibres is bridging the cracks. As cracks open, the fibres can either fracture or pull out from
the concrete depending on the bond strength between the fibres and the concrete. Pull out failure
is more often due to the amount of energy absorbed in the concrete matrix. Therefore, improving
the bond characteristic between the steel fibres and concrete is desirable to increase the bridging
affect.
8
(a) Footbridge in Sherbrooke, Canada, 1997 (b) Footbridge in Seoul, South Korea, 2002
(c) Sakata Mirai footbridge, Japan, 2000 (d) Roof of the Millau toll-gate
Figure 2.1 Applications of UHPFRC
Different types of fibres were used in the concrete industry; the common types are shown in
Figures 2.2 and 2.3. Straight fibre was the first type of steel fibres used in concrete and its bond
strength depends on the friction between the fibre and the concrete. Therefore, higher surface
area to volume ratio of fibres has high bond strength. Also, the bond strength depends on the
aspect ratio, which is the length of fibre to diameter ratio. The deformation of fibres significantly
improves the bond strength between fibres and concrete. However, increasing fibre aspect ratio,
introducing mechanical anchorage, and changing fibre cross section may decrease the bond
strength due to inadequate workability and fibre distribution (ACI Committee 544, 1988).
9
Figure 2.2 Different types of steel fibres grouped according to their bond characteristics (Wille and
Naaman, 2012b)
Figure 2.3 Different types of steel fibres (Wille and Naaman, 2012b)
10
The fibre matrix bond mechanism depends on physico-chemical bond that is based on the
adhesive and frictional forces, and mechanical bond due to fibre deformation (Wille and
Naaman, 2012a). Fig. 2.4 shows comparison between smooth fibres and deformed fibres, such as
end hooked or twisted fibres. It can be noted from Fig. 2.4 that mechanical contribution of
deformed fibres increases the bond component, which leads to the increase in the pull out
resistance. The mechanical bond properties are affected by the geometric deformation of the
fibre and the matrix tensile stress resistance. The deformation along fibre length provide a
mechanical bond contribution along the fibre such as in crimped, indented or polygonal twisted
fibres whereas the deformation at the fibre end increases the mechanical bond such as paddles,
buttons or hooks fibres.
Chan and Chu (2004), Markovic (2006), and Stengel (2009) studied the behaviour of steel fibres
embedded in UHPC. Wille and Naaman (2012b) developed Fig. 2.5 to illustrate fibre tensile
stress-slip behaviour of straight (S), hooked-end (H), and twisted (T) fibres based on pullout tests
of fibres embedded in high-strength cementitious matrix by Sujiravorakul (2001), Kim et al.
(2008), Naaman and Najm (1991), Robins et al. (2002), and Cunha et al. (2010).
It can be noted from Fig. 2.5 that the pullout response of one single S-fibre is characterized by a
rapid increase of fibre stress followed by a decrease of tensile stress with an increase of pullout
slip due to fibre debonding. The bond strength between S-fibre surface and the matrix is
predominantly controlled by the physicochemical bond properties; while in hooked-end fibre, the
pullout induces pressure on the cement matrix at the end of the hook which increases the
frictional force and thus increases the pullout resistance. However, this mechanical contribution
decreases with an increase in slip due to straighten of the end hook. For Polygonal-shaped T-
fibres, the mechanical contribution along the fibre length provided by the un-twist torque
resistance increases the pressure on the cement matrix along the fibre length and thus increases
the pullout resistance and the amount of dissipated energy up to very high slips.
11
Figure 2.4 Shear stress slip relationship of smooth (S) and deformed (T2, H) steel fibres embedded
in HSC (60 MPa) and UHPC A (194 MPa) (Wille and Naaman, 2012a)
Figure 2.5 Comparison of pullout response of high-strength straight, hooked-end, and twisted fibres
embedded in high-strength concrete (Wille and Naaman, 2012b)
12
The average pullout load-versus-slip curves of the S-, H-, and T-fibres are shown in Fig. 2.6(a).
Fig. 2.6(b) shows the mechanical bond contribution of the deformed fibres in comparison to S-
fibres. It can be noted from Fig. 2.6(b) that the maximum fibre stress for the pulled-out deformed
fibres (T1 and T2) is approximately three times the stress achieved by the S-fibres. The material
use factor which is defined as the maximum tensile stress achieved through pullout divided by
the material tensile strength was between 0.9 and 1.0 for deformed fibres which is more than
twice the value of 0.44 for the S-fibre.
Figure 2.6 Effect of fibre geometry on pullout behaviour of steel fibres embedded in UHPC-A
(Wille and Naaman, 2012b)
Banthia and Trottier (1994) studied the effect of inclination angle with respect to loading
direction for hooked steel fibre in normal, mid and high strength concrete. They found that the
load-slip curve was not significantly affected by changing the inclination angle that ranged
between 0 and 15 degrees, while at an angle higher than 30 degrees, the effect of fibre inclination
was more pronounced up to a slip of 3.5 mm as shown in Fig. 2.7.
13
Figure 2.7 Effect of fibre inclination for hooked steel fibre in high strength concrete (Banthia and
Trottier, 1994)
According to Hannant (1978), the fibre composite tensile strength,  cc , and elastic modulus, Ec ,
are:
 cc   f *Vsf   mu (1  Vsf )
(2.1)
Ec  E f *Vsf  Em (1  Vsf )
(2.2)
where,  f = fibre tensile strength,
 mu = matrix tensile strength at first crack

E f = fibre modulus,
E m = matrix modulus, and

Vsf = fibre volume content
14
To account for fibre length factor, 1 , and fibre orientation factor,  , the composite tensile
strength,  cc , and elastic modulus, Ec , can be calculated as follows:
 cc  1 f *Vsf   mu (1  Vsf )

(2.3)
Ec  1E f *Vsf  Em (1  Vsf )
(2.4)
Allen (1972) proposed a fibre length factor takes into consideration the ability to develop the
bond along the fibres as follows:
 lf
 ifl f  l c
 2l
1   c (2.5)
1  l f ifl  l
 2l c f c

Where, l f is the fibre length and l c is the two times the length of the fibre embedment length
required to induce fibre fracture as opposed to fibre pullout. The fibre embedment length can
vary between l f / 2 and 0. If pullout occurs from the side with the smaller embedment length, the
average effective embedment length is l f / 4 (Narayanan and Darwish, 1987, Aoude, 2007);
therefore the factor 1 = 0.5. The fibre orientation factor  for one, two and three dimensional
fibre orientations is 1, 2 /  , and 0.5 respectively (Naaman, 2008).
The “effective” number of fibres per unit area, n fib , can be calculated using equation (2.6) for
fibres randomly oriented in three dimensions (Hannant, 1978):
Vsf
n fib  *  * 1 (2.6)
Asf
where, Asf is the cross-sectional area of the fibre.
15
The post-cracking tensile strength,  pc , can be calculated on the basis of the average bond
strength, the number of fibres per unit area, and the effective bond length (Naaman and
Reinhardt, 1995):
lf
 pc  12 3Vsf (2.7)
df

where, 1 , 2 , and 3 are the effective bond length, fibre orientation factor and group factor
associated with number of factors crossing a unit area for post-cracking state, d f is the diameter
of the fibre, and  is bond between the fibre and the matrix
The critical fibre volume content can be defined as the volume content where the composite can
carry additional stress after the matrix cracked (  pc   cc ) as shown in Fig. 2.8. Naaman and
Reinhardt (1995) derived an expression for critical fibre volume content taking into account the
fibre distribution and the bond between the fibre and the matrix as follows:
1
V fc  (2.8)
 lf
1 (     1  2 )
 mu d f 1 2 3
where,  1 and  2 are fibre length and fibre orientation factor for uncracked composite. For
hooked steel fibres, Naaman and Reinhardt predicted a volume content factor of 2%.
16
Figure 2.8 Different stress-strain curve for brittle matrix composites (Dinh, 2009)
2.1.5 Material properties
2.1.5.1 Compressive strength

Several authors reported that the effect of fibres on the compressive strength was not
significantly increased (Minelli, 2005, Dupont, 2003, Nataraja et al., 1999). Tomas and
Ramaswamy (2007) reported that the increase in the peak compressive strength was less than
10% when fibres with 1.5% volume content was added to the concrete. However, the addition of
fibres significantly reduced the rate of strength loss after the peak stress. Johnston (2001) showed
that lateral swelling of the concrete takes place during the uniaxial compressive test resulting in a
combination of shear and tensile stresses in the concrete section due to the improved post-
cracking resistance of the steel fibre reinforced concrete. Several investigators have proposed
models for the characterization of the compressive stress-strain behaviour of SFRC (Nataraja et
al., 1999, Mansur et al., 1999).
Graybeal and Davis (2008) investigated the relationship between the measured compressive
strength of cylinder specimens and cube specimens of UHPFRC in the strengths that ranged from
80 to 200 MPa. They found the followings:
1. A factor of 0.96 should be applied to convert the 70.7 mm (2.78 in.) cube strength result
into an equivalent 76 mm (3 in.) diameter cylinder result
17
2. The 102 mm (4 in.) diameter cylinders, 76 mm (3 in.) diameter cylinders, and 100 mm (4
in.) cubes are acceptable and interchangeable test specimens for the determination of the
compressive strength of UHPFRC
2.1.5.2 Tensile strength

It is difficult to experimentally evaluate the direct tensile behaviour of steel fibre reinforced
concrete (SFRC). The problem arises from the need for specimens that have sufficiently large
cross section area such that the fibre distribution will be similar to that in real structural
members. Therefore, this size of specimen often poses difficulty in the design of fixtures to grip
the end of the specimen. The average strain is hard to interpret because after cracking the
average strain is due to local crack opening. In addition, the length of the strain gauge affects the
average strain. Recent research by Graybeal and Baby (2013) presented a direct tension test
method applicable to UHPC based on a concept of a standard tension test applied to metals. They
investigated different fibre percentage contents and curing conditions of UHPC. The results
showed that the uniaxial tensile strength of UHPFRC was higher than 9 MPa.
Usually, the concrete tensile strength is obtained from indirect tests due to the difficulties to
achieve truly axial tension without secondary stresses induced by the holding devices in the
direct tension test as shown in Fig. 2.9(a). Indirect tests such as the bending or modulus of
rupture test, Fig. 2.9(b), the double punch test, Fig. 2.9(c), or the split cylinder test, Fig. 2.9(d).
While indirect tests are easier to perform, they require assumptions about the state of stress
within the specimen in order to determine the tensile strength from the measured failure load.
Shah (1978) performed direct tensile test with straight, hooked and standard steel fibres as shown
in Fig. 2.10 (ACI Committee 544, 1988)
18
Figure 2.9 Tension tests: (a) direct tension test; (b) bending or modulus of rupture test; (c) double
punch test; (d) split cylinder test (Kaufmann, W., 1998)
Figure 2.10 Direct tensile stress-strain curves for different types of SFRC (ACI Committee 544,
1988)
Noghabai (2000) studied the tensile characteristics of the concrete by testing notched concrete
cylinder specimen under uniaxial tension loads. The advantage of this test method is it’s
applicability to any type of concrete, regardless of type of fibre used taking into account fibre
orientation. However, when larger fibres are used, the small cross section of the specimen may
not represent the material adequately. Noghabai (2000) found that the use of high strength
concrete increases both the first crack and the post-cracking tensile strength of SFRC (Fig. 2.11).
19
(a) Test Setup (b) Tensile stress-crack opening relationship
Figure 2.11 Tensile stress-crack opening relationship for different Concrete Mixtures (Noghabai,
2000)
As mentioned earlier, incorporating steel fibres will increase the fracture energy, ductility,
compressive and tensile strength while the cracking reducing tendency of the concrete matrix. In
general, UHPFRC mixture tensile behaviour has three main stages as shown in Fig. 2.12
(Spasojevic, 2008):
1. Linear-elastic response stage – The response of the UHPFRC concrete under increasing
strain is essentially linear-elastic until the applied load induces a stress level in the
UHPFRC mixture that matches the concrete tensile strength and a first microcrack
appears.
2. Pseudo strain hardening stage – This stage is also referred to as “pseudo plastic” because
there is no real plastic microstructural changes occur. In fact, deformations continue to
increase strongly as a result of formation of the several microcracks (Spasojevic, 2008),
while the uniaxial tensile stress does not change considerably, or increases considerably
slower compared to the linear-elastic stage. The development of multiple microcracking
with uniformly distributed openings secured together by the fibres within the UHPFRC is
similar to strain hardening or plastic deformation.
20
3. Strain softening stage – This stage occurs at the onset of any of the UHPFRC mixture
sections fails to transfer the average stress of the same intensity, resulting in reaching the
strain hardening capacity of UHPFRC mixture. Then the formation of macrocracks
occurs and will start opening further until eventually reach the deformation capacity,
normally addressed as half the length of the longest fibre (Spasojevic, 2008).
Figure 2.12 – Response of UHPFRC in uniaxial tensile stress state compared to conventional (CC),
fibre- reinforced normal or high-strength concrete (FRC, HSFRC), as well as engineered
cementitious composites (ECC) with short polymeric (PE, PVA) fibres (adapted from Spasojević,
2008)
Similarly, Wille and Naaman, (2011) studied the tensile behaviour of the UHPFRC, Fig. 2.13
illustrates a simplified response of strain-hardening FRC composites in tension where stress is
defined as the obtained tensile load, when the first percolation crack occurs, divided by the
specimen cross sectional area, and the maximum post-cracking stress is defined as the maximum
tensile load divided by the specimen cross sectional area. The elastic behaviour (Part I) up to 90–
95% of cracking strength followed by development of micro cracks and activation of fibres; the
21
strain hardening behaviour when, multiple cracks will form with small crack width and inelastic
strain (Part II); and the strain softening behaviour (Part III).
Figure 2.13 Idealized simplified response of strain-hardening FRC composites in tension (Wille et
al., 2011)
Increasing the fibre volume content within a certain range increases the tensile strength as well
as the tensile strain at peak stress as shown in Fig. 2.14. Naaman and Wille (2010) recommended
a fibre factor in order to preserve a suitable workability of UHPFRC without fibre clumping.
Figure 2.14 Influence of fibre volume fraction on tensile behaviour. (a) Smooth (S) fibres and (b)
twisted (T) fibres (Wille et al., 2011)
22
Naaman (2008) introduced the utilization factor to evaluate the utilization of the fibre material.
The utilization factor,  u , is defined as the ratio of maximum post-cracking stress to the ultimate
tensile strength of the composite, assuming all fibres fail simultaneously.
 pc
u  (2.9)
 cu
The ultimate tensile strength of the composite  cu can be obtained from equation (2.10)
 cu   *Vsf *  fu (2.10)
where,  = orientation factor,  fu = the ultimate tensile strength of fibre. The maximum post-
cracking stress  pc can be obtained from equation (2.11)
lf
 pc   * * * Vsf   cu (2.11)
df
where,  is the equivalent bond strength between fibre and matrix, l f / d f the fibre aspect ratio
and  is the product of several coefficients, taking into account the influence of embedded
length, orientation effect, group reduction effect and spalling effect by large inclination of the
fibre. The value of maximum post-cracking stress  pc can be obtained from direct tensile test.
Naaman (2008) also suggested equation (2.12) for calculating the first cracking strength of the
composite (  cc ):
 cc   mu (1  Vsf )   Vsf
lf
df

  mu 1  (n  1)Vsf  (2.12)
where,  mu is the ultimate tensile strength of the matrix and  is the product of several
coefficients, taking into account the influence of average contribution of bond at the onset of
matrix cracking, fibre orientation and reduction of fibre-matrix bond stress due to external stress
23
Ef
radial or normal to the interface, and n  is the ratio of the elastic moduli of fibre and
Em
matrix.
Wille et al. (2011) improved the strain hardening capacity from 0.3 to 0.6% of UHPFRC
composites. They used different types of steel fibres as shown in Fig. 2.3. The test results are
shown in Fig. 2.14. They evaluated the utilization of fibre material,  u , using equations (2.9)
and (2.10), and was in the range of 28 to 51%. This range concluded that it’s possible for a
further improvement in the bond behaviour in order to increase the fibre utilization which leads
to a higher tensile strength for a given fibre volume content. The average tensile stress of the
fibres,  fpc within the composite at peak strength  pc was calculated from equation (2.13), which
was derived from equation (2.10).

 pc
 fpc  (2.13)
Vsf
By assuming   0.75 , the maximum average fibre tensile stress  fpc within different UHPFRC
is shown in Fig. 2.15.
It can be noted from Fig. 2.15 that the fibre tensile stress  fpc of straight fibres is not
significantly affected by the different fibre volume content, while the  fpc of hooked fibres is
significantly affected by the fibre volume content. They attributed that to the group effect which
was affected by the localized mechanical bond anchorage at the end of the hook that leads to
peak stress concentrations in the matrix causing micro cracks which in turn reduce the
proportional increase in the tensile strength when fibre volume content was increased. While for
the twisted fibres, the fibre tensile stress  fpc was not significantly affected by the fibre volume
content due to the distribution of mechanical bond over the entire length of the fibre.
24
Figure 2.15 Average fibre tensile stress  fpc within the composite at peak strength  pc (Wille et al.,
2011)
The parameter  was estimated using equations (2.10) and (2.11), and by obtaining the tensile
strength  pc from the tensile test results, and the equivalent bond strength  was obtained from
tests on single fibre pull out as follows:
Pmax
 (2.14)
d f ( Le  S p )
where, Pmax is the maximum pull out load, Le the embedment length, and S p slip at Pmax . Wille et
al. (2011) found out the value of  for straight fibres is 0.95, and for deformed fibres is 0.24
which represent the group effect of fibres in the composite by considering constant fibre
orientation, and neglecting the spalling effect. These results show a significant difference
between straight fibres and deformed fibres. They attributed the low values of  for deformed
bars to the strong mechanical bond that causes high stress concentration and damages the matrix
25
locally, and the smaller crack spacing less than fibre length that reduces the mean embedment
length, leading to a decrease in pull out resistance
ACI Committee 544 (1988) commented that the first-crack flexural strength and the peak post-
cracking flexural strength should be reported from the flexural test which can be calculated by
assuming linear stress distribution.
Wafa and Ashour (1992) found that 1.5% volume content of fibres with an aspect ratio of 80
increased the first-crack flexural strength by 67%. Tomas and Ramaswamy (2007) found that
adding 0.5 to 1.5% by volume of hooked steel fibres with an aspect ratio of 60 increased the
first-crack flexural strength by 40%.
Wille et al. (2011) performed bending tests on UHPFRC to confirm the effectiveness of fibre
geometry observed in the direct tensile tests as shown in Fig. 2.16. They noted that the ratio of
equivalent bending strength to direct tensile strength ranged between 2.4 and 2.65.
The effect of specimen size on the flexural and axial tensile strengths was investigated by
Reineck and Frettlohr (Reineck and Frettlohr, 2010). The results show that strength decreased
with increasing size of test specimens
Wille and Parra-Montesinos (2012) investigated the effects of beam size, casting method, and
support conditions on UHPC flexure test results. The results show that large discrepancies in
equivalent bending strengths using the same UHPFRC mixture design, depending on the test
setup and specimen characteristics. They noted that that the equivalent bending strengths was
ranged between 10 MPa and 29 MPa depend on various casting methods, and support conditions.
26
Figure 2.16 UHPFRC bending beam tests according to ASTM 1609 (a) Test setup and (b) influence
of fibre geometry (Wille et al., 2012a)
2.1.5.3 Modulus of elasticity

Graybeal (2005) measured the modulus of elasticity of UHPFRC material by testing compression
cylinders according to the ASTM C469 test method. The results from these tests show that the
modulus of elasticity for air treated cylinders was 42.7 GPa. The results show that the specimens
continued to gain strength for at least 8 weeks after casting. Graybeal also measured the
modulus of elasticity using direct tension tests. The average measured value was 47.6 GPa.
2.2 Shear behaviour of reinforced concrete beams

2.2.1 Shear stresses distribution and failure of plain concrete beams
For simply supported rectangular beams with no stirrups and no longitudinal reinforcement
subjected to a concentrated load at mid span as shown in Fig. 2.17, the normal and shear stresses
for x  a are determined from beam theory as follows:
27
My 12Vxy
f ( x, y )    (2.15)
I bh 3
VQ 6V h 2
v( y )   3 (  y2 ) (2.16)
Ib bh 4
where, V = Shear force on the cross section
M = Moment on the cross section
I = moment of inertia of the cross section
Q = first moment about the centroidal axis of the part of the cross-sectional area lying
farther from the centroidal axis than the point where the shear stresses are being
calculated
b = width of the member at the section where the stresses are being calculated
h = height of the member at the section where the stresses are being calculated
As shown in Fig. 2.17 which illustrates the normal and shear distribution of stresses at the top
and bottom surfaces, the shear stress is zero and the beam is subjected to a pure tension or
compression stress state, while at the mid-depth level of the beam, the shear stress is maximum,
which is determined as follows:
3V
vmax ( y  0)  (2.17)
2bh
The shear stress in equation (2.17) is pure shear stress, leads to principal tension and
compression stresses with the same magnitude. When the principal tensile stress exceeds the
tensile strength of concrete, crack forms at the mid-depth level of the beam usually perpendicular
to the direction of the principal tensile stress know as diagonal tension cracks. For plain concrete,
28
flexural cracking will likely precede diagonal cracking leading to immediate collapse of the
beam.
Figure 2.17 Plain concrete beam subjected to a concentrated load
2.2.2 Shear in reinforced concrete beams without shear reinforcement
2.2.2.1 Inclined cracking pattern and modes of shear failure

When longitudinal reinforcement is added to the beam, flexural cracks form due to the ability of
longitudinal reinforcement to bridge cracks and transfer stresses to concrete by bond action.
Reinforced concrete beams without stirrups may fail in shear. Two different modes of shear
cracks were specified by Winter and Nilson (1979): web-shear cracks and flexure shear cracks as
shown in Fig. 2.18. When the flexural stresses are small at the particular location, the diagonal
tension stresses are inclined at an angle about 45 0 and equal in magnitude to the shear stress with
a maximum at the neutral axis. These diagonal web-shear cracks start mostly near the neutral
axis and propagate in both directions as shown in Fig. 2.18(a). While when both the shear forces
and bending moments have large values, the flexural tension cracks form first and their width are
29
controlled by the presence of longitudinal reinforcement. However, when the principal tension
stress at the upper end of one or more of these cracks exceeds the tensile strength of the concrete,
diagonal tension crack form and propagates known as flexural-shear cracks as shown in Fig.
2.18(b). These flexural-shear cracks are more common than web-shear cracks.
Figure 2.18 Flexural and diagonal tension cracks (Winter and Nilson, 1979)
In reinforced concrete beams, shear is transferred by two mechanisms: beam action and arch
action; depending on the shear span a to depth d ratio ( a / d ratio). The contribution of beam
action and arch action and the amount of shear reinforcement affects the behaviour of beams
failing in shear (Wight and MacGregor, 2012). The moments and shears at inclined cracking and
failure of a rectangular beam without shear reinforcement are shown in Fig. 2.19. The shaded
areas in Fig. 2.19 show the reduction in strength due to shear. Therefore, web reinforcement is
provided to achieve the full flexural capacity.
30
Figure 2.19 Effect of shear span to depth ratio (a/d) on shear strength of beams without stirrups
(Wight and MacGregor, 2012)
According to Wight and MacGregor (2012), beams can be classified based on shear span to
depth ratio (a/d), into four types:
1. Very short: when the shear span to depth ratio between 0 and 1. These beams develop
inclined cracks between the load and the support which in turn destroy the horizontal
shear flow from the longitudinal reinforcement to the compression zone, changing the
behaviour from beam action to arch action. In this case, the reinforcement serves as the
31
tension tie between the supports, and the failure occurs due to anchorage failure at the
ends of the tension tie as shown in Fig. 2.20.
2. Short: when the shear span to depth ratio between 1 and 2.5. These beams develop
inclined cracks and are able to carry additional load after the redistribution of internal
forces. Failure in these beams usually due to bond failure, a splitting failure or a dowel
failure along the tension reinforcement as shown in Fig. 2.21(a) or by crushing of
concrete in the compression zone over the shear crack know as shear-compression failure
as shown in Fig. 2.21(b).
3. Slender: when the shear span to depth ratio between 2.5 and 6. These beams develop
inclined cracks that disrupt the equilibrium to such an extent that the beam fails at the
inclined cracking load.
4. Very slender: when the shear span to depth ratio greater than 6. These beams will fail in
flexure prior to the formation of inclined cracks.
Figure 2.20 Beams failure mode (ACI- ASCE, 1973)
32
Figure 2.21 modes of failure of short spans with a/d ranging from 1 to 2.5 (ACI- ASCE, 1973)
2.2.2.2 Shear resisting mechanism

According to ACI- ASCE committee 445 (1998), five components for shear transfer in cracked
concrete beams are identified as shown in Fig. 2.22:
1- Shear resistance provided by uncracked concrete above the neutral axis Vcz
2- Shear transfer along interface of the two faces of the shear cracks known as aggregate
interlock Va
3- Dowel action of the tensile reinforcement Vd
4- Residual tensile stresses across the crack due to bridging action Vrt
5- Arch action Vac in deep members
33
These components are generally lumped together and referred to as the concrete contribution to
shear strength Vc .
Figure 2.22 Shear resistance components in a cracked concrete beam without shear reinforcement
The concrete contribution for beams with shear reinforcement is influenced by the concrete
tensile strength, longitudinal reinforcement ratio, shear span to effective depth ratio, axial forces,
and the depth of concrete member (ASCE-ACI committee 445, 1998)
2.2.3 Shear in reinforced concrete beams with shear reinforcement

Shear failure in reinforced concrete beams is frequently sudden and without any warning due to
the brittle nature of plain concrete behaviour in tension. Therefore, concrete beams are generally
reinforced with shear reinforcement to ensure the flexural failure will occur rather than shear
failure. Richart (1927) and Moretto (1945) showed experimentally that stirrups in reinforced
concrete beams are only effective after the formation of diagonal cracks. Winter and Nilson
(1979) reported that the effect of stirrups prior to formation of diagonal cracks was not
noticeable and the presence of shear reinforcement will not prevent the formation of diagonal
cracks; therefore, the main role of stirrup reinforcement is to carry the redistributed shear stresses
through tension after the formation of the diagonal cracks. However, stirrups slow down the
propagation of diagonal cracks through their contribution to shear performance of reinforced
34
concrete beams. In addition, stirrup reinforcement controls the crack opening, in turn, helps
aggregate interlock resist shear, increase the confinement of the cross section, which increases
the compressive strength of the concrete, enhance the bond and prevent a premature splitting
failure of longitudinal tensile reinforcement.
After formation of diagonal cracks, the internal forces in a typical reinforced concrete beam
reinforced with steel stirrups are shown in Fig. 2.23(a). The shear resisting components are: the
shear in compression zone Vcz ; the vertical component of shear transfer across the crack by
aggregate interlock Vay ; the dowel action of longitudinal reinforcement Vd ; shear transferred by
tension in stirrups V s . Fig. 2.23(b) shows the loading history of such a beam. Prior to flexural
cracking, the uncracked concrete carries the entire shear, and as soon as the inclined cracks
appear, stirrups contribute and resist a portion of the applied shear. When the applied shear
increases, the stirrups yield and their contribution remain constant, which lead to widen the
inclined crack, results in decreasing the contribution of aggregate interlock, and increasing the
dowel action and uncracked concrete contributions until either a splitting (dowel) failure occurs,
or the compression zone crushes due to combined shear and compression stresses.
2.2.4 Shear in steel fibre reinforced concrete beams without shear reinforcement
In steel fibre reinforced concrete SFRC beams without stirrup reinforcement, steel fibres play a
similar role to that of stirrups in RC beams. Steel fibres carry the redistributed tensile stresses
and slow down the propagation of diagonal cracks through their contribution to shear
performance of SFRC beams. In addition, steel fibres control crack opening, foster the formation
of multiple diagonal cracks, and prevent a premature splitting failure along the tensile
reinforcement. However, in shear strength analysis of SFRC beams without stirrups present
several challenges due to uncertain distribution of fibres in concrete that lead to non-uniform
mechanical properties, and the widening of diagonal cracks in SFRC which are due to fibre
pullout instead of stirrups yielding in RC beams. This makes the problem more complicated due
to complex behaviour of fibres pullout and bond between fibres and concrete.
35
(a) Shear resisting components after formation of diagonal cracks
(b) Distribution of internal shear
Figure 2.23 Internal forces in a cracked concrete beam with stirrups (ACI- ASCE, 1973)
Many researchers investigated the shear behaviour of SFRC beams without stirrups. They
investigated the following parameters: cross section shape, beam size, tensile reinforcement
ratio, beam slenderness, aggregate size, concrete tensile strength and ductility.
36
Swamy and Bahia (1985), and Rosenbusch and Teutsch (2002) studied the effect of beam cross
sectional shape by comparing the shear behaviour of rectangular beams with that of T-beams.
Swamy and Bahia showed that T-beams with flange thickness equal to one fifth of the beam
depth and flange width equal to three times the web width results in 30% increase in the ultimate
shear strength compared to rectangular beams. Rosenbusch and Teutsch showed that the load
deflection response not significantly influenced by changing the flange width from 20 to 40
inches, while changing the flange thickness from 6 in to 8 in led to 54% increase in the ultimate
shear strength compared to rectangular beam with the same height.
Schanzt (1993), Adebar et al. (1997), Noghabai (2000), Rosenbusch and Teutsch (2002), and
Dinh et al. (2010) investigated the size effect of shear behaviour of SFRC beams, Noghabai
showed that increase in the effective depth from 409 mm to 569 mm results a 15% decrease in
average shear stress at failure. While Dinh et al. (2010) showed that increase the effective depth
from 457 mm to 686 mm resulted in a 7% decrease in the shear stress, and concluded that size
effect is negligible for beam depths up to 686 mm.
The effect of shear span to effective depth ratio on shear behaviour of SFRC beams has been
extensively investigated by researchers. Batson et al. (1972) proposed a critical value of 3 of
shear span to effective depth ratio for SFRC beams to distinguish between deep and slender
beams. Ashour et al. (1992), Swamy et al. (1993), and Dina et al. (2010) investigated the effect
of longitudinal tensile reinforcement ratio on the beam strength. They concluded that higher
tensile reinforcement ratio resulted in higher shear strength due to increase dowel action and
deeper compression zone.
Kwak et al. (2002) studied the effect of SFRC compressive strength on the shear strength of
reinforced SFRC beams. They found the shear strength increased 20% when the concrete
compressive strength doubled.
37
Dina et al. (2010) showed that minimum fibre volume content greater than or equal to 0.75% led
to multiple diagonal cracking and a substantial increase in shear strength compared to reinforced
concrete beams without stirrup reinforcement. Susetyo et al. (2011) showed that 0.5% fibre
content was incapable of controlling crack propagation in reinforced concrete panels.
The safety margins of the shear design provisions of the AFGC (Association Française de Génie
Civil) were investigated by Baby et al. (2010) on nine 3 m long I-shaped girders with various
types of shear reinforcement (stirrups only, fibres only, and stirrups/fibres). They found that the
ratio between the ultimate predicted and experimentally applied loads for beams without stirrups
was around 0.52. Yang et al. (2012) investigated the shear behaviour of UHPFRC beams.
UHPFRC I beam specimens with a depth 700 mm were casted as shown in Fig. 2.24. They
investigated the shear span to effective depth ratio, the volume content of steel fibres, and the
presence or absence of pre-stress. Test results showed that the ultimate shear strength decreases
as the shear span to effective depth ratio increases due to the arch action at the low shear span to
effective depth ratio.
Figure 2.24 Beam cross-section area (Yang et al., 2012)
38
2.2.5 Shear strength analysis of SFRC beams
Shear behaviour of SFRC beams is complicated due to many factors affecting shear strength.
The primary controlling factors are the tensile strength of fibre reinforced concrete, shear span to
effective depth ratio, and longitudinal reinforcement ratio. The tensile strength of SFRC beams
are affected by fibre aspect ratio, fibre geometry, fibre content, and fibre tensile strength. In this
section, some of the main methods that were developed to predict the shear behaviour of SFRC
beams are presented.
Sharma (1986)
Sharma studied the shear behaviour of SFRC beams by testing seven normal and SFRC beams
subjected to bending and shear. The beams were 150 mm x 300 mm in cross section with
concrete compressive strength between 42.3 MPa and 48.6 MPa. Stirrups were provided only at
load points and supports. Based on the splitting tensile strength f sp , and shear span to effective
depth ratio a / d , Sharma proposed the ultimate shear strength as follows:
d 0.25
vu  (k1 f sp ) (2.18)
a
where,
vu is shear stress of fibrous concrete, is a constant equal to 2/3 as suggested by Wright
k1
(1955), who found out that direct tensile stress of the order of 2/3 of the splitting tensile strength.
It can be noted from equation (2.18) that the contribution of fibres and longitudinal
reinforcement ratio were not introduced in the expression. To determine the tensile strength of
concrete f sp , Sharma used the following equation that was adopted from European Concrete
Committee (1993):
f sp  9.5 f c (psi) (2.19)
Sharma validated the expression with 41 SFRC beams and showed good estimates.
39
Mansur, Ong, and Paramasivam (1986)
Mansur et al. adopted the ACI-ASCE Committee 426 equation for shear that takes into account
the contribution of shear strength in compression region, aggregate interlock and dowel action,
and include the contribution of fibres to shear strength by calculating the post-cracking tensile
strength,  pc , that can be obtained from direct tensile test of dog-bone specimens.
Vd
vu  0.167 f c  17.2   pc MPa (2.20)
M
To include the effect of arch action, the ratio M / V was defined as:
M M max a
  for a / d  2.0 (2.21)
V V 2
M M max
 d for a / d  2.0 (2.22)
V V
They used the post-cracking tensile strength,  pc , that proposed by Swamy and Al-Taan (1981),
and assuming that this stress is uniformly distributed over the critical diagonal crack, and
assuming that the horizontal projection of this critical crack is equal to the effective depth of the
beam d.
Narayanan and Darwish (1987)

Narayanan and Darwish investigated the behaviour of SFRC beams subjected to shear. They
tested 49 beams simply supported rectangular beams under symmetrical concentrated loads, 10
beams contained conventional stirrups and 33 were reinforced with crimped steel fibres as web
reinforcement. Test results showed that shear cracks in SFRC beams were similar to that in
conventional RC beams. However, the spacings between cracks in the SFRC beams were closer
than that in conventional RC beams. They attributed that to the redistribution of stresses beyond
cracking, and fibres become more effective after shear cracking by resisting the principal tensile
stresses until the complete pullout of all fibres occurred at one critical crack. In addition, the
inclusion of steel fibres eliminated the spalling of concrete even at very late stages of failure
compared with some spalling occurred at the ultimate stages in beams reinforced with
40
conventional stirrups. They showed that the shear failure in specimens with shear span to
effective depth ratio a / d  3 was due to splitting failure or failure in the compression zone as
shown in Fig. 2.25(a), while for specimens with shear span to effective depth ratio a / d  2.5
was due to compression splitting failure, flexural failure or crushing of concrete zone as shown
in Fig. 2.25(b).
To consider the shear contribution of steel fibres, v f , they assumed the diagonal crack angle is
45, and the average bond strength of fibre,  , was assumed to be the average pullout length l f / 4
, and the number of fibres over a unit area n fib was adopted from the work of Romualdi et al.
(1964) as follows:
1.64Vsf
n fib  (2.23)
d 2f
Thus, the shear contribution of steel fibres, v f , counted on a diagonal crack that has vertical
projection equal to the distance between the center of tension reinforcement to the upper tip of
diagonal crack is:
lf
v f  0.41Vsf (2.24)
df
where,   average bond strength of fibre taken as 4.15 MPa based on flexural strength results
by Swamy et al. (1974). Equation (2.25) was modified to account for the effect of fibre geometry
on bond,  , as follows:
v f  0.41F (2.25)
lf
where, F  Vsf  is the fibre factor, and the bond factor,  , was adopted from Narayanan and
df
Kareem-Palanjian (1984), is approximately 0.5, 0.75, and 1 for round, crimped, and indented
fibres respectively.
41
Figure 2.25 (a) Patterns of shear failure in specimens with a / d  3 (b) patterns of shear failure in
specimens with a / d  2.5 (Narayanan and Darwish, 1987)
Based on, regression analysis for 91 test results, and taking into account the fibre contribution to
the total shear strength in terms of split tensile strength, f sp , dowel action, and the shear span to
effective depth ratio a / d , the ultimate shear strength is:
 d
vu  e  Af sp  B    v f (2.26)
 a
where, e is a non-dimensional factor that takes into account the effect of arch action and is equal
to 1 for slender beams a / d  2.8 , and is equal to 2.8d / a for shorter beams a / d  2.8 ;
42
A  0.24 , B  80MPa , and  is the longitudinal steel reinforcement ratio. It can be noted in
this model that the contribution of shear in the compression region was not directly specified. In
addition, the authors neglect the contribution of aggregate interlock.
Al- Ta’an and Al-Feel (1990)

Al- Ta’an and Al-Feel proposed a method to calculated the ultimate shear strength of SFRC
beams based on an equation developed by Zsutty (1971), and Places and Regan (1971) that takes
into account the contribution of uncracked compression zone, aggregate interlock, and dowel
action, v c , as shown in equations (2.27), and (2.28)
1/ 3
 d
vc  10 f c  for a / d  2.5 (2.27)
 a
4/3
d 
vc  160 f c  
1/ 3
for a / d  2.5 (2.28)
a
The contribution of fibre was obtained by considering the post cracking tensile stress along the
diagonal crack. To estimate the contribution of fibres to the shear resistance, the depth of neutral
axis was calculated by equating the external moment to the internal resisting moment as shown
in Fig. 2.26 and equation (2.29):
ac
M u  Vu * a  vcbda   0.85 f cac b(d  )  As f y (d  d ) (2.29)
2
where, vc = ultimate shear strength without fibres (MPa)
d = effective depth of beam (m)
a = shear span (m)
a c = equivalent compression stress block depth
 = Flexural reduction factor
43
d  = depth of compression steel reinforcement (m)
Figure 2.26 Forces within fibre reinforced concrete beam with diagonal tension crack (Al- Ta’an
and Al-Feel, 1990)
It was observed that the effect of steel fibres on flexural strength is small and not more that 10%
(Al- Ta’an and Al-Feel, 1990); therefore, this increase in the moment resistance was used to
eliminate the flexural reduction factor. To determine the contribution of steel fibre to ultimate
shear strength, they calculated the post-cracking strength,  pc , as follows:
 pc  n fib . f fib (2.30)
Where n fib is the number of fibres crossing a unit area, and can be obtained from a proposal by
Aveston et al. (1974):
2Vsf
n fib  (2.31)
d 2f
and f fib = average fibre pull-out force per fibre can be determined from equation (2.32) assuming
the average fibre pull-out length is l f / 4
f fib  d f l f / 4 (2.32)
44
where,   average bond strength of fibre taken as 4.15 MPa based on flexural strength results
by Swamy and Mangat (1976). This leads to a post-cracking strength,  pc , as follows:
 pc  0.5F (2.33)
Therefore, the unit stress provided by the fibre is:
v f   pcb(h  c) / d (2.34)
where, c = depth of compression region. Thus the total ultimate shear strength of SFRC beams
is:
vu  vc  v f (2.35)
This method compared with experimental data of 89 SFRC beams by other researches, and gave
acceptable results.
Ashour, Hasanain, and Wafa (1992)

Ashour et al. tested 18 rectangular high strength fibre reinforced concrete beams subjected to
combined shear and flexure. All beam were singly reinforced and without shear reinforcement.
Test results showed that steel fibres increased the shear strengths, stiffness, and ductility of
beams. They modified the ACI committee 318 equation on shear by incorporating the effect of
shear span to effective depth ratio a / d from a regression analysis to the parameters f c and
d
 as follows:
a

vu  0.7 f c  7 F  17.2   da (MPa) (2.36)
They modified Zsutty (1968) equation to include the contribution of fibre through the factor F as
follows:
 
0.333
 d
vu  2.11 f c  7 F   
3 for a / d  2.5 (2.37)
 a
45
  d  
 
0.333
d  a
3 
vu   2.11 f c  7 F     2.5   v f  2.5   for a / d  2.5 (2.38)
  a   a  d
The shear strength of fibre, v f , can be calculated form equation (2.25) similar to Narayanan and
Darwish (1987). The above equations showed good agreement with the test results by the author.
Khuntia, Stojadinovic, and Goel (1999)

Khuntia et al. adopted the ACI Committee 318 equation for shear equation (2.39) that takes into
account the contribution of shear strength in compression region, aggregate interlock and dowel
action, and include the contribution of fibres to shear strength by using equation (2.25).
vc  0.167 f c MPa (2.39)
Based on suggestion by Naaman (1987) that the fibre bond stress for hooked steel fibres is about
2 times the tensile strength of plain concrete, they assumed the bond stress of fibres as follows:
  0.68 f c MPa (2.40)
By applying equation (2.40) into (2.25), and assuming the vertical projection of the diagonal
vf
crack equal to 0.9d, the shear strength of fibres, , becomes:
v f  0.25F f c MPa (2.41)
To include the arch action, they multiplied the total shear strength by the arch action factor A ,
equal to 2.5d / a . Therefore, the ultimate shear strength is:
vu  0.167 A  0.25F  f c MPa (2.42)
Equation (2.42) was validated with tested beams from different researches and showed good
results.
46
Kwak, Eberhard, Woo-Suk Kim, and Jubum Kim (2002)
Kwak et al. developed an equation to predict the shear strength of fiber reinforced concrete
beams based on an equation developed by Zsutty’s (1971) that takes into account the influence
of tensile strength on arching action with additional fibre term as proposed by Narayanan and
Darwish as shown in equation (2.24). Therefore, the ultimate shear strength is:
1/ 3
 d
vu  3.7ef sp    0.80.41F 
2/3
(2.43)
 a
3. 4 d
where e is a function of the a / d ratio which is equal to 1 for a / d  3.4 , and equal to for
a
a / d  3.4 . Equation (2.43) was validated with 139 tested beams from different researches and
showed good results for concrete with a compressive strength between 31 and 65 MPa.
Aoude et al. (2012)

Aoude et al. proposed a model to predict the shear behaviour of SFRC beams. They assumed the
shear resistance of SFRC beam is equivalent to the expected shear strength of a traditional
reinforced concrete beam plus additional shear resistance provided by fibres and can be
calculated from equation (2.35). They obtained the shear strength vc for a traditional reinforced
concrete beam from Modified compression field theory (Collins et al., 1996), and the fibre
contribution to shear resistance from equation (2.43):
V f  n fib * 0.83 f fib * bw * d v * cot  (2.44)
where, n fib is the effective number of fibres per unit area, and can be obtained from equation
(2.31),  is the crack inclination, and f fib is the fibre pullout strength that can be calculated from
equation (2.44)
L fs
f fib   *  * d f *  p (2.45)
2
47
Where, L fs is the length of straight portion of fibre, and p is the contribution of hooked ended
fibre that can be obtained from equation (2.45) (Alwan et al., 1999):
3.05   * (d f / 2) 2 
p   f fy *  (2.46)
cos(450 *  / 180)  6 

The proposed model validated with the experiment results by the author and other researches and
showed good estimates.
A summary of the relationships that have been proposed in the literature for predicting the shear
resistance of fibre reinforced concrete beams is shown in Table 2.1.
2.3 Composite reinforced concrete beams

UHPFRC material is a new material that needs to be investigated in order to better characterize
its properties and optimize its use in structural applications. A few works have been dedicated to
study the behaviour of composite “UHPFRC- concrete” elements for slender beams with a / d
between 3 and 4. Structural applications with the concept of composite concrete-concrete
elements were studied by Habel et al. (2006), and Martinola et al. (2010). They investigated the
compatibility of two materials of different ages, their long term behaviour, transverse cracking
and debonding risk. They proposed a model to add a layer of UHPFRC with steel bars as an
external tensile flexural reinforcement. The early age material properties appeared important for
successful structural interventions. Kamen et al. (2008) performed analysis of thermo-
mechanical behaviour at early age of UHPFRC. They studied hydration, shrinkage under
different temperatures, and performed first creep tests in tension. Noshiravani and Bruhwiler
(2010) investigated the structural response of composite UHPFRC-RC beams subjected to
bending and shear. The results show that the UHPFRC layer increases the member shear strength
without impairing the deformation capacity. They used the Critical Shear Crack Theory to show
the enhanced response of the composite beams.
48
Table 2.1: Models for predicting the shear strength of FRC beams
Author Model
Sharma (1986) d 0.25
vu  (k1 f sp )
a
k1 is a function of the test that is used to determine the tensile resistance of the
concrete.
Narayanan and Darwish  d

(1987) vu  e  Af sp  B    0.41F
 a
lf
F  Vsf 
df
e is a function of the a / d ratio
Al- Ta’an and Al-Feel vu  vc  v f

(1990)
1/ 3
 d
vc  10 f c  for a / d  2.5
 a
4/3
d 
vc  160 f c  
1/ 3
for a / d  2.5
a
v f  0.5Fb(h  c) / d
 
Ashour et al. (1992) 0.333
 d
vu  2.11 f c  7 F   
3 for a / d  2.5
 a
  d  
 
0.333
d  a
vu   2.11 f c  7 F     2.5   v f  2.5   for a / d  2.5
3
  a   a  d
Khuntia et al. (1999)  d 
vu   0.167(2.5 )  0.25F  f c
 a 
Kwak et al. (2002) 1/ 3
 d
vu  3.7ef sp    0.80.41F 
2/3
 a
Aoude et al. (2012) vu  vc  v f
V f  n fib * 0.83 f fib * bw * d v * cot 
vc is calculated according to Modified Compression Field Theory
49
Bond characteristics at the interface zone are one of the most difficult phenomena to predict due
to difference in composition, and material property. Different test methods have been proposed
to assess the bond strength between the two different concrete materials. The basic types of bond
tests are direct tension tests, direct shear tests, indirect tension tests, shear and compression tests,
and pull off test (Saucier et al., 1991)
2.3.1 Tension tests:

Tension tests can be classified into direct and indirect tests. In a direct tension test as shown in
Fig. 2.27(a), the tensile force is transmitted to the concrete either by glued metal or by special
grips. In this test, the alignment of the specimen is essential; therefore the test consumes a lot of
time to get good results (Saucier et al., 1991). However, the indirect tension tests include flexural
tests and splitting tests as shown in Fig. 2.27(c) are much easier to perform. In flexural test, the
area of the bonded surface subjected to loading is small compared to the specimen volume, leads
to only a small part of the bonded plane is subjected to the maximum stress; therefore, the
efficiency of this test is low compared to direct tension test (Momayez et. al., 2005). The
splitting test is more efficient in this regard, and the method was later adopted as a standard test
ASTM C496.
Figure 2.27 Different types of bond tensile test
50
The pull-off test as shown in Fig. 2.27(b) is a relatively new bond test. In this test, the
preparation of the specimen involved preparation of the concrete surface, gluing on a disc using a
fast curing epoxy, partial coring around the disc perpendicular to the planed surface, and pulling
the disc using a calibrated hydraulic pull machine reacting against a centered counter pressure
resting on the planed surface. The results of this method are more accurate in predicting the
tensile bond strength.
2.3.2 Shear tests:

In a direct shear test as shown in Fig. 2.28(a), the bonded surface is subjected to shear stress and
a small bending stress due to some stress concentrations at the edge of the bonding planes
leading to scatter in the test results (Saucier et al., 1991, Momayez et. al., 2005). The shear stress
is combined with a compression stress in the axis perpendicular to the bonding plane in the slant
shear test as shown in Fig. 2.28(b). The composite cylinder in slant test is loaded as in a standard
compression test. This test was modified by Wall and Shrive (1988) by using a prism with a
length three times the cross sectional dimension. The results of the modified test showed that a
slight misalignment of the two halves of the prism specimen has negligible effects on the
capacity of the composite specimens.
Figure 2.28 Different types of bond shear test
51
2.3.3 Splitting prism test
Momayez et al. (2005) investigated the effect of different test methods on bond strength between
concrete substrate and repair material. In their study, four test methods pull-off, slant shear,
splitting prism and a new direct shear named Bi-Surface shear test as shown in Fig. 2.29 with
cementitious or modified-cementitious repair materials, and two surface roughness’s were
studied. They found that the bond strength dependent on the test method used. They observed
from test results that the measured bond strength decreases with the test method in the following
order: slant shear, Bi-Surface shear, splitting, and pull-off.
Figure 2.29 Bond strength test methods (Momayez et. al., 2005)
52
Chapter 3
Experimental Program
The experimental study consists of two main phases: the first phase of the experimental program
was to investigate the shear and flexural behaviour of ultra-high performance reinforced
concrete, UHPFRC, and ultra-high performance fibre reinforced concrete, UHPFRC, without
web reinforcement. The second phase of the experimental program focused on the development
of new composite beams build with the combination of ultra-high performance fibre reinforced
concrete and conventional normal strength concrete, NSC, and high strength concrete, HSC, and
on investigating the shear and flexural behaviour of UHPFRC-NSC and UHPFRC-HSC
composite beams.
This chapter presents the details of test specimens, test setup, test procedure, and the properties
of different material used in this experimental program. A total of twenty eight beams were
tested. In addition, tests to obtain the mechanical properties of the materials (cylinder tests, split
tensile tests, four points bending tests, splitting prism tests) were performed. The following
sections provide details of the experimental program.
3.1 Material properties

3.1.1 Concrete mixture
The UHPC mixture that was used in this study is a commercial product, Ductal®, which is
composed of premix powder, water, superplasticizer. The premix powder includes cement, silica
fume, ground quartz, and sand. Table 3.1 shows the typical composition of this material. The
NSC mixture used in this study is a commercial product provided by Dufferin concrete while the
HSC mixture is a commercial product provided by Innocon concrete. Both mixtures have a
maximum aggregate size 19 mm.
53
Table 3.1 Typical composition of Ductal®
Material kg / m 3 Percentage by weight
Portland Cement 712 28.5

Fine Sand 1020 40.8
Silica Fume 231 9.3
Ground Quartz 211 8.4
Superplasticizer 30.7 1.2
Water 109 4.4
3.1.2 Selection of fibres type and volume content

One type and three quantities of fibres were incorporated in this study. Ductal® UHPFRC
suggested the use of straight steel fibres geometry (13 mm length x 0.2 mm diameter) with a
tensile strength above 2500 MPa as shown in Fig. 3.1. This is in agreement with the
recommendations of the Japanese code for UHPFRC. Previous research conducted by Dina et al.
(2010) and Susetyo et al. (2011) has shown that 0.5% fibre volume content is incapable of
controlling crack propagation in reinforced concrete panels. Therefore, to determine the effect of
fibre volume content on the shear behaviour of UHPFRC beams, three volume content ratios of
steel fibres were used in the present study, 1%, 1.5%, and 2%.
Straight Micro Fibre

Figure 3.1 Type of steel fibre
54
3.1.3 Selection of longitudinal steel reinforcement
The longitudinal steel reinforcements used in this study were obtained locally, conforming to the
Canadian Standard Association (CSA) Standard G30.14-M83. To determine the mechanical
properties of the reinforcing steel, tension tests were performed on six randomly obtained
deformed from each batch of the 25M, 30M reinforcing bars. All of the coupons exhibited a
yield plateau, with average experimental yield strengths of 474 MPa, and 468 MPa and ultimate
strength of 590 MPa, and 688 MPa respectively.
3.2 Design of beam specimens

3.2.1 Selection of shear span to effective depth ratio a / d
As discussed in chapter two, deep beam classified when a / d  2.5 and slender beam when
a / d  2.5 . Different a / d ratios were investigated to examine the effect of arch action on shear
behaviour of UHPFRC beams. For series 2 and 3, all the beams were having a / d ratio of 3 to
minimize the effect of arch action.
3.2.2 Beam size

According to ACI specification 11.4.6.1, no minimum area of shear reinforcement is required for
reinforced concrete flexural members for beams with height not greater than 250 mm. Thus, the
minimum beam depth in this test program was designed to be 300 mm. All the beams had cross
section of 150 wide and 300 mm deep.
3.2.3 Selection of longitudinal steel reinforcement ratio

As previously mentioned, UHPFRC is a new material without any design guidelines for shear.
The elementary calculations of the shear strength of the beams were based on Parra-Montesinos
recommendation (2006), the shear strength for steel fibre reinforced concrete (SFRC) with a
fibre volume content of 1% is 0.3 f c ( MPa ) , which was considered adequate for the purpose
of evaluating the use of deformed steel fibres as minimum shear regardless of concrete
compressive strength and the effective span depth, while the shear strength for SFRC concrete
55
with a fibre volume content greater than 1% is 0.4 f c ( MPa ) . These assumptions based on a
concrete compressive strength of up to 103MPa; it should be noted that these assumptions were
used in the present program as elementary calculations for the shear strength of the beams. For
example to determine the shear load required of beam with shear span to effective depth ratio
a / d  3.5 , and fibre volume content 1% is:
L
Ps   2.5 *Vc  2.5 * 0.3 * f c * b * d (3.1)
( L  a)
Ps  2.5 * 0.3 * 200 *150 * 210  467751N  334.11kN (3.2)
To calculate the beam flexural strength using 4- 25M reinforcing bars in two layers
As  4 * 500  2000 (3.3)
As f y 2000 * 430
ac    33.725mm
0.85 f cb 0.85 * 200 *150 (3.4)
ac 33.725
M n  As f y (d  )  2000 * 430 * (210  )  166098039 N .mm
2 2 (3.5)
Mn 166098039
Pm  2.5 *  2.5 *  564.96kN
a 735 *1000 (3.6)
where a  the shear span, L  the length of the beam, b  width of the beam, d  the effective
depth of the beam, and ac  the depth of the equivalent concrete stresses block measured from
the top of the compression concrete zone
Table 3.2 shows the calculation of shear strength based on these assumptions. However, all of
the fibre reinforced beams in series 1 failed in flexure. Therefore, the flexural capacity of the
beams was increased in series by using 4-30M in order to investigate the shear behaviour of the
56
beams. Experimental results of series 1 showed that both beams with 1% and 2% fibre volume
content failed in flexure, and testing another beam with 1.5% fibre volume content will not
contribute to the study. Therefore, the beam with 1.5% fibre volume content in series 1 was
omitted.
Table 3.2 Calculation of beam shear and flexural strength

 Ps  Pm
Beam vu / f  db
c
d Ps ac Pm
(mm)
(mm) (kN) (mm) (kN)
US1-1 0.3 25 210 334.11 0.063 33.725 564.96 230.85
US1-2 0.4 25 210 445.48 0.063 33.725 564.96 119.48
Based on the experimental results in series 1, the test beams in phase 1 were classified according
to their steel reinforcement ratio as shown in Fig. 3.2. Beams in series 1 were 1275 mm long
with a cross section of 150 mm wide by 300 mm deep, and beams in series 2 were 1284 mm long
with a cross section of 150 mm wide by 300 mm deep. The experimental parameters of the test
beams in both series are summarized in Table 3.3. The length of the beams was designed to
provide a left shear span to effective depth ratio between 1.5 and 3.5 in series 1 and 3.0 in series
2. The end reinforcing bars were bended to prevent anchorage failure as shown in Fig 3.2. In
addition, the right span was reinforced with enough stirrups to ensure shear failure in the left
span. Four longitudinal bars were used as the main reinforcement, and 15M bars were used as
compression reinforcement in all beams with concrete cover thickness of 20 mm.
The specimen nomenclature was derived as follows: the first and second letters indicate the type
of concrete strength (concrete mixture) used in the specimen followed by the series number of
the specimen, the following number indicates the volume of fibre content used and the last
number indicates the shear span to effective depth ratio. For example, specimen US1-1-3.5 is a
specimen cast using UHPC strength with a series 1 configuration which has a 1% fibre volume
content and shear span to effective depth ratio of 3.5. In series 2, two UHPC beams without fibre
content (US2-0-3.0-a and US2-0-3.0-b) were tested to act as control specimens.
57
In the second phase the composite beam combining UHPFRC-NSC and UHPFRC-HSC
materials were developed and investigated. The length of the beam was designed to provide a left
shear span to effective depth of 3.0 and no anchorage failure will occur as shown in Fig 3.2. In
addition, the shorter span was reinforced with enough stirrups to ensure shear failure in the
longer span.
Table 3.3 Experimental parameters of specimens of phase 1

Beam a
d
 vf
% %
US1-0-3.5 3.5 0.063 0
US1-1-3.5 3.5 0.063 1
US1-2-3.5 3.5 0.063 2
US1-2-2.0 2.0 0.063 2
US1-2-1.5 1.5 0.063 2
US2-0-3.0-a 3.0 0.081 0
US2-0-3.0-b 3.0 0.081 0
US2-1-3.0 3.0 0.081 1
US2-1.5-3.0 3.0 0.081 1.5
US2-2-3.0 3.0 0.081 2
According to ACI code (ACI, 2011), which states that the steel reinforcement should be well
distributed over the zone of maximum concrete tension, the total effective tension area of the
concrete surrounding the reinforcement is double the distance from the face of outside tension
fibre to the centroid of the tension reinforcement, y, multiplied by the beam width as shown in
Fig. 3.3a. The NSC and HSC were bonded to the UHPFRC using either shear stud connectors or
dowels as shown in Fig. 3.3b. Two dowels of 10M bars were installed 200 mm, and 400 mm
from the left support and used as a shear connector with the beams reinforced with dowels. For
the beams reinforced with shear studs, three shear studs with 10 mm diameter and 100 MPa
58
tensile strength were placed 150 mm spacing from the left support and used as a shear connector
for the beams. Series 3 test variables are summarized in Table 3.4
a) Series 1
b) Series 2
(c) Series 3
Figure 3.2 Reinforcement details and test configuration
59
(a) Effective tension area (b) Shear Stud (c) Dowels
Figure 3.3 (a) Effective tension area b) and c) Shear connections
Table 3.4 Experimental parameters of test beams of phase 2

Beam a
d
 vf
% %
NS2-0 0
HS2-0
UNS3-1
UNS3-1D
1
UNS3-1S
UNS3-1.5 1.5
UNS3-1.5D 3.0 0.081
UNS3-2 2
UNS3-2D
UHS3-1 1
UHS3-1D
UHS3-1S
UHS3-1.5 1.5
UHS3-1.5D
UHS3-2 2
UHS3-2D
The shear span to effective depth ratio in all beams in series 3 was 3.0. Therefore, the specimen
nomenclature of series 3 was derived as follows without indicating the shear span to effective
depth ratio: the first and second letters indicate the type of concrete strength (concrete mixture)
used in the specimen followed by the series number of the specimen, the following number
indicates the volume of fibre used and the last number indicates the shear connector. For
60
example, specimen UN3-1D is a specimen cast using UHPFRC-NSC strength with a series 3
configuration which has 1% fibre volume content and dowels as the shear connector.
3.3 Preparation of test specimens

Wooden forms were used to cast the beam test specimens. A thin layer of grease was applied to
the internal surfaces to ensure easy stripping and to prevent water absorption. The reinforcements
were placed inside the forms, providing a minimum clear concrete cover of 20 mm. The
UHPFRC was mixed in a 250 L capacity shear mixer. After casting, the UHPC specimens were
sprayed with water and covered with plastic sheets and were stored at room temperature until the
day of testing.
When casting composite members, the setting time for UHPFRC is longer than NSC, HSC, and
the UHPC premix provided by Lafarge Inc. without an accelerator. For this reason, the beams
were casted upside down. The NSC/HSC layer was casted first and then the UHPFRC layer was
casted on top of the NSC/HSC layer without any surface preparation of the NSC or HSC layers
prior to casting. After casting, the composite specimens were sprayed with water and covered
with plastic sheets and were stored at room temperature until the day of testing. However, the
NSC and HSC specimen were cured for 28 days. All the beams in phase 1 were tested after 28
days of casting. The composite beams in phase 2 with NSC were tested after 28 days and the
composite beams with HSC were tested after 90 days.
It should be noted that the NSC/HSC layer need vibration to consolidate the concrete by
removing the entrapped air to the surface and allowing concrete to flow into corners, around the
reinforcement rebar and flush against the form face. Therefore, the NSC/HSC layer must cast
first then the UHPFRC layer which is self-consolidated. Thus, the proposed composite system is
applicable to precast concrete.
61
3.4 Test setup and procedure
The simply supported beam specimens were subjected to a concentrated load that was applied at
a distance from the left support according to the shear span to effective depth ratios for series 1
and at the mid-span for series 2 and 3. The test setup is shown in Fig. 3.4. In this system, the
force of the hydraulic actuator machine was measured by a load cell with 1340 kN loading
capacity. During the testing procedure, loading was incrementally increased by 20 kN. Between
loading increments, the beams were inspected for the initiation of any cracks and marked. In
series 1, two potentiometers were installed under the loading point at the mid span on each beam
to measure the deflection as shown in Fig. 3.4.
Figure 3.4 Test setup for beams in series 1
For series 2 and 3, two potentiometers were installed under the loading point at the mid span of
each beam on each side to measure the deflection as shown in Fig. 3.5. For series 1, eight strain
62
gauges labelled S1 to S8 were attached to the bottom reinforcing bars. For series 2 and3, six
strain gauges labelled S1 to S6 were attached to the bottom reinforcing bars to measure the strain
of the reinforcement and three 60 mm concrete strain gauges labelled C1 to C3 were mounted
onto the concrete surface along the height of the mid-span of the beam at distances 20 mm, 70
mm and 150 mm from the top layer as shown in Fig. 3.2. In addition, three crack gauges were
used for series 3 to measure the crack width at the interface between the UHPFRC and
NSC/HSC layers. The crack gauges were mounted on the concrete surface at a distance 150 mm,
300 mm, and 450 mm from the left support as shown in Fig. 3.2. Gauge readings were recorded
until they became unreliable due to the cracking in the underlying concrete. These gauges were
capable of detecting strain due to small crack openings in each location. However, the readings
of concrete strain gauges were unreliable when a localised macro crack developed and hence
were not considered.
Figure 3.5 Test setup for beams in series 2 and 3
63
3.5 Tests
3.5.1 Mechanical properties of concrete

The compressive strength, f c , of the UHPFRC, NSC and HSC was obtained through
compressive testing of cylindrical specimens with a diameter of 100 mm and height of 200 mm
in accordance with ASTM C39/C39M. The cylindrical specimens were cast at the same time as
the test beams. After casting, the UHPFRC specimens were covered with plastic sheets and were
stored at room temperature for 28 days, while the NSC and HSC specimens were cured for 28
days. The ends of the cylinder were ground to remove the weak paste layers, and to ensure that
the cylinders were uniformly and axially loaded. All specimens were tested at the same day as
the beams.
3.5.2 Split cylinder test

The tensile strength of the UHPC and the UHPFRC was obtained through spilt cylinder testing,
f sp , of specimens in accordance with ASTM C496 “Standard Test Method for Splitting Tensile
Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens”. The same concrete cylinder used in the
compression test was placed on its side and a compression force was applied along the diameter
of the concrete cylinder, as shown in Fig. 3.6(a), (Wight and MacGregor, 2012). Fig. 3.6(c)
shows an element on the vertical diameter subjected to biaxial tension and compression stresses,
and Fig. 3.6(d) shows the distribution of both compression and tension stresses along the vertical
circular face. There are two areas of high transverse compression on the far ends of the top and
bottom of the vertical circular face of the concrete cylinder, but on the rest of the diameter, there
is almost a uniform tension. The ends of the cylinder were ground flat to remove the weak paste
layers. All specimens were tested at the same day of testing the beams.
64
Figure 3.6 Split cylinder test (Wight and MacGregor, 2012)
f sp
The values of the splitting tensile strength , were calculated using the equation outlined in the
CAN/CSA Standard A23.3-13C (2004), as follows:
2P
f sp  (3.7)
 .lcyl .d cyl
where:
P = maximum applied load, N,
lcyl = length of the cylinder, mm,
d cyl = diameter of the cylinder, mm.
65
3.5.3 Flexural test
In order to determine the flexural tensile strength of UHPFRC, bending tests were performed on
concrete prisms 152 x 152 x 457 mm in size. The composite UHPFRC-NSC/HSC prisms were
made up of a 101 mm NSC/HSC layer at the top, and a 51 mm UHPC layer at the bottom. The
NSC/HSC and UHPFRC layers were cast at the same time; the NSC/HSC layer was cast first and
then the UHPFRC layer was cast on the top. In order to allow for better visualization, the NSC
and HSC layers were painted white and the UHPFRC layer was painted grey. For each
composite type, a minimum of three four-point un-notched bending tests were performed while
loaded at a rate of 0.05 mm/min in accordance with ASTM C 1609 (2006). Measurements were
obtained from a set of four potentiometers, one at each support to measure the support
displacement and two at mid-span to measure the mid-span displacement. The net mid-span
deflections were determined using these measurements and the load-deflection curve was drawn.
In addition, the first-cracking load, and the ultimate load of the concrete were registered during
the tests. The first-cracking strength and the ultimate cracking strength were calculated according
to eq. (3.8).
PL s
f  (3.8)
bh 2
where,
f = the flexural strength, MPa
P = the load, N
Ls = the span length, mm
b = the average width of the specimen at the fracture, mm, and
h = the average depth of the specimen at the fracture, mm.
3.5.4 Bond strength between UHPFRC and NSC/HSC layers

To evaluate the bond characteristics between the UHPFRC, NSC/HSC materials, splitting test
were performed with 150 mm cube specimens. The specimens were loaded along an interface
plane to simulate a tensile load perpendicular to the plane as shown in Fig. 3.8. This test
followed a similar procedure as the ASTM C496 test used for splitting tensile strength of
66
cylindrical concrete specimens. Three samples of each UHPFRC-NSC/HSC composite were
tested using this method and the average values of the three specimens were evaluated for each
combination.
Bond stress is defined as the shear stress along the interface surface between the two materials,
and can be calculated by the following equation (Momayez et al., 2005):
2P
 sp  (3.9)
A
where  sp = splitting tensile strength of plane, MPa (psi); P= applied load, N (lbf); and A= area
2
of bond plane along the interface surface between UHPFRC and NSC or HSC materials, mm (
in 2 ).
Figure 3.7 Four-point bending test (a) dimensions, and (b) instrumentation ASTM C 1609 (2006)
67
Figure 3.8 Splitting prism test
68
Chapter 4
Experimental Results of UHPFRC Members
This chapter describes the material tests conducted in this experimental program and provides
details on the analytical procedure used to study the structural behaviour of the UHPFRC tested
beams. To study the specimens’ structural behaviour, including, its load – deflection relationship,
reinforcement strains, crack pattern, and concrete strains in the critical shear span, each beam
was analysed separately. In addition, this chapter compares the responses of UHPFRC specimens
with that of the UHPC specimens to better understand the benefits associated with the use of
steel fibres in UHPC members.
4.1 Cylinder compressive strength

Results from the concrete cylinder compressive strength tests are shown in Table 4.1. The
results summarized in Table 4.1 indicate that fibre addition didn’t significantly affect the
compressive strength of the concrete. It was observed from the tests that the UHPC without
fibres addition exhibit explosive failures during compression tests while UHPFRC did not
exhibit explosive failures during compression tests. This can be attributed to the restraining and
confining effects of the fibres. Fig. 4.1 shows the different failure modes of UHPC and UHPFRC
cylinders under the compression-loading test.
Table 4.1 Cylinder compressive strength test results (MPa)

Beam C #1 C #2 C #3 C #4 C #5 Mean CV
US1-0-3.5 142.095 141.139 127.199 124.595 133.038 0.077
US1-1-3.5 151.719 148.929 145.859 159.098 158.836 152.888 0.034
US1-2-3.5 142.543 180.051 180.359 155.351 158.593 0.098
US1-2-2.0 154.419 161.636 152.375 157.047 156.770 155.436 .071
US1-2-1.5 145.938 146.435 157.233 159.105 151.338 152.010 0.034
NS2 46.385 53.512 59.129 43.241 52.718 51.197 0.130
HS2 68.041 67.529 73.601 68.618 72.595 70.078 0.036
US2-0-3.0-A 120.017 124.643 126.064 119.552 133.580 0.023
US2-0-3.0-B 173.054 163.931 174.777 166.611 157.220 167.118 0.038
US2-1-3.0 162.668 158.574 146.562 152.727 143.301 152.750 0.047
US2-1.5-3.0 159.487 161.322 150.792 145.001 152.759 153.872 0.038
US2-2-3.0 150.969 157.135 156.409 155.328 152.212 154.410 0.015
69
UHPC UHPFRC
Figure 4.1 Failure modes of concrete cylindrical specimens under compression loading test
4.2 Split cylinder tests

As was mentioned earlier, cracking is a form of tension failure. Hence, the purpose of tensile
strength of concrete is necessary to determine the load at which the concrete members may
crack. The results of the splitting tensile strength tests, f sp , for each cylinder were calculated
according to equation (3.1), and summarised in Table 4.2. The results indicate that fibre addition
enhanced the splitting tensile strength of the concrete. It was also observed that the addition of
the fibres altered the failure mode of the cylinders tested. A brittle splitting failure mode was
observed in the non-fibre reinforced concrete cylinders, while the fibre reinforced concrete
cylinders remained intact with indications of hairline crack fracture across the length of the
cylinders. It was noted that the fibres increased the splitting resistance of the concrete by limiting
and controlling the transverse tensile stresses and strains in the concrete. Fig. 4.2 shows the
different cylinder splitting failure modes of UHPC and UHPFRC cylinders.
70
Table 4.2 Split cylinder test results (MPa)
Beam Vf % f c f sp f sp / f c
US1-0-3.5 0.0 133.043 6.179 0.520
US1-1-3.5 1.0 152.884 12.617 1.056
US1-2-3.5 2.0 158.593 16.081 1.277
US1-2-2.0 2.0 155.436 15.118 1.212
US1-2-1.5 2.0 152.010 15.708 1.274
NS2 0.0 51.197 3.029 0.423
HS2 0.0 70.078 4.216 0.503
US2-0-3.0-a 0.0 133.580 7.945 0.717
US2-0-3.0-b 0.0 167.118 5.805 0.449
US2-1-3.0 1.0 152.750 9.339 0.755
US2-1.5-3.0 1.5 153.872 12.864 1.037
US2-2-3.0 2.0 154.410 15.698 1.263
UHPC UHPFRC
Figure 4.2 Failure modes of concrete cylindrical specimens under split cylinder tests
4.3 Flexural tests

The flexural behaviour of UHPC and UHPFRC prism specimens differed significantly. The
prism specimens without the addition of fibre underwent brittle failure and the first crack
propagated quickly after initiation, leading to a sudden drop in load carrying capacity after
reaching the peak load. For the fibre prisms, the first crack propagated slowly until failure. The
prisms were also able to carry the load after failure. This demonstrates that the fibres have the
71
ability to redistribute stresses across the crack until fibres pull out from the matrix. The addition
of fibres enhanced the flexural strength and ductility of the concrete prisms.
The average first crack load and the average peak crack load were calculated according to
equation (3.2), and summarized in Table 4.3. The first crack load and the first crack deflection
are the loads where the first crack initiated and its corresponding deflection while the peak load
and peak deflection are the peak load and its corresponding deflection. The average first crack
load was calculated by obtaining the mean of all deflections at first crack loads. The average first
crack load is the load corresponding to average deflection that was calculated by interpolating
the two nearest points on the load-deflection curves. Similar procedure used to calculate the
average peak load and its corresponding deflection. Fig. 4.3 shows the cracking behaviour of
UHPFRC prisms. After first crack initiated in the prisms with 0% fibre content (US0), the crack
propagated very fast and the prisms suddenly collapsed, while crack propagated slowly after
initiation in the prisms with 1% (US1), 1.5% (US1.5), and 2% (US2) fibre content. Therefore,
adding fibres to the UHPC changed the failure mode from brittle mode to ductile mode. Fig. 4.4
shows the load versus net deflection relationship for series US0, US1, US1.5, and US2
respectively.
The average first crack load, first crack deflection, peak load, and peak deflection are shown in
Table 4.3. The addition of fibres enhanced the flexural strength and ductility of the concrete
prisms as shown in Table 4.3 and Fig. 4.5. The average ultimate load for UHPFRC (US) prisms
with 0%, 1%, 1.5% and 2% fibres volume content were 43.88, 66.09, 76.93 and 85.45 kN
respectively. It can be noted from Table 4.3 that the addition of steel fibres enhanced the flexural
capacity by 83%, 127%, and 136% for US1, US1.5, and US2 respectively.
72
Table 4.3 Flexural properties and test results of UHPC mixtures
Series Average Average Average Average Average Average
Compressive Splitting Deflection Load at Deflection Peak
Strength Tensile at First First at Peak Load
(MPa) Strength Crack Crack Load (kN)
(CV) (MPa) (mm) (kN) (mm)
(CV) (CV) (CV)
0% 144.579 6.645 0.260 38.380
(0.110) (0.140) (0.192)
1% 152.820 10.980 0.361 63.535 0.489 66.089
(0.001) (0.149) (0.019) (0.034)
1.5% 153.89 12.860 0.520 74.540 0.608 76.930
(0.038) (0.083) (0.308) (0.243)
2% 155.120 15.668 0.596 82.896 0.712 85.445
(0.015) (0.020) (0.052) (0.150)
CV=Coefficient of Variation
The toughness of concrete prisms was calculated by estimating the area under the load-deflection
curve up to a net deflection of 1⁄150 of the span length. Table 4.4 shows the flexural toughness
number rounded to the nearest Joule, and the modulus of rupture f r , which was determined by
flexural members that had dimensions of 152 x 152 x 457 mm. It was observed that the addition
of steel fibres significantly improved the toughness of the prisms (as shown in Table 4.4). For
instance, concrete prisms with 1% fibres were approximately 27 times tougher than concrete
prisms without fibres.
US0 US1
US1.5 US2
Figure 4.3 Flexural behaviour of UHPFRC prisms
73
Figure 4.4 Load versus net deflection relationship for UHPFRC prisms
Figure 4.5 Comparison between flexural strength of series 0%, 1%, 1.5% and 2% fibre content
74
Table 4.4 Flexural toughness and modulus of rupture of beams
Series fr Flexural Toughness
(MPa) (Joule)
0% 4.984 4.989
1% 8.581 138.355
1.5% 9.989 164.319
2% 11.095 192.240
Figures 4.6 to 4.9 show the relationship between the fibre volume content % and the first-crack
stress (
 c ), post-cracking peak stress (  pc ), stress at net deflection values (L⁄600) (  600 ), and
stress at net deflection values (L⁄150) (

 150 ). It can be noted that the bending stress after first
crack increased to a peak point then followed by gradual dropping in strength after this peak
point.
Figure 4.6 First-crack stress relationship with fibre volume content %
75
14.000
12.000
10.000
σpc MPa
8.000
6.000
4.000
2.000
0.000
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Vf %
Figure 4.7 Post-cracking peak stress relationship with fibre volume content %
14.000
12.000
10.000
σ600 MPa
8.000
6.000
4.000
2.000
0.000
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Vf %
Figure 4.8 Stress at net deflection values (L⁄600) relationship with fibre volume content %
76
8.000
7.000
6.000
σ150 MPa
5.000
4.000
3.000
2.000
1.000
0.000
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Vf %
Figure 4.9 Stress at net deflection values (L⁄150) relationship with fibre volume content %
4.4 Behaviour of beam tests

4.4.1 Beam US1-0-3.5
Figures 4.10 and 4.11 show the load versus central deflection relationship and crack pattern after
failure respectively. Inclined cracks began to develop in the left span at the mid depth of the
beam at an applied load 190 kN. As the load increased, the cracks began to propagate to the
bottom surface of the beam and to the loading point simultaneously. Additional cracks developed
at the shear span before the crack width increased and the beam failed at an applied load of 240
kN. It can be seen from Fig. 4.11 that the crack propagated along the top and lower layer of the
reinforcing bars at the lower end of the inclined crack. This can be attributed to lower dowel
action mechanism combined with bond failure at the steel concrete interface. From Fig. 4.10, it
can be seen that the central deflection increased linearly and it was proportional with the applied
load up to a load of 200 kN where the first crack developed in the left span. Beyond this point,
the relationship between the load and central deflection was nonlinear. The deflection at ultimate
load was 3.15 mm and the maximum deflection of the beam was 4.79 mm.
77
Figure 4.10 Load versus central deflection relationship – Beam US1-0-3.5
Fig. 4.12 shows the load versus the reinforcement strain relationship for beam US1-0-3.5. It can
be noted from Fig. 4.12 that the strains at S2 and S3 gauges were very small up to the load at
first diagonal crack (190 kN). Then the strains at these gauges started to increase due to the
inclined cracks that developed in the vicinity of the gauges. At the peak load the strain at S1
through S8 were still in the linear range of the reinforcement stress-strain curve.
Figure 4.11 Crack pattern after failure – Beam US1-0-3.5
78
Figure 4.12 Load versus reinforcement strain – Beam US1-0-3.5
4.4.2 Beam US1-1-3.5

Figures 4.13 and 4.14 show the load versus deflection relationship and crack pattern after failure
respectively. Flexural cracks began to develop from the bottom surface of the beam in the region
below the loading point at applied load 430 kN. As the applied load increased to 600 kN, another
cracks developed in the mid depth of the beam below the loading point where the maximum
moment occurred. At the same time, cracks at bottom surface of the beam developed below the
loading point. As the applied load increased to 667 kN, these cracks were connected together and
the beam failed as shown in Fig. 4.14. It can be noted from Fig. 4.13 that the central deflection
increased linearly with the applied load up to a load of 560 kN even after the initiation of the first
flexural crack. The addition of steel fibres significantly increased the ductility of the UHPC
beams as shown in Fig. 4.13. The deflection at the ultimate load was 10.559 mm and the
maximum deflection at failure was 14.418 mm.
79
be noted from Fig. 4.15 that the strain gauge S8 was very small up to 520 kN load, then the
flexural cracks started to propagate toward the loading point while the strains at S1, S2 and S3
gauges were very small due to the fact that no cracks were developed at the region close the left
support. The strains at most of the gauges were proportionally linear up to a load which depends
80
of the location of the strain gauges then the strains at these gauges started to increase rapidly due
to the cracks that developed in the vicinity of the gauges. The lower layer reinforcing steel bar
yielded at S7, S5, and S8 at an applied load 440, 530, 617 kN respectively.
4.4.3 Beam US1-2-3.5

respectively. Flexural cracks started to develop from the bottom surface of the beam in the region
below the loading point at applied load 650 kN. As the applied load increased to 690 kN, another
cracks developed, below the loading point where the maximum moment occurred. As the applied
load increased to 724 kN, the crack width increased and the beam failed as shown in Fig. 4.17. It
can be noted from Fig. 4.16 that the central deflection at the ultimate load was 8.78 mm and the
maximum deflection at failure, was 10.05 mm. It can be noted from Fig. 4.18 that the central
deflection increased linearly with the applied load up to a load of 600 kN where the flexural
cracks started to propagate to the loading point.
81
be noted from Fig. 4.18 that the strain at S3, S7 and S8 were increased linearly with the applied
load increased. The upper layer of steel reinforcing bar was yielded at S8 at an applied load 640
kN. At this applied load (640 kN), the flexural crack started to propagate upward in this region.
The lower layer reinforcing bar yielded at S5 at an applied load 700 kN. Strain gauges S5, and
82
S6 were unstable beyond 700 kN applied load. In addition, the strain gauge S2 was defective at
the beginning of the test.
4.4.4 Beam US1-2-2.0

The load versus central deflection relationship and crack pattern after failure are shown in
Figures 4.19 and 4.20 respectively. Flexural cracks started to develop from the bottom surface of
the beam in the region below the loading point at applied load 550 kN. As the applied load
increased to 600 kN, the crack started to propagate upward. Then the crack width increased with
increasing the applied load. Another cracks to the right of the loading point developed at an
applied load of 750 kN and the beam failed at an applied load 780 kN. It can be seen from Fig.
4.20 that only one single major flexural crack developed, below the loading point where the
maximum moment occurred. It can be seen from Fig. 4.19 that the central deflection at the
ultimate load was 6.15 mm and the maximum deflection at failure, was 9.27 mm.
83
Fig. 4.21 shows the load versus the reinforcement strain relationship for beam US1-2-2.0. The
strains at most of the gauges were proportionally linear with the applied load. The strain gauges
S1 and S5 were higher than S7 due to the crack that developed in the vicinity of the gauges. The
reinforcing steel bar yielded at S5, S1, S6, and S7 with applied loads of 601, 693, 732, and 736
kN respectively.
84
4.4.5 Beam US1-2-1.5

The load versus central deflection relationship and crack pattern after failure are shown in
Figures 4.22 and 4.23 respectively. Flexural cracks started to develop from the bottom surface of
the beam in the region below the loading point at applied load 600 kN. As the applied load
increased to 680 kN, the crack started to propagate upward. Then the crack width increased with
increasing the applied load to 800 kN. Another cracks started to develop at the mid depth
between the support and the loading point at applied load between 780 and 820 kN. The beam
failed at an applied load 882 kN. It can be seen from Fig. 4.21 that only one single major flexural
crack developed, below the loading point where the maximum moment occurred. It can be noted
from Fig. 4.22 that the central deflection at the ultimate load was 4.96 mm and the maximum
deflection at failure was 7.79 mm. In addition, the load versus central deflection was
proportionally linear up to applied load 800 kN.
85
The load versus the reinforcement strain relationship for beam US1-2-1.5 is shown in Fig. 4.24.
Most of the strain gauge readings were proportionally linear up to an applied load of 700 kN.
The strain gauge S5 was higher than the others due to the crack that developed in the vicinity of
the gauge. The reinforcing steel bar yielded at S5, S1, and S2 at applied loads of 775, 796 and
874 kN respectively.
86
4.4.6 Beam US2-0-3.0-a

respectively. Inclined cracks started to develop in the left span at the mid depth of the beam at
applied load 170 kN. As the applied load increased, another crack started to develop in the left
span at load 200 kN as shown in the Fig. 4.26. These cracks began to propagate to the bottom
surface of the beam and to the loading point at the same time. The crack width increased and the
beam failed in shear at applied load 284 kN. The central deflection increased linearly with
applied load up to 279.42 kN even after the cracks formed and propagated to the loading point,
and to the bottom of the beam. Then a sudden drop in the deflection at load 279.42 kN followed
by increasing the load up to 284.05 kN at which the beam failed. The maximum deflection at
failure was 4.63 mm.
87
Figure 4.25 Load versus central deflection relationship – Beam US2-0-3.0-a
Figure 4.26 Crack pattern after failure – Beam US2-0-3.0-a
Fig. 4.27 show the load versus the reinforcement strain relationship for beam US2-0-3.0-a. Most
of the strain gauges readings were proportionally linear up to an applied load of 280 kN. The
strain gauge S1 significantly increased at an applied load of 195 kN due to the inclined crack that
developed in the vicinity of the gauge. It can be observed from Fig. 4.27 that the reinforcing steel
88
bar did not reach the yield point at all gauges. In addition, the reading of strain gauge C3, which
is at the mid-depth of the beam, was almost zero. This indicates that the neutral axis was at the
mid depth of the beam.
Figure 4.27 Load versus reinforcement strain – Beam US2-0-3.0-a
4.4.7 Beam US2-0-3.0-b

The behaviour of beam US2-0-3.0-b was similar to beam US2-0-3.0-a as shown in Figures 4.28
and 4.29. The beam failed at an applied load 294.5 kN. The load versus the reinforcement strain
relationship for beam US2-0-3.0-b is shown in Fig. 4.30. It can noted that the strain gauge S2
significantly started to increase at applied load 100 kN due to the inclined cracks that formed in
the vicinity of the gauge, and the steel bar yielded at an applied load of 256 kN.
89
Figure 4.28 Load versus central deflection relationship – Beam US2-0-3.0-b
Figure 4.29 Crack pattern after failure – Beam US2-0-3.0-b
90
Figure 4.30 Load versus reinforcement strain – Beam US2-0-3.0-b
4.4.8 Beam US2-1-3.0

The load versus deflection relationship and crack pattern after failure are shown in Figures 4.31
and 4.32 respectively. Diagonal tension crack started to develop in the left span at the mid depth
of the beam at applied load 580 kN. This crack started to propagate to the loading point, and to
the bottom of the beam as the applied load increased to 650 kN. At the same time, another crack
started to develop at the mid depth of the beam, and to the right of first crack. These cracks
connected together at applied load 680 kN. The crack width started to increase as the applied
load increased until the beam failed in shear at applied load 789.72 kN as shown in Fig. 4.32.
The load versus deflection relationship was almost linear up to an applied load of 680 kN.
However, when the width of shear cracks started to increase, the load versus deflection
relationship became nonlinear. The maximum deflection at failure was 8.22 mm.
91
The load versus the reinforcement strain relationship for beam US2-1-3.0 is shown in Figure
4.33. Similarly to previous beams, the strains at most of the gauges were proportionally linear up
to an applied load of 680 kN. The strain gauges S5 and S6 reached the yield point at applied load
679 and 735 kN respectively. The strain gauge C1 was lower than C2 due to the crushing of the
92
concrete surface at C1. Therefore, the reading of C1 was not reflecting the actual concrete strain
and was disregarded.
4.4.9 Beam US2-1.5-3.0

The crack behaviour of beam US2-1.5-3.0 was different from US2-1-3.0. Flexural cracks started
to develop at applied load 550 kN at the center region of the beam as shown in Fig. 4.35. As the
applied load increased to 700 kN, diagonal shear crack started to develop at the mid depth of the
beam in left span. This shear crack propagated upward and downward diagonally. Another shear
crack formed between the first inclined crack and the loading point when the applied load
reached 860 kN. At this point, the width of the flexural cracks started to increase. As the applied
load increased the second shear crack started to propagate rapidly to the loading point and to the
bottom of the beam until the beam failed in shear at applied load 911.58 kN. The location of
shear crack in beam US2-1.5-3.0 was close to the loading point and different from beam US2-1-
3.0. This can be attributed to the high shear capacity in this beam due to high percentage of steel
93
fibres compared to beam US2-1-3.0. The load versus deflection relationship was similar to
previous beams. It was almost linear up to an applied load of 780 kN as shown in Fig. 4.34. The
maximum deflection at failure was 10.64 mm.
Figure 4.34 Load versus central deflection relationship – Beam US2-1.5-3.0
Figure 4.35 Crack pattern after failure – Beam US2-1.5-3.0
94
The load versus the reinforcement strain relationship for beam US2-1.5-3.0 is shown in Fig.
4.36. Similarly to previous beams, the strains at most of the gauges were proportionally linear up
to an applied load of 780 kN. The strain gauges S5 and S3 reached the yield point at applied load
768, and 827 kN respectively. The strain gauge C1 was damaged at the beginning of the test due
to crushing of the concrete surface at the gauge location.
Figure 4.36 Load versus reinforcement strain – Beam US2-1.5-3.0
4.4.10 Beam US2-2-3.0

The load versus deflection relationship and crack pattern after failure are shown in Figures 4.37
and 4.38 respectively. Flexural cracks started to develop at the mid span of the beam under the
loading point at applied load 450 kN. As the applied load increased, the flexural cracks started to
propagate upward and crack width increased until the beam failed in flexural at applied load
950.13 kN. There was no evidence of forming shear cracks in this beam. It can be observed that
increasing the fibre volume percentage to 2% significantly increase the shear capacity; however,
the flexural capacity was slightly increased. Similar to beam US2-1.5-3, the load versus
95
deflection relationship was almost linear up to an applied load of 680 kN. The maximum
deflection at failure was 10.15 mm.
96
The load versus the reinforcement strain relationship for beam US2-2-3.0 is shown in Figure
4.39. Similarly to previous beams, the strain readings of most of the gauges were proportionally
linear up to an applied load of 780 kN. The strain gauges S5 and S3 reached the yield point at an
applied load of 702, and 945 kN respectively. The strain gauge C1 was damaged at the beginning
of the test due to crushing of the concrete surface at the gauge location.
4.4.11 Beams NS2 and HS2

Figures 4.40 and 4.41 show the load versus central deflection relationship and crack pattern after
failure respectively for beam NS2-0-3. Inclined cracks started to develop in the left span at the
mid depth of the beam at an applied load of 165 kN. In addition, cracks began to develop along
the lower layer of reinforcing bars due to dowel action mechanism combined with bond failure at
the steel concrete interface. As the load increased, the crack started to propagate to the bottom
surface of the beam and the loading point at the same time. Additional cracks developed in the
shear span before the crack width increased and the beam failed at applied load 250 kN. From
Fig. 4.40, it can be seen that the central deflection increased linearly, and it was proportional to
97
the load up to a load of 165 kN where the first crack developed in the left span. Beyond this
point, the relationship between the load and central deflection was nonlinear. At failure, the
maximum deflection of the beam was 5.01 mm. It was observed from the Fig. 4.40 that the
failure mode is brittle.
Figure 4.40 Load versus central deflection relationship – Beam NS2-0-3
Figure 4.41 Crack pattern after failure – Beam NS2-0-3
98
Figure 4.42 shows the load versus the reinforcement strain relationship for beam NS2. It can be
noted from Fig. 4.42 that the strains gauge S2 was very high due to the inclined cracks that
developed in the vicinity of the gauge.
Figure 4.42 Load versus reinforcement strain – Beam NS2-0-3
The load versus central deflection relationship and crack pattern after failure for beam HS2 are
shown in Figures 4.43 and 4.44 respectively. The load versus central deflection relationship of
beam HS2 was similar to that of beam NS2. However, the crack pattern of beam HS2 was
slightly different from that of beam NS2, the inclined cracks were closer in beam HS2 than that
of beam NS2.
The load versus the reinforcement strain relationship for beam HS2 is shown in Fig. 4.45. It can
be noted from Fig. 4.45 that the strains gauges S1 and S2 started to increase rapidly when the
applied load reached 145 kN due to the inclined cracks that began to form in the vicinity of the
gauges.
99
Figure 4.43 Load versus central deflection relationship – Beam HS2-0-3
Figure 4.44 Crack pattern after failure – Beam HS2-0-3
100
Figure 4.45 Load versus reinforcement strain – Beam HS2-0-3
4.5 Comparison of response of UHPFRC beams

4.5.1 Crack pattern and mode of failure
All of the beams in series 1 failed in flexure, except the beam without fibre content failed in
shear. Flexural cracks began to develop from the bottom surface of the beam in the region below
the loading point. As the applied load increased, more cracks developed in the region below the
loading point where the maximum moment occurred. These cracks became connected as the load
increased and the beam failed. Table 4.5 shows the initial cracking load, ultimate failure load,
and the mode of failure for all beams in series 1 and 2. Beams in series 2 failed in shear except
beam US2-2-3 failed in flexure. For beams failed in shear, inclined cracks began to develop in
the left span at the mid depth of the beam. As the load increased, another crack began to develop
in the left span. These cracks began to propagate to the bottom surface of the beam and to the
loading point simultaneously. The crack width increased and the beam failed in shear.
101
Table 4.5 Material properties and experimental parameters of specimens
Beam a
d
 vf f c f sp Initial Ultimate Mode of
Cracking Failure Failure
% % MPa MPa
Load Load
kN kN
US1-0-3.5 3.5 0.063 0 133.04 6.18 210 240 Shear
US1-1-3.5 3.5 0.063 1 152.89 12.62 430 667 Flexure
US1-2-3.5 3.5 0.063 2 158.59 16.08 650 724 Flexure
US1-2-2.0 2.0 0.063 2 155.47 15.19 500 780 Flexure
US1-2-1.5 1.5 0.063 2 152.01 15.71 800 882 Flexure
NS2-0-3.0 3.0 0.081 0 51.19 3.03 165 250 Shear
HS2-0-3.0 3.0 0.081 0 70.08 4.22 160 256 Shear
US2-0-3.0-a 3.0 0.081 0 133.58 7.95 170 284 Shear
US2-0-3.0-b 3.0 0.081 0 167.12 5.81 210 294 Shear
US2-1-3.0 3.0 0.081 1 152.75 9.34 440 790 Shear
US2-1.5-3.0 3.0 0.081 1.5 153.89 12.86 450 912 Shear
US2-2-3.0 3.0 0.081 2 154.41 15.69 650 950 Flexure
4.5.2 Load-deflection response

At each loading step, the deflections were measured by one potentiometer installed at the mid-
span of the beams in series 1 and two potentiometers installed on each side of the beams in series
2. These measured deflections were then compared. The central deflection curves of the beams
with 2% fibre volume fraction in series 1 can be seen in Fig. 4.46. Figure 4.47 illustrates the
central deflection curves of the beams in series 2. These figures show that the deflection of the
beams increased linearly, and was proportional to the applied load, even after the initiation of
cracks. The addition of steel fibres increased the ductility of the UHPC beams. The maximum
deflection of beams US2-0-3-a, US2-0-3-b, US2-1-3, US2-1.5-3, and US2-2-3 at failure were
4.65, 5.23, 8.22, 10.64, and 10.15 mm respectively. It can be seen from Fig. 4.47 that the
behaviour of UHPC beam without addition of fibre was similar to the behaviour of NSC and
HSC beams with slightly higher strength due to the high compressive strength of UHPC material
compared to NSC and HSC materials. This demonstrates that UHPC without fibres is a brittle
102
material, and that increasing the compressive strength of the concrete will not enhance the shear
capacity of reinforced concrete beams. It was noted from Fig. 4.47 that beams US2-2-3 and US2-
1.5-3 showed similar behaviour. This behaviour can be attributed to maximum flexural capacity
of the beams in series 2.
Figure 4.46 Load versus central deflection relationship for a/d ratio for Series 1 with 2% fibre
volume content
4.5.3 Shear capacity

Table 4.6 show that the shear capacity of UHPFRC was significantly increased by increases in
fibre volume percentage. It can be noted that that the ultimate shear capacity of UHPFRC beams
with 1% and 1.5% fibre volume content is 1.7, and 2.13 times higher than the shear capacity of
the UHPC without fibre content.
103
Figure 4.47 Load versus central deflection relationship for different fibre volume contents for
Series 2 with a/d=3.0
Table 4.6 Shear capacity of UHPFRC beams

Beam % Fibres Maximum Increase in Deflection at Maximum
specimen Shear Resistance Maximum Deflection
capacity  V exp  V exp 0  Resistance  max
V exp    exp
(kN)  V exp 0  (mm) (mm)
(kN)
US2-0-3-a 0 142.03 ---- 4.65 6.30
US2-0-3-b 0 147.25 ---- 5.23 7.20
US2-1-3 1 394.86 77% 8.22 14.02
US2-1.5-3 1.5 455.29 120% 10.64 16.03
US2-2-3 2 >475.1 >134% 10.15 17.32
104
Chapter 5
Experimental Results of UHPFRC- NSC/HSC Members
This chapter describes the material tests conducted in this experimental program and provides
details on the analytical procedure used to study the structural behaviour of the UHPFRC
composite members. To study the specimen’s structural behaviour, including, its load –
deflection relationship, reinforcement strains, crack pattern, and concrete strains in the critical
shear span, each beam was analysed separately. In addition, this chapter compares the responses
of UHPFRC-NSC/HSC specimens with that of the UHPFRC specimens to better understand the
composite action between UHPFRC material and NSC/HSC material.
5.1 Cylinder compressive strength

Results from the concrete cylinder compressive strength tests are shown in Table 5.1. For
composite beams, the letters N and H indicate the result for NSC and HSC layer respectively,
and the letter U indicates the result of UHPFRC layer.
Table 5.1 Cylinder compressive strength test results (MPa)

Beam Layer C #1 C #2 C #3 C #4 C #5 Mean CV
NS2 N 46.385 53.512 59.129 43.241 52.718 51.197 0.130
HS2 H 68.041 67.529 73.601 68.618 72.595 70.078 0.036
UNS3-1 N 46.385 53.512 59.129 43.241 52.718 51.197 0.130
UNS3-1D U 148.390 174.187 141.908 148.161 187.280 159.985 0.101
UNS3-1S
UNS3-1.5 N 46.385 53.512 59.129 43.241 52.718 51.197 0.130
UNS3-1.5D U 156.784 181.707 177.072 173.138 160.488 169.838 0.056
UNS3-2 N 46.385 53.512 59.129 43.241 52.718 51.197 0.130
UNS3-2D U 187.331 168.827 158.421 174.052 166.631 168.001 0.065
UHS3-1 H 68.041 67.529 73.601 68.618 72.595 70.078 0.036
UHS3-1D U 174.933 192.698 174.793 201.997 165.135 181.907 0.073
UHS3-1S
UHS3-1.5 H 68.041 67.529 73.601 68.618 72.595 70.078 0.036
UHS3-1.5D U 158.172 182.038 159.235 194.701 156.803 170.189 0.090
UHS3-2 H 68.041 67.529 73.601 68.618 72.595 70.078 0.036
UHS3-2D U 185.407 191.683 188.864 200.387 192.849 191.838 0.025
105
5.2 Split cylinder tests
f sp
The results of the splitting tensile strength tests , for each cylinder were calculated according
to equation (3.1), and summarised in Table 5.2.
Table 5.2 Split cylinder test results (MPa)

Beam Vf % Layer f c f sp f sp / f c
NS2 0.0 N 51.197 3.029 0.423
HS2 0.0 H 70.078 4.216 0.503
UNS3-1 N 51.197 N3.029 N0.423
UNS3-1D 1.0 U 159.985 U11.169 U0.883
UNS3-1S
UNS3-1.5 1.5 N 51.197 N3.029 N0.423
UNS3-1.5D U 169.838 U14.768 U1.133
UNS3-2-A 2.0 N 51.197 N3.029 N0.423
UNS3-2D U 168.001 U15.534 U1.198
UHS3-1 H 70.078 H4.216 H0.503
UHS3-1D 1.0 U 181.907 U13.002 U0.964
UHS3-1S
UHS3-1.5 1.5 H 70.078 H4.216 H0.503
UHS3-1.5D U 170.189 U15.635 U1.198
UHS3-2 2.0 H 70.078 H4.216 H0.503
UHS3-2D U 191.838 U16.275 U1.175
5.3 Flexural tests

The average peak load and average failure load for UHPFRC/NSC (UN) and UHPFRC/HSC
(UH) prisms were calculated according to equation (3.2) and summarized in Table 5.3. The peak
load and peak deflection are the peak load and its corresponding deflection while the failure load
and the failure deflection are the loads where the prism failed and its corresponding deflection.
The average peak load was calculated by obtaining the mean of all deflections at peak loads. The
average peak load is the load corresponding to average deflection that was calculated by
interpolating the two nearest points on the load-deflection curves. Similar procedure was used to
calculate the average failure load and its corresponding deflection.
106
The flexural toughness is the total area under the load-deflection curve up to failure. Table 5.4
shows the flexural toughness number rounded to the nearest Joule, and the modulus of rupture f r
, which was determined by flexural members that had dimensions of 152 x 152 x 456 mm. It can
be noted from Table 5.4 that the flexural toughness increased with the addition of steel fibres to
UHPFRC layer.
Table 5.3 Flexural test results of UHPFRC-NSC/HSC

Series Layer Average Average Average Average Average Average
Compressive Splitting Deflection Peak Deflection Failure
Strength Tensile at Peak Load at Failure Load
(MPa) Strength Load (kN) (mm) (kN)
(MPa) (mm) (CV)
(CV)
NS N 51.197 3.029 0.220 40.843
(0.140)
HS H 70.078 4.216 0.257 37.587
(0.051)
UN1 N 51.197 3.029 0.748 50.323 1.145 41.730
U 159.985 11.169 (0.250) (0.030)
UN1.5 N 51.197 3.029 0.982 68.393 1.195 60.693
U 169.838 14.768 (0.345) (0.026)
UN2 N 51.197 3.029 1.163 77.760 1.418 68.133
U 168.001 15.534 (0.130) (0.118)
UH1 H 70.078 4.216 0.763 54.490 2.143 28.160
U 181.907 13.002 (0.338) (0.144)
UH1.5 H 70.078 4.216 1.010 57.765 2.178 44.880
U 170.189 15.635 (0.161) (0.218)
UH2 H 70.078 4.216 1.113 66.393 2.268 45.030
U 191.838 16.275 (0.237) (0.040)
Table 5.4 Flexural toughness and modulus of rupture of beams

Series fr Flexural Toughness
(MPa) (kN-mm)
NS 5.503 4.992
HS 4.881 4.823
UN1 7.398 37.086
UN1.5 10.054 40.884
UN2 11.431 63.832
UH1 7.792 77.909
UH1.5 8.260 88.602
UH2 9.494 103.679
107
The cracking behaviour of UHPFRC/NSC (UN) and UHPFRC/HSC (UH) prisms are shown in
Figures 5.1 and 5.2 respectively. Figures 5.3 and 5.4 show the load versus net deflection
relationship for the UN, and UH, series respectively. The average peak load for UN prisms with
1%, 1.5% and 2% fibres volume content were 50.32, 68.39 and 77.76 kN respectively, while for
the average peak load for UH prisms with 1%, 1.5% and 2% fibres volume content were 54.49,
57.76 and 66.39 kN respectively . The average peak load for NSC prisms was 40.84 kN and for
HSC prisms was 37.58 kN. It can be noted that the average ultimate load for NSC prisms was
slightly higher than the average ultimate load for HSC prisms. This can be attributed to high
brittleness of HSC prisms compared to NSC prisms that made the cracks to propagate faster in
HSC prisms compared to NSC prisms. The results show (Fig. 5.3) that the addition of UHPFRC
layer with 1%, 1.5% and 2% fibres volume content at the bottom of the UN prisms increased the
flexural capacity by 23%, 68%, and 90% respectively. While for UH prisms, the addition of
UHPFRC layer with 1%, 1.5% and 2% fibres volume content at the bottom of the UH prisms
increased the flexural capacity by 45%, 54%, and 77% respectively.
A comparison between UN and UH prism specimens show that the compressive strength of the
NSC or HSC layer had no significant effect on the flexural capacity of composite prisms.
However, increasing the steel fibre percentage in the UHPFRC layer significantly improved the
flexural strength of the concrete prisms. This can be attributed to the fact that when the fibre
percentage increased, the fibre concentration in the vicinity of the crack increased, providing
effective stress transfer across the crack. It was noted during the tests of composite prisms that
the crack propagated very fast when reached the NSC or HSC layer. This can be attributed to the
effect of fibres that bridging the crack, delay the propagation of the macro cracks in the
UHPFRC layer.
Furthermore, the addition of UHPFRC layer with 1%, 1.5% and 2% fibres volume content at the
bottom of the UN prisms significantly enhanced the ductility by 3.4, 4.6, and 5.3 times
respectively compared to NS prism respectively. While for UH prism specimens, the addition of
108
UHPFRC layer with 1%, 1.5% and 2% fibre volume content at the bottom of the UH prisms
enhanced the ductility by 3.8, 3.9, and 4.3 times respectively compared to HS prism.
It was observed that addition of steel fibres significantly improved the toughness of the prisms as
shown in Table 5.4. For instance, UN and UH prisms with 1% fibres showed approximately 8
and 16 times higher toughness than that of NS and HS prisms respectively.
(a) NSC (b) UN1
(c) UN1.5 (d) UN2
Figure 5.1 Flexural behaviour of UHPFRC/NSC prisms
109
(a) HSC (b) UH1
(c) UH1.5 (d) UH2
Figure 5.2 Flexural behaviour of UHPFRC/HSC prisms
90
80
70
60
Load kN
50 NS
40 UN1
30 UN1.5
20 UN2
10
0
0 0.5 1 1.5
NET Central Deflection mm
Figure 5.3 Load versus net deflection relationship for UHPFRC-NSC prisms
110
80
70
60
50
Load kN
40 HS
30 UH1
20 UH1.5
10 UH2
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
NET Central Deflection mm
Figure 5.4 Load versus net deflection relationship for UHPFRC-HSC prisms
5.4 Behaviour of beam tests

The initial cracking load, ultimate failure load, and deflection at peak load are summarized in
Table 5.5.
5.4.1 Beams UNS3-1, UNS3-1D and UNS3-1S

For Beams UNS3-1, UNS3-1D and UNS3-1S, the load versus central deflection relationship and
crack pattern after failure are shown in Figures 5. 5 - 5.10 respectively. All beams failed in shear
due to concrete crushing in the compression zone in the NSC portion. Inclined crack was
initiated in the left span at the bottom of the NSC layer (mid depth of the beam), and as the
applied load increased, the crack propagated to the loading point. As the applied load further
increased, another inclined crack started to develop in the left span at the bottom of the NSC
layer, and the cracks width increased, and fibres were pulled out of the matrix. Failure occurred
as one major diagonal crack in the NSC layer resulted in tensile failure of the beam.
111
The UNS3-1, UNS3-1D and UNS3-1S beams failed at applied loads 436, 402 and 430 kN
respectively. The shear capacity of the composite beam was not improved by the presence of
dowels and shear stud. This can be attributed to the high bond strength between the UHPFRC
and NSC layer because the inclined cracks were did not propagate through the interface between
the UHPFRC, and NSC layer. The initial cracking load, the ultimate load, and the maximum
deflection at ultimate load for UNS3-1, UNS3-1D and UNS3-1S are shown in Table 5.5.
Table 5.5 Experimental results of test beams

Beam Vf % Initial Ultimate Deflection at
Maximum
Cracking Failure
Resistance
load Load  exp
kN kN (mm)
UNS3-1 295 436.24 6.15
UNS3-1D 1.0 300 402.25 5.55
UNS3-1S 300 430.24 6.46
UNS3-1.5 1.5 310 439.15 7.66
UNS3-1.5D 280 503.56 6.41
UNS3-2 2.0 350 521.56 6.63
UNS3-2D 310 502.45 7.24
UHS3-1 280 528.41 8.57
UHS3-1D 1.0 280 439.22 9.52
UHS3-1S 290 433.02 6.19
UHS3-1.5 1.5 245 403.59 5.15
UHS3-1.5D 290 465.79 6.52
UHS3-2 2.0 300 522.89 6.45
UHS3-2D 370 521.45 10.92
112
Figure 5.5 Load versus central deflection relationship – Beam UNS3-1
Figure 5.6 Crack pattern after failure – Beam UNS3-1
113
Figure 5.7 Load versus central deflection relationship – Beam UNS3-1D
Figure 5.8 Crack pattern after failure – Beam UNS3-1D
114
Figure 5.9 Load versus central deflection relationship – Beam UNS3-1S
Figure 5.10 Crack pattern after failure – Beam UNS3-1S
Figures 5.11 - 5.13 show the load - crack width relationships for beams UNS3-1, UNS3-1D and
UNS3-1S respectively. It can be noted from Figures 5.11 - 5.13 that the widths of the crack were
significantly smaller in all beams between the UHPFRC, and NSC/HSC layers, and when the
inclined cracks started to propagate through the NSC/HSC layer, the crack width increased due
to forming of diagonal cracks in NSC or HSC layer. For example, Beam UNS3-1, the crack
115
widths at crack gauges were almost zero up to applied 200 kN, then when the inclined cracks
started to develop in the NSC layer, the crack widths started to increase.
Figure 5.11 Load versus crack width relationship – Beam UNS3-1
Figure 5.12 Load versus crack width relationship – Beam UNS3-1D
116
Figure 5.13 Load versus crack width relationship – Beam UNS3-1S
The load versus the reinforcement strain relationship for beams UNS3-1, UNS3-1D, and UNS3-
1S are shown in Figures 5.14- 5.16 respectively. It can be noted from Figures 5.14- 5.16 that
most of the strain gauges increased linearly with the increase in the applied load excepting for S2
gauge as the strain increased suddenly at an applied load of 280 to 300 kN due to the initiation
of the inclined cracks at the NSC layer in the vicinity of the gauge.
117
Figure 5.14 Load versus reinforcement strain – Beam UNS3-1
Figure 5.15 Load versus reinforcement strain – Beam UNS3-1D
118
Figure 5.16 Load versus reinforcement strain – Beam UNS3-1S
5.4.2 Beams UNS3-1.5, and UNS3-1.5D

The load versus central deflection relationship and crack pattern after failure for Beams UNS3-
1.5, and UNS3-1.5D were similar to beams UNS3-1, UNS3-1D and UNS3-1S, however, the
shear capacity increased in UNS3-1.5D compared to beam UNS3-1.5 as shown in Figures 5.17 -
5.20 respectively. The initial cracking load, the ultimate load, and the maximum deflection at
ultimate load of UNS3-1.5, and UNS3-1.5D are shown in Table 5.5.
119
Figure 5.17 Load versus central deflection relationship – Beam UNS3-1.5
Figure 5.18 Crack pattern after failure – Beam UNS3-1.5
120
Figure 5.19 Load versus central deflection relationship – Beam UNS3-1.5D
Figure 5.20 Crack pattern after failure – Beam UNS3-1.5D
Figures 5.21, and 5.22 show the load - crack width relationships for beams UNS3-1.5, and
UNS3-1.5D respectively. It can be observed from Figure 5.21 that the crack width started to
increase in gauges CR2 and CR3 at a load higher than 100 kN while the crack width started to
increase at gauge CR1 at a load higher than 300 kN at the time that the inclined crack started to
propagate between the UHPFRC and NSC layers.
121
Figure 5.21 Load versus crack width relationship – Beam UNS3-1.5
Figure 5.22 Load versus crack width relationship – Beam UNS3-1.5D
122
The load versus the reinforcement strain relationship for beams UNS3-1.5, and UNS3-1.5D are
shown in Figures 5.23 and 5.24 respectively.
Figure 5.23 Load versus reinforcement strain – Beam UNS3-1.5
Figure 5.24 Load versus reinforcement strain – Beam UNS3-1.5D
123
5.4.3 Beams UNS3-2, and UNS3-2D
The load versus central deflection relationship and crack pattern after failure for Beams UNS3-2
and UNS3-2D were similar to beams UNS3-1, UNS3-1D and UNS3-1S as shown in Figures 5.25
- 5.28 respectively. The initial cracking load, the ultimate load, and the maximum deflection at
ultimate load of UNS3-2, and UNS3-2D are shown in Table 5.5.
Figure 5.25 Load versus central deflection relationship – Beam UNS3-2
Figure 5.26 Crack pattern after failure – Beam UNS3-2
124
Figure 5.27 Load versus central deflection relationship – Beam UNS3-2D
Figure 5.28 Crack pattern after failure – Beam UNS3-2D
Figures 5.29 and 5.30 show the load - crack width relationships for beams UNS3-2 and UNS3-
2D respectively. It can be observed from Figures 5.29, and 5.30 that the crack widths started to
increase at an applied load 250 kN where the inclined cracks started to propagate between the
UHPFRC and NSC layers.
125
Figure 5.29 Load versus crack width relationship – Beam UNS3-2
Figure 5.30 Load versus crack width relationship – Beam UNS3-2D
126
The load versus the reinforcement strain relationship for beams UNS3-2 and UNS3-2D are
shown in Figures 5.31 and 5.32 respectively.
Figure 5.31 Load versus reinforcement strain – Beam UNS3-2
Figure 5.32 Load versus reinforcement strain – Beam UNS3-2D
127
5.4.4 Beams UHS3-1, UHS3-1D, UHS3-1S, UHS3-1.5, UHS3-1.5D, UHS3-2, and UHS3-2D
The load versus central deflection relationship and crack pattern after failure for Beams UHS3-1,
UHS3-1D, UHS3-1S, UHS3-1.5, UHS3-1.5D, UHS3-2, and UHS3-2D were similar to beams
UN series as shown in Figures 5.33 - 5.46 respectively. The initial cracking load, the ultimate
load, and the maximum deflection at ultimate load of UHS3-1, UHS3-1D, UHS3-1S, UHS3-1.5,
UHS3-1.5D, UHS3-2, and UHS3-2D are shown in Table 5.5.
Figure 5.33 Load versus central deflection relationship – Beam UHS3-1
Figure 5.34 Crack pattern after failure – Beam UHS3-1
128
Figure 5.35 Load versus central deflection relationship – Beam UHS3-1D
Figure 5.36 Crack pattern after failure – Beam UHS3-1D
129
Figure 5.37 Load versus central deflection relationship – Beam UHS3-1S
Figure 5.38 Crack pattern after failure – Beam UHS3-1S
130
Figure 5.39 Load versus central deflection relationship – Beam UHS3-1.5
Figure 5.40 Crack pattern after failure – Beam UHS3-1.5
131
Figure 5.41 Load versus central deflection relationship – Beam UHS3-1.5D
Figure 5.42 Crack pattern after failure – Beam UHS3-1.5D
132
Figure 5.43 Load versus central deflection relationship – Beam UHS3-2
Figure 5.44 Crack pattern after failure – Beam UHS3-2
133
Figure 5.45 Load versus central deflection relationship – Beam UHS3-2D
Figure 5.46 Crack pattern after failure – Beam UHS3-2D
134
Figures 5.47, and 5.53 show the load - crack width relationships for Beams UHS3-1, UHS3-1D,
UHS3-1S, UHS3-1.5, UHS3-1.5D, UHS3-2, and UHS3-2D UNS3-1.5, and UNS3-1.5D
respectively.
The load versus the reinforcement strain relationship for beams UHS3-1, UHS3-1D, UHS3-1S,
UHS3-1.5, UHS3-1.5D, UHS3-2, and UHS3-2D are shown in Figures 5.54 and 5.60
respectively.
Figure 5.47 Load versus crack width relationship – Beam UHS3-1
135
Figure 5.48 Load versus crack width relationship – Beam UHS3-1D
Figure 5.49 Load versus crack width relationship – Beam UHS3-1S
136
Figure 5.50 Load versus crack width relationship – Beam UHS3-1.5
Figure 5.51 Load versus crack width relationship – Beam UHS3-1.5D
137
Figure 5.52 Load versus crack width relationship – Beam UHS3-2
Figure 5.53 Load versus crack width relationship – Beam UHS3-2D
138
Figure 5.54 Load versus reinforcement strain – Beam UHS3-1
Figure 5.55 Load versus reinforcement strain – Beam UHS3-1D
139
Figure 5.56 Load versus reinforcement strain – Beam UHS3-1S
Figure 5.57 Load versus reinforcement strain – Beam UHS3-1.5
140
Figure 5.58 Load versus reinforcement strain – Beam UHS3-1.5D
Figure 5.59 Load versus reinforcement strain – Beam UHS3-2
141
Figure 5.60 Load versus reinforcement strain – Beam UHS3-2D
5.5 Bond between UHPFRC and NSC/HSC layers

The bond between the two different layers of concrete (UHPFRC and NSC/ HSC) was examined
using a split tensile test. Bond failure is characterized by failure along the interface surface.
Some of the specimens failed in bond along the interface surface and others failed by the
splitting the NSC or HSC layer. Bond stress is defined as the shear stress along the interface
surface between two materials, and can be calculated from equation (3.3).
The average bond strength of composite cubes with 1%, 1.5%, and 2% fibres volume fractions of
UHPFRC-NSC were 11.62, 11.12, 11.97 MPa respectively, while the average bond strength of
composite cubes with 1%, 1.5%, and 2% fibres volume fractions of UHPFRC-HSC were 10.57,
12.32 and 12.86 MPa respectively. It should be noted that bond strength at the composite
interface is independent on the fibre volume content. Figure 5.61 illustrates failure mode of the
composite splitting cubes.
142
Out of all the UHPFRC-NSC specimens, only two specimens with 1.5% fibre volume content
failed due to splitting failure in the NSC layer, the remainder of the specimens failed in bond at
the UHPFRC-NSC interface. Out of all the UHPFRC-HSC specimens, two specimens with 1%
fibre volume content and one specimen with 1.5% fibre volume content failed due to splitting
failure in the HSC layer (as shown in Fig. 6d), the remainder of the specimens failed in bond at
the UHPFRC-HSC interface. The failure load for the cubes that failed due to splitting failure in
the NSC or HSC layer was lower than the failure load of the cubes that failed due to splitting
along the UHPFRC-NSC/HSC interface. These cubes were thus eliminated from the calculation
of average bond strength for the composite cubes.
(a) UN1 (b) UN1.5 (c) UN2
(d) UH1 (e) UH1.5 (f) UH2
Figure 5.61 Splitting tensile tests of composite cubes
143
5.6 Comparison of response of UHPFRC members
5.6.1 Crack pattern and mode of failure
All of the beams in series 3 failed in shear. All of the composite beams failed in shear due to the
principal tensile stress in the NSC or HSC layer. The tensile stress in these layers exceeded the
tensile strength of the concrete, leading to the development of a diagonal tensile crack in the
direction perpendicular to the direction of the principal tensile stress.
The UHPFRC-NSC/HSC beams underwent three stages. The first stage was the linear elastic
stage in which both layers behaved elastically. The second stage began with the appearance of a
diagonal crack that started in the left span at the bottom of the NSC/HSC layer (mid depth of the
beam) and propagated to the loading point as the load continued to increase. As the applied load
increased, another inclined crack started to develop in the left span at the bottom of the
NSC/HSC layer and the width of the cracks increased. The third and final stage took place when
one or more cracks in the NSC/HSC layer caused the concrete to crush due to excessive strain,
causing failure.
The UHPFRC-NSC beams failed at an applied load of 402 and 520 kN which is 1.6 to 2.0 times
higher than the failure load of NSC beam. Similarly, the UHPFRC-HSC beams failed at an
applied load of 413 and 522 kN which is 1.7 to 2.0 times higher than the failure load of HSC
beam.
The results of the composite beam tests indicate that the compressive strength of the NSC or
HSC concrete layer controls the ultimate shear strength of the composite beams. It was observed
from the tests that the inclined cracks did not propagate into the UHPFRC layer due to high shear
strength of this layer. In addition, the inclined cracks started to propagate higher into the
NSC/HSC layer of the beams reinforced with dowels and shear stud. Tables 5.6 and 5.7 illustrate
that the shear capacity of composite beams was not improved by the presence of dowels and
shear studs with the exception of the composite beam with 1.5% fibre volume content. This can
144
be attributed to the bond strength between the UHPFRC and NSC/HSC layers preventing the
inclined cracks from propagating through the interface between the UHPFRC and NSC/HSC
layers. It was observed from the load - crack width relationships for the composite beams that
the crack width of all beams was significantly smaller between the UHPFRC and NSC/HSC
layers and increased as the cracks began to propagate through the NSC/HSC layer. For example,
in beam UNS3-2, the crack gauges was almost zero up to an applied load of 300 kN. When the
inclined cracks began to develop in the NSC layer, the crack width began to increase. In
addition, the crack width began to increase early on composite beams with 1%, and 1.5% fibre
volume content, while the crack width of the beams with 2% fibre volume content began to
increase at loads above 200 kN.
5.6.2 Load-deflection response

The central deflection curves of the beams in series 2 and 3 can be seen in Figures 5.62-5.69.
The central deflection of the UHPFRC-NSC/HSC composite beams was higher than the central
deflection of the NSC/HSC beams due to the high ductility of the composite beams compared to
NSC/HSC beams. In addition, the deflection of the beams increased in a linear fashion and was
proportional to the applied load, even after the initiation of cracks.
The load-deflection curves of all the composite beams showed similar behaviour and were not
significantly influenced by the fibre volume content or the presence of shear connectors, with the
exception of the UHPFRC/HSC beams with 1.5% and 2% fibre volume content. The beams were
able to carry the applied load and the stiffness was not degraded after the initiation of the
inclined cracks. This behaviour can be attributed to the high stiffness of the UHPFRC layer
supporting the NSC/HSC layer.
The maximum deflection of beams UNS3-1, UNS3-1D, UNS3-1S, UNS3-1.5, UNS3-1.5D,

UNS3-2, UNS3-2D at failure were 6.15, 5.55, 6.46, 7.66, 6.41, 6.63, and 7.24 mm respectively,
and for UHS3-1, UHS3-1D, UHS3-1S, UHS3-1.5, UHS3-1.5D, UHS3-2, UHS3-2D at failure
were 8.81, 9.69, 6.84, 5.75, 7.06, 7.34, 11.14 mm. It was observed from the test results that some
145
beams were able to carry the load after the crushing of the NSC or HSC layer at the left side of
the beam, and showed higher deflection. This can be attributed to the strut mechanism that the
load transfer to the UHPFRC layer due to the fact that the right side of the beam was still able to
carry the load and the NSC or HSC on the right side was still able to transfer the load to the
UHPFRC layer.
A comparison between the UHPFRC beams with UHPFRC-NSC beams with different fibre
volume contents are shown in Figures 6.70 – 6.72. It can be noted that the ultimate shear
capacity of UHPFRC-NSC beams was 50% of the ultimate shear capacity of UHPFRC beams.
However, the ductility of UHPFRC-NSC beams was similar to UHPFRC beams for beams with
1.5% and 2% fibre volume content. This shows that the addition of NSC or HSC layer
significantly decreases the ultimate shear capacity of the UHPFRC beams due to the low shear
capacity of NSC and HSC layers.
Figure 5.62 Load versus central deflection relationship comparison for UHPFRC-NSC beams with
1% fibre volume content
146
1.5% fibre volume content
147
without dowels or shear stud
Figure 5.66 Load versus central deflection relationship comparison for UHPFRC-HSC beams with
148
149
without dowels or shear stud
volume content
150
Figure 5.71 Load versus central deflection relationship comparison for beams with 1.5% fibre
volume content
volume content
151
5.6.3 Shear capacity
Tables 5.6 and 5.7 show the shear capacity of composite beams compared to NSC or HSC beam.
It can be noted the ultimate shear capacity of UHPFRC/NSC beams is 1.6 to 2.0 times higher
than the resistance of the NSC beam and the ultimate shear capacity of UHPFRC/HSC beams is
1.7 to 2.0 times higher than the resistance of the HSC beam. It is evident that the improvement in
the shear behaviour of the composite beam was due to the addition of the UHPFRC layer in the
tension zone. Even with a low fibre volume content of 1%, the shear resistance of the UHPFRC-
NSC beam was 60% greater than the shear resistance of the NSC beam. Increasing the fibre
volume content to 2% resulted in shear resistances that were at least double the resistance of the
NSC/HSC beam.
The test results show that the addition of dowels or shear studs did not significantly enhance the
ultimate shear capacity of the composite beams. This is due to high bond strength between the
NSC/HSC and UHPFRC layers. The results also revealed that increasing the compressive
strength from 51 MPa to 70MPa did not enhance the shear capacity of the composite beams.
Table 5.6 Shear capacity of UHPFRC-NSC test specimens

Beam % Fibres Maximum Increase in Deflection at
specimen Shear Resistance Maximum
capacity  V exp  V exp  Resistance
V exp  0
  exp
(kN)  V exp 0  (mm)
(%)
NS2 0 125 ---- 4.63
UNS3-1 1 218 74.40 6.15
UNS3-1D 1 201 60.36 5.55
UNS3-1S 1 215 72.91 6.46
UNS3-1.5 1.5 220 76.07 7.66
UNS3-1.5D 1.5 251 100.75 6.41
UNS3-2 2 260 107.93 6.63
UNS3-2D 2 251 100.30 7.24
152
Table 5.7 Shear capacity of UHPFRC-HSC test specimens
Beam % Fibres Maximum Increase in Deflection at
specimen Shear Resistance Maximum
capacity  V exp  V exp  Resistance
V exp  0
  exp
(kN)  V exp 0  (mm)
(%)
HS2 0 128 ---- 4.62
UHS3-1 1 264 105.92 8.57
UHS3-1D 1 219 71.16 9.52
UHS3-1S 1 216 68.75 6.19
UHS3-1.5 1.5 201 57.03 5.15
UHS3-1.5D 1.5 232 81.51 6.52
UHS3-2 2 261 103.77 6.45
UHS3-2D 2 260 103.21 10.92
153
Chapter 6
Analytical Modeling of UHPFRC & UHPFRC- NSC/HSC Members
This chapter presents the proposed models to predict the structural behaviour of UHPFRC and
UHPFRC – NSC/HSC members without shear reinforcement. Section 6.1 compares the
experimental results with previous models and recommendations. Section 6.2 presents a method
for predicting the shear strength of UHPFRC beams. Section 6.3 describes an analytical model to
predict the flexural behaviour of UHPFRC members. Section 6.4 presents a method for
predicting the shear strength of UHPFRC – NSC/HSC members without shear reinforcement.
6.1 Comparisons with previous models and recommendations

The experimental results of series 2 and the results obtained in previous research (Yang et al.
2012, Baby et al. 2010) were compared to the models proposed by other researchers in order to
investigate their ability to adequately predict the shear strength of UHPFRC beams. The results
indicate that the models proposed by Aouda et al. (2012), Khuntia et al. (1999), Kwak et al.
(2002), Narayanan and Darwish (1987), Ashour et al. (1992), JSCE recommendation (2008), and
French recommendation (2002) led to under prediction of the shear strength. In addition, the
ACI-318-11, Eurocode 2 EN 1992-1-1:2004 and CSA A23.3-04 which is the same model
proposed by Aouda et al. without fibres were unable to predict the shear capacity of UHPC beam
without fibres.
6.2 Predicting the shear strength of UHPFRC

This section describes the proposed model to predict the shear strength of UHPFRC without
shear reinforcement. In this model, an idealized crack represents a critical flexural-shear crack
that often observed in fibre reinforced concrete beams that have failed in shear. This inclined
crack forms an angle of  from the beam’s longitudinal axis and is assumed to extend from the
outer face of the tension surface to the location of the neutral axis. The present model ignores the
shear deformation of the beam compression zone that causes sliding along the critical crack prior
154
to failure. Therefore, the shear resistance along the inclined crack is resisted by the dowel action
of the longitudinal steel reinforcement, and fibre tension. The contribution of dowel action to the
shear capacity of reinforced concrete beams was investigated by previous researchers (Singh et
al., 2012, Jeli et al., 1999). The results revealed that the diameter of the bar has no effect on the
load-carrying capacity of the reinforced concrete members; therefore, the contribution of dowel
action to shear resistance is unlikely to be a significant factor in the internal load-transfer
mechanism leading to final collapse. Shear resistance along the inclined crack is thus assumed to
be a result of fibre tension only.
Table 6.1 Comparison with previous Investigators and recommendations

Beam Vu pred Vu exp
kN kN
Aouda N. & D. Kwak Khunti Ashour ACI Euro2 French JSCE Present
et al. et al. a et al. et al. work
US1-0-3.5 72.28 ------- ----- ----- ------ 51.14 71.66 71.81 89.73 99.39 99.4
US2-0-3-a 73.23 -------- ----- ----- ------ 56.49 79.74 69.64 99.10 106.35 142.0
US2-0-3-b 79.39 -------- ----- ----- ------ 56.49 85.29 85.93 106.2 115.92 147.2
US2-1-3 87.82 151.49 173.23 86.82 132.24 ----- ------ ----- ------ 323.04 394.8
US2-1.5-3 102.33 161.73 183.53 103.46 144.93 ----- ------ ----- ------ 428.70 455.2
US2-2-3 120.32 171.11 192.43 119.61 157.08 ----- ------ 342 354.1 534.16 >475
S34-F10* 68.09 119.79 163.32 84.85 118.05 ------ ------ ------ ------ 218.74 279
S34-F15* 86.53 136.16 184.41 108.77 134.66 ----- ------ ------ ------ 284.48 308
S34-F20* 91.81 144.99 190.81 125.34 144.29 ----- ------ 342.2 500.1 342.91 404
Beam 3A 82.69 319.94 238.99 99.92 156.78 ----- ------ 218.72 230.1 413.34 461.5
**
Beam 3B 70.77 317.59 242.78 83.66 151.54 ------ 221.2 232.1 350.46 455
**
N. & D. is the model by Narayanan, and Darwish (1987)
*test beams by Yang et al. (2012)
** test beams by Baby et al. (2010)
The shear resistance of a UHPFRC beam Vu can be equivalent to the expected shear resistance of
a UHPC beam without shear reinforcement Vc plus the additional shear resistance provided by
the fibres V f due to the improved post-cracking resistance of the UHPFRC which is assumed to
155
be uniform along the diagonal crack as shown in Fig. 6.1. The shear strength of UHPFRC beams
can be calculated from equation (6.1) as shown in Fig. 6.1:
Vu  Vc  V f (6.1)
The shear resistance provided by the fibres, V f , can be obtained as follows:
V f  bw * L * f fib * n fib * cos  (6.2)
where bw is the beam width or web width for I beam,  is the angel of crack inclination, fib is
f
n fib
the pullout strength of a single fibre, is the effective number of fibres per unit area that can
hc
be calculated from equation (6.3) (Hannant 1978, Lee 1990), and L  as shown in Fig. 6.1.
sin 
Vsf
n fib  * (6.3)
A sf
156
Figure 6.1 Fibre contributions to shear resistance
is the cross sectional area of single fibre,  is

Vsf Asf
where is the fibre volume content,
orientation factor accounts for the random orientation of the fibres in their orientation with
respect to tensile direction that effect the amount of fibres crossing the failure plane.
The fibre orientation factor  for one, two (2D) and three dimensional (3D) fibre orientations
was suggested by Naaman (2008) as 1, 2 /  , and (0.5, 1 /  , (2 /  ) ) respectively. Soroushian

2
and Lee (1990) reported  in the range from 0.41 to 0.82 depends on the dimensional orientation
and specimen geometries. It was observed that the fibre orientation factor of concrete
considering the boundary effect is dependent on the distance between the boundaries and
normally ranges between 0.41 and 0.69 for 2D and 3D cases. Liu et al. (2011) have shown that
specimens with dimensions larger than 50 mm are beneficial to the uniformity of fibre
dispersion. For 3D rectangular sections without a boundary effect, the value of  was reported as
0.5 (Dupont et al. 2005). It was found that the fibre distribution of UHPFRC tend to align in the
direction perpendicular to the direction of flow for panel specimens with small thickness (Barnett
et al., 2010). The fibre will thus align in the direction perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the
beam. In the present model,  is assumed to be 0.5 for rectangular cross sections and 1 /  for I
157
sections ( b  50mm ) due to the narrow width of web in I sections. More research is necessary in
order to determine the fibre orientation factor for I sections with a small thickness to height ratio.
Thus, the “effective” number of fibres per unit area for rectangular sections is as follows:
4Vsf 2Vsf
n fib  * 0.5  (6.4)
d 2
f d 2f
The pullout strength of a single fibre can be obtained from equation (6.5) assuming the
lf /2
maximum embedment length is .
f fib  d f l f / 2 (6.5)
where  is the efficiency of a single fibre which depends of the angle of the fibre to the direction
of fibre loading. This factor has been studied by numerous researchers Maage (1977); Naaman
and Shah (1976); Rasmussen (1997). The results showed that the fibres are fully efficient at
angles between 0° and 75°; however, there is a significant decrease in efficiency when the angle
is higher than 75°. The average fibre angle to the fibre loading direction for UHPFRC was
reported to be between 40° and 75°, depending on the distance from the base of the specimen
and the casting procedure (Barnett et al., 2010). Therefore, in the present model, the fibre
efficiency was assumed to be 1. There was a promising correlation between this assumption and
the experimental results obtained in this study (Table 6.1).
For UHPFRC beams, the contribution of concrete to ultimate shear strength is small. In addition,
it is assumed that the contribution of the fibre in the concrete cover is negligible; therefore, it can
158
be assumed that (h  c)  d v . By substitute equation (6.4) and (6.5) into (6.2), the shear resistance
provided by the fibres is:
V f  F * * bw * d v cot  (6.6)
Vsf l f
where F  which represent fibre typology (Minelli, 2005), d v  max( 0.72h,0.9d ) (CSA
df
Standard A23.3-04, 2004), and  is the average bond strength of fibres that can be obtained from
tests on single fibre pullout. For UHPFRC,  is between 9 MPa and 10 MPa depends on the
particle packing density (Orange el al.1999, Wille and Naaman 2013). Thus, in the present
model, the average bond strength  is assumed to be 10 MPa. The critical inclined crack angle
of beams that failed in shear  was between 40° and 45°. Yang et al. (2012) found that the
critical angle  was around 45°; therefore, in order to be conservative, the average angle of the
critical inclined cracks was assumed 45°. The shear contribution of the compression zone above
the neutral axis can be determined from the experimental results obtained from UHPC beams.
The ultimate shear force, Vu , resisted by the test beams in the left span can be calculated as
follows:
Pu ( L  a)
Vu 
L (6.7)
where, L is the length of the beam, a is the shear span, and

Pu is the ultimate applied load. The
ultimate shear strength, Vu , resisted by the test beams without fibres in the left span is assumed
due to the contribution of compression region only; therefore, Vu in equation (6.7) is equivalent
Vc
to in equation (6.1). As seen in Fig. 6.2, the behaviour of UHPC beam without the addition of
fibre was similar to the behaviour of NSC beam with slightly higher strength due to the high
compressive strength of UHPC material compared to NSC material. Thus Vc proposed in the
159
ACI code (ACI 318-11, 2011) can be modified based on the experimental results in this study as
following:
 M *d
Vc  (0.24 f c  17.2  w * ) * bw * d v (6.8)
V
where,
f c  concrete compressive strength,  w is the longitudinal steel reinforcement ratio, d is
the effective depth of beam, and d v is the effective shear depth .
The accuracy of the proposed model was verified using the experimental results obtained in this
study as well as the experimental results obtained by Yang et al. (2012) and Baby et al. (2010) as
shown in Table 6.1. As seen in this table, there is good agreement between the predicted shear
capacities and the experimental results, with a standard deviation Vu pred /Vu exp equal to 0.063.
Figure 6.2 Load versus central deflection relationship for NSC, HSC and UHPC without fibre
content with a/d=3.0
160
6.3 Predicting the flexural strength of UHPFRC
The stress and strain distributions of reinforced concrete beam are shown in Fig. 6.3. The
flexural strength of reinforced concrete beams can be calcualted from equation (6.9).
1c (h  c) 2 c
M u  Ast * f y * (d  )  f ft * * b  1 2 f c1cb * (c  1 ) (6.9)
2 2 2
where, M u  Ultimate moment of resistance, f y  steel yield strength, d  depth of tensile
steel reinforcement measured from top face of the beam, and c  depth of neutral axis measured
from the top face of the beam, f ft  uniform fibre reinforced concrete stress in tension, Ast 
area of tensile steel reinforcement, f c  concrete compressive strength, b  width of the beam,
h  height of the beam  1 ,  2 and  1 are concrete stress block factors as shown in Fig. 6.3.
To determine the concrete stress block factors  1 ,  2 and  1 , Yang et al. (2013) developed
equivalent stress block factors model for light weight and high strength concrete up to 120 MPa.
Equations 6.10 to 6.12 show the calculation of the factors  2 and  1 , while the factor  1
assumed to be 0.85 similar to ACI code.
 f 
1.5
  c  (6.10)
 10 
 2  0.96 * exp  0.0039  (6.11)
  0.925 *  .075  1 (6.12)
161
b
c
d
h-c
(a) (b) (c) (d)
Figure 6.3 Vertical stress and strain distribution: (a) typical reinforced concrete beam section;(b)
strain distribution; (c) actual concrete stresses with fibres; (d) equivalent concrete stresses with
fibres
In order to determine the uniform fibre reinforced concrete stress in tension, f ft , 152 x 152 x 457
mm fibre reinforced concrete prisms with different steel fibre volume percentages, Vsf were
tested. Sectional analysis for the prisms can be conducted using an iteration procedure to
determine the location of the neutral axis and uniform fibre reinforced concrete stress in tension,
f ft , by satisfying the equilibrium of the horizontal forces and section moment for a given
applied moment (as shown in equations 6.13 and 6.14).
f ft * (h  c)b  1 2 f c1cb (6.13)
( h  c) 2 c
M u  f ft * * b  1 2 f c1cb * (c  1 ) (6.14)
2 2
The results of sectional analysis revealed that the uniform fibre reinforced concrete stress in
tension, f ft , for Ductal mix at 1% and 2% fibre volume fractions were 2.93 and 4.00 MPa
162
respectively. The accuracy of the proposed model was verified using the experimental results
obtained in this study as well as the experimental results obtained by Wahba et al. (2012) and
Yang et al. (2010). The results can be seen in Table 6.2. As seen in this table, there is good
agreement between the predicted flexural capacities and the experimental results, with a standard
deviation Mu / Muexp equal to 0.064.
Table 6.2 Comparison with experimental results

Specimen Vsf f c 2 1 Ms Mf Mu M exp Mu
% (MPa) (KN.m) (KN.m) (KN.m) (KN.m)
M exp
US1-1 1 144.2 0.750 0.677 175.215 20.193 195.409 206.773 0.945

US1-2 2 158.6 0.775 0.685 173.723 14.525 188.248 190.75 0.986
US2-2 2 154.41 0.757 0.679 219.968 17.033 237.001 239.625 0.989
SB1* 2 145.14 0.773 0.684 69.002 30.982 99.984 106.663 0.937
SB2* 2 160.38 0.747 0.676 69.162 31.118 100.281 121.900 0.822
SB3* 2 167.08 0.735 0.673 107.522 29.409 136.932 143.405 0.955
SB4* 2 172.08 0.726 0.671 107.671 29.474 137.145 148.350 0.924
R12-1** 2 190.9 0.693 0.663 29.032 35.618 64.650 79.100 0.817
R13-1** 2 192.2 0.691 0.663 43.257 35.174 78.431 90.400 0.867
R14-1** 2 196.1 0.684 0.661 57.306 34.741 92.047 97.180 0.947
R14-2** 2 196.1 0.684 0.661 57.306 34.741 92.047 104.582 0.880
R22-1** 2 190.9 0.693 0.663 52.246 34.713 86.959 93.677 0.928
R22-2** 2 190.9 0.693 0.663 52.246 34.713 86.959 85.428 1.017
R23-1** 2 196.1 0.684 0.661 77.249 33.820 111.069 109.328 1.015
R23-2** 2 196.1 0.684 0.661 77.249 33.820 111.069 108.593 1.022
*Test beams by Wahba et al. (2012)
**Test beams Yang et al. (2010)
6.4 Predicting the shear strength of UHPFRC – NSC/HST composite beams

This section describes the proposed model to predict the shear strength of UHPFRC-NSC/HSC
composite beams without shear reinforcement. In this model, an idealized crack represents a
critical shear crack that develops in the NSC/HSC layer of fibre reinforced concrete composite
beams that have failed in shear. This inclined crack forms at an angle of  from the beam’s
longitudinal axis and is assumed to extend from the interface between the UHPFRC and
NSC/HSC layers to the location of the neutral axis. The present model ignores the shear
163
deformation of the beam compression zone that causes sliding along the critical crack prior to
failure. In addition, the contribution of dowel action to shear resistance is neglected due to small
contribution of dowel action to shear resistance. Therefore, The shear resistance of a UHPFRC-
NSC/HSC beam can be equivalent to the expected shear resistance of a NSC/HSC beam without
shear reinforcement,
Vc , plus the additional shear resistance provided by the fibres,
V f , due to
the improved post-cracking resistance of the UHPFRC layer as shown Fig. 6.4. The shear
strength of UHPFRC-NSC/HSC composite beams can be calculated from equation (6.1) as
shown in Fig. 6.4.
Figure 6.4 Fibre contributions to shear resistance
Vf
The shear resistance provided by the fibres, , can be obtained as follows:
V f  b * hu * f fib * n fib (6.15)
where hu is the thickness of UHPFRC layer.
164
The pullout strength of a single fibre can be obtained from equation (6.5) assuming the
lf /2 
maximum embedment length is , and is assumed to be 10 MPa. The contribution of
concrete to ultimate shear strength is small; therefore, it can be assumed that

(d  c)  d v where
d v  max( 0.72h,0.9d ) (CSA Standard A23.3-04, 2004). In addition, it is assumed that the
contribution of the fibre in the concrete cover is negligible. Thus, the shear resistance provided
by the fibres is:
V f  F * * b * (d  hn ) (6.16)
hn is the thickness of NSC/HSC layer, and Vsf l f

where F . The shear contribution by
df
compression zone above the neutral axis can be determined from the proposed equation by the
ACI-318-11:
 M *d
Vc  (0.16 f c  17.2  w * ) * b * dv (6.17)
V
The proposed model was verified with the experiment results obtained in this study. The results
can be seen in Table 6.3. As seen in this table, there is good agreement between the predicted
shear capacities and the experimental results, with a standard deviation of 0.85 for Vu pred /Vu exp .
165
Table 6.3 Material properties and experimental parameters of test beams
Beam a  V sf f c f sp Vu exp Vu pred Vu pred /Vu exp
d
% % MPa MPa kN kN
NS2 0 51.197 3.029 125 54.14 0.45
UNS3-1 1 N51.197 N3.029 201 135.07 0.67
U149.80 U11.17
UNS3-1.5 1.5 N51.197 N3.029 215 175.46 0.82
U162.83 U14.77
UNS3-2 2 N51.197 N3.029 251 215.99 0.86
U166.03 U15.54
3.0 0.081
HS2 0 70.078 4.216 128 59.705 0.46
UHS3-1 1 H70.078 H4.216 208 140.64 0.67
U181.907 U13.002
UHS3-1.5 1.5 H70.078 H4.216 200 181.09 0.91
U170.189 U15.635
UHS3-2 2 H70.078 H4.216 260 221.59 0.85
U191.838 U16.275
166
Chapter 7
Finite Element Analysis
To define the limits of the applicability of the proposed model, a wide range of experimental
program is required. However, the material cost of UHPFRC is extremely expensive in
comparison with normal and high strength concrete. Finite element (FE) methods serve as strong
analytical tool to further investigate size effect and to calculate the response of composite
members. Thus, FE method is used to perform further investigations on the parameters that affect
the shear behaviour of UHPFRC members.
In this chapter, the material behaviour of UHPFRC is modeled by introducing a suitable tension
stiffening model to simulate the tension behaviour of UHPFRC beams in tension. The finite
element model is developed based on the smeared cracking approach adopting a plasticity-based
concrete model. The validity of the proposed model was established through comparison with the
results of the experimental test program in this study and with experimental results conducted by
other researches.
7.1 Description of finite element model

Despite the significant amount of constitutive models that developed to represent the mechanical
behaviour of reinforced concrete members (Chen 1982; Hillerborg et al. 1976; Lubliner et al.
1989; Lee and Fenves 1998), no accurate constitutive model of UHPFRC mechanical response is
available in the finite element solutions for structural analysis of UHPFRC members. Therefore,
a new model to represent the mechanical behaviour of UHPFRC is required.
In ABAQUS, two concrete constitutive models readily available; concrete smeared cracking
(CSC) model and the concrete damaged plasticity (CDP) model. Chen and Graybeal (2012)
167
showed that CDP is more suitable to simulate the mechanical behaviour of UHPFRC girders.
Mahmud et al. (2013) showed that the CDP model is suitable to simulate the size effect of
UHPFRC. Therefore, in this study, the CDP model is adopted to predict the actual behaviour of
UHPFRC beams.
The concrete damaged plasticity (CDP) model in ABAQUS was proposed by Lubliner et al.
(1989) for monotonic loading; then Lee and Fenves (1998) developed further the CDP model to
consider the dynamic and cyclic loadings. The model assumes isotropic damaged elasticity
combined with isotropic tensile and compressive plasticity to represent the inelastic behaviour of
concrete. A softening stress-strain relationship is adopted to represent the formation of tensile
micro cracks and a stress hardening followed by a strain softening beyond the ultimate
compressive strength to represent the compressive plastic response. In addition, the tensile and
compressive stiffness degradation of material and the recovery effects have been considered in
this model.
The CDP model is smeared crack model which means the individual micro crack is not
considered and the constitutive characteristic calculations are preformed independently at each
integration point of the finite element analysis and the response in tension is described as a
continuum in terms of stress–strain relations. This model include the compression hardening,
tension stiffening, yield function and plastic flow of the material.
7.2 Material properties

7.2.1 Material properties of steel
In the present study, classical metal plasticity model in ABAQUS was adopted to define the
behaviour of steel reinforcement up to failure. The stress-strain curve for steel was plotted based
Es
on the principles of strain hardening by Park and Paulay (1974). The young modulus and
Poisson’s ratio
 s for steel reinforcement was assumed to be 200 GPa and 0.3 respectively. In
168
ABAQUS, the true stress-plastic strain relationship must be used to define the plastic behaviour
of metal plasticity. The nominal stress-strain diagram that can be obtained from uniaxial stress-
strain test must be converted to true stress-strain diagram as shown in Fig. 7.1 and equation (7.1),
then the plastic behaviour for the classical metal plasticity model must be used as an input in
ABAQUS as shown in Fig. 7.2, and equation (7.2)
 true   normal(1   normal) (7.1)
 true
 pl  ln(1   normal ) 
Es (7.2)
900
800
700
600
Stress MPa
500
400
Nominal Stress-Strain
300
True Stress-Strain
200
100
0
0 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16
Strain mm/mm
Figure 7.1 Nominal and true stress strain curve for steel reinforcement
169
7.2.2 Material properties of UHPFRC
The nonlinear behaviour of UHPFRC is divided into two regions: compression and tension. The
material property in compression is straightforward and was obtained from the compression
cylinder tests data. The tension stiffening of UHPFRC was calibrated with the experimental
3
results in this study. The concrete density was assumed to be 2565 kg / m (Chen et al., 2012).
The Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio were assumed to be 47 GPa and 0.20 respectively.
The uniaxial behaviour in ABAQUS must be defined as the stress-cracking strain or

displacement for tensile behaviour and the stress-inelastic strain for compressive behaviour. The
inelastic/cracking strains can be calculated according to ABAQUS user’s manuals (2010) as
follows:
c
 cin   c  (7.3)
Ec
t
 ccr   t  (7.4)
Ec
where  c , and  c are inelastic strain in compression and cracking strain in tension respectively,
in cr
 c , and  t are compression and tensile stresses respectively,  c and  t compression and tensile
Ec
strains respectively and is young modulus of concrete. The nominal compression stress-strain
curve for UHPFRC is shown in Fig. 7.3, and the compression inelastic behaviour, compression
damage parameter in CDP model are shown in Figs 7.4, and 7.5 respectively.
170
900
800
700
True Stress MPa 600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16
Plastic Strain mm/mm
Figure 7.2 Plastic Strain- True Stress behaviour for Classical metal plasticity model
180
160
140
Compression Stress MPa
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 0.004 0.008 0.012 0.016
Nominal Strain (mm/mm)
Figure 7.3 nominal compression stress-strain curve for UHPFRC
171
180
160
140
True Strress MPa 120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 0.004 0.008 0.012 0.016
Inelastic Strain (mm/mm)
Figure 7.4 CDP model input for inelastic compression behaviour for UHPFRC
0.8
0.7
Compression Damage Parameter
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.004 0.008 0.012 0.016
Figure 7.5 Compression damage parameter input for UHPFRC
172
7.2.2.1 Tension stiffening
Cracking is one of prime importance in the nonlinear behaviour of reinforced concrete elements.
When the tensile stress exceeds the tensile strength of concrete, a crack is formed in the direction
normal to the direction of the tensile stress. At the crack the load is carried by the reinforcement
only whereas between the cracks the load is shared between steel reinforcement and concrete.
This ability of concrete between cracks to share the tensile load with the reinforcement is termed
“tension stiffening”. Thus, while the concrete stress is zero at the cracks, the average stress over
a cracked region is not zero. Cracking occurs in the concrete when the tensile stress at a given
location exceeds its tensile strength and it is manifested by a separation of the concrete at this
location.
Tension stiffening in CDP can be defined as uniaxial stress-cracking strain relationship, stress-
fracture energy relationship or stress-displacement relationship. The experimental data obtained
from dog-bone specimens by Mahmud et al. (2013) show that the complete fracture occurred at a
strain
 cut  0.04 . Based on dog-bone tests for UHPFRC specimens by Wille et al. (2011) and
Mahmud et al. (2013), the tension stiffening in the present study was described as uniaxial stress-
cracking strain relationship, which is elastic-plastic with linear strain hardening to simulate the
post cracking behaviour of UHPFRC, then softening occurs until complete fracture at a strain
 cut  0.04 . The input parameters for UHPFRC (with different fibre volume percentages) that
includes inelastic tension behaviour and tension damage in CDP model are shown in Figs. 7.6
and 7.7 respectively.
173
14
12
Tension Stress MPa

10
8
1%
6 1.50%
4 2%
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
Figure 7.6 CDP model input for inelastic tension behaviour for UHPFRC for different fibre volume
%
1
0.9
0.8
Tension Damage Parameter
0.7
0.6
0.5 1%
0.4 1.50%
0.3 2%
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
Figure 7.7 Tension damage parameter input for UHPFRC for different fibre volume %
174
7.2.2.2 Yield surface definition
The yield surface function in the CDP model is based on the Drucker-Prager yield criterion. This
function was originally developed by Lubliner et al. (1989) for monotonic loading, and then
modified by Lee and Fenves (1998) to consider the dynamic and cyclic loadings. In ABAQUS,
the parameters that define the yield surface function is the ratio of initial equibiaxial compressive
yield stress to the initial uniaxial compressive yield stress, ratio of the second stress invariant on
the tensile meridian to that on the compressive meridian, and a viscosity parameter that defines
viscoplastic regularization. These default values are set to 1.16, 2/3, and 0.0 respectively. The
ratio of the second stress invariant on the tensile meridian to that on the compressive meridian
K c by default is 2/3 making the yield criterion approach Rankine’s yield criteria (Pankaj 2010).
The maximum value of K c is 1.0 making the yield criterion approach Drucker-Prager yield
criterion as shown in Fig 7.8. In the present study the default value of K c (2/3) was adopted in
the analysis.
Figure 7.8 Drucker-Prager yield criteria for different values of

K c , (Hibbitt et al., 2011)
175
7.2.2.3 Plastic flow rule
The plastic flow rule function in CDP model is a Drucker-Prager hyperbolic plastic potential
function. The purpose of this function is to connect between the yield surface and the uniaxial
stress-strain relationships (Malm 2009). In ABQUS, two parameters used to define the flow rule;
dilation angle and eccentricity. The dilation angle controls the amount of plastic volumetric
strain that can be developed during plastic shearing which is assumed to be constant during
 
plastic yielding. The default value of the dilation angle is between 35 and 40 (Malm 2009).
For ductile material, the value of dilation angle is high, while for brittle material the value of
dilation angle is low. The eccentricity parameter defines the rate at which the flow rule function
approaches the asymptote; the default value is 0.1 which implies the material has the same
dilation angle over a wide range of confining pressure stress values. In the present study the

dilation angle and eccentricity were assumed to be 39 and 0.1 respectively.
The material properties of steel reinforcement and UHPFRC material models used in the FE
model are presented in tables 7.1 and 7.2 respectively. For all other parameters, the default
values have been used.
Table 7.1 Material properties of FE model for reinforcing steel

Prosperity Longitudinal Reinforcement 30M
E 200 GPa
Elastic modulus s
Poisson’s ratio  s 0.3
Density 7850 kg / m 3
Yield stress f sy 468 MPa
Ultimate stress f su 688 MPa
Ultimate strain  su 0.16 mm/mmm
176
Table 7.2 Material properties of FE model for UHPFRC
Prosperity UHPFRC
Elastic modulus E c 47 GPa
Poisson’s ratio  c 0.2
Density 2565 kg / m 3
Compressive cylinder strength 160 MPa
Compressive strain at peak 0.0035
Dilation angle 39
Eccentricity 0.1
7.3 Finite element mesh and geometry description

The concrete in all the beams was modeled by eight node continuum elements with reduced
integration (C3D8R), and the steel reinforcement was modelled by 3-node quadratic 3-D truss
element (T3D3). The three dimension FE model is shown in Fig. 7.9. The load was applied as a
pressure over the central area of the beam to avoid hourglass problem as shown in Fig. 7.10. To
simulate the bond between steel reinforcement and surrounding concrete, reinforcement in
concrete has been modeled as embedded discrete truss elements tied to the concrete region by
assuming perfect bond between the reinforcement and the concrete. In the present analysis, no
bond-slip model was considered. Mesh convergence was studied with three mesh sizes 40 mm,
30 mm and 20 mm for beam US2-1.5-3.0. It was found that the latter two led to virtually
identical results as shown in Fig. 7.11; therefore, 30 mm mesh size was adopted in this study.
177
Figure 7.9 Generated FE mesh of beam US2-1.5-3.0 with element size 30 mm
Figure 7.10 Load and boundary condition for FE model
178
7.4 Verification of FE model for UHPFRC beams
To evaluate the capability of present FE model to simulate the shear behaviour of UHPFRC
beams, the results of the model has been verified with the experimental program in this study and
with the experimental investigation that was conducted by Yang et al. (2012)
1000
800
600
Load kN
EXP
400 FE Mesh 20
FE Mesh 30
200 FE Mesh 40
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Central Deflection mm
Figure 7.11 Load versus central deflection for different mesh sizes for beam US2-1.5-3
7.4.1 Analysis of tested beam US2-1.5-3.0

The results of the FE model were compared with the measured central deflection and strain
measured from strain gauges 5 and 6 for beam US2-1.5-3.0 as shown in Figs. 7.11and 7.12
respectively. It can be noted from Figs. 7.11 and 7.12 that good agreement between the FE
analysis based on the proposed tension stiffening model for 1.5% fibre volume content and the
experimental results obtained in this study. The comparison of crack patterns obtained using
CDP model with the experimental results also show close agreement as shown in Fig. 7.13.
179
1000
900
800
700
600 EXP S5
Load kN
500 FE S5
EXP S6
400
FE S6
300
200
100
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Reinforcement Strain (/1000)
Figure 7.12 Load versus strain for beam US2-1.5-3
FE
Model
(a) Experiment
Figure 7.13 Compression damage pattern for Beam US2-1.5-3
180
The results of FE model were compared with the measured central deflection for beam US1-2.0-
3.5 as shown in Fig. 7.14. It can be seen from Fig. 7.14 that the present tension stiffening model
for 2.0% fibre volume content shows good agreement with experimental results of UHPFRC
beams with 2% fibre volume content.
800
700
600
500
Load kN
400 FE
300 EXP
200
100
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Figure 7.14 Load versus central deflection for beam US1-2.0-3.5
7.4.3 Verification with experimental results of beam Yang et al. (2012)

The measured central deflection and the crack patterns of beams S34-F15-P0 and S34-F20-P0
(Yang et al., 2012) for 1.5% and 2% fibre volume content were compared with the present FE
model as shown in Figs 7.15 and 7.16 respectively. Good agreement between the FE model and
the experimental results by Yang et al. was obtained in this study as seen in Figs 7.15 and 7.16.
The comparison of crack patterns obtained using CDP model with the experimental result of
beams S34-F20-P0 also show close agreement as shown in Fig. 7.17. This shows that the present
model is capable of predicting the shear behaviour of I sections.
181
700
600
500
Load kN
400
EXP S34-F15-P0
300
FE S34-F15-P0
200
100
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Figure 7.15 Load versus central deflection for beam S34-F15-P0 (Yang et al., 2012)
900
800
700
600
Load kN
500
400 EXP S34-F20-P0

FE S34-F20-P0
300
200
100
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Figure 7.16 Load versus central deflection for beam S34-F20-P0 (Yang et al., 2012)
182
(a) FE Model
(b) Experiment
Figure 7.17 Compression damage pattern for beam S34-F20-P0 (Yang et al., 2012)

The results of the FE model were compared with the measured central deflection for beam US2-
1.0-3.0 as shown in Fig. 7.18 to verify the tension stiffening of the model with 1% fibre volume
content. It can be noted from Fig. 7.18 that good agreement between the FE analysis based on the
proposed tension stiffening model for 1% fibre volume content and the experimental results
obtained in this study.
183
900
800
700
600
Load kN
500 FE US2-1-3
400 EXP US2-1-3
300
200
100
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Figure 7.18 Load versus central deflection for beam US2-1.0-3.0
7.5 FE model of UHPFRC-NSC/HSC beams

The finite element model of UHPFRC-NSC/HSC beams was based on CDP model that was
described earlier. Each UHPFRC-NSC/HSC beam is consisted of two materials: UHPFRC
material in the lower layer of the beam and NSC or HSC material in the top layer of the beam.
The UHPFRC material was described in section 7.2. This section will explain the nonlinear
behaviour of NSC and HSC material.
The nonlinear behaviour of NSC or HSC is divided into two regions: compression and tension.
The concrete density was assumed to be 2400 kg / m 3 . The Young’s modulus was obtained from
the following equation Yang et al. (2013):
1
Ec  8250( f c) 3
(7.5)
184
The Poisson’s ratio was assumed equal to 0.20.
7.5.1. Compressive behaviour

The relationship between concrete stress and strain can be obtained from equation 7.6
(Thorenfeldt et al., 1987).
fc


n  c  c'  (7.6)
f c' n  1   c  c' 
nk
 
where,
f c = concrete compressive strength, MPa,  c' = strain when f c reaches f c , n is a
Ec /( Ec  Ec ) Ec 
curve fitting factor = , = initial tangent modulus (when c = 0), k is a factor
which control the slope of the descending branch of the stress-strain curve. The constants
 c , n,
and k can be obtained from equations proposed by Yang et al. (2013).
For  c /  c  1 k = 1.0 (7.7)
f c
For  c /  c  1 k  0.67  1 (7.8)
62
n  1.37 exp 0.01 f c (7.9)
For known f c , n, and k, the strain at peak stress can be obtained from equation 7.10,
f c'  n 
 c'    (7.10)
Ec  n 1
185
Concrete compressive stresses f c for different strains are calculated using the equation 7.11,
fc 
 
n  c  c' f c'
(7.11)
n  1   c  c'  
nk
The nominal compression stress-strain curve for NSC and HSC is shown in Fig. 7.19, and the
compression inelastic behaviour, compression damage parameter in CDP model are shown in
Figs 7.20, and 7.21 respectively.
80
70
Compressive Stress MPa
60
50
40
NSC-51 MPa
30
HSC-70 MPa
20
10
0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025
Nominal Strain (mm/mm)
Figure 7.19 nominal compression stress-strain curves for NSC and HSC
186
80.00
70.00
60.00
True Strress MPa
50.00
40.00
NSC-51 MPa
30.00
HSC-70 MPa
20.00
10.00
0.00
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025
Figure 7.20 CDP model input for inelastic compression behaviour for NSC and HSC
1
0.9
Compressive Damage Parameter
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
NSC-51 MPa
0.4
HSC-70 MPa
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025
Figure 7.21 Compression damage parameter input for NSC and HSC
187
7.5.2 Tension behaviour
The tensile behaviour of NSC and HSC materials was adopted from CEB-fib Model Code
(2010). The nominal tensile stress-strain curve for NSC and HSC is shown in Fig. 7.22, and the
inelastic tension behaviour in CDP model is shown in Fig 7.23. The NSC/HSC layer was placed
in the compression region; therefore, the tensile damage parameter for NSC/HSC was neglected
in the present model.
5
4.5
4
3.5 NSC-51 MPa
Tensile Stress MPa
3 HSC-70 MPa
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005
Strain (mm/mm)
Figure 7.22 Nominal tensile stress-strain curves for NSC and HSC
188
5.000
4.500
4.000
NSC-51 MPa
True Stress MPa 3.500
HSC-70 MPa
3.000
2.500
2.000
1.500
1.000
0.500
0.000
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006
Cracking Strain (mm/mm)
Figure 7.23 CDP model input for inelastic tension behaviour for NSC and HSC
7.6 Verification of FE model for UHPFRC-NSC/HSC beams

To evaluate the capability of the present FE model to simulate the shear behaviour of UHPFRC-
NSC/HSC beams, the results of the model has been verified with the experimental program in
this study. The results of the FE model were compared with the measured central deflection of
beam US3-2 as shown in Fig. 7.24. It can be noted from Fig. 7.24 that good agreement between
the FE analysis and the experimental results obtained in this study. The comparison of crack
patterns obtained using CDP model with the experimental results also show close agreement as
shown in Fig. 7.25.
189
600
500
400
Load kN
300
FE UNS3-2
EXP UNS3-2
200
100
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Figure 7.24 Load versus central deflection for beam UNS3-2
190
Figure 7.25 Compression damage pattern for Beam UNS3-2
7.7 Parametric study

7.7.1 Size effect of UHPFRC beams
To investigate the size effect of UHPFRC beams, FE simulations based on the present CDP
model were carried out for beams with 150 x 300 mm, 250 x 500 mm, 300 x 600 mm, and 400 x
1200 mm cross sectional areas. The FE analysis for beam with 150 x 300 mm cross sectional
area was verified with the experimental results for beam US2-1.5-3.0 as shown in Fig. 7.11. The
steel reinforcement ratio was kept constant to study the effect of beam size on the shear
behaviour of UHPFRC beams. The load versus central deflection was compared in Fig. 7.26.
Fig. 7.26 shows that the central deflection could go up to 40 mm with beam size 400 x 1200 mm
due to high ductility of UHPFRC material. Table 7.3 shows shear capacity comparison for
different beam sizes. It can be seen from Table 7.3 that shear capacity was reduced from 1.15 to
0.95 with increasing the beam depth from 300 mm to 1200 mm. This result confirms that the size
191
effect in structures made of UHPFRC material has little influence on the shear capacity. Similar
results obtained by Mahmud et al. (2013) and Wille et al. (2012) that showed changes in beam
sizes had little influence on the flexural strength.
Table 7.3 Shear capacity for UHPFRC for different beam sizes
Beam size Vu fe Vu
mm Shear Capacity
kN bd f c
150 x 300 455.00 1.15
250 x 500 1282.50 1.03
300 x 600 1850.00 1.01
400 x 1200 4637.50 0.95
10000
9000
8000
7000
6000
Load kN
150*300
5000
250*500
4000
300*600
3000 400*1200
2000
1000
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Figure 7.26 Load versus central deflection for UHPFRC for different beam sizes
192
7.7.2 Size effect of UHPFRC-NSC beams
The FE simulations based on the present CDP model were carried out for beams with 150 x 300
mm, 300 x 600 mm, and 400 x 1200 mm cross sectional area to investigate the size effect of
UHPFRC-NSC beams. The FE analysis for beam with 150 x 300 mm cross sectional area was
verified with the experimental results for beam UNS3-2 as shown in Fig. 7.24. The steel
reinforcement ratio was kept constant to study the effect of beam size on the shear behaviour of
UHPFRC-NSC beams. It can be noted from the load versus central deflection relationship as
shown in Fig. 7.27 that the central deflection could go up to 19 mm with beam size 400 x 1200
mm due to high ductility of UHPFRC material. Table 7.4 shows shear capacity comparison for
different beam sizes. It can be seen from Table 7.4 that shear capacity was reduced from 0.60 for
beam size 150 x 300 mm to 0.43 for beam size 300 x 600 mm. however, increasing the beam size
to 400 x 1200 mm did not result in reduction of shear capacity of UHPFRC-NSC beams.
Table 7.4 Shear capacity for UHPFRC-NSC for different beam sizes
Beam size Vu fe Vu
mm Shear Capacity
kN bd f c
150 x 300 240.85 0.60
300 x 600 803.00 0.44
400 x 1200 2145.90 0.43
193
5000
4000
3000
Load kN
150*300
2000 300*600
400*1200
1000
0
0 5 10 15 20
Figure 7.27 Load versus central deflection for UHPFRC-NSC for different beam sizes
7.7.3 Compressive strength of NSC/HSC layer

A FE analysis was carried on to study the effect of compressive strength of NSC/HSC layer on
the shear behaviour of UHPFRC-NSC/HSC beams as shown in Fig. 7.28. The results show that
increasing the compressive strength of concrete layer in compression beyond 51 MPa did not
enhance the shear capacity of UHPFRC-NSC/HSC beams. Furthermore, the beams with 100
MPa of HSC layer show less ductility and the load versus central deflection relationship was
linear due the high compressive strength of the concrete in the compression zone. This indicates
that using high compressive concrete strength in compression will reduce the ductility of
UHPFRC-NSC/HSC beams due to the increase of the brittleness of concrete layer in
compression.
194
600
500
400
Load kN
FE 35MPa
300
FE 51MPa
FE 70MPa
200
FE 100MPa
100
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Figure 7.28 Load versus central deflection for UHPFRC-NSC/HSC beams for different NSC/HSC
compressive strength
7.8 Comparison between FE analysis and analytical model

A FE analysis was carried out to verify the analytical model that developed in chapter 6 for
UHPFRC and UHPFRC-NSC/HSC beams. Table 7.5 show comparisons between the finite
element analysis and the analytical model for different UHPFRC beam sizes. Table 7.3 shows
that the present FE analysis and analytical model show very close result with standard deviation
of Vu cal is equal to 0.026.

Vu fe
195
Table 7.5 Comparison between FE Analysis and Analytical Model for different UHPFRC beam
sizes
Beam size Vu fe Vu cal Vu cal
mm kN
kN Vu fe
150 x 300 455.00 428.699 0.942
250 x 500 1282.50 1186.733 0.925
300 x 600 1850.00 1720.037 0.930
400 x 1200 4637.50 4599.158 0.992
Table 7.4 shows comparisons between the FE analysis and the analytical model for different
UHPFRC-NSC beam sizes. Table 7.6 also shows that the present FE analysis and analytical
model show very close result with standard deviation of Vu cal is equal to 0.043.
Vu fe
Table 7.6 Comparison between FE Analysis and Analytical Model for different UHPFRC-NSC
beam sizes
Beam size Vu fe Vu cal Vu cal
mm kN
kN Vu fe
150 x 300 240.857 215.994 0.897
300 x 600 803.004 671.830 0.837
400 x 1200 2145.905 1698.056 0.791
Table 7.7 shows comparisons between the results of the FE analysis with the analytical model for
UHPFRC-NSC/HSC beams for different compressive strengths of concrete in compression zone.
Table 7.7 also shows that the present FE analysis and analytical model show very close result
with standard deviation of Vu cal is equal to 0.009.

Vu fe
196
Table 7.7 Comparison between FE Analysis and Analytical Model for UHPFRC-NSC/HSC with
Compressive strength Vu fe Vu cal Vu cal
MPa kN
kN Vu fe
35 228.042 208.855 0.916
51 240.857 215.994 0.897
70 241.382 221.559 0.918
100 255.609 230.026 0.900
197
Chapter 8
Summary and Conclusions
A comprehensive experimental, analytical and numerical study was carried out to investigate the
various mechanical properties of UHPFRC members, and UHPFRC-NSC/HSC composite
members. The finding can be summarized and conclusions drawn as follow:
8.1 Experimental program

8.1.1 UHPFRC members
Twelve prisms 152 x 152 x 533 mm in size constructed using UHPFRC material with different
steel fibres content were tested under four-point un-notched bending tests. A total of twelve
simply supported UHPFRC beams were tested to failure under a monotonically increased
concentrated load. All of the beams have shear span to effective depth ratio between 1.5 and 3.5.
These tests examined the influence of steel fibre content on the flexural and shear capacity of
UHPFRC members. From series 1 and 2 test results, the following conclusions were made:
 Test results showed that the addition of 1% and 1.5% of steel fibres to concrete
significantly improved the shear strength of UHPC by 77%, and 120% respectively due
to the stresses that develop across the crack surface.
 The cracking behaviour of UHPFRC beams in series 2 exhibited a similar pattern. The
initial crack was observed to be diagonal in the mid-depth of the shear span. As the
applied load increased, additional diagonal cracks were formed within the shear span.
Finally, the failure occurred when the fibre pulled-out along the major diagonal crack.
 The behaviour of UHPC beam without fibre content shows similar behaviour to NSC
beam with slight increase in the shear capacity due to the high compressive strength of
UHPC.
 The increase of shear span to depth ratio decrease shear strengths. The beam with a shear
span to effective depth ratio of 1.5 had more shear capacity than the ratio of 3.5. This
198
could be attributed to the stability of the arch mechanism at lower shear span to effective
depth ratios.
8.1.2 UHPFRC-NSC/HSC members

Twelve prisms 152 x 152 x 533 mm in size constructed using UHPFRC-NSC/HSC material with
different steel fibres contents were tested under four-point un-notched bending tests. The
composite UHPFRC-NSC/HSC prisms were made up of 101 mm NSC or HSC layer at the top,
and 51 mm UHPC layer at the bottom. A total of fourteen simply supported UHPFRC-NSC/HSC
composite beams were tested to failure under a monotonically increased concentrated load. All
the beams have shear span to effective depth ratio of 3.0. These tests examined the influence of
steel fibre volume percentage and the concrete compressive strength of the top layer on the
flexural and shear capacity of UHPFRC-NSC/HSC composite members. From this series of tests
the following conclusions were made:
 The addition of UHPFRC layer with 1.5% and 2% fibre volume content at the bottom of
the NSC prisms significantly enhanced the flexural capacity by 54%, and 90%
respectively compared to NSC prisms.
 The average bond strength between the UHPFRC and NSC/HSC layers were between
10.57 and 12.86 MPa. Test results showed that the content of steel fibres in UHPFRC
layer did not affect the bond strength at the interface between the UHPFRC and
NSC/HSC layers.
 Test results showed that the ultimate shear capacity of the composite beams were
significantly higher than the NSC/HSC beams.
 The behaviour of UHPFRC-NSC/HSC composite beams in series 3 exhibited similar
failure mode. The initial crack was observed to be diagonal in the mid-depth of the shear
span in the NSC/HSC layer. As the applied load increased, additional diagonal cracks
were formed within the shear span. Finally, the failure occurred when the tensile stresses
in the NSC/HSC layer exceeds the tensile strength of concrete in the NSC/HSC layer.
 The addition of dowels and shear stud was not very effective in enhancing the shear
capacity of the composite beam.
 The composite beams exhibit high ductility compared to NSC/HSC beam.
199
8.2 Analytical program
Analytical models to predict the flexural and shear behaviour of UHPFRC beams and shear
behaviour of UHPFRC-NSC/HSC composite beams were developed as shown in Table 8.1.The
following conclusions were drawn:
 The results of proposed model for predicting the shear capacity based on the average
bond strength  for UHPFRC calculated from a single fibre pullout test show good
agreement with the experimental tests in this program and by other researchers.
 A procedure for predicting the flexural capacity of UHPFRC beams was presented. This
method shows good agreement with the experimental test results of this program
investigation and with experiments conducted by other researchers.
 A model for predicting the shear capacity of UHPFRC-NSC/HSC composite beams
shows good agreement with the experimental test results of this program.
 The proposed model allows evaluating the effect of fibre volume content (1%, 1.5%, and
2%) on shear capacity of fibre reinforced concrete beams.
 A finite element model was developed based on the smeared cracking approach adopting
a plasticity-based concrete model. The validity of the proposed model was established
through comparison with the results of the experimental test program in this study and
with experimental results conducted by other researchers.
 The FE model was then carried out for size effect analysis. The results of finite element
analysis show that the size effect in structures made of UHPFRC material has little
influence on the shear capacity.
 Similar to the experimental results, the finite element analysis results show that
increasing the compressive strength of HSC concrete layer in compression beyond 51
MPa did not enhance the shear capacity of UHPFRC-NSC/HSC composite beams.
Furthermore, the beams with 100 MPa of HSC layer show less ductility and the load
versus central deflection relationship was linear due the high compressive strength of the
concrete in the compression zone. This indicates that using high compressive concrete
strength in compression will reduce the ductility of UHPFRC-NSC/HSC composite
beams due to the increase of the brittleness of the concrete layer in compression.
200
 A comparison between the finite element analysis and the analytical model for the
different UHPFRC and UHPFRC-NSC/HSC composite beam sizes show that the present
finite element analysis and the analytical model have very close results. This indicates
that both finite element model and the analytical models developed in chapter 6 are
capable of predicting the shear behaviour of UHPFRC and UHPFRC-NSC/HSC beams.
Table 8.1 Summary of proposed models

Material Failure Model
UHPFRC Shear V  V V
u c f
 M *d
Vc  (0.24 f c  17.2  w * ) * bw * d v
V
V f  F * * bw * d v cot 
Vsf l f
F
df
UHPFRC Flexure
( h  c) 2 c
M u  f ft * * b  1 2 f c1cb * (c  1 )
2 2
UHPFRC-NSC/HSC Shear Vu  Vc  V f
 M *d
Vc  (0.16 f c  17.2  w * ) * b * dv
V
V f  F * * b * (d  hn )
Vsf l f
F
df
8.3 Future research

Suggestions for future research are given below:
1- Investigating composite actions with other reinforced concrete members. It was evident
that bond strength between UHPFRC and NSC/HSC layers was high; therefore, this
composite system can be extended to other structural members such as slabs.
201
2- An experimental program to investigate the reversed cyclic loading response of UHPFRC
and UHPFRC-NSC/HSC beams.
3- An experimental program to investigate the durability of UHPFRC-NSC/HSC beams
such as chloride test, freeze and thaw cycles.
4- Determine the resistance factors of UHPFRC materials through probability study based
on experiments to support the analytical data.
5- Determine an effective moment of inertia model that accurately models the behaviour of
UHPFRC composite members subjected to shear and bending.
6- Further fibre types could be used to examine the influence of fibre geometry on the
structural behaviour of UHPFRC members.
202
REFERENCES
ABAQUS Standard User’s Manual, (2008), “ABAQUS User’s Manuals” Hibbitt, Karlsson and
Sorensen Inc. Dassault Systèmes Simulia Corporation, Version 6.9, 2011.
ACI-ASCE Committee 426, (1973), “Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Members”

Proceedings, Vol. 99, ST6, pp. 1091-1187.
ACI-ASCE Committee 445, (1998), “Recent Approaches to Shear Design of Structural

Concrete,” ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 124, No. 12, pp. 1375-1417
Adebar, P., Mindess, S., St.-Pierre, D., and Olund, B., (1997), “Shear Tests of Fibre Concrete
Beams without Stirrups,” ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 94, No. 1, pp. 68-76.
AFGC Groupe de travail BFFUP, (2002), « Ultra High Performance Fibre Reinforced Concretes:
interim recommendations”, Scientific and Technical Committee, Association Française de Genie
Civil
Ahlborn, T.M., Peuse, E.J., and Msson, D.L, (2008), “Ultra-High Performance Concrete for
Michigan bridges material performance –phase I”, in Report. No. CSD-2008-11, Michigan Tech
Transportation Institute, Houghton, Michigan.
Almansour, H., and Lounis, Z., (2010), “Innovative Design Approach of Precast-Prestressed
Girder Bridges Using Ultra High Performance Concrete”, Canadian Journal of Civil
Engineering, Vol. No. 4, pp. 511-521
203
Al-Ta’an, S. A., and Al-Feel, J. R., (1990), “Evaluation of Shear Strength of Fibre-Reinforced
Concrete Beams”, Cement and Concrete Composites, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 87-94
Allen, H. G., (1972), “The Strength of Thin Composite of Finite Width, with Brittle Matrices and
Random Discontinuous Reinforcing Fibres”, Journal of Physics, Vol. 5, pp. 331-343
American Concrete Institute, (2011), “Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete”,
ACI Standard 318-11
Alwan, J. M.; Naaman, A. E., and Guerrero, P., (1999), “Effect of Mechanical Clamping on the
Pull-Out Response of Hooked Steel Fibres Embedded in Cementitious Matrices,” Concrete
Science and Engineering, Vol. 1, pp. 15-25.
Aoude, H., (2007), “Structural Behaviour of Steel Fibre Reinforced Concrete Members”, PhD
thesis, McGill University, Montreal, Canada
Aoude H., Belghiti M., Cook W.D., and Mitchell D., (2012), “Response of Steel Fibre-
Reinforced Concrete Beams with and without Stirrups”, ACI Structural Journal Vol. 109, No. 3,
pp. 359-367
Ashour, S.A., and Hasanain, G.S., and Wafa, F.F., (1992), “Shear Behaviour of High-Strength
Fibre Reinforced Concrete Beams”, ACI Structural Journal Vol. 89, No. 2, pp. 176-184
204
ASTM C39/C39M, (2010), “Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Cylindrical
Concrete Specimens”, American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA,
PP.7
ASTM C1609/C1609M-05, (2005), “Standard Test Method for Flexural Performance of Fibre-
Reinforced Concrete (Using Beam with Third-Point Loading” ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, pp. 9
ASTM C496/C496M, (1996), “Standard Test Method for Splitting Tensile Strength of
Cylindrical Concrete Specimens” ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA
ASTM C882, (1999), “Standard Test Method for Bond Strength of Epoxy-Resin Systems Used
With Concrete by Slant Shear”, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA
ASTM A615/A615M-12, (1972), “Standard Specification for Deformed and Plain Carbon-Steel
Bars for Concrete Reinforcement”, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA
ASTM C143/C143M, (2012), ”Standard Test Method for Slump of Hydraulic-Cement Concrete,
concrete, concrete slump, cone, consistency, plasticity, slump, workability”, ASTM
International, West Conshohocken, PA
Aveston, J., Mercer, R.A., and Sillwood, J.M., (1974), “Fibre Reinforced Cements – Scientific
Foundation for Specifications”, Proceeding of National Physical Laboratory Conference, UK,
pp. 93-103
205
Baby, F., Billo J., Renaud J.C., Massotte, C., Marchand, P., and Toultemond, F., (2010), “Shear
Resistance of Ultra High Performance Fibre-Reinforced Concrete I-beams”, Fracture Mechanics
of Concrete and Concrete Structures, Korea Concrete Institute ISBN 978-89-5708-182-2, pp.
1411-1417
Barnett, S.J., Lataste, J., Parry, T., Millard, S.G., and Soutsos M.N., (2010), “Assessment of
Fibre Orientation in Ultra High Performance Fibre Reinforced Concrete and its Effect on
Flexural Strength”, Materials and Structures, Vol. 43, pp. 1009–1023
Bache, H.H., (1987), “Introduction to Compact Reinforced Composite”, Nordic concrete

research, No. 6, pp. 19-33
Banthia, N., and Trottier, J. F., (1994), “Concrete Reinforced with Deformed Steel Fibres, Part 1:
Bond Slip Mechanisms”, ACI Material Journal, Vol. 91, No. 5, pp. 435-446
Batson, G., Jenkins, E., and Spatney, R., (1972), “Steel Fibres as Shear Reinforcement in
Beams”, ACI Journal Proceedings, Vol. 69, No. 10, pp. 640-644
Bierwagen, D., and Abu-Hawash, A., (2005), “Ultra High Performance Concrete Highway
Bridge”, Proceed of the 2005 Mid-Continent Transportation Research Symposium, Ames, Iowa,
pp.1-14
Birchall, J.D., Howard, A.J., and Kendall, K., (1981), “Flexural Strength and Porosity of
Cements”, Nature, Vol. 289, pp. 388–390
206
Buitelaar, P., (2004), “Ultra High Performance Concrete: Development and application during
25 years”, Plenary Session international Symposium on UHPC
Canadian Standard Association, (2004), “Design of Concrete Structures”, CSA Standard A23.3-
04
Canadian Standard Association, (1983), “Deformed Steel Wire for Concrete Reinforcement”.
(CSA) Standard G30.14-M83, Rexdale, Ontario, 1983
CEB-fib, (2010), “CEB-FIP Model Code”, 1st Draft, Vol. 1,” Lausanne, Switzerland
Chan, Y.W., and Chu, S.H., (2004), “Effect of Silica Fume on Steel Fibre Bond Characteristics
in Reactive Powder Concrete,” Cement and Concrete Research, Vol. 34, No. 7, pp. 1167-1172
Chen, L., and Graybeal, B., (2012). ”Modeling Structural Performance of Ultrahigh Performance
Concrete I-Girders”, Journal of Bridge Engineering, Vol. 17, No. 5, pp. 754–764.
Collins, M. P., Mitchell, D., Adebar, P.E.; and Vecchio, F.J., (1996), “A General Shear Design
Method,” ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 93, No. 1, pp. 36-45.
Cunha, V.M. C.F., Barros, J.A.O., and Sena-Cruz, J. M., (2010), “Pullout Behaviour of Steel
Fibres in Self-Compacting Concrete,” Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, ASCE, V. 22,
No. 1, Jan., pp. 1-9.
207
De Larrard, F., (1999), “Concrete Mixture Proportioning - A Scientific Approach”, Modern
concrete technology Vol. 9, E & FN SPON, London, England, pp. 421
De Larrard, F., Sedran T., (1994), “Optimization of Ultra-High-Performance Concrete by the

Use of a Packing Model”, Cement and Concrete Research, Vol. 24, No. 6, pp. 997-1009
Dinh, H.H., (2009), “Shear Behaviour of Steel Fibre-Reinforced Concrete Beams without Stirrup
Reinforcement”, PhD thesis, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, pp. 285
Dinh, H.H., Parra-Montesinos, G. J., and Wight, J. K., (2010), “Shear Behaviour of Steel Fibre-
Reinforced Concrete Beams without Stirrup Reinforcement” ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 107,
No. 5, pp. 597 – 606
Dupont, D., (2003), “Modelling and experimental validation of the constitutive law and cracking
behaviour of Steel Fibre Reinforced Concrete”, Department of Civil Engineering. Heverlee,
Catholic Universty of Leuven.
Dupont, D., and Vandewalle, L., (2005), “Distribution of Steel Fibres in Rectangular Sections”,
Cement and Concrete Composite, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp. 391 - 398.
Eurocode 2, (2004), “Design of Concrete Structures”, EN1992-1-1
European Concrete Committee, (1993), “CEB-FIB model code 1990”, Thomas Telford Ltd,
London
208
Foster, S.J., (2001), “On Behaviour of High-Strength Concrete Columns: Cover Spalling, Steel
Fibres, and Ductility,” ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 98, No. 4, pp. 583-589.
Graybeal, B.A., (2005), “Characterization of the Behaviour of Ultra-High Performance

Concrete”, PhD thesis, University of Maryland, College Park, ML, pp. 383
Graybeal, B.A., (2006), “Material Property Characterization of Ultra-High Performance

Concrete”, FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, Report No. FHWA-HRT-06-103,
McLean, VA
Graybeal B.A., and Baby, F., (2013), “Development of Direct Tension Test Method for Ultra-
High-Performance Fibre-Reinforced Concrete,” ACI Material Journal, Vol. 110, No. 2, pp. 177-
186
Graybeal, B.A., and Davis, M., (2008), “Cylinder or Cube: Strength Testing of 80 to 200 MPa
(11.6 to 29 ksi) Ultra-High-Performance Fibre-Reinforced Concrete”, ACI Material Journal, Vol.
105, No. 6, pp. 603-609
Graybeal B.A., Tanesi, J., (2007), “Durability of an Ultra-High Performance Concrete”. ASCE,
Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering Vol. 19, No. 10, pp. 848–854
Habel, K., Denarie, E., Brühwiler, E., (2006), “Structural Response of Elements Combining
Ultra High-Performance Fibre-Reinforced Concretes (UHPFRC) and Reinforced Concrete”,
ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 132, No. 11, pp. 1793-1800
209
Hajar, Z., Lecointre, D., Simon, A., and Petitjean, J., (2004), “Design and Construction of the
World First Ultra-high Performance Concrete Road Bridges”, Proceedings of the International
Symptom on UHPC, Kassel, Germany, pp.39-48
Hannant, D. J., (1978), “Fibre Cements and Fibre Concretes”, John Wiley and Sons, New York
Johnston, C., (2001), “Fibre-reinforced Cements and Concretes”, Gordon and Breach,
Amsterdam
Hillerborg, A., Modeer, M., and Petersson, P.E., (1976), “Analysis of Crack Formation and
Crack Growth in Concrete by Means of Fracture Mechanics and Finite Elements” Cement
Concrete Research, Vol. 6, No. 6, pp. 773–782.
Jeli, I., Pavlović, M.N., and Kotsovos, M.D., (1999) “A study of Dowel Action in Reinforced
Concrete Beams”, Magazine of Concrete Research, Vol. 51, No. 2, pp. 131 –141
JSCE, (2006), “Recommendations for Design and Construction of Ultra High-Strength Fibre
Reinforced Concrete Structures (draft)”, JSCE Guidelines for Concrete No. 9
JSCE, (2008), “Recommendations for Design and Construction of High Performance Reinforced
Cement Composites with Multiple Fine Cracks (HPFRCC)”, JSCE Guidelines for Concrete No.
82
210
Kamen, A., Denarié, E., Sadouki, H., and Brühwiler, E., (2008), “Thermo-mechanical Response
of UHPFRC at Early Age - Experimental Study and Numerical Simulation”, Cement and
Concrete Research, Vol. 38, No. 6, pp. 822–831
Kaufmann, W., and Marti, P., (1998), “Structural Concrete: Cracked Membrane Model”, Journal
of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 124, No. 12, pp. 1467-1475
Khuntia, M., Stojadinovic, B., and Goel, S.C., (1999), “Shear Strength of Normal and High-
Strength Fibre Reinforced Concrete Beams without Stirrups”, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 96,
No. 2, pp. 282-289
Kim, D., El-Tawil, S., and Naaman, A. E., (2008), “Loading Rate Effect on Pullout Behaviour of
Deformed Steel Fibres,” ACI Materials Journal, Vol. 105, No. 6, pp. 576-584
Kwak, Y.K., Eberhard, M.O., Kim, W.S., and Kim, J., (2002), “Shear Strength of Steel Fibre-
Reinforced Concrete Beams without Stirrups”, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 99, No. 4, pp. 530-
538
Lee, J., and Fenves, G. L., (1998), “Plastic-damage Model for Cyclic Loading of Concrete
Structures”, Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Vol. 124, No. 8, pp. 892–900.
Lee, C.D., (1990), “Constitutive Modelling and Flexural Analysis of Steel Fibre Reinforced
Concrete for Structural Applications”, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Ann
Arbor, Michigan State University.
211
Lubliner, J., Oliver, J., Oller, S., and Oñate, E., (1989), “A plastic-damage Model for Concrete” ,
International Journal of Solids and Structures, Vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 299–326.
Loukili, A., Khelidj, A., and Richard P., (1999), “Hydration Kinetics change of the Relative
Humidity and Autogenous Shrinkage of Ultrahigh Strength Concrete”, Cement and Concrete
Research, Vol. 29, No. 4, pp. 577-584
Magureanu, C., Sosa, I., Negrutiu, C., and Heghes, B., (2010), “Bending and Shear Behaviour of
Ultra-high Performance Fibre Reinforced Concrete”, High Performance Structures and Materials
Journal, Vol. 112, pp. 79-89
Mahmud, G. H., Yang, Z., and Hassan A.M.T., (2013), “Experimental and Numerical Studies of
Size Effects of Ultra High Performance Steel Fibre Reinforced Concrete (UHPFRC) beams”,
Construction and Building Materials Vol. 48, pp. 1027–1034
Mansur, M.A., Ong, K.C.G., and Paramasivam, P., (1986), “Shear Strength of Fibrous
Reinforced Concrete Beams without Stirrups”, ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol.
112, No. 9, pp. 2066-2079
Mansur, M.A., Chin, M.S., and Wee, T.H., (1999), “Stress-strain Relationship of High-strength
Fibre Concrete in Compression”, ASCE, Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, Vol. 11, No.
1, pp. 21-29.
212
Minelli, F., (2005), “Plain and Fibre Reinforced Concrete Beams under Shear Loading:
Structural Behaviour and Design Applications,” PhD thesis, Department of Civil Engineering,
University of Brescia, Starrylink Editrice, Brescia, Italy, pp. 429
Markovic, I., (2006), “High-Performance Hybrid-Fibre Concrete Development and Utilisation”

PhD thesis, Delft University of Technology, Delft, the Netherlands, pp. 228
Meda, A., Rosati, G., (2003), “Design and Construction of a Bridge in very High Performance
Fibre Reinforced Concrete”, Journal of Bridge Engineering, Vol. 8, No. 5, pp.281-287
Momayez, A., Ehsani, M.R., Ramezanianpour, A.A., and Rajaie,H. , (2005), “Comparison of
Methods for Evaluating Bond Strength between Concrete Substrate and Repair Materials”,
Cement and Concrete Research, Vol. 35, p. 748-757.
Moretto, O., (1945), “An Investigation of the Strength of Welded Stirrups in Reinforced
Concrete Beam”, ACI Journal Proceedings, Vol. 42, No. 11, pp. 141-162
Mahmud, G.H., Yang, Z., and Hassan, A.M.T., (2013), “Experimental and Numerical Studies of
Size Effects of Ultra High Performance Steel Fibre Reinforced Concrete (UHPFRC) Beams”,
Construction and Building Materials Vol. 48, pp. 1027–1034
Martinola, G., Meda, A., Plizzari, G., and Rinaldi, Z., (2010), “Strengthening and Repair of RC
Beams with Fibre Reinforced Concrete”, Cement and Concrete Composites, Vol. 32, No. 9,
2010, pp. 731–739
213
Naaman, A. E., (1987), “High-Performance Fibre Reinforced Cement Composites” Proceedings
of the IABSE Symposium on Concrete Structures for the Future, Paris, France, pp. 371-376.
Naaman, A.E., (2008), “High performance fibre reinforced cement composites”, Caijun S, Mo
YL (eds) High-performance construction materials. Science and Applications, pp. 91–153
Naaman, A.E., and Najm, H., (1991), “Bond-Slip Mechanisms of Steel Fibres in Concrete,” ACI
Materials Journal, Vol. 88, No. 2, pp. 135-145.
Naaman, A.E., and Reinhardt, H.W., (1995), “Characterization of High Performance Fibre
Reinforced Cement Composites-HPFRCC”, proceedings of High Performance Fibre Reinforced
Cement Composites 2 (HPFRCC2), International Union of Testing and Research Laborat
International Workshop, Ann Arbor
Naaman, A.E., Wille, K, (2010), “Some Correlation between High Packing Density, Ultra-high
Performance, Flow Ability, and Fibre Reinforcement of a Concrete Matrix”, BAC2010 - 2nd
Iberian congress on self-compacting concrete, University of Minho, Guimaraes
Narayanan, R., and Darwish, I.Y.S., (1987), "Use of Steel Fibre as Shear Reinforcement", ACI
Structural Journal, Vol. 84, No.3, pp. 216-227.
Narayanan, R., and Kareem-Palanjian, A.S., (1984), "Effect of Fibre Addition on Concrete
Strengths", Indian Concrete Journal (Bombay), Vol. 58, No.4, pp. 100-103.
214
Nataraja, M.C., Dhang, N. and Gupta, A.P., (1999), “Stress-strain Curves for Steel-Fibre
Reinforced Concrete under Compression”, Cement and Concrete Composites, Vol. 21, No. 5, pp.
383-390.
Nawy, E.G., (1996), “Reinforced Concrete: A Fundamental Approach”, 3rd Edition, Prentice
Hall Canada Inc., Toronto, Canada, pg. 415.
Noghabai, K., (2000), “Beams of Fibrous Concrete in Shear and Bending: Experimental and
Model”, ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 126, No. 2, pp. 243-251
Noshiravani, T. and Brühwiler, E., (2010), “Behaviour of UHPFRC-RC Composite Beams

Subjected to Combined Bending and Shear”, Proceedings of the 8th fib International PhD
Symposium in Civil Engineering, Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark: DTU Byg.
Orange G., Acker P., and Dugat J., (1999), “Damage Resistance and Micromechanical Analysis
of Ultra High Performance Concrete”, Proceeding of the 3rd International RILEM Workshop on
High Performance Fibre Reinforced,
Orange G., Dugat J., Acker P., (2000), “DUCTAL: New Ultra High Performance
Concretes: Damage, Resistance and Micromechanical Analysis”, Fifth RILEM Symposium on
Fibre- Reinforced Concretes (FRC) (BEFIB 2000), Ed. by P. Rossi and G. Chanvillard, Lyon,
France, pp 781-790.
Park, R., and Paulay, T., (1974), "Reinforced Concrete Structures," John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
New York, USA.
215
Parra-Montesinos, G.J., (2006), “Shear Strength of Beams with Deformed Steel Fibres”,
Concrete International Journal, Vol. 28, No. 11, pp. 57-66
Places, A. , and Regan, P.E. , (1971), “Shear Failure of Reinforced Concrete Beams”, ACI
Journal, proceeding, Vol. 68, No. 10, pp. 763-773
Rahman, S., Molyneaux, T., and Patnaikuni, I., (2005), “Ultra high performance concrete, recent
applications and research”, Australian Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp.13-20
Reineck, K.H. and Frettlohr, B., (2010), “Tests on Scale Effect of UHPFRC Under Bending and
Axial Forces,” Proceedings of the Third International fib Congress and Exhibition Incorporating
the PCI Annual Convention and National Bridge Conference, Washington, DC, Compact Disc,
Paper 54.
Richart, F.E., (1927), “An Investigation of Web Stresses in Reinforced Concrete Members”,
Bulletin 166, University of Illinois Engineering Experiment Station, Urbana, IL
Richard, P., Cheyrezy, M., (1995), “ Composition of Reactive Powder Concretes”, Cement
and Concrete Research, Vol. 25, No. 7, pp. 1501-1511.
Robins, P., Austin, S., and Jones, P., (2002), “Pull-Out Behaviour of Hooked Steel Fibres”,
Materials and Structures, Vol. 35, pp. 434-442.
216
Romualdi, J. P., and Mandel, J. A., (1964), "Tensile Strength of Concrete Affected by Uniformly
Distributed and Closely Spaced Short Lengths of Wire Reinforcement", ACI Journal,
Proceedings Vol. 61, No.6, pp. 657-671.
Rosenbusch, J., and Teutsch, M., (2002), “Trials Beams in Shear (Series 1 and 2)”, Brite/Euram
Project 97-4163, Final report, sub task 4.2, Technical University of Braunschweig,
Braunschweig, Germany
Rosenbusch, J., and Teutsch, M., (2002), “Trials Beams in Shear (Test Programme 3)”,
Brite/Euram Project 97-4163, Final report, sub task 4.2, Technical University of Braunschweig,
Braunschweig, Germany
Rossi, P., (1997), “High Performance Multimodal Fibre Reinforced Cement Composites
(HPMFRCC): The LCPC Experience”, ACI Materials Journal, Vol. 94, No. 6, pp 478-483.
Rossi, P., (2002), “Development of new Cement Composite Material for Construction,
Innovations and Developments in Concrete Materials and Construction”, Proceedings of the
International Conference, University of Dundee, Ed. by R. K. Dhir, P. C.Hewlett and L. J.
Csetenyi, Dundee, Scotland, pp. 17-29.
Roy, D. M., Gouda, G. R., Bobrowsky, A., (1972), “Very High Strength Cement Pastes prepared
by Hot Pressing and other High Pressure Techniques”, Cement and Concrete Research, Vol. 2,
No. 3, pp. 349-366.
217
Saucier, F., Bastien, J., Pigeon, M., and Fafard, F., (1991), “A Combined Shear-Compression
Device to Measure Concrete to Concrete Bonding”, Experimental Techniques, Vol. 15, No. 5,
pp. 49-55
Schantz, B.A., (1993), “The Effect of Shear Stress on Full Scale Steel Fibre Reinforced Concrete
Beams”, MS thesis, Clarkson University, Potsdam
Schmidt, M. and Fehling, E., (2004), “Ultra-High-Performance Concrete: Research,

Development and Application in Europe”, American Concrete Institute, Vol. 228, pp. 51-78
Shah, S., and Rangan, B.V., (1971), “Fibre Reinforced Concrete Properties”, ACI Journal
Proceedings, Vol. 68, No. 2, pp. 126-135
Sharma, A. K., (1986), “Shear Strength of Steel Fibre Reinforced Concrete Beams,” ACI
Journal, Proceedings Vol. 83, No. 4, pp. 624-628.
Shin, S.W., Oh, J., and Ghosh, S. K., (1994), “Shear Behaviour of Laboratory-Sized High-
Strength Concrete Beams Reinforced with Bars and Steel Fibres,” Fibre Reinforced Concrete
Developments and Innovations, SP-142, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, pp. 181-
200.
Spasojević, A., (2008), “Structural Implications of Ultra-High Performance Fibre-Reinforced

Concrete in Bridge Design,” Ph.D. Thesis NO 4051. Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne
(EPFL). Switzerland, p. 285.
218
Stengel, T., (2009), “Effect of Surface Roughness on the Steel Fibre Bonding in Ultra High
Performance Concrete (UHPC),” Proceedings of NICOM3 (Nanotechnology in Construction 3),
pp. 371-376
Sujiravorakul, C., (2001), “Development of High Performance Fibre Reinforced Cement

Composites Using Twisted Polygonal Steel Fibres” PhD thesis, University of Michigan, Ann
Arbor, MI, pp. 230
Suleiman, M., Sritharan, S., and Vande Voort, T.L., (2008), “Design and Performance
Verification of UHPC piles for deep foundations”, Center for Transportation Research and
Education Iowa State University
Susetyo, J., Gauvreau, P., and Vecchio , F. J., (2011), “Effectiveness of Steel Fibre as Minimum
Shear Reinforcement”, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 108, No. 4, pp. 488 – 496
Swamy, R. N., and Al-Taan, S.A., (1981), “Deformation and Ultimate Strength in Flexure of
Reinforced Concrete Beams Made with Steel Fibre Concrete”, ACI Journal Proceedings, Vol.
78, No. 5, pp. 395 – 405
Swamy, R.N., and Bahia, H.M., (1985), “Effectiveness of Steel Fibres as Shear Reinforcement”,
Concrete International: Design and Construction, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 35-40
Swamy, R.N., Jones, R., and Chiam, A.T.P., (1993), “Influence of Steel Fibre on the Shear
Resistance of Lightweight Concrete I-Beams”, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 90, No. 1, pp. 103 –
114
219
Swamy, R.N., and Mangat, P.S., (1976), “The Interfacial Bond Stress in Steel Fibre Cement
Composites”, Cement and Concrete Research, Vol. 6, No. 5, pp. 641 – 649
Swamy, R.N., Mangat, P.S., and Rao, C.V.S.K., (1974), "The Mechanics of Fibre Reinforcement
of Cement Matrices", Fibre Reinforced Concrete, SP-44, American Concrete Institute, Detroit,
pp. 1-28.
Singh, B., and Chintakindi, S., (2012), “An Appraisal of Dowel Action in Reinforced Concrete
Beams”, Proceedings of the ICE - Structures and Buildings, Vol. 166, No. 5, pp. 257 –267
Soroushian, P., and Lee, C., (1990), “Distribution and Orientation of Fibres in Steel Fibre
Reinforced Concrete”, ACI Materials Journal Vol. 87, no. 5, pp. 433–439.
Tomas, J., and Ramaswamy, A., (2007), “Mechanical Properties of Steel Fibre Reinforced
Concrete”, ASCE Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, Vol. 19, No. 5, pp. 385-392
Wahba, K., Marzouk, H., and Dawood, N., (2012), “Structural Behaviour of UHPFRC Beams
without Stirrups”, 3rd International Structural Specialty Conference, Edmonton, Alberta
Wafa, F.F., and Ashour, S.A., (1992), “Mechanical Properties of High-Strength Fibre Reinforced
Concrete”, ACI Material Journal, Vol. 85, No. 5, pp. 449-455
220
Wall, J.S., and Shrive N.G., (1988), “Factors Affecting Bond between New and Old Concrete”,
ACI Materials Journal, Vol. 85, No.2 pp. 117-125.
Wight J.K., and MacGregor J.G., (2012), “Reinforced Concrete: mechanics and design”, 6th ed.,
Pearson, Toronto
Wille, K., Kim, D.J., and Naaman, A.E., (2011), “Strain-hardening UHP-FRC with Low Fibre
Contents”, Materials and Structures, No. 44, pp. 583–598
Wille, K., and Naaman, A. E., (2012a), “Ultra-High Performance Concrete and Fibre Reinforced
Concrete: Achieving Strength and Ductility without Hear Curing”, Materials and Structures, No.
45, pp. 309–324
Wille, K., and Naaman, A. E., (2012b), “Pullout Behaviour of High-Strength Steel Fibres
Embedded in Ultra-High-Performance Concrete”, ACI Materials Journal, Vol. 109, No. 4, pp.
479-487
Wille, K. and Naaman A. (2013), “Effect of Ultra-High-Performance Concrete on Pullout

Behaviour of High-Strength Brass-Coated Straight Steel Fibres”, ACI Materials Journal, Vol.
110, No. 4, pp. 451-461
Wille, K. and Parra-Montesinos, G., (2012), “Effect of Beam Size, Casting Method, and Support
Conditions on Flexural Behaviour of Ultra-High-Performance Fibre-Reinforced Concrete,” ACI
Materials Journal, Vol. 109, No. 3, pp. 379–388.
221
Winter, G., and Nilson, A.H., (1979), “Design of concrete structures”, 9th ed., New York,
McGraw-Hill
Write, P.J.F., (1955), “Comments on Indirect Tensile Test on Concrete Cylinders”, Magazine of
Concrete Research, Vol. 7, No. 20, pp. 87-96
Yang, I., Joh, C., and Kim, B. (2010), “Structural Behaviour of Ultra-high Performance Concrete
Beams Subjected to Bending”, Engineering Structures, Vol. 32, pp. 3478-3487
Yang, I., Joh C., and Kim, B. (2012), “Shear Behaviour of Ultra-high Performance Fibre-
Reinforced Concrete Beams without Stirrups”, Magazine of Concrete Research, Vol. 64, No. 11,
pp. 979-993
Yang, K., Sim, J., and Kang, T., (2013), “Generalized Equivalent Stress Block Model
Considering Varying Concrete Compressive Strength and Unit Weight”, ACI Structural Journal
Vol. 110, No. 5, pp. 791-799
Yudenfreund, M., Skalny, J., Mikhail, R.S., Brunauer, S., (1972), “Hardened Portland Cement
Pastes of Low Porosity, II. Exploratory Studies, Dimensional Changes”, Cement and Concrete
Research, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 331-348.
Zsutty, T., (1971), “Shear Strength Prediction for Separate Categories of Simple Beam Tests”,
ACI Journal, proceeding, Vol. 82, No. 2, pp. 138-143
222
223

Hussein, Luaay

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hussein, Luaay

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hussein, Luaay

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

STRUCTURAL BEHAVIOUR OF ULTRA HIGH PERFROMANCE FIBRE

REINFORCED CONCRETE COMPOSITE MEMBERS

Toronto, Canada, 2015

I further authorize Ryerson University to reproduce this dissertation by photocopying or by other

I understand that my dissertation may be made electronically available to the public.

PhD, Department of Civil Engineering, Ryerson University, 2015

Ultra-high performance fibre-reinforced concrete (UHPFRC) represents a major step forward

1.2 Objectives and Scope of the research

1.3 Thesis Organization

2.1.2 UHPFRC composition

Superplasticizer: Superplasticizers are essential to ensure a good workability of UHPFRC. They

2.1.3 Structural applications

2.1.4 Effect of fibres on concrete properties

where,  f = fibre tensile strength,

 mu = matrix tensile strength at first crack

E m = matrix modulus, and

strength,  cc , and elastic modulus, Ec , can be calculated as follows:

 cc  1 f *Vsf   mu (1  Vsf )

fibres randomly oriented in three dimensions (Hannant, 1978):

where, Asf is the cross-sectional area of the fibre.

2.1.5 Material properties

2.1.5.1 Compressive strength

2.1.5.2 Tensile strength

was derived from equation (2.10).

is shown in Fig. 2.15.

tests on single fibre pull out as follows:

2.1.5.3 Modulus of elasticity

2.2 Shear behaviour of reinforced concrete beams

where, V = Shear force on the cross section

M = Moment on the cross section

I = moment of inertia of the cross section

Figure 2.17 Plain concrete beam subjected to a concentrated load

2.2.2 Shear in reinforced concrete beams without shear reinforcement

2.2.2.1 Inclined cracking pattern and modes of shear failure

Figure 2.20 Beams failure mode (ACI- ASCE, 1973)

2.2.2.2 Shear resisting mechanism

3- Dowel action of the tensile reinforcement Vd

5- Arch action Vac in deep members

2.2.3 Shear in reinforced concrete beams with shear reinforcement

(b) Distribution of internal shear

Figure 2.24 Beam cross-section area (Yang et al., 2012)

depth ratio a / d , Sharma proposed the ultimate shear strength as follows:

f sp  9.5 f c (psi) (2.19)

Narayanan and Darwish (1987)

effective depth ratio a / d , the ultimate shear strength is:

Al- Ta’an and Al-Feel (1990)

d = effective depth of beam (m)

a = shear span (m)

a c = equivalent compression stress block depth

 = Flexural reduction factor

 pc  n fib . f fib (2.30)

Aveston et al. (1974):

the average fibre pull-out length is l f / 4

f fib  d f l f / 4 (2.32)

Therefore, the unit stress provided by the fibre is:

Ashour, Hasanain, and Wafa (1992)

Khuntia, Stojadinovic, and Goel (1999)

vc  0.167 f c MPa (2.39)

  0.68 f c MPa (2.40)

v f  0.25F f c MPa (2.41)

Ps  2.5 * 0.3 * 200 150 210  467751N  334.11kN (3.2)