International Journal of Concrete Structures and Materials

Vol.10, No.2, pp.125–142, June 2016

DOI 10.1007/s40069-016-0143-x
ISSN 1976-0485 / eISSN 2234-1315

A Review on Structural Behavior, Design, and Application

of Ultra-High-Performance Fiber-Reinforced Concrete
Doo-Yeol Yoo1), and Young-Soo Yoon2),*

(Received February 28, 2016, Accepted April 11, 2016, Published online May 3, 2016)

Abstract: An overall review of the structural behaviors of ultra-high-performance fiber-reinforced concrete (UHPFRC) elements
subjected to various loading conditions needs to be conducted to prevent duplicate research and to promote its practical appli-
cations. Thus, in this study, the behavior of various UHPFRC structures under different loading conditions, such as flexure, shear,
torsion, and high-rate loads (impacts and blasts), were synthetically reviewed. In addition, the bond performance between
UHPFRC and reinforcements, which is fundamental information for the structural performance of reinforced concrete structures,
was investigated. The most widely used international recommendations for structural design with UHPFRC throughout the world
(AFGC-SETRA and JSCE) were specifically introduced in terms of material models and flexural and shear design. Lastly,
examples of practical applications of UHPFRC for both architectural and civil structures were examined.
Keywords: ultra-high-performance fiber-reinforced concrete, bond performance, structural behavior, design code, application.

1. Introduction Asia. Since UHPFRC was first developed by France’s

research group, the first technical recommendation on
Ultra-high-performance fiber-reinforced concrete UHPFRC for both material properties and structural design
(UHPFRC), which was developed in the mid-1990s, has was introduced in France in 2002 and was called the AFGC-
attracted much attention from researchers and engineers for SETRA recommendation (AFGC-SETRA 2002). Thereafter,
practical applications in architectural and civil structures, a state-of-the-art report on UHPFRC covering all material
because of its excellent mechanical performance, i.e., com- and design aspects was published in Germany in 2003
pressive strength is greater than 150 MPa and a design value (DAfStB 2003). Then, in 2004, the Japan Society of Civil
of tensile strength is 8 MPa (AFGC-SETRA 2002), dura- Engineers (JSCE) published their own design recommen-
bility, energy absorption capacity, and fatigue performance dations for UHPFRC based on DuctalÒ (Orange et al. 1999),
(Farhat et al. 2007; Graybeal and Tanesi 2007; Yoo et al. commercial UHPFRC available in the world, (JSCE 2004).
2014c; Li and Liu 2016). In particular, its very high strength Lastly, in recent years, the Korea Concrete Institute (KCI)
properties result in a significant decrease in the structural also developed a design code for UHPFRC (KCI 2012),
weight, i.e., the weight of UHPFRC structures is about 1/3 similar to those in France and Japan, by using K-UHPC,
(or 1/2) of the weight of general reinforced concrete (RC) another UHPFRC material developed by Korea Institute of
structures at identical external loads (Tam et al. 2012). Civil Engineering and Building Technology (Kim et al.
Consequently, slender structures, which are applicable for 2008).
long-span bridges, can be fabricated with UHPFRC, leading Due to the superb fiber bridging capacities of UHPFRC at
to low overall construction costs. cracked surfaces, leading to a special strain-hardening (or
In order to apply such a newly developed innovative deflection-hardening) response with multiple micro-cracks,
material to real structures, numerous studies have been car- many researchers have focused on using it to the structures
ried out in many countries in Europe, North America, and dominated by flexure, shear, and torsion. Furthermore,
UHPFRC has also been considered as one of the promising
materials for impact- and blast-resistant structures, because
of its enhanced strength and energy absorption capacity,
along with strain-hardening cementitious composites con-
1)
Department of Architectural Engineering, Hanyang taining polymeric fibers (Astarlioglu and Krauthammer
University, Seoul 133-791, Korea.
2014; Choi et al. 2014). These properties can help to over-
2)
School of Civil, Environmental and Architectural come the brittle failure of plain concrete, which has poor
Engineering, Korea University, Seoul 136-713,
energy absorption capacity for impacts and blasts. Since the
Korea.
structural behaviors of UHPFRC under flexure, shear, and
*Corresponding Author; E-mail: [email protected]
torsion, and when subjected to high-rate loadings, such as
Copyright Ó The Author(s) 2016. This article is published
impacts and blasts, are highly sensitive to numerous factors,
with open access at Springerlink.com

125
i.e., structural shape, loading condition, strain-rate, casting 3. Performance of Structural UHPFRC
method, reinforcement ratio, etc., it is necessary to synthet- Elements
ically review the scattered studies.
The purpose of this research is to analyze the current state 3.1 Bond Behavior Between UHPFRC
of knowledge of the structural behavior, design techniques, and Reinforcements
and applications of UHPFRC under various loading condi- In order to practically apply a newly developed UHPFRC
tions. As explained above, the attention of this paper is in the structures, bond performance with reinforcements
focused on (1) bond performance between UHPFRC and should be examined. Many researchers (Jungwirth and
various reinforcements, which is basic information needed Muttoni 2004; Ahmad Firas et al. 2011; Yoo et al. 2014a, b,
for the design of reinforced structures, (2) structural behavior 2015a) have investigated the bond behavior of internal steel
of UHPFRC under flexure, shear, torsion, and high-rate and fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) reinforcements with
loading, (3) the most widely used UHPFRC design recom- UHPFRC. Jungwirth and Muttoni (2004) carried out pullout
mendations in the world, and (4) examples of practical test of deformed steel reinforcing bar using a 160 mm cube.
applications in both architectural and civil structures. Various bond lengths ranging from 20 to 50 mm and two
different bar diameters of 12 and 20 mm were adopted. In
their study, the average bond strength of steel bars embedded
2. Historical Development of UHPFRC in UHPFRC was found to be 59 MPa, approximately 10
times higher than the bond strength of steel bars embedded
Roy et al. (1972) and Yudenfreund et al. (1972) first in ordinary concrete, and the theoretical development length
introduced ultra-high-strength cementitious paste with low of deformed steel bars in UHPFRC was suggested by
porosity in the early 1970s. With special curing methods lb = fydb/4smax, where fy is the yield strength of steel bar, db
using heat (250 °C) and pressure (50 MPa), Roy et al. is the nominal diameter of steel bar, and smax is the bond
(1972) achieved a cementitious paste with almost zero strength. Yoo et al. (2014c) examined the effects of fiber
porosity and a compressive strength of approximately content and embedment length on the bond behavior of
510 MPa. On the other hand, Yudenfreund et al. (1972) deformed steel bars embedded in UHPFRC. For this, Yoo
obtained a cement paste having a compressive strength of et al. (2014c) performed a number of pullout tests by
about 240 MPa with normal curing (25 °C) for 180 days. To modifying the test method, proposed by RILEM recom-
do this, Yudenfreund et al. (1972) provided a special treat- mendations (RILEM 1994); the 150 mm cubic specimens
ment on-ground clinker, used the low water-to-cement ratio with a single bar embedded vertically along the central axis
of 0.2, and Blaine surface areas ranging from 6000 to were fabricated and used for testing. The embedment lengths
9000 cm2/g. After nearly 10 years, Birchall et al. (1981) and were determined by 1 and 2 times the bar diameter, instead
Bache (1981) could develop two types of ultra-high-strength of using 5db, as suggested by the RILEM recommendations.
paste (or concrete) with very low porosity, such as densified The bond strength was insignificantly affected by the fiber
with small particles (DSPs) concrete and macro-defect free content and embedment length, but it clearly correlated with
(MDF) paste, by developing a pozzolanic admixture and a the compressive strength. The CEB-FIP Model Code
high-range water-reducing agent. Birchall et al. (1981) (MC90) (CEB-FIP 1993), which defined smax as 2.0fc0 0.5,
achieved the development of the cement pastes with com- substantially underestimated the bond strength of steel bars
pressive strength over 200 MPa and flexural strengths of in UHPFRC because the parameters were suggested based
60–70 MPa, by removing macroscopic flaws during material on test data from previous concretes. Thus, Yoo et al.
preparation without using fibers or high-pressure com- (2014c) proposed modified coefficients for the bond strength
paction. Bache (1981) also successfully developed the con- of steel bars in UHPFRC, based on a number of test data, as
crete that was DSPs and had a compressive strength of follows (Fig. 1):
120–270 MPa. The key technique to densely pack the spaces
between the cement particles was to use ultra-fine particles
and an extremely low water content, with a large quantity of
high-range water-reducing agent. In the mid-1990s, Richard
and Cheyrezy (1995) first introduced the concept of and
mixing sequence for reactive powder concrete (RPC), which
was the forerunner of UHPFRC. To obtain a very high
strength, the granular size was optimized by the packing
density theory, by excluding coarse aggregate and by pro-
viding heat (90 and 400 °C) and pressure treatments. In
addition, 1.5–3 % (by volume) of straight steel microfibers,
with a diameter of 0.15 mm and a length of 13 mm, were
added to achieve high ductility; consequently, the RPC
developed by Richard and Cheyrezy (1995) showed com-
pressive strengths of 200–800 MPa and fracture energies up Fig. 1 Normalized bond strengths of deformed steel bars
to 40 kJ/m2. embedded in UHPFRC.

126 | International Journal of Concrete Structures and Materials (Vol.10, No.2, June 2016)
 pffiffiffiffi
smax ¼ 5:0 fc0 ð1Þ u db
pffiffiffiffi ¼ 1:05 þ 0:85 ð2Þ
fc0 Le
In addition, CMR model (Cosenza et al. 1995), which sets
s = smax 9 (1 - e-s/sr)b, was found to be appropriate for
where u is the bond strength (=smax), db is the bar diameter,
simulating the ascending bond stress versus slip behavior of
and Le is the embedment length.
steel bars embedded in UHPFRC, and the parameters were
The American Concrete Institute (ACI) 440.1R model
proposed as smax = 5.0fc0 0.5, sr = 0.07, and b = 0.8, where
(ACI 2006) was inappropriate for UHPFRC; it significantly
sr and b are coefficients based on the curve fitting of test data.
overestimated the test data (normalized bond strength), as
Ahmad Firas et al. (2011) experimentally investigated the shown in Fig. 2a.
bond performance between carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer Yoo et al. (2015b) also pointed out that the previous model
(CFRP) bars and UHPFRC according to the surface treat- for development length of FRP bar in concrete, suggested by
ment, embedment length, bar diameter, and concrete age. Wambeke and Shield (2006), was not appropriate for
Based on the test data, it was noted that the bond strength UHPFRC; thus, they proposed an expression for the devel-
was insignificantly affected by the surface treatment of the opment length of GFRP bars in UHPFRC, which is only
glass-fiber-reinforced polymer (GFRP) bar; similar bond valid for the case of pullout failure, as follows:
strengths for smooth bars and sand-coated bars were
db ffu
obtained. On the other hand, a decrease in bond strength was Ld;pullout ¼ pffiffiffiffi ð3Þ
obtained by increasing both bar diameter and embedment 3:4 fc0
length. The ultimate bond strength of CFRP bars in
UHPFRC was insignificantly changed by age after 3 days, where Ld,pullout is the development length and ffu is the
because it was primarily affected by the shear strength of the ultimate strength of rebar.
connection between the core and the outer layer of the CFRP Schäfers and Seim (2011) performed experimental and
bars. Ahmad Firas et al. (2011) suggested a development numerical investigations on the bond performance between
length for sand-coated bars of approximately 40db, and a timber and UHPFRC. The glued-laminated timber was
development length for a smooth bar of longer than 40db. bonded to sandblasted and ground UHPFRC with the
Yoo et al. (2015b) also examined the local bond behavior of ‘‘Sikadur 330’’ epoxy resin. Regardless of the bond length
GFRP bars embedded in UHPFRC. The average bond and surface treatment, most of specimens showed failure of
strengths of GFRP bars in UHPFRC were found to be from the bond in the timber close to the bond-line. Based on the
16.7 to 22.8 MPa for a db of 12.7 mm, and from 19.3 to Volkersens theory, Schäfers and Seim (2011) suggested a
27.5 MPa for a db of 15.9 mm, which are approximately 73 bond length of 400 mm for standard test method to evaluate
and 66 % less, respectively, than the bond strengths of the bond strength of timber-concrete composites and noted
deformed steel bars. Similar to the case of CFRP bars in that the effect of tensile stresses, orthogonal to the bond-line,
UHPFRC (Ahmad Firas et al. 2011), bond failure was can be neglected when the bond length is beyond 300 mm.
generated by the delamination of the resin and fiber in the
bar. Based on a database of 68 pullout test results for GFRP 3.2 Flexural Dominated Reinforced UHPFRC
bars in UHPFRC, Yoo et al. (2015b) suggested an equation Beams, Girders, and Composite Structures
for the relationship between normalized bond strength and Due to its excellent post-cracking tensile performance with
development length by using regression analysis and by multiple micro-cracks occurred, UHPFRC has attracted
assuming no influence of the normalized cover parameter on attention from engineers for application in structural elements
bond strength, as follows (Fig. 2b): subjected to bending. Several international recommendations

9 9
db=12.7mm
db=12.7mm db=12.7mm
db=12.7mm R2=0.51153
db=15.9mm
db=15.9mm db=15.9mm
db=15.9mm
db=19.1mm
db=19.1mm db=19.1mm
db=19.1mm
Predicted u/(fc')0.5

Predicted u/(fc')0.5

6 6

3 3

0 0
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
Measured u/(fc')0.5 Measured u/(fc')0.5
(a) (b)
Fig. 2 Comparison of measured and predicted values of normalized bond strength of GFRP bars in UHPFRC; a ACI 440.1R,
b proposed equation (Yoo et al. 2015b).

International Journal of Concrete Structures and Materials (Vol.10, No.2, June 2016) | 127
(AFGC-SETRA, JSCE, and KCI) from France, Japan, and rebar and the placement method. From their test results, placing
South Korea (AFGC-SETRA 2002; JSCE 2004; KCI 2012) concrete at the ends of the beams yielded better performance
thus provide stress–strain models for compressive and tensile than when concrete was placed at the mid-length because of
stress blocks in the cross-section, as well as the detailed better fiber orientation to the direction of beam length at the
process of predicting the ultimate capacity of UHPFRC ele- maximum moment zone. In addition, they reported that all test
ments under flexure. Since strain (and stress) distribution in beams showed a ductile response with the ductility index
the cross-section varies according to the curvature of a beam, ranging from 1.60 to 3.75 and were effective in controlling
multilayer sectional analysis (Yoo and Yoon 2015) is required cracks. However, the meaning of ‘ductile response’ could be
to calculate an appropriate neutral axis depth and moment incorrectly delivered to readers because no test results of rein-
capacity at a certain curvature level. forced UHPC beams without fiber were reported. In accordance
Yoo and Yoon (2015) first reported test results of a number with the test results by Yoo and Yoon (2015), reinforced
of reinforced UHPFRC beams to investigate the effects of UHPFRC beams exhibited lower ductility indices compared to
steel fiber aspect ratio and type on flexural performance. beams without fiber due to the crack localization behavior, and
Since a portion of the tensile stress after cracking was Dancygier and Berkover (2016) also reported that the inclusion
resisted by the steel fibers, low reinforcement ratios (percent) of steel fibers resulted in a decrease of flexural ductility of
of 0.94 and 1.50 % were selected. In order to prevent brittle beams with low conventional reinforcement ratios.
shear failure, stirrups were conservatively designed based on Yang et al. (2011) examined the flexural behavior of large-
the specimens made of ultra-high-performance concrete scale prestressed UHPFRC I-beams. They indicated that the
(UHPC) without fibers. From the test results (Fig. 3), the high volume content of steel fibers in UHPFRC effectively
beams made by UHPFRC with 2 % by volume of steel fibers controlled the increase in crack widths, and led to multiple
exhibited much higher post-cracking stiffness and ultimate micro-cracks due to the fiber bridging at crack surfaces. The
load capacity, compared to those made by UHPC without flexural strength of prestressed UHPFRC I-beams was
fiber, called ‘NF’. In addition, the use of long straight or insignificantly affected by the presence of stirrups. Graybeal
twisted steel fibers (S19.5, S30, and T30) led to a higher (2008) also investigated the flexural behavior of a full-scale
ductility than the use of short straight steel fibers (S13), prestressed UHPFRC I-girder (AASHTO Type II girder)
which are applied for commercial UHPFRC available in containing 26 prestressing strands. Based on the experi-
North America (Graybeal 2008), at the identical fiber vol- mentally observed behavior, he reported that a UHPFRC I-
ume fraction. However, it is very interesting to note that girder shows larger flexural capacities than that of a con-
much lower ductility indices were obtained by including ventional concrete girder with similar cross-sectional
steel fibers. This is caused by the fact that due to the very geometry. In addition, an inversely proportional relationship
high bond strength between UHPFRC and steel rebar and its between crack spacing and maximum tensile strain was
crack localization behavior, the steel rebar ruptured at a experimentally observed, as shown in Fig. 4, and the fol-
relatively smaller mid-span deflection, as compared with lowing equation was suggested:
UHPC beams without fiber. Thus, Yoo and Yoon (2015)
2520 25;800
concluded that the strain-hardening behavior of UHPFRC e ¼ 450 þ pffiffiffiffiffi þ pffiffiffiffiffi ðin mmÞ ð4Þ
was unfavorable to the ductility of reinforced beams. scr s2cr
In order to establish reasonable design codes for
UHPFRC, Yang et al. (2010) carried out several four-point where e is the tensile strain and scr is the crack spacing.
flexural tests for UHPFRC beams having reinforcement In recent years, several studies (Ferrier et al. 2015; Yoo
ratios less than 0.02. Test variables were the amount of steel et al. 2016) have been carried out to develop a new type of

(a) 160 160 (b)

NF
S13
120 S19.5 120
S30
Load (kN)

Load (kN)

T30

80 80

40 40

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100
0 20 40 60 80 100
Deflection (mm)

Fig. 3 Load-deflection curves of steel bar-reinforced UHPFRC/UHPC beams; a q = 0.94 %, b q = 1.50 % [NF = UHPC w/o
fiber, S13 = UHPFRC w/ straight steel fibers (Lf/df = 13/0.2 mm/mm), S19.5 = UHPFRC w/ straight steel fibers (Lf/
df = 19.5/0.2 mm/mm), S30 = UHPFRC w/ straight steel fibers (Lf/df = 30/0.3 mm/mm), T30 = UHPFRC w/ twisted steel
fibers (Lf/df = 30/0.3 mm/mm)] (Yoo and Yoon 2015).

128 | International Journal of Concrete Structures and Materials (Vol.10, No.2, June 2016)
 Fig. 4 Tensile strain related to flexural crack spacing of UHPFRC I-girder (Graybeal 2008).

high-performance lightweight beams by applying UHPFRC Canadian Standards Association (CAN/CSA) S806 (CAN
and FRP rebar. Ferrier et al. (2015) investigated the struc- 2002). Furthermore, the deformability factors suggested by
tural behavior of I-shaped UHPFRC beams reinforced with Jaeger et al. (1995) were higher than the lower limit (Df = 4)
CFRP and GFRP rebar, according to the rebar axial stiffness of CAN/CSA-S6 (CAN 2006) for all test beams. Therefore,
ranging from 9 MN to 30 MN. Experimental results indi- it was noted that the use of UHPFRC could be a new
cated that the CFRP rebar was effective in increasing the solution for solving the major drawbacks limiting the prac-
bending stiffness, which results in a lower mid-span tical application of FRP rebar instead of steel rebar. An
deflection, as compared with the case of the GFRP rebar due increase in the GFRP reinforcement ratio led to an
to the higher elastic modulus of the former. Thus, they improvement in the flexural performance, such as higher
concluded that the axial stiffness of the FRP reinforcement is post-cracking stiffness, load carrying capacity, and ductility.
the most influential parameter of bending stiffness of beams. However, the application of hybrid reinforcements to
Yoo et al. (2016) also examined the flexural behavior of UHPFRC nullified the main advantage of using FRP to solve
UHPFRC beams reinforced with GFRP rebar and hybrid the corrosion problem and showed insignificant improve-
reinforcements (steel ? GFRP rebar), according to the axial ment in the structural performance. Synthetically, Yoo et al.
stiffness ranging from 13 to 95.5 MN. Hybrid reinforce- (2016) recommended the use of GFRP rebar with UHPFRC,
ments were considered in their study because it has been rather than the use of hybrid reinforcements.
considered as one of the most promising methods to over- Ferrier et al. (2009) also examined the flexural behavior of
come the large service deflection problems of conventional a new type of hybrid beam, made of glued-laminated wood
FRP-reinforced concrete beams reported by several and UHPFRC planks, including steel and FRP rebar. They
researchers (Lau and Pam 2010; Yoon et al. 2011). Due to mention that structural efficiency was obtained by using the
the strain-hardening characteristics of UHPFRC, all tested hybrid beams, as a consequence of the increased bending
beams provided very stiff load versus deflection response stiffness due to the high elastic modulus of UHPFRC planks.
even after the formation of cracks (Fig. 5), which is dis- In addition, the inclusion of steel and FRP rebar in the lower
tinctive response with conventional FRP-reinforced concrete UHPFRC plank significantly increased the ultimate load
beams, and satisfied the service crack width criteria of the capacity of the hybrid beams, as compared with when only

at ultimate
at 240 kN
w = 5.0mm
300
Concrete crushing
Crack localization

Crack width increases

200 with localization
Load (kN)

Multiple micro-cracks
at 180 kN
w = 0.1mm

Number of cracks
100 increases

First cracking ( 54.5 kN)

at 60 kN

0
0 20 40 60 80
Deflection (mm)
Fig. 5 Typical load–deflection response of GFRP bar-reinforced UHPFRC beam (Yoo et al. 2016).

International Journal of Concrete Structures and Materials (Vol.10, No.2, June 2016) | 129
pure wood elements were used. These advantages of using 3.3 Shear Resistance of Structural UHPFRC
hybrid beams lead to the potential for reducing the beam Beams, Girders, and Bridge Decks
depth or increasing the span length of the beam, compared Baby et al. (2013b) carried out shear tests of eleven 3-m
with conventional timber structures. long UHPFRC I-shaped girders with various shear rein-
To practically apply UHPFRC in real architectural and forcements (stirrups and/or steel fibers, or neither) combined
civil structures, appropriate design technique should be with longitudinal prestressing or passive steel bars. To
suggested based on the material models. Several interna- examine the actual fiber orientation effect on the shear per-
tional recommendations (AFGC-SETRA 2002; JSCE 2004; formance, the three-point flexural tests were performed by
KCI 2012) thus provide material models for designing using notched prism specimens extracted from both of the
flexural members made of UHPFRC. Based these recom- undamaged ends of I-girders at different inclination angles.
mendations, many researchers have already precisely pre- Test results, as shown in Fig. 7, clearly indicated that the
dicted the flexural behaviors of reinforced UHPFRC beams fiber orientation significantly influenced the mechanical
(Yang et al. 2010; Yang et al. 2011; Ferrier et al. 2015; Yoo (flexural) performance; thus, they noted that the actual fiber
and Yoon 2015; Yoo et al. 2016). In particular, the UHPFRC orientation needs to be taken into account for shear design,
beams without stirrups were well predicted by AFGC- as recommended by AFGC-SETRA recommendations
SETRA recommendations without consideration of fiber (AFGC-SETRA 2002). By including 2.5 % steel fibers, an
orientation coefficient (K = 1) (Yang et al. 2011; Yoo et al. almost 250 % increase in shear strength was observed (Baby
2016) because the fiber alignment in the direction of beam et al. 2013c). The stirrups yielded first, while localization of
length was insignificantly disturbed by the internal rebars. the shear crack took place significantly later, as shown in
However, Yoo and Yoon (2015) recently reported that the Fig. 8. Thus, crack localization is primarily influenced by
fiber orientation coefficient that is proposed by the AFGC- the strain capacity of the UHPFRC, and the contributions of
SETRA recommendations (i.e., K = 1.25), should be con- the fiber bridging and the stirrups up to their yield strength
sidered for simulating the flexural behavior of reinforced seem to be effective only when the tensile strain capacity of
UHPFRC beams with stirrups, since the fiber orientation was the UHPFRC is much higher than the yield strain of the
clearly disturbed by the stirrups (Fig. 6). In the case of FRP- stirrups. In their study (Baby et al. 2013c), the AFGC-
reinforced concrete elements, it is well known that the ser- SETRA recommendations were conservative for the shear-
vice deflection prediction is the most important parameter cracking strength, but reasonable for the ultimate shear
for designing such structures, because of the larger service strength prediction of UHPFRC I-girders. Baby et al.
deflection than that of beams reinforced with steel rebar. (2013a) also examined the feasibility of applying the mod-
Ferrier et al. (2015) and Yoo et al. (2016) successfully pre- ified compression field theory for the shear capacity of
dicted the load versus deflection curves of FRP-bar-rein- reinforced or prestressed UHPFRC beams. Based on their
forced UHPFRC beams by sectional analysis, in which they analytical results, the modified compression field theory was
considered compressive and tensile stress blocks in the determined to be applicable for predicting the shear behavior
cross-section, similar to the method used for the above steel- with an effective estimation of the reorientation of the
bar-reinforced beams. Yoo and Banthia (2015) also accu- compressive struts with an increase in the load.
rately predicted the service deflection of UHPFRC beams Voo et al. (2010) investigated the shear strength of pre-
reinforced with GFRP rebar and hybrid reinforcements stressed UHPFRC I-beams without stirrups, according to the
(steel ? GFRP rebar), based on a micromechanics-based shear span-to-depth ratio (a/d) and the type of steel fibers.
finite element (FE) analysis; the average ratios of the ser- They indicated that a higher shear strength was obtained by
viceability deflections from predictions and experiments using a higher fiber volume content and a lower a/d. The
were found to be 0.91 with a standard deviation of 0.07. theory of the plastic shear variable engagement model pre-
sented a good basis for their shear design and a good
150

100
Load (kN)

50
Experimental result
Num. analysis (K=1)
Num. analysis (K=1.25)
0
0 20 40 60 80
Deflection (mm)

Fig. 6 Comparison of experimental and numerical results for

steel bar-reinforced UHPFRC beams with stirrups Fig. 7 Three-point bending test results of prisms extracted
according to fiber orientation coefficient (Yoo and Yoon from I-girders at different inclinations (Baby et al.
2015). 2013b).

130 | International Journal of Concrete Structures and Materials (Vol.10, No.2, June 2016)
 failure mode was shear, and in the multi-unit decks, shear
failure was followed by punching shear failure at close to the
ultimate state. However, the shear failure was less abrupt and
catastrophic as compared with the commonly seen shear
failure mode. Thus, Xia et al. (2011) recommended the
ductile shear failure with higher post-cracking shear resis-
tance of UHPFRC beams containing high-strength steel
rebar as an acceptable failure mode, rather than including
transverse reinforcements, because of their economic prob-
lems. The use of 180° hooks at both ends of the steel rebar,
recommended by ACI 318 (ACI 2014), was also effective in
Fig. 8 Evolution during tests of stresses inside stirrups and avoiding bond failure, compared with specimens without
displacements measured by LVDTs attached at 45° in end anchorage. Based on a thorough analysis of the exper-
the web (Baby et al. 2013b). imental results, Saleem et al. (2011) noted that although the
proposed UHPFRC waffle deck system exhibits shear failure
relationship to the experimental results; the ratio of shear mode, it has great potential to serve as an alternative to open-
strengths obtained from experiment and theory was found to grid steel decks, which are conventionally used for light-
be 0.92, with a coefficient of variation of 0.12. In addition, weight or moveable bridges.
Bertram and Hegger (2012), Yang et al. (2012), and Tade-
palli et al. (2015) mentioned that the shear strength increased 3.4 Torsional Behavior of Structural UHPFRC
with an increase in the fiber content and a decrease in the a/d Beams and Girders
ratio. For instance, the inclusion of 2.5 % steel fibers led to a Empelmann and Oettel (2012) examined the effect of
177 % higher ultimate load than that without fiber, and by adding steel fibers (vf of 1.5 and 2.5 %) on the torsional
changing the a/d ratio from 3.5 to 4.4, the shear capacity was behavior of UHPFRC box girders. They experimentally
reduced by 10 % (Bertram and Hegger 2012). Bertram and observed that the inclusion of steel fibers led to a better
Hegger (2012) also noted that the size effect on shear cracking performance such as smaller crack widths and
strength was more substantially affected by the beam height multitudinous cracks, higher ultimate and cracking torque,
as compared with the web thickness, and that about and improved torsional stiffness. Interestingly, the angle of
12–14 % higher shear capacity was obtained when the the diagonal cracks was found to be approximately 45° for
effective prestressing force increased by 20 %. By compar- all test series, regardless of the steel fiber contents. Yang
ing the test results with computed values, Yang et al. (2012) et al. (2013) also investigated the torsional behavior of
noticed that the predictions using the AFGC-SETRA and UHPFRC beams reinforced with mild steel rebars. In order
JSCE recommendations provided accurate estimates of the to estimate the effects of steel fiber content and transverse
shear strength of UHPFRC I-beams (Fig. 9). and longitudinal rebar ratios, thirteen UHPFRC beams were
In order to replace the open-grid steel decks from move- fabricated and tested. Based on their test results (Yang et al.
able bridges, which have several drawbacks, such as poor 2013), an improvement in the initial cracking and ultimate
rideability, high noise levels, susceptibility to fatigue dam- torque were obtained by increasing the fiber volume frac-
age, and high maintenance costs, Saleem et al. (2011) tions (Fig. 10a), which is consistent with the findings from
examined the structural performance of lightweight Empelmann and Oettel (2012). Moreover, higher ultimate
UHPFRC bridge decks reinforced with high-strength steel torque was found with increases in the ratio of stirrups with
rebar. They properly designed and proposed UHPFRC longitudinal rebar (Figs. 10b and 11c). In addition, the tor-
waffle decks to satisfy the strength, serviceability, and self- sional stiffness after initial cracking was also improved by
weight requirements for moveable bridges. The governing increasing the ratio of stirrups, as shown in Fig. 10b. In
contrast to Empelmann and Oettel’s findings, Yang et al.
(2013) reported that the angle of the diagonal compressive
stress ranged from 27° to 53°, and was affected by the
number of stirrups and longitudinal rebar. For example, the
angle of localized diagonal cracks increased with an increase
in the number of stirrups, as illustrated in Fig. 11. Fehling
and Ismail (2012) also reported similar test results for the
torsional behavior of UHPFRC elements. They specifically
said that the inclusion of steel fibers was effective in
improving the torsional performance, such as cracking and
ultimate torsional capacities, torsional ductility, post-crack-
ing stiffness, and toughness. The use of longitudinal rein-
Fig. 9 Comparison of experimental and predicted shear forcements and stirrups also obviously improved the
capacities (Yang et al. 2012). torsional performance.

International Journal of Concrete Structures and Materials (Vol.10, No.2, June 2016) | 131
Fig. 10 Torque-twist curves of UHPFRC beams (vf = volume fraction of steel fiber, qs = transverse reinforcement ratio,
ql = longitudinal reinforcement ratio); a effect of steel fiber content, b effect of transverse reinforcement ratio, c effect of
longitudinal reinforcement ratio (Yang et al. 2013).

Fig. 11 Angle of localized diagonal cracks (vf = volume fraction of steel fiber, qs = transverse reinforcement ratio, ql = longi-
tudinal reinforcement ratio) (Yang et al. 2013).

3.5 Performance of Structural UHPFRC Beams, residual deflections of reinforced UHPFRC beams decreased
Slabs, and Columns Under Extreme Loadings significantly by adding 2 % (by volume) of steel fibers,
Fujikake et al. (2006a) and Yoo et al. (2015a, c) examined leading to a change in the damage level from severe to
the impact resistance of reinforced or prestressed UHPFRC moderate, whereas slight decreases in the maximum and
beams by testing a number of specimens using a drop-weight residual deflections were found by increasing the fiber length
impact test machine. In their studies (Fujikake et al. 2006a), at identical volume fractions (Yoo et al. 2015c). A higher
an increase in the maximum deflection of UHPFRC beams ultimate load capacity was also obtained for the beams under
was observed by increasing the drop height while main- impact loading, compared to those under quasi-static load-
taining the weight of the hammer, owing to the increase of ing, and the residual load capacity after impact damage
kinetic energy. The initial stiffness in the UHPFRC beams improved by including 2 % steel fibers and using the longer
was insignificantly affected by the impact damage because steel fibers. Fujikake et al. (2006a) and Yoo et al. (2015a)
of the excellent fiber bridging capacities after matrix successfully predicted the mid-span deflection versus the
cracking, and the residual load–deflection (or moment–cur- time response of structural UHPFRC beams by using the
vature) curves, shifted based on the maximum deflection by sectional analysis and single- (or multi-) degree-of-freedom
impact, exhibited quite similar behaviors with those of the model. Improved mechanical compressive and tensile
virgin specimens without impact damage. Hence, Fujikake strengths according to the strain-rate were considered in the
et al. (2006a) mentioned that the maximum deflection analysis by using the equations for the dynamic increase
response can be used as the most rational index for esti- factor (DIF) of the UHPFRC, as suggested by Fujikake et al.
mating the overall flexural damage of reinforced UHPFRC (2006b, 2008).
beams. Yoo et al. (2015a) reported that better impact resis- Aoude et al. (2015) investigated the blast resistance of
tance, i.e., lower maximum and residual deflections and full-scale self-consolidating concrete (SCC) and UHPFRC
higher deflection recovery, was obtained by increasing the columns under various blast-impulse combinations based on
amount of longitudinal steel rebars, and the maximum and a shock-tube instrumentation. They verified that the steel

132 | International Journal of Concrete Structures and Materials (Vol.10, No.2, June 2016)
bar-reinforced UHPFRC columns showed substantially 15.14, and 13.09 mm, respectively. Mao et al. (2014)
higher blast resistance than the reinforced SCC columns in investigated the capability of modeling the impact behavior
terms of reducing the maximum and residual deflections, of UHPFRC slabs using the commercial explicit FE pro-
enhancing damage tolerance, and eliminating secondary blast gram, LS-DYNA (2007). Through FE analysis, they also
fragments. Based on the single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) studied the effects of steel fibers and rebar on the blast
model and lumped inelasticity approach, Aoude et al. (2015) resistance of UHPFRC slabs. Importantly, they observed that
predicted the inelastic deflection-time histories. From the the K&C model (mostly used for simulating the blast
numerical results, several important findings were obtained as behavior of concrete structures) with automatically gener-
follows; (1) since the numerical predictions are sensitive to ated parameters provided a much better ductile response than
the choice of DIF, as given in Fig. 12a, further study needs to the actual behavior, and thus, a modified parameter b2 from
be done to develop the strain-rate models for using in the blast 1.35 to -2 should be applied for UHPFRC. After verifying
analysis of UHPFRC columns, and (2) the plastic hinge the numerical modeling with test data, a parametric study
length (Lp) seems to be reduced in UHPFRC columns from was carried out, and some useful results were obtained: (1)
Lp = d (column effective depth), which has been used for the the additional use of steel fibers and rebar provide similar
analysis in conventional reinforced concrete columns, as influence in the form of extra resistance to the UHPFRC
shown in Fig. 12b. Astarlioglu and Krauthammer (2014) panel under far field blast loading, and (2) under near field
numerically simulated the response of normal-strength con- blast loading, the resistance of the UHPFRC panels
crete (NC) and UHPFRC columns subjected to blast loadings increased substantially with steel rebar, as shown in Fig. 13.
based on SDOF models using the dynamic structural analysis
suite (DSAS) and reported that the UHPFRC columns pre-
sented lower mid-span displacement and sustained more than 4. Structural Design of UHPFRC Based
four times the impulse as compared with the NC columns. on AFGC-SETRA and JSCE
Wu et al. (2009) carried out a series of blast tests of NC Recommendations
and UHPFRC slabs w/ and w/o reinforcements to examine
their blast resistance. When the similar blast loads were 4.1 AFGC-SETRA Recommendations
applied, the UHPFRC slabs without reinforcement exhibited 4.1.1 Material Models
less damage than the NC slabs with reinforcements, and In AFGC-SETRA recommendations, UHPFRC is referred
thus, they noticed that the application of UHPFRC is to as a cementitious material with a compressive strength in
effective in blast design. The UHPFRC slab with passive excess of 150 MPa, possibly obtaining 250 MPa, and
reinforcements was superior to all other slab specimens, and including steel (or polymer) fibers to provide a ductile tensile
the strengthening of NC slabs with external FRP plates in the behavior. The parameters of the design strength were sug-
compressive zone was efficient in improving the blast gested based on the mechanical test results of DuctalÒ
resistance. Yi et al. (2012) examined the blast resistance of (Orange et al. 1999), as follows: fck = 150–250 MPa,
the reinforced slabs made of NC, ultra-high-strength con- ftj = 8 MPa, and Ec = 55 GPa, where fck is the compressive
crete (UHSC), and RPC, which is identical to UHPFRC. By strength, ftj is the post-cracking direct tensile strength, and Ec
analyzing the crack patterns and maximum and residual is the elastic modulus. A partial safety factor cbf is also
deflections, they indicated that RPC has the best blast-re- introduced, with cbf = 1.3 in the case of fundamental com-
sistant capacity, followed by UHSC and then NC. For binations and cbf = 1.05 in the case of accident combina-
example, the maximum deflections of NC, UHSC, and RPC tions. To consider the fiber orientation effect on the tensile
slabs from 15.88 ANFO charge were found to be 18.57, behavior, three different fiber orientation coefficients were

Fig. 12 Displacement predictions from SDOF analysis for UHPFRC columns (Note CRC means UHPFRC); a DIF = 1.14 vs. 1.4,
b hinge length, Lp = d vs. 0.5d (Aoude et al. 2015).

International Journal of Concrete Structures and Materials (Vol.10, No.2, June 2016) | 133
 w0:3 ftj
e0:3 ¼ þ ð6Þ
lc cbf Ec

w1% ftj
e1% ¼ þ ð7Þ
lc cbf Ec

where ee is the elastic strain, w0.3 is the crack width of

0.3 mm, e0.3 is the strain at crack width of 0.3 mm, w1% is
the crack width corresponding to 0.01H (H is the specimen
height), and e1% is the strain at crack width corresponding to
0.01H.
Fig. 13 Variation of maximum panel deflection with scaled
distance from three UHPFRC panels (Panel A has
The ultimate tensile strain is expressed by elim = Lf/4lc,
2 % of 13 mm long steel fibers with 3.4 % steel where elim is the ultimate tensile strain and Lf is the fiber
rebars, Panel C has 2 % of 13 mm long steel fibers length.
with 0.3 % steel rebars, and Panel D has 2 % of The stresses at two different characteristic points (at w0.3
13 mm and 2 % of 25 mm long steel fibers with and w1%) are expressed as follows:
0.3 % steel rebars) (Mao et al. 2014).
f ðw0:3 Þ
fbt ¼ ð8Þ
suggested, as follows: K = 1 for placement methods vali- Kcbf
dated from test results of a representative model of actual
structure, K = 1.25 for all loading other than local effects, f ðw1% Þ
f1% ¼ ð9Þ
and K = 1.75 for local effects. Kcbf
In the case of compressive model, a bilinear stress–strain
model can be used, as shown in Fig. 14, with the design where fbt is the stress at a crack width of 0.3 mm and f1% is
strength and strain parameters—rbcu = 0.85fck/hcb and the stress at a crack width corresponding to 0.01H.
eu = 0.003. The completed material models under compression and
The tensile stress–crack opening displacement (r– tension are given in Fig. 14. Based on the capacity of tensile
w) model is recommended to be first derived based on an resistance with crack opening displacement, the AFGC-
inverse analysis. To apply the r–w model into the tensile SETRA recommendations classify the tensile response by
stress block in the cross-section, it needs to be transformed two different laws: (1) the strain-softening law (ftj [ fbt) and
to the tensile stress–strain (r–e) model by using the char- (2) the strain-hardening law (ftj \ fbt), as shown in Fig. 14.
acteristic length, lc, which is lc = 2/3 9 h for the case of Other important material properties of UHPFRC with heat
rectangular or T-beams, where h is the beam height. treatment are given by AFGC-SETRA recommendations, as
To obtain the tensile r–e model, the elastic tensile strain and follows:
strains at crack widths of 0.3 mm and 1 % of beam height
– Poisson’s ratio: 0.2.
need to be calculated based on the following equations:
– Thermal expansion coefficient (910-6/°C): 11.0.
ftj – Long-term creep coefficient: 0.2.
ee ¼ ð5Þ – Total (autogenous) shrinkage: 550 9 10-6.
Ec

Fig. 14 Material models [AFGC-SETRA recommendations (AFGC-SETRA 2002)]; a strain-hardening, b strain-softening.

134 | International Journal of Concrete Structures and Materials (Vol.10, No.2, June 2016)
 4.1.2 Flexural Design Srp
A chapter for the flexural design of UHPFRC structures is Vf ¼ ð14Þ
cbf tan bu
not included in the AFGC-SETRA recommendations.
However, based on the suggested material models in Zwlim
1 1
Fig. 14, the design of a UHPFRC element subjected to rp ¼ rðwÞdw
K wlim ð15Þ
bending can be performed by using the sectional analysis 0
(Fujikake et al. 2006a; Yang et al. 2011; Ferrier et al. 2015; with wlim ¼ maxðwu ; 0:3 mmÞ and wu ¼ lc eu
Yoo and Yoon 2015; Yoo et al. 2016). A schematic
description of a multi-layered cross-section with strain and where S is the area of the fiber effect (S = 0.9b0d or
stress distributions and an algorithm for sectional analysis b0d for rectangular or T-sections, and S = 0.8(0.9d)2 or
are shown in Fig. 15 (Yoo and Yoon 2015). The cross- 0.8z2 for circular sections), bu is the inclination angle
section of the elements is first divided into a number of between a diagonal crack and the longitudinal direction of
layers along the height. After that, the compressive and the beam, K is the orientation coefficient for general
tensile stresses at each layer can be calculated by assuming effects, r(w) is the experimental characteristic post-
that the plane section remains a plane at a given curvature. cracking stress for a crack width of w, and wu is the
Then, the neutral axis depth can be calculated from the ultimate crack width.
force equilibrium condition. Lastly, the moment is calcu-
lated. The calculation was repeated until the ultimate strain 4.2 JSCE Recommendations
of the steel rebar was reached. 4.2.1 Material Models
In JSCE recommendations, UHPFRC is defined as the
4.1.3 Shear Design concrete with fc0 C 150 MPa, fcrk C 4 MPa, and ftk C 5
Since the steel fibers can resist a portion of the stress at MPa, where fc0 is the compressive strength, fcrk is the
shear cracks, they mentioned that stirrups may be used, but cracking strength, and ftk is the tensile stress at crack width
the shear strength given by the fibers may make it possible to of 0.5 mm. JSCE recommendations were proposed based on
dispense with the stirrups. The ultimate shear strength Vu is DuctalÒ (Orange et al. 1999), which is commercially avail-
given by: able UHPFRC with heat treatment and 2 vol.% of steel fibers
Vu ¼ VRb þ Va þ Vf ð10Þ having df = 0.2 mm and Lf = 15 mm, and provided the
strength properties used for structural design as follows;
where VRb is the term for the participation of the concrete, Va fc0 = 180 MPa, fcrk = 8 MPa, ftk = 8.8 MPa, and Ec = 50
is the term for the participation of the reinforcement, and Vf GPa. Importantly, they suggested a bilinear stress–strain
is the term for the participation of the fibers. curve for compression (Fig. 16a) and a bilinear tension-
The shear strength by reinforcement Va is given by: softening curve (TSC) with ftk = 8.8 MPa, w1k = 0.5 mm,
and w2k = 4.3 mm for tension (Fig. 16b). In order to obtain
A t fe the structural safety, cc = 1.3 was proposed for the partial
Va ¼ 0:9d ðsin a þ cos aÞ ð11Þ
st cs safety factor. To take into account the suggested TSC for
tensile stress block in the cross-section, the crack opening
where d is the effective depth, At is the area of the stirrups, st displacement should be transformed to a strain by using the
is the spacing of the stirrups, fe is the stress in the stirrups, cs equivalent specific length, Leq, as follows
is the partial safety factor, and a is the inclination angle of 2 3
the stirrups. 1
6 7
VRb is expressed by two equations for reinforced and Leq ¼ 0:8h41   4 5 ð16Þ
prestressed concrete, as follow: 1:05 þ 6h=lch

1 0:21 pffiffiffiffiffi
VRb ¼ k fck b0 d ðfor reinforced concreteÞ ð12Þ where h is the overall depth of beam, lch is the characteristic
cE cb
length (=GFEc/f2tk), and GF is the fracture energy.
1 0:24 pffiffiffiffiffi By using the equivalent specific length, the tensile stress–
VRb ¼ fck b0 z ðfor prestressed concreteÞ ð13Þ
cE cb strain model is obtained by the following equations, based
on the TSC:
where cE is the safety coefficient such that: cE 9 cb = 1.5,
ftk
b0 is the element width, rm is the mean stress in the total ecr ¼ ð17Þ
cc Ec
section of concrete under the normal design force,
k = 1 ? 3rcm/ftj for compression, k = 1 - 0.7rtm/ftj for w1k
e1 ¼ ecr þ ð18Þ
tension, and z is the distance from the top fiber to the center Leq
of prestressing strand.
w2k
Lastly, the shear strength of the fibers is calculated by e2 ¼ ð19Þ
using the following equation: Leq

International Journal of Concrete Structures and Materials (Vol.10, No.2, June 2016) | 135
 top

Fc
c
d M
h
hi
i i
hi+1
i+1 i+1
Ft
hs s Fs
bottom
b
(a)
Start

Determination of material properties

· Compressive stress-strain model
· Tensile stress-strain model

Assuming curvature at initial stage

Assuming neutral axis

Reassume neutral axis (iteration)

Determining strain distribution by assuming
that plane section remains plane
Increase of curvature

Calculating stress distribution using stress-strain

models under compression and tension

Calculating sectional compressive and tensile forces

NO
Checking force equilibrium condition
ΣF=0 ?
YES

Calculating moment

YES
Checking εs < εu ?
NO
Determining moment-curvature curve

End

(b)
Fig. 15 Sectional analysis; a schematic description of stress and strain distributions in cross-section, b algorithm for sectional
analysis (Yoo and Yoon 2015).

– Coefficient of thermal expansion (910-6/°C): 13.5.

where ecr is the factored elastic strain, e1 is the strain at the
– Thermal conductivity (kJ/mh °C): 8.3.
end of the initial plateau, w1k is the crack opening dis-
– Thermal diffusivity (910-3m2/h): 3.53.
placement for which a certain stress level is retained after the
– Specific heat (kJ/kg °C): 0.92.
first crack, e2 is the strain at zero tensile stress, and w2k is the
– Total shrinkage: 550 9 10-6.
crack opening displacement at zero tensile stress.
– Creep coefficient: 0.4.
Other material properties of the UHPFRC, proposed by
– Density (kN/m3) for calculating dead load: 25.5.
the JSCE recommendations, are as follows:
– Poisson’s ratio: 0.2.

136 | International Journal of Concrete Structures and Materials (Vol.10, No.2, June 2016)
 0.85fc'/γc ftk

Tensile stress
Compressive
stress
Ec

0.85fc'/Ec·γc 0.0035 w1k w2k

Strain Crack opening displacement

(a) (b)
Fig. 16 Material models [JSCE recommendations (JSCE 2004)]; a compressive stress–strain curve, b tension-softening curve.

4.2.2 Flexural Design the diagonal crack and the longitudinal direction of the
In the JSCE recommendations, for the structural design beam. The inclination angle bu should be larger than 30° and
of UHPFRC elements under bending, two simple is calculated by bu = 1/2tan-1[2s/(rxu - ryu)] - b0, where
assumptions are required to be satisfied: (1) the linear strain s is the average shear stress, rxu and ryu are the average
distribution and (2) the use of the proposed material compressive stress in longitudinal and transverse directions,
models, as given in Fig. 16. The steel fiber contribution in and b0 is the inclination angle without axial force.
the tensile zone after cracking needs to be considered in the In addition, Vped can be calculated as follows
structural design, and the compressive and tensile stress 
blocks in the cross-section should be considered based on Vped ¼ Ped sin ap cb ð23Þ
the proposed material stress–strain models (Fig. 16) by
considering the equivalent specific length for tension. where Ped is the effective tensile force of the prestressing
Although a detailed procedure for calculating the ultimate strand, ap is the inclination angle between the prestressing
moment capacity is not introduced in the JSCE recom- strand and longitudinal axis of beam, and cb is the strength
mendations, sectional analysis can be adopted for calcu- reduction factor (cb = 1.1).
lating the moment–curvature behavior of the UHPFRC As was reported by Yang et al. (2012), the shear design of
elements (Yang et al. 2011; Yoo et al. 2016), similar to the UHPFRC elements can be carried out by using both AFGC-
case of the AFGC-SETRA recommendations. SETRA and JSCE recommendations, which provide good
estimates with test data of I-shaped UHPFRC beams, as
4.2.3 Shear Design shown in Fig. 9.
For the shear design of the UHPFRC elements, the shear
resistance from the matrix and the included steel fibers is
required to be calculated. In accordance with the JSCE 5. Field Applications of UHPFRC
recommendations, the total shear resistance can be calcu-
lated by: Due to its excellent mechanical performance, UHPFRC
can lead to a reduction in the number of sections, the
Vyd ¼ Vrpcd þ Vfd þ Vped ð20Þ
elimination of passive reinforcements, and the possibility for
the design of structures that is not possible with ordinary
where Vyd is the total shear resistance of the reinforced
concrete (NPCA 2011). For this reason, UHPFRC has
UHPFRC beams, Vrpcd is the shear resistance of the matrix
attracted much attention from engineers for field applications
without fiber, Vfd is the shear resistance of the steel fibers,
from 1995 to 2010 (Voo et al. 2012). The representative
and Vped is the shear resistance of the stirrups.
application examples in North America, Europe, and Asia
Herein, Vrpcd and Vped are obtained by using Eqs. (21) and
are briefly explained herein. The first structural application
(22), respectively.
of UHPFRC was the prestressed hybrid pedestrian bridge at
pffiffiffiffi 
Vrpcd ¼ 0:18 fc0 bw d cb ð21Þ Sherbrooke in Canada, constructed in 1997 (Resplendino
2004) (Fig. 17a). This precast and prestressed pedestrian
Vfd ¼ ðfvd =tan bu Þbw z=cb ð22Þ bridge includes a post-tensioned open-web space UHPFRC
truss with 4 access spans made by conventional high-per-
where bw is the web width of the beam, d is the effective formance concrete. A ribbed slab with a 30-mm thickness
depth of the beam, cb is the strength reduction factor was adopted, and a transverse prestressing was applied with
(cb = 1.3), fvd is the design tensile strength perpendicular to sheathed monostrands. The UHPFRC truss webs were con-
the diagonal crack (= ftk/cb), z is the distance between the fined by steel tubes, and the structure was longitudinally
point-acting compressive force and the center tensile rein- prestressed by both internal and external prestressing
forcement (=d/1.15), and bu is the inclination angle between strands. The total span length of the bridge was 60 m, and

International Journal of Concrete Structures and Materials (Vol.10, No.2, June 2016) | 137
the main span was assembled from six 10-m prefabricated system, due to its ability to form monolithically tight radial
match-cast segments. The Bourg-lès-Valence bridge was the curves, and consequently, it could improve the energy
first UHPC road bridge in the world, built in France in 2001 efficiency of the building by eliminating unattractive
(Hajar et al. 2004), as shown in Fig. 17b. The bridge was seams and openings. The Community Center in Sedan,
built from five assembled p-shaped precast UHPFRC beams, France was built in 2008 with a double skin facade to
and the joints were made by in situ UHPFRC with internal protect the glass fascia behind and to provide privacy
reinforcements. The bridge consisted of two isolated spans using light blue UHPFRC perforated panels (Fig. 18b).
with a length of approximately 20 m, and all the p-shaped They designed the UHPFRC panels to be 2 m by 4 m by
beams were prestressed without transverse passive rein- 45 mm thick, to permit sunlight to stream through to the
forcement. The Seonyu Footbridge, completed in 2002 in interior spaces. The main reason for choosing UHPFRC
Seoul, Korea, is currently the longest footbridge made by panels instead of traditional perforated panels, made of
UHPFRC (DuctalÒ) with a single span of 120 m and no metal, painted steel, cast aluminum, cast iron, and stain-
central support (Fig. 17c). It consists of a p-shaped arch less steel, was that UHPFRC is durable, and requires less
supporting a ribbed UHPFRC slab with a thickness of energy consumption for fabrication and for maintenance
30 mm, and transverse prestressing was provided by over time (Henry et al. 2011).
sheathed monostrands. With equivalent load carrying Mega-architectural projects were carried out to build the
capacity and strength properties, the bridge needed only half Stade Jean Bouin and the MuCEM in France (Fig. 19)
of the amount of materials required for conventional con- (NPCA 2011). In the case of the Stade Jean Bouin, the first
crete construction (Voo et al. 2014). The first UHPFRC application of a precast UHPFRC lattice-style facade sys-
highway bridge, built in Iowa, USA, is the Mars Hill bridge, tem in the world was made. The 23,000 m2 envelope,
as shown in Fig. 17d. This is a simple single-span bridge which contains a 12,000 m2 roof, was built from 3600 self-
consisting of three precast and prestressed concrete beams supporting UHPFRC panels that are 8–9 m long by 2.5 m
with a length of 33.5 m (modified 1.14-m-deep Iowa bulb- wide, and 45 mm thick. The MuCEM consists of several
tee beams), and the cast-in-place concrete bridge deck was types of precast UHPFRC structural elements, such as
topped. No stirrup was applied, and each beam included 47 78-m-long footbridge, main cubic structures with a
low-relaxation prestressing strands with a diameter of 15,000 m2 surface area, flooring, and lattice-style envelope
15.2 mm (Russell and Graybeal 2013). with a series of slender N- and Y-shaped columns. The
Curved UHPFRC panels were applied to the building architect designed the MuCEM to carry the entire external
named the Atrium, which was built in Victoria, BC, Canada load by columns, and to satisfy the maximum requirements
in 2013 (Fig. 18a) (NPCA 2011). In this project, UHPFRC regarding both seismic and fire resistance, as specified by
was selected as an appropriate material for the curved panel CSTB.

Fig. 17 Examples of UHPFRC applications in bridges.

138 | International Journal of Concrete Structures and Materials (Vol.10, No.2, June 2016)
 Fig. 18 Examples of UHPFRC applications in buildings.

Fig. 19 Mega architectural projects in France (NPCA 2011).

6. Conclusion bridging at crack surfaces, the shear failure of

UHPFRC beams was less abrupt than the commonly
This paper reviewed the current state-of-the-art for struc- seen shear failure mode in conventional concrete. In
tural performance, design recommendations, and applica- addition, both AFGC-SETRA and JSCE recommenda-
tions of UHPFRC. From the above literature review and tions provided accurate predictions of shear strength of
discussions, the following conclusions are drawn: UHPFRC beams.
(3) The inclusion of steel fibers provided a better cracking
(1) The use of 2 % steel fibers resulted in a higher post-
performance, higher ultimate and cracking torque, and
cracking stiffness and ultimate load capacity of steel
improved torsional stiffness. The higher ultimate torque
bar-reinforced UHPFRC beams, but it decreased their
was also found by increasing the ratios of stirrups and
ductility because of the superb bond strength with steel
longitudinal rebars. The diagonal crack angle was influ-
bars and crack localization characteristics. Importantly,
enced by the amount of stirrups and longitudinal rebars,
the use of UHPFRC was effective in overcoming the
whereas it was not affected by the amount of steel fibers.
major drawbacks of conventional FRP-reinforced con-
(4) Better impact resistance of reinforced UHPFRC beams
crete structures (large service deflection) due to its
was obtained by including 2 % steel fibers and a larger
strain-hardening response, and the use of CFRP bars
number of longitudinal steel bars. The residual capacity
was efficient in improving the flexural stiffness of
after impact damage was also improved by adding 2 %
reinforced UHPFRC beams, compared to that of GFRP
steel fibers and using the longer steel fibers. UHPFRC
bars. The hybrid reinforcements (steel ? FRP bars),
columns exhibited significantly higher blast resistance
which have been adopted to reduce the service
such as lower maximum deflection, improved damage
deflection of conventional FRP-reinforced beams, were
tolerance, and higher resistance, compared with the
ineffective in UHPFRC beams, and thus, the use of
reinforced SCC and NC columns. Thus, it was noted
single FRP bars, instead of hybrid reinforcements, was
that the application of UHPFRC in the structures
recommended for the case of UHPFRC.
subjected to blast loads is effective.
(2) With the inclusion of 2.5 % steel fibers, approximately
(5) Finally, the international design recommendations on
250 % higher shear strength was obtained, compared to
UHPFRC were discussed minutely, and examples of
that without fibers. The shear strength also increased
practical applications of UHPFRC in architectural and
with an increase in the fiber contents and a decrease in
civil structures were investigated.
the shear span-to-depth ratio. Due to the excellent fiber

International Journal of Concrete Structures and Materials (Vol.10, No.2, June 2016) | 139
 Acknowledgments Bache, H. H. (1981). Densified cement ultra-fine particle-based
materials. In Proceedings of the 2nd international confer-
This research was supported by a grant from a Construction ence on superplasticizers in concrete, Ottawa, Canada,
Technology Research Project 13SCIPS02 (Development of p. 33.
impact/blast resistant HPFRCC and evaluation technique Bertram, G., & Hegger, J. (2012). Shear behavior of preten-
thereof) funded by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and sioned UHPC beams—Tests and design. In Proceedings of
Transport. the third international symposium on UHPC and nan-
otechnology for high performance construction materials,
Kassel, pp. 493–500.
Open Access Birchall, J. D., Howard, A. J., & Kendall, K. (1981). Flexural
strength and porosity of cements. Nature, 289(5796),
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative 388–390.
Commons Attribution 4.0 International License CAN/CSA S806. (2002). Design and construction of building
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which per- components with fibre reinforced polymers, Rexdale,
mits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any Canada.
medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original CAN/CSA-S6. (2006). Canadian highway bridge design code,
author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Toronto, ON.
Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. CEB-FIP. (1993). Model code for concrete structures. CEB
Bulletin d’Information. Comite Euro international du
Beton, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Choi, W. C., Yun, H. D., Cho, C. G., & Feo, L. (2014).
References Attempts to apply high performance fiber-reinforced
cement composite (HPFRCC) to infrastructures in South
ACI Committee 440. (2006). Guide for the design and con- Korea. Composite Structures, 109, 211–223.
struction of concrete reinforced with FRP bars (ACI 440.1R- Cosenza, E., Manfredi, G., & Realfonzo, R. (1995). Analytical
06). Farmington Hills, MI: American Concrete Institute. modelling of bond between FRP reinforcing bars and
AFGC-SETRA. (2002). Ultra high performance fibre-rein- concrete. In L. Taerwe (Ed.), Proceedings of second
forced concretes. Interim recommendations. Bagneux, international RILEM symposium (FRPRCS-2) (pp.
France: SETRA. 164–171). London, UK: E and FN Spon.
Ahmad Firas, S., Foret, G., & Le Roy, R. (2011). Bond between DAfStB UHPC. (2003). State-of-the-art report on ultra high
carbon fibre-reinforced polymer (CFRP) bars and ultra high performance concrete—Concrete technology and design.
performance fibre reinforced concrete (UHPFRC): Experi- Deutscher Ausschuss für Stahlbeton/German Association
mental study. Construction and Building Materials, 25(2), for Reinforced Concrete, Berlin, Germany, draft 3.
479–485. Dancygier, A. N., & Berkover, E. (2016). Cracking localization
American Concrete Institute (ACI). (2014). Building code and reduced ductility in fiber-reinforced concrete beams
requirements for structural concrete and commentary. ACI with low reinforcement ratios. Engineering Structures, 111,
318-14 and ACI 318R-14. Farmington Hills, MI: American 411–424.
Concrete Institute (ACI). Empelmann, M., & Oettel, V. (2012). UHPFRC box girders under
Aoude, H., Dagenais, F. P., Burrell, R. P., & Saatcioglu, M. torsion. In Proceedings of the third international symposium
(2015). Behavior of ultra-high performance fiber reinforced on UHPC and nanotechnology for high performance con-
concrete columns under blast loading. International Jour- struction materials, Kassel, Germany, pp. 517–524.
nal of Impact Engineering, 80, 185–202. Farhat, F. A., Nicolaides, D., Kanellopoulos, A., & Karihaloo,
Astarlioglu, S., & Krauthammer, T. (2014). Response of nor- B. L. (2007). High performance fibre-reinforced cementi-
mal-strength and ultra-high-performance fiber-reinforced tious composite (CARDIFRC)—Performance and applica-
concrete columns to idealized blast loads. Engineering tion to retrofitting. Engineering Fracture Mechanics,
Structures, 61, 1–12. 74(1–2), 151–167.
Baby, F., Marchand, P., Atrach, M., & Toutlemonde, F. (2013a). Fehling, E., & Ismail, M. (2012). Experimental investigations
Analysis of flexure-shear behavior of UHPFRC beams on UHPC structural elements subjected to pure torsion. In
based on stress field approach. Engineering Structures, 56, Proceedings of the third international symposium on
194–206. UHPC and nanotechnology for high performance con-
Baby, F., Marchand, P., & Toutlemonde, F. (2013b). Shear struction materials, Kassel, Germany, pp. 501–508.
behavior of ultrahigh performance fiber-reinforced concrete Ferrier, E., Labossiere, P., & Neale, K. W. (2009). Mechanical
beams. I: Experimental investigation. Journal of Structural behavior of an innovative hybrid beam made of glulam and
Engineering, 140(5), 04013111. ultrahigh-performance concrete reinforced with FRP or
Baby, F., Marchand, P., & Toutlemonde, F. (2013c). Shear steel. Journal of Composites for Construction, 14(2),
behavior of ultrahigh performance fiber-reinforced concrete 217–223.
beams. II: Analysis and design provisions. Journal of Ferrier, E., Michel, L., Zuber, B., & Chanvillard, G. (2015).
Structural Engineering, 140(5), 04013112. Mechanical behaviour of ultra-high-performance short-

140 | International Journal of Concrete Structures and Materials (Vol.10, No.2, June 2016)
 fibre-reinforced concrete beams with internal fibre rein- elevated temperatures. International Journal of Concrete
forced polymer bars. Composites Part B: Engineering, 68, Structures and Materials, 10(1), 29–37.
246–258. Livermore Software Technology Corporation. (2007). LS-DYNA
Fujikake, K., Senga, T., Ueda, N., Ohno, T., & Katagiri, M. user’s manual—Version 971. Livermore, CA: Livermore
(2006a). Study on impact response of reactive powder Software Technology Corporation.
concrete beam and its analytical model. Journal of Mao, L., Barnett, S., Begg, D., Schleyer, G., & Wight, G.
Advanced Concrete Technology, 4(1), 99–108. (2014). Numerical simulation of ultra high performance
Fujikake, K., Senga, T., Ueda, N., Ohno, T., & Katagiri, M. fibre reinforced concrete panel subjected to blast loading.
(2006b). Effects of strain rate on tensile behavior of reac- International Journal of Impact Engineering, 64, 91–100.
tive powder concrete. Journal of Advanced Concrete NPCA White Paper. (2011). Ultra high performance concrete
Technology, 4(1), 79–84. (UHPC), guide to manufacturing architectural precast
Fujikake, K., Uebayashi, K., Ohno, T., Shimoyama, Y., & UHPC elements. http://precast.org/wp-content/uploads/
Katagiri, M. (2008). Dynamic properties of steel fiber 2011/05/NPCA-ultra-high-performance-concrete.pdf
reinforced mortar under high-rates of loadings and triaxial Orange, G., Acker, P., & Vernet, C. (1999). A new generation of
stress states. In Proceedings of the 7th international con- UHP concrete: DuctalÒ damage resistance and microme-
ference on structures under shock and impact (pp. chanical analysis. In Proceedings of the third international
437–446). Montreal, Canada: WIT Press. workshop on high performance fiber reinforced cement
Graybeal, B. A. (2008). Flexural behavior of an ultrahigh-per- composites (HPFRCC3), Mainz, Germany, pp. 101–111.
formance concrete I-girder. Journal of Bridge Engineering, Resplendino, J. (2004). First recommendations for ultra-high-
13(6), 602–610. performance concretes and examples of application. In
Graybeal, B., & Tanesi, J. (2007). Durability of an ultrahigh- Proceeding of the international symposium on ultra high
performance concrete. Journal of Materials in Civil Engi- performance concrete, University of Kassel, Kassel, Ger-
neering, 19(10), 848–854. many, pp. 79–90.
Hajar, Z., Lecointre, D., Simon, A., & Petitjean, J. (2004). Richard, P., & Cheyrezy, M. (1995). Composition of reactive
Design and construction of the world first ultra-high per- powder concretes. Cement and Concrete Research, 25(7),
formance concrete road bridges. In Proceeding of the 1501–1511.
international symposium on ultra high performance con- RILEM TC. (1994). RILEM recommendations for the testing
crete, University of Kassel, Kassel, Germany, pp. 39–48. and use of constructions materials. RC 6 bond test for
Henry, K. A., Seibert, P. J., & America, L. N. (2011). Manu- reinforcement steel. 2. Pull-out test, 1983 (pp. 218–220).
facturing UHPC architectural products. http://www.ductal. London, UK: E & FN SPON.
fr/CPI_-_OCTOBER_2011.pdf. Roy, D. M., Gouda, G. R., & Bobrowsky, A. (1972). Very high
Jaeger, G. L., Tadros, G., & Mufti, A. A. (1995). Balanced strength cement pastes prepared by hot pressing and other
section, ductility and deformability in concrete with FRP high pressure techniques. Cement and Concrete Research,
reinforcement. Technical report no. 2-1995, Nova Scotia 2(3), 349–366.
computer aided design/computer aided manufacturing Russell, H. G., & Graybeal, B. A. (2013). Ultra-high perfor-
centre, Technical University of Nova Scotia, Halifax, mance concrete: A state-of-the-art report for the bridge
Canada. community, FHWA-HRT-13-060.
JSCE. (2004). Recommendations for design and construction of Saleem, M. A., Mirmiran, A., Xia, J., & Mackie, K. (2011).
ultra-high strength fiber reinforced concrete structures Ultra-high-performance concrete bridge deck reinforced
(Draft). Tokyo, Japan: Japan Society of Civil Engineers. with high-strength steel. ACI Structural Journal, 108(5),
Jungwirth, J., & Muttoni, A. (2004). Structural behavior of 601–609.
tension members in UHPC. In Proceedings of the inter- Schäfers, M., & Seim, W. (2011). Investigation on bonding
national symposium on ultra-high-performance concrete, between timber and ultra-high performance concrete
Kassel, Germany, pp. 533–544. (UHPC). Construction and Building Materials, 25(7),
KCI. (2012). Design recommendations for ultra-high perfor- 3078–3088.
mance concrete K-UHPC. KCI-M-12-003. Seoul: Korea Tadepalli, P. R., Dhonde, H. B., Mo, Y. L., & Hsu, T. T. (2015).
Concrete Institute. Shear strength of prestressed steel fiber concrete I-beams.
Kim, S. W., Park, J. J., Kang, S. T., Ryo, G. S., & Koh, K. T. International Journal of Concrete Structures and Materi-
(2008). Development of ultra high performance cementi- als, 9(3), 267–281.
tious composites (UHPCC) in Korea. In Proceedings of the Tam, C. M., Tam, V. W., & Ng, K. M. (2012). Assessing drying
fourth international IABMAS conference, Seoul, Korea, shrinkage and water permeability of reactive powder con-
p. 110. crete produced in Hong Kong. Construction and Building
Lau, D., & Pam, H. J. (2010). Experimental study of hybrid Materials, 26(1), 79–89.
FRP reinforced concrete beams. Engineering Structures, Voo, Y. L., Foster, S. J., & Voo, C. C. (2014). Ultrahigh-per-
32(12), 3857–3865. formance concrete segmental bridge technology: Toward
Li, H., & Liu, G. (2016). Tensile properties of hybrid fiber- sustainable bridge construction. Journal of Bridge Engi-
reinforced reactive powder concrete after exposure to neering, 20(8), B5014001.

International Journal of Concrete Structures and Materials (Vol.10, No.2, June 2016) | 141
Voo, Y. L., Nematollahi, B., Said, A., Gopal, A., & Yee, T. Y. to low-velocity impact loading. Composite Structures, 126,
(2012). Application of ultra high performance fiber rein- 233–245.
forced concrete—The Malaysia perspective. International Yoo, D. Y., Banthia, N., & Yoon, Y. S. (2016). Flexural
Journal of Sustainable Construction Engineering and behavior of ultra-high-performance fiber-reinforced con-
Technology, 3(1), 26–44. crete beams reinforced with GFRP and steel rebars. Engi-
Voo, Y. L., Poon, W. K., & Foster, S. J. (2010). Shear strength neering Structures, 111, 246–262.
of steel fiber-reinforced ultrahigh-performance concrete Yoo, D. Y., Kang, S. T., & Yoon, Y. S. (2014a). Effect of fiber
beams without stirrups. Journal of Structural Engineering, length and placement method on flexural behavior, tension-
136(11), 1393–1400. softening curve, and fiber distribution characteristics of
Wambeke, B. W., & Shield, C. K. (2006). Development length UHPFRC. Construction and Building Materials, 64,
of glass fiber-reinforced polymer bars in concrete. ACI 67–81.
Structural Journal, 103(1), 11–17. Yoo, D. Y., Kwon, K. Y., Park, J. J., & Yoon, Y. S. (2015b).
Wu, C., Oehlers, D. J., Rebentrost, M., Leach, J., & Whittaker, Local bond-slip response of GFRP rebar in ultra-high-
A. S. (2009). Blast testing of ultra-high performance fibre performance fiber-reinforced concrete. Composite Struc-
and FRP-retrofitted concrete slabs. Engineering Structures, tures, 120, 53–64.
31(9), 2060–2069. Yoo, D. Y., Park, J. J., Kim, S. W., & Yoon, Y. S. (2014b).
Xia, J., Mackie, K. R., Saleem, M. A., & Mirmiran, A. (2011). Influence of reinforcing bar type on autogenous shrinkage
Shear failure analysis on ultra-high performance concrete stress and bond behavior of ultra high performance fiber
beams reinforced with high strength steel. Engineering reinforced concrete. Cement and Concrete Composites, 48,
Structures, 33(12), 3597–3609. 150–161.
Yang, I. H., Joh, C., & Kim, B. S. (2010). Structural behavior of Yoo, D. Y., Shin, H. O., Yang, J. M., & Yoon, Y. S. (2014c).
ultra high performance concrete beams subjected to bend- Material and bond properties of ultra high performance
ing. Engineering Structures, 32(11), 3478–3487. fiber reinforced concrete with micro steel fibers. Compos-
Yang, I. H., Joh, C., & Kim, B. S. (2011). Flexural strength of ites Part B: Engineering, 58, 122–133.
large-scale ultra high performance concrete prestressed Yoo, D. Y., & Yoon, Y. S. (2015). Structural performance of
T-beams. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 38(11), ultra-high-performance concrete beams with different steel
1185–1195. fibers. Engineering Structures, 102, 409–423.
Yang, I. H., Joh, C., Lee, J. W., & Kim, B. S. (2012). An Yoo, D. Y., Yoon, Y. S., & Banthia, N. (2015c). Impact and
experimental study on shear behavior of steel fiber-rein- residual capacities of ultra-high-performance concrete
forced ultra high performance concrete beams. Journal of beams with steel rebars. In Proceedings of the fifth inter-
The Korean Society of Civil Engineers, 32(1A), 55–64. national workshop on performance, protection &
Yang, I. H., Joh, C., Lee, J. W., & Kim, B. S. (2013). Torsional strengthening of structures under extreme loading, East
behavior of ultra-high performance concrete squared Lansing, MI.
beams. Engineering Structures, 56, 372–383. Yoon, Y. S., Yang, J. M., Min, K. H., & Shin, H. O. (2011).
Yi, N. H., Kim, J. H. J., Han, T. S., Cho, Y. G., & Lee, J. H. Flexural strength and deflection characteristics of high-
(2012). Blast-resistant characteristics of ultra-high strength strength concrete beams with hybrid FRP and steel rebar
concrete and reactive powder concrete. Construction and reinforcement. In Proceedings of the 10th symposium on
Building Materials, 28(1), 694–707. fiber reinforced polymer reinforcement for concrete struc-
Yoo, D. Y., & Banthia, N. (2015). Numerical simulation on tures (FRPRCS-10), SP-275-04, American Concrete Insti-
structural behavior of UHPFRC beams with steel and tute, Farmington Hills, MI, pp. 1–22.
GFRP bars. Computers and Concrete, 16(5), 759–774. Yudenfreund, M., Odler, I., & Brunauer, S. (1972). Hardened
Yoo, D. Y., Banthia, N., Kim, S. W., & Yoon, Y. S. (2015a). portland cement pastes of low porosity I. Materials and
Response of ultra-high-performance fiber-reinforced con- experimental methods. Cement and Concrete Research,
crete beams with continuous steel reinforcement subjected 2(3), 313–330.

142 | International Journal of Concrete Structures and Materials (Vol.10, No.2, June 2016)