TECHBRIEF

Finite Element Analysis of UHPC:

Structural Performance of an
AASHTO Type II Girder and a
2nd-Generation Pi-Girder
FHWA Publication No. of this TechBrief: FHWA-HRT-10-079
NTIS Accession No. of the report covered in this TechBrief:
PB2011-100864
FHWA Contact: Ben Graybeal, HRDI-40, 202-493-3122,
benjamin.graybeal@dot.gov
This document is a technical summary of the unpublished
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) report, Finite Element
Analysis of Ultra-High Performance Concrete: Modeling
Structural Performance of an AASHTO Type II Girder and a
2nd Generation Pi-Girder, available only through the National
Technical Information Service, www.ntis.gov.

Objective
This TechBrief highlights the results of a research program
that developed finite element analysis modeling techniques
applicable to ultra-high performance concrete (UHPC)
structural components.

Introduction
UHPC is an advanced cementitious composite material that
tends to exhibit superior properties such as exceptional
durability, increased strength, and long-term stability.(13)

Research, Development, and

Technology
Turner-Fairbank Highway
Research Center
6300 Georgetown Pike
McLean, VA 22101-2296
www.tfhrc.gov

This research program is aimed at developing general finite

element concepts within a commercially available finite
element package to facilitate the development of UHPC
structural systems. This investigation focused on calibrating
the proposed finite element models to a series of completed
full-scale structural tests on existing UHPC structural
components, including a prestressed UHPC American
Association of State Highway Transportation Officials
(AASHTO) Type II girder and a prestressed UHPC secondgeneration pi-girder.

Table 1 presents example mechanical properties

for the type of UHPC investigated in this study.
The properties far surpass those normally associated with concrete. The concrete damaged
plasticity (CDP) model was primarily employed
to model the constitutive behaviors of UHPC.(4,5)
It assumes isotropic damage elasticity combined with isotropic tensile and compressive
plasticity to represent the inelastic behavior of
concrete. Formation of tensile microcracks is
Table 1. UHPC Material Properties.

Property

Value
160 lb/ft3
(2,565 kg/m3)

Unit weight
Modulus of elasticity
Poissons ratio

Post-cracking
tensile strength
Ultimate tensile strength

Figure 1 depicts the typical assumed uniaxial

stress-strain relationship of UHPC. The CDP
parameters were calibrated through comparison to experimental structural test results,
including three on an I-girder and a series on
the second-generation pi-girder. The threedimensional (3-D) finite element models of the
I-girder and pi-girder test specimens are illustrated in figure 2 and figure 3.
Figure 1. UHPC Uniaxial Material Model.

7,6508,000 ksi
(5355 GPa)
0.18

Compressive strength

represented macroscopically with a softening

stress-strain relationship, and the compressive
plastic response is represented by stress hardening followed by strain softening beyond the
ultimate compressive strength.

(34)

-0.004

-0.002 -5 0 (-34) 0.002

29 ksi
(200 MPa)

-10

(-69)

-15

(-103)

1.42.3 ksi
(9.7 to 15.9 MPa)

-20

(-138)

0.0070.010

TENSION

COMPRESSION

-25

(-172)

-30

(-207)

Stress (ksi (MPa))

Finite Element Models and UHPC

0.004

0.006
Strain

0.008

Figure 2. 3-D Finite Element Models of I-Girders 80F, 24S, and 14S.

I-Girder 80F

I-Girder 24S

Figure 3. 3-D Finite Element Models of Pi-Girder and Pi-Girder with Joint.

I-Girder 14S

0.01

0.012

In the pi-girder models, nonlinear springs

replaced actual diaphragms and linear
springs replaced elastomeric pads in order to
facilitate modeling. Some idealized scenarios
were also investigated to complement the
experimental results and to suggest potential
future optimizations. Parametric studies were
presented to address issues such as mesh
sensitivity, concrete smeared cracking model,
different tension stiffening definitions, grouting
material, and contact interaction. Finite element
model-predicted results were compared with
experimentally captured measurements.

Figure 4. I-Girder 80F: Deflection at Midspan.

Deflection at Midspan (mm)
0

100

200

300

400

500
800

150

600

100

400

50

200

EXP
FEM

0
0

10

Applied Load (kN)

Applied Load (kips)

200

15

20

Deflection at Midspan (in.)

Figure 5. I-Girder 80F: Longitudinal Strains at Midspan.

Applied Load (kips)

200

Figure 6 and figure 7 present the predicted

deflections of the I-girders 24S and 14S along
six instrumentation lines spaced in the longitudinal direction in comparison with the experimental measurements that were modified by
excluding possible linear elastic deformation

800

150

600

100

EXP-Top
EXP-Bottom
FEM-Top
FEM-Bottom

50
0
-4000

4000

400
200

Applied Load (kN)

Figure 4 and figure 5 present a comparison of

midspan deflection and strain responses of the
I-girder 80F.

0
12000

8000

Longitudinal Strain at Midspan (microstrain)

Figure 6. I-Girder 24S: Deflection Along Specified Instrumentation Lines.

Deflection at Instrumentation Line (mm)
10

20

30

Deflection at Instrumentation Line (mm)

40

50

2500

500

2000

EXP 1-M
FEM 1
EXP 2-M
FEM 2
EXP 3-M
FEM 3

400
300
200
100
0
0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

1500
1000
500

Applied Load (kips)

3000

600

10

20

30

40

50

700
Applied Load (kN)

Applied Load (kips)

700

3000

600

2500

500
400
300
200
100
0

2.0

2000

EXP 4-M
FEM 4
EXP 5-M
FEM 5
EXP 6-M
FEM 6

0.0

0.5

Deflection at Instrumentation Line (in.)

1.0

1.5

1500
1000
500

Applied Load (kN)

0
2.0

Deflection at Instrumentation Line (in.)

Figure 7. I-Girder 14S: Deflection Along Specified Instrumentation Lines.

Deflection at Instrumentation Line (mm)

Deflection at Instrumentation Line (mm)

4

10

800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0

12

0
3500
2500
2000

EXP 1-M
FEM 1
EXP 2-M
FEM 2
EXP 3-M
FEM 3

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

1500
1000
500

Applied Load (kips)

3000

0
0.5

10

800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0

3000
2500
2000

EXP 4-M
FEM 4
EXP 5-M
FEM 5
EXP 6-M
FEM 6

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

Deflection at Instrumentation Line (in.)

12
3500

0.0

Deflection at Instrumentation Line (in.)

1500
1000
500
0
0.5

Applied Load (kN)

Applied Load (kN)

Applied Load (kips)

of the test supporting systems. In figure 7, the

slippage of the prestressing strands accounts
for the larger nonlinear deflection observed in
the experiment.

of the pigirder and pi-girder with joint at

midspan cross section in deformed shapes
under applied loads of 340 kips (1,512 kN) and
428kips (1,904kN), respectively.

Figure 8 through figure 13 present the experimental and finite element results on deflection,
longitudinal strain, leg spreading at midspan,
and diaphragm force for the pi-girder. Figure 14
through figure 19 show the experimental and
finite element results for the pi-girder with joint.

The results show that CDP models using appropriate parameters in any of the three types of
tension stiffening definitions can capture both
linear and nonlinear behaviors of the I-girders
and pi-girders reasonably well. The assumed
elastic-perfectly-plastic tensile stress-strain
relationship for UHPC used in the CDP models
is reasonable.

Figure 20 presents the finite elementpredicted maximum principal stress contours

Figure 8. Pi-Girder: Deflection of Bulb at Midspan.

Figure 9. Pi-Girder: Deflection of Middeck at Midspan.

Deflection of Bulb at Midspan (mm)

15

Deflection at Midspan and Middeck (mm)

20

350

1200

250

1000

200

800

150

EXP NORTH

100

600

EXP SOUTH

400

FEM (CDP)

50

200

FEM (CSC)

0
0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

Applied Load (kips)

1400

300

0.8

1400
1200
1000

200

800

150

600

100

EXP

0.2

0.4

200

800

150

600

100

400

EXP
FEM (CDP)
FEM (CSC)

50
0
600

200
0

1400
1200

250

1000

200

800

150

600

100
50
0
-300

800

400

EXP
FEM (CDP)
FEM (CSC)

200
0

-250

-200

1400
1000

200

800

150

600
EXP
FEM (CDP)
FEM (CSC)

0.6

0.8

Bulb Lateral Spreading at Midspan (inches)

400
200
0
1.0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140
1400

300

Applied Load (kips)

1200

250

0.4

350

Applied Load (kN)

Applied Load (kips)

25

300

0.2

-50

Diaphragm Force (kN)

20

350

0.0

-100

Figure 13. Pi-Girder: Diaphragm Force.

Bulb Lateral Spreading at Midspan (mm)

-150

Longitudinal Strain above Webs (Top) at Midspan (microstrain)

Figure 12. Pi-Girder: Bulb Lateral Spreading at Midspan.

50

0
1.0

300

Longitudinal Strain on Bulbs (Bottom) at Midspan (microstrain)

100

0.8

350

Applied Load (kips)

1000

15

0.6

Figure 11. Pi-Girder: Longitudinal Strain on Deck

Surface Immediately Above Web at Midspan.

Applied Load (kN)

Applied Load (kips)

1200

250

10

200

FEM (CSC)

Deflection at Midspan and Middeck (inches)

1400

400

FEM (CDP)

50
0.0

300

25

250

1.0

350

400

20

Figure 10. Pi-Girder: Longitudinal Strain on Bulb

Bottom Surface at Midspan.

200

15

300

Deflection of Bulb at Midspan (inches)

10

350

Applied Load (kN)

Applied Load (kips)

25

Applied Load (kN)

10

Applied Load (kN)

1200

250

1000

200

800

150

600

100

EXP
FEM (CDP)
FEM (CSC)

50
0
0

10

15

20

25

30

400
200

Applied Load (kN)

0
35

Diaphragm Force (kips)

Figure 14. Pi-Girder with Joint: Deflection of Bulbs at

Midspan.

Figure 15. Pi-Girder with Joint: Deflection of Deck

Near Joint at Midspan.
Deflection of Deck near Joint at Midspan (mm)

Deflection of Bulbs at Midspan (mm)

15

20

25

30

200

1000

EXP SOUTH
EXP NORTH

100

500

FEM SOUTH
FEM NORTH

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Applied Load (kips)

1500

300

Applied Load (kN)

Applied Load (kips)

2000

400

20

25

30
2000
1500

300
200

EXP NORTH
FEM NORTH

0.0

1000

EXP SOUTH
EXP NORTH

500

FEM SOUTH
FEM NORTH

500

1000

1500

2000

Applied Load (kips)

1500

300

0
2500

1500

300
200

EXP NORTH

100

0
-600

-400

10

15

500

EXP
FEM

0
0.6

Bulb Lateral Spreading at Midspan (inches)

Applied Load (kips)

1000

200

50

100

150

200

500

Applied Load (kN)

1500

300

0.4

-200

Longitudinal Strain above Webs (Top) at Midspan (microstrain)

2000

0.2

500

FEM SOUTH

Diaphragm Force (kN)

400

0.0

1000

EXP SOUTH

Figure 19. Pi-Girder with Joint: Diaphragm Force.

500

0
1.2

2000

Bulb Lateral Spreading at Midspan (mm)

100

1.0

FEM NORTH

Figure 18. Pi-Girder with Joint: Bulb Lateral

Spreading at Midspan.
5

0.8

400

Longitudinal Strain on Bulbs (Bottom) at Midspan (microstrain)

0.6

500

Applied Load (kN)

400

0.4

Figure 17. Pi-Girder with Joint: Longitudinal Strain on

Deck Top Surface Immediately Above Webs at Midspan.

2000

100

0.2

Deflection of Deck near Joint at Midspan (inches)

500

200

500

FEM SOUTH

1000

EXP SOUTH

100

1.2

Figure 16. Pi-Girder with Joint: Longitudinal Strain

on Bulb Bottom Surface at Midspan.

Applied Load (kips)

15

400

Deflection of Bulbs at Midspan (inches)

Applied Load (kips)

10

500

Applied Load (kN)

10

500

Applied Load (kN)

2000

400

1500

300

1000

200
100

500

EXP
FEM

0
0

10

20

30

Applied Load (kN)

0
40

Diaphragm Force (kips)

Figure 8. Pi-Girder with Joint: Deection, Longitudinal Strain on Bulb Bottom Surface, Leg Spreading at

Figure 20. Stress Contours from Modeled Pi-Girder

Test Simulations.

Midspan, and Diaphragm Force.

Conclusions

The CDP model replicates the observed

responses better than the concrete smeared
cracking model in the prestressed UHPC
I-girders and second-generation pi-girders. The
CDP model, using appropriate parameters in
any of three types of tension stiffening definitions, can capture both linear and nonlinear
behaviors of the modeled tests. The proposed
modeling techniques, including nonlinear
spring diaphragms, linear spring pads, automatic stabilization, and contact interaction,

References

were demonstrated to be effective. The failure mechanics in the physical tests have been
investigated with additional information provided by the models.

1. Graybeal, B. (2006). Material Property

Characterization of Ultra-High Performance
Concrete, Report No. FHWA-HRT-06-103,
Federal Highway Administration, McLean, VA.

Future Research

2. Graybeal, B. (2006). Structural Behavior of

Ultra-High Performance Concrete Prestressed
I Girders, Report No. FHWA-HRT-06-115,
Federal Highway Administration, McLean, VA.

The research completed in this study has led to

the initiation of a number of related studies. A
family of UHPC pi-girder cross sections applic
able to a range of span lengths and configurations is under development. Combined effects
of discrete and fiber reinforcements on UHPC
are under investigation. Other full-scale UHPC
structural component tests are being modeled
in order to gain a greater understanding of the
performance of precast UHPC components and
field-cast UHPC connections.

3. Graybeal, B. (2009). Structural Behavior of

a 2nd Generation Ultra-High Performance
Concrete Pi-Girder, Federal Highway
Administration, McLean, VA.
4. Chen, W.F. (1982). Plasticity in Reinforced
Concrete, McGraw-Hill, New York.
5. SIMULIA. (2009). Abaqus Software and
Documentation, Version 6.9-1, Dassault
Systmes, Providence, RI.

ResearchersThis study was completed by contract staff at the Turner-Fairbank Highway Research
Center under the direction of Ben Graybeal. Additional information can be gained by contacting
him at 202-493-3122 or in the FHWA Office of Infrastructure Research and Development located at
6300 Georgetown Pike, McLean, VA 22101.
DistributionThe unpublished report covered in this TechBrief is being distributed through the
National Technical Information Service, www.ntis.gov.
AvailabilityThe report will be available in November 2010 and may be obtained from the
National Technical Information Service, www.ntis.gov.
Key WordsUltra-high performance concrete, UHPC, Finite element analysis, FEA, Abaqus,
Concrete smeared cracking, and Concrete damaged plasticity.
NoticeThis document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of
Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability
for the use of the information contained in this document. The U.S. Government does not endorse
products or manufacturers. Trademarks or manufacturers names appear in this TechBrief only
because they are considered essential to the objective of the document.
Quality Assurance StatementThe Federal Highway Administration provides high-quality
information to serve Government, industry, and the public in a manner that promotes public
understanding. Standards and policies are used to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity,
utility, and integrity of its information. FHWA periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its
programs and processes to ensure continuous quality improvement.
November 2010

FHWA-HRT-10-079
HRDI-40/11-10(150)E