Materials and Structures (2017)50:55
DOI 10.1617/s11527-016-0914-5
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Fiber orientation distribution and tensile mechanical
response in UHPFRC
Luis Felipe Maya Duque . Benjamin Graybeal
Received: 18 September 2015 / Accepted: 8 June 2016
Ó RILEM 2016
Abstract In this study, the crucial effect of the fiber
orientation distribution on the tensile mechanical
response of ultra high performance fiber reinforced
concretes (UHPFRC) is discussed. A direct tension
test method was used to characterize the tensile
response of a UHPFRC material as well as to assess
the actual tensile response along the principal direc-
tions in a real-scale UHPFRC structural element.
Moreover, the actual fiber orientation distribution was
evaluated in representative sections through an image
analysis technique. The experimental results validated
the anisotropy in the fiber orientation distribution and,
consequently, in the tensile mechanical properties as a
consequence of the casting process and the flow
pattern. The concept of the fiber orientation factor was
discussed as well as the approaches currently adopted
Luis Felipe Maya Duque is formerly affiliated with the Turner
Fairbank Highway Research Center. U.S Federal Highway
Administration, USA.
L. F. Maya Duque (&)
Exergy Ltd., The Technocentre, Coventry University
Technology Park, Puma Way, Coventry CV1 2TT, UK
e-mail: femayadu@gmail.com
B. Graybeal
Turner Fairbank Highway Research Center, U.S Federal
Highway Administration, 6300 Georgetown Pike,
McLean, VA 22101, USA
e-mail: benjamin.graybeal@dot.gov
to implement robust and reliable safety factors
accounting for the fiber orientation distribution impact
on the design methodologies for UHPFRC. Finally,
the need of a comprehensive design framework for
UHPFRC structures was highlighted in order to allow
for fully exploitation of the material properties.
Keywords Fiber orientation  Orientation factor 
Tensile response  Direct tension test  Image analysis 
UHPFRC
1 Introduction
Ultra-high performance fiber reinforced concrete
(UHPFRC) is a class of cementitious composite
material that exhibits exceptional mechanical and
durability properties. These materials are usually
characterized by compressive strength greater than
150 MPa and the use of fibers as reinforcement, which
allows for sustained postcracking tensile strength and
toughness increase [1–3]. Those exceptional tensile
mechanical properties have been of interest for the
civil infrastructure community as they might lead to
new design and construction concepts.
The unique tensile response of UHPFRC is affected
not only by the material formulation but also by the
casting method and element production process. These
factors affect the actual fiber distribution and orienta-
tion, and thus the mechanical tensile response. More-
over, fiber properties (e.g., strength, stiffness,
55 Page 2 of 17
Poisson’s ratio, geometry, shape, and volume), matrix
properties (e.g., strength, stiffness, Poisson’s ratio,
compactness), as well as interface properties need to be
carefully considered during the material formulation.
Despite the exceptional properties, the industrial
uptake and engagement of UHPFRC within the civil
infrastructure has been limited. Among the different
factors that need to be addressed to promote the
widespread use of UHPFRC, the development of
specific design standards is regarded as crucial. In
doing so, reliable tests and methodologies for quan-
tifying the mechanical properties, in particular the
tensile response, are required. Those methodologies
must account for the material anisotropy and facilitate
the quality control and the performance assessment of
UHPFRC structural elements.
2 Tensile response
An efficient use of UHPFRC for infrastructure appli-
cations requires a throughout understanding and
quantification of the singularities of its tensile
mechanical behavior. Figure 1 presents the idealized
tensile response of UHPFRC, which is characterized
by an initial elastic response until the first cracking of
the composite, the subsequent multi-cracking and
crack straining domains and the final strain localiza-
tion at a discrete crack [4].
The fiber volume fraction for UHPFRC is usually
relatively high, over 2.0 %, and the fiber dispersion
and orientation distribution are usually assumed to be
uniform, which enable the material to be often
considered as homogeneous and isotropic. However,
the actual dispersion and orientation distribution of the
fibers are definitely affected by the material formula-
tion, the casting method and the production process.
Fig. 1 Idealized tensile response for UHPFRC [4]
Materials and Structures (2017)50:55
Therefore, the impact of these factors and the conse-
quent anisotropy and non-homogeneity of the mechan-
ical properties must be properly accounted for in order
to enable safe, economic and sustainable UHPFRC
designs.
The influence of the material formulation on the
mechanical and physical properties of UHPFRC has
been the subject of a number of research initiatives.
Analytic models as well as experimental validations
have enabled mix formulation optimization to ensure
the achievement of exceptional mechanical and dura-
bility properties while controlling the rheology and
workability of the material for a proper fiber distribu-
tion [5–8]. Likewise, the impact of the casting method
and the production process on the final orientation and
distribution of the fibers have been experimentally
studied, among others, by Ferrara et al. [9], Martinie
and Roussel [10], Oesterlee et al. [11], and Wille et al.
[12]. Several techniques have been employed to assess
the fiber distribution, including image analysis
[12–14] and non destructive methods based on elec-
trical resistivity measurements [15, 16] and alternating
current-impedance spectroscopy (AC-IS) [17, 18].
Furthermore, probabilistic approaches have been
employed to account for the fiber distribution and
the fiber orientation [13, 14, 19, 20], as well as
numerical models to simulate the distribution of the
fibers and their orientation during the flow [16, 21, 22].
2.1 Orientation factor
In order to account for the effect of the fiber
orientation distribution on the tensile mechanical
response of fiber reinforced concretes, fiber orienta-
tion factor concepts are usually considered. Several
analytical and empirical approaches for the fiber
orientation factor have been discussed in the literature.
Soroushian and Lee [23] presented a formulation for
the average fiber orientation factor using a uniform
probability function for the distribution of the incli-
nation angle of the fibers with respect to two perpen-
dicular axes that are parallel to the crack surface. As
suggested by Aveston and Kelly [24], other
approaches have considered variable probability den-
sities for the inclination angle between the fiber axis
and the cut plane [14, 19, 20, 25, 26]. Based on that
latter approach, and assuming a sine function for the
probability density function of the angle of the fiber to
the normal vector to the cut plane, the orientation
Materials and Structures (2017)50:55
factor has been derived for two- and three-dimensional
(2D and 3D) uniform cases, and it is equal to 2/p and
0.5, respectively [20].
Following the Soroushian and Lee approach [23], a
first expression for the calculation of the fiber orien-
tation factor a was defined as the ratio between the
actual number of fibers counted in a cross section to
the average theoretical number estimated in the
section, Eq. (1).
N Af
aeq:1 ¼ ð1Þ
Ap Vf
where N is the total number of fibers crossing an area
Ap , Vf is the fiber volume fraction, and Af is the fiber
cross sectional area. However, two main drawbacks
have been pointed out for this definition of the fiber
orientation factor. First, the actual theoretical number
of fibers in a cross section is usually overestimated by
the approximate method adopted, and, second, the fact
that counting the number of fibers does not directly
reflect the actual inclination of the fibers with respect
to the cross section and thus their effectiveness [6, 22].
Therefore, an alternative definition of the fiber orien-
tation factor has been adopted by other researchers
[12, 22, 27], Eq. (2).
1X n
1X n
bi
aeq:2 ¼ cos hi ¼ ð2Þ
N i¼1 N i¼1 ai
where N is again the total number of fibers in the cut
section, hi is the angle between the fiber axis and the
vector normal to the cut plane, a1 is the major axis of
the elliptical footprint of the fiber on the cut plane, and
bi is the minor axis of the elliptical footprint of the
fiber on the cut plane, which is equal to the diameter of
the fiber, see Fig. 2. The fiber footprint for a fiber
perpendicular to the cut plane is a circle and the
footprint is an ellipse which major axis is larger as the
angle of inclination between the fiber longitudinal axis
and the vector normal to the cut plane increases.
2.2 Codes and recommendations
There are currently a number of standards and
recommendations that provide methods to character-
ize the material properties of fiber reinforced concrete
materials as well as specific design guidelines for these
materials [28–31]. However, there are substantial
differences among the approaches adopted in the
Page 3 of 17 55
different design guidelines for quantifying the tensile
mechanical response of fiber reinforced concretes and
defining their constitutive models [32]. As for
UHPFRC in particular, there are limited specific
design guidelines available [1, 33], from which the
recommendations developed by the Association Fran-
caise de Gènie Civil (AFGC) [1] might represent the
main reference document. Unlike most of the design
recommendations for fiber reinforced concrete, the
AFGC recommendations for UHPFRC explicitly
accounts for the impact of the fiber orientation
distribution on the tensile material constitutive model
and, thus, on the structural design through the
definition of specific reduction factors. In order to
determine the reduction factors, denominated K factors
in the AFGC recommendations, a series of suitability
tests must be completed under conditions that repre-
sent the stress states of the element in the real
structure. The AFGC recommendations distinguishes
between global and local K factors, Kglobal and Klocal , in
order to take into account possible local effects and the
potential inability of stress redistribution. The mini-
mum value for the K factor is 1.0 and higher values
reflect negative fiber orientation effects. In an initial
design stage and only for pre-dimensioning purposes
the AFGC recommendations suggests values of 1.25
and 1.75 for Kglobal and Klocal , respectively. The
reduction factor affects only the non-linear part of
the tensile constitutive law in the form of 1/K. More
recently, the fib Model Code 2010 [30] has adopted a
more comprehensive approach for fiber reinforced
concrete materials which also covers UHPFRC mate-
rials. The innovative approach also accounts explicitly
for the influence of fiber orientation distribution in a
Fig. 2 Parameters defining fiber orientation in a section
55 Page 4 of 17 Materials and Structures (2017)50:55

similar fashion that the AFGC recommendations, i.e,
the determination of reduction factors. However, the
fib Model Code 2010 does not provide specific
guidelines on the quantification of those factors.
3 Experimental validation
A comprehensive approach for designing and manu-
facturing UHPFRC structural elements must consider
the effect of the fiber orientation distribution on the
mechanical performance through suitable and repre-
sentative experimental validation. In this paper that
design approach has been pursued in the framework of
a large ongoing research project on structural effi-
ciency of fiber reinforcement which comprises tests at
both material and semi-structural levels. The experi-
mental validation and results presented in this paper
aim at studying and discussing the current approach to
account for the fiber orientation distribution effect on
the tensile mechanical properties at the material level.
For that purpose, the actual tensile properties were
quantified and the fiber orientation distribution was
assessed using specimens representative of the actual
conditions in structural elements. The correlation
between the performance at structural level and the
design methodologies integrating the study at material
level is going to be addressed through ongoing semi-
structural tests, which are out of the scope of this
paper.
3.1 Specimen preparation
smooth surfaces and facilitate the releasing of the cast
elements. The UHPFRC was poured at one end of the
formwork using a wide wooden chute and the material
was let flow freely to fill completely the formwork,
which was placed slightly inclined. Along with the
slab elements, cylinders and prismatic specimens were
cast for material characterization. A total of twelve
cylinders (72 mm diameter and 152 mm height) were
cast for each slab using plastic molds. Likewise,
twelve prismatic elements (50.8 mm wide, 50.8 mm
thick and 431.8 mm long) were cast for each slab
element using metallic molds.
The slabs and the companion elements were
covered with a tarp for one day after cast and then
left curing at ambient conditions for over six months.
Prismatic elements (50.8 mm wide, 50.8 mm thick
and 431.8 mm long) were then cut from one of the slab
elements using a table saw. The prismatic elements
were cut at three different inclinations with respect to
the direction of the flow during the casting; parallel,
perpendicular and at 45 with respect to the flow
direction as it is shown in the layout in Fig. 4.
3.2 Uniaxial direct tension test
Uniaxial direct tension tests were carried out on
prismatic specimens. The tests were performed fol-
lowing the test method developed by Graybeal and
Baby [4], which allows for testing both mold cast and
extracted specimens. The specimens were tested under
actuator displacement control at a constant

A total of five slabs were cat using a proprietary

UHPFRC material, which basic formulation has been
detailed elsewhere [4]. The steel fibers used were non-
deformed, cylindrical, high tensile strength steel with
a diameter of 0.2 mm, a length of 12.7 mm, and a
minimum tensile strength of 2.4 GPa. A fiber rein-
forcement volume fraction of 2.0 % was used in this
study. The slabs were 3048 mm long, 914 mm wide
and 50.8 mm thick. The casting process aimed at
mimicking usual manufacturing processes for similar
structural elements. The formwork consisted of an
open wooden bottom part and a top acrylic plate kept
in place by using clamps in order to have a confined
flow, Fig. 3. A thin polyurethane layer was applied on
the internal faces of the wooden formwork to ensure Fig. 3 Slab elements formwork ready for casting
Materials and Structures (2017)50:55
Fig. 4 Layout of prismatic elements cut from UHPFRC slab
Fig. 5 Uniaxial direct tension test, Graybeal and Baby [4]
displacement rate of 0.00254 mm/s. Figure 5 shows a
general detail of the test configuration, further details
can be obtained from Graybeal and Baby [4]
3.3 Image analysis
After completion of the direct tension tests, a series of
image analysis were carried out on sections cut out from
the prismatic elements. The cross sections analyzed
were cut perpendicular to the larger axis of the prismatic
elements, which also corresponded to the main loading
direction during the direct tension tests. The sections
were cut at a distance of 1.5 times the fiber length from
the main crack so that fiber orientation and distribution
were representative of those at the crack location while
avoiding missing fibers that were actually pulled out
during the tests [12]. The section were then polished
under wet conditions. All samples were analyzed in a
FEI Quanta 650 ESEM using backscattered electron
detector at 15 kV of voltage and MAPS software for
Page 5 of 17 55
large mapping capability. The final composed images
derived from the ESEM scanning were then processed
and analyzed using an open source image processing
software to identify the footprints of the fibers inter-
cepted at the cut plane [34]. In general, the procedure for
the fiber detection and analysis started by cropping the
composed images and then converting the gray-scale
image to a binary image using a thresholding algorithm.
In a subsequent step, the image was filtered to disregard
the small particles detected, using in this case a threshold
based on the area of the particles. Finally, ellipses were
fitted to the oval-shaped fiber footprints on the cut plane
and the dimensions and local position of each fiber were
registered.
4 Results and discussion
4.1 Tensile response
The direct tension test method allowed for quantifying
the tensile response of both cast and extracted
specimens. The stress versus average axial strain
results for the four sets of specimens are shown in
Fig. 6. Specimen sets F0, F45 and F90 correspond,
respectively, to prismatic specimens extracted from
the slab element at 0, 45 and 90 degrees with respect to
the direction of the flow during the casting. Specimen
set FEC corresponds to the companion prismatic
specimens cast in molds. The thin lines in Fig. 6
correspond to individual specimens, while the thick
lines are the averages for each specimen set. Table 1
summarizes the main average results for each speci-
men set, i.e., compressive strength, elastic modulus,
first cracking stress, average multi-cracking strength,
and strain at localization.
55 Page 6 of 17
Fig. 6 Tensile response of prismatic specimens
For the specimens tested a clear discontinuity was
observed at the moment of the first crack and thus the
stress value at that local maximum was registered as
the first cracking stress. Likewise, the ultimate strain
and the corresponding stress were registered at the
local maximum point where the softening tensile
response started. The specimen set F0, which corre-
sponded to specimens extracted parallel to the material
flow direction, overperformed the rest of the specimen
sets in terms of average cracking stress, average multi-
cracking stress, strain at localization and elastic
modulus. A significant reduction in the average first
cracking stress and the average multi-cracking stress
was observed for specimen sets F45 and F90 in
comparison to specimen set F0. Those reductions,
over 50 % for set F90 and 40 % for set F45, suggest a
strong influence of the fiber orientation distribution
not only on the post-cracking response, usually
determined by the fiber bridging mechanisms, but
also on the first cracking stress, which is sometimes
Table 1 Tensile response of prismatic specimens
Set Compressive strength Elastic modulus First cracking stress
(MPa) (GPa) (MPa)
F0 176.5 63.5 9.9
F45 60.3 7.0
F90 57.1 5.1
FEC 59.3 8.5
Materials and Structures (2017)50:55
related to the tensile strength of the unreinforced
matrix. The average strain at crack localization for sets
F45 and F90 was also around 50 % of the strain
observed for set F0. In general, the small differences
between the first cracking stress and the average multi-
cracking stress is directly related to the low strain-
hardening response, which is however observed as
indicated by the strain domain registered prior the
crack localization. In fact, the AFGC recommenda-
tions for UHPFRC defines three different types of
tensile constitutive laws, i.e., strain softening, low
strain-hardening, and high strain-hardening, which not
only depend on the material but also on the production
and placing methods [1]. Most of the UHPFRCs
currently available on the market correspond to low
strain-hardening fiber reinforced concrete, whose
average constitutive laws exhibit strain-hardening
behavior but might be strain softening in terms of
the characteristic law. For those materials and from a
structural design standpoint, a maximum value of
0.0025 is usually adopted for the ultimate tensile strain
in the tensile constitutive law, which is of the order of
the maximum value observed for sets F45 and F90.
The reduction in the elastic modulus was less signif-
icant and not conclusive, it was, respectively, 5 and
10 % for specimen sets F45 and F90 in comparison to
specimen set F0. In general, the results confirm the
anisotropy in the tensile mechanical properties, which
is mostly due to fiber orientation effects induced by the
casting conditions and the material flow. Moreover,
the results reinforce the need to explicitly account for
the fiber orientation distribution and thus the aniso-
tropy of the tensile properties in the design guidelines.
4.2 Fiber orientation
The actual fiber orientation distribution was studied
through an image analysis method. Twelve cross
sections from prismatic specimens previously tested
Average multi-cracking Strain at localization eu
stress (MPa) (m/m)
11.4 0.0060
7.1 0.0027
5.6 0.0029
10.1 0.0035
Materials and Structures (2017)50:55 Page 7 of 17 55

specimen sets, i.e, specimens extracted from the slab

Fig. 7 Image analysis, representative cross sections; FEC (S-
41M), F0 (S-9), F45 (S-18), F90 (S-23)
under the direct tension test method were analyzed.
The studied sections were perpendicular to the loading
direction during the tension tests. Figure 7 shows
representative cross sections for the different
element at 0, 45 and 90 degrees with respect to the
direction of the material flow, as well as mold cast
specimens.
Table 2 summarizes the main results from the
image analysis completed. The average number of
fibers detected on the cross sections for each specimen
are reported along with the calculated orientation
factors. The average orientation factors were calcu-
lated first based on the number of fibers detected in the
cross sections, Eq. 1, and second based on the
estimated inclination of the fibers with respect to the
normal vector to the cross section, Eq. 2.
The average number of fibers detected on the cross
sections decreased for specimen sets F45 and F90 in
comparison to specimen sets F0 and FEC. Therefore,
the orientation factor calculated as defined by Eq. 1
decreased as well. An orientation factor value of 0.72
was obtained for specimen set F0, for which the
average amount of fibers detected was around twice of
the average amount of fibers detected for the specimen
set F90, whose fiber orientation factor was calculated
as 0.37. In turn, the orientation factor calculated as
defined by Eq. 2, which considers not only the number
of fibers but also their inclination with respect to the

Table 2 Fiber orientation factor values for specimen sets F0, F45, F90, and FEC
Casting method Vf df lf Specimen N fibres Orientation fct;max eu
(%) (mm) (mm) factor (MPa)
Eq. 1 Eq. 2

Extracted specimens Extracted at 90 2.0 0.20 13 S5-0 629 0.43 0.71 6.4 0.0041
(3000 9 1000 9 50 mm (perpendicular to S23-0 492 0.33 0.60 6.1 0.0028
horizontally cast slab) flow direction)
S46-0 543 0.36 0.65 7.3 0.0031
F90
Average 555 0.37 0.65 6.6 0.0033
Extracted at 45 S18-45 775 0.52 0.70 7.3 0.0031
(with respect to S39-45 843 0.57 0.75 6.7 0.0023
flow direction)
S59-45 937 0.63 0.77 9.7 0.0054
F45
Average 852 0.57 0.74 7.9 0.0036
Extracted at 0 S9-90 1112 0.75 0.86 12.3 0.0039
(parallel to flow S28-90 1160 0.71 0.83 13.9 0.0065
direction)
S52-90 1036 0.70 0.80 12.8 0.0078
F0
Average 1103 0.72 0.83 13.0 0.0061
Mold cast specimens Pour from one end S41M 1079 0.72 0.85 9.0 0.0037
(50.8 9 50.8 9 431.8mm) FEC S42M 1001 0.67 0.85 10.8 0.0043
S46M 1061 0.71 0.86 9.4 0.0023
Average 1047 0.70 0.85 9.73 0.0034
55 Page 8 of 17 Materials and Structures (2017)50:55

main longitudinal axis of the prismatic specimen,
decreased from 0.83 for specimen set F0 to 0.65 for
specimen set F90.
Table 3 compiles results from previous studies
completed on UHPFRC components and where the
orientation factor was directly evaluated. Some
authors reported values of the orientation factor
calculated according to Eq. 1 in two or three orthog-
onal directions. As for the data reported in Table 3, the
orientation factor aeq:1;1 refers to the factor calculated
in the cross section perpendicular to the direction of
the principal tensile stress applied, aeq:1;2 refers to the
factor calculated in the cross section perpendicular to
the main transverse axis of the element and thus

Table 3 Fiber orientation factors on UHPFRC specimens—review

Reference Casting method Vf (%) df (mm) lf (mm) Specimen Orientation factor ftu (MPa) eu
set
aeq:1;1 aeq:1;2 aeq:1;3 aeq:2;1

Osterlee [11] Extracted specimens 3.00 0.16 13 T2H 0.19 0.79 – – 2.9a –
Vertically cast T6H-1 0.67 0.49 – – 9.7a c
panel a c
3000 9 1500 mm T6H-2 0.74 0.39 – – 14.9
T7H-1 0.79 0.36 – – 12.8a c

T2V 0.63 0.53 – – 7.4a c

T4V 0.75 0.55 – – 14.1a c

T6V 0.53 0.50 – – 12.2a c

Ferrara et al. Horizontally cast 1.27 0.16 13 A 0.85 0.44 – – – –

[9] slabs 1000 9 500 B 0.76 0.54 – – – –
mm poured from
center of: A. long
edge, B. short edge
Wuest [35] Horizontally cast 6.00 0.20 10 CM0-98-T4 0.66 0.57 0.25 – 10.7a 0.0010
dog-bones 100 mm CM22-94-T5 0.53 0.67 0.35 – 10.4a d
central width
CM23-P-T1 0.77 0.57 0.33 – 14a 0.0011
4.00 0.16 13 HIFCOM-14- 0.70 0.38 0.24 – 13a 0.0024
T2
Horizontally cast 6.00 0.20 10 CM0-05-TE1 0.37 0.72 0.61 – 5.2a –
rectangular plates CM22-3-e 0.65 0.53 0.34 – 14a 0.0029
200 mm central
width
UHPFRC overlay 6.00 0.20 10 SAMD2 0.58 0.68 – – – –
Wille [12] Beam specimens 1.50 0.18 6 S1 0.67 – – 0.66 16.5b –
150 9 150 9 500 1.25/0.75 0.18/0.18 6/18 S2 0.65 – – 0.65 27.2b –
mm cast from one
end S3 0.69 – – 0.66 17.0b –
S4 0.66 – – 0.64 15.5b –
1.50 0.15 13 S5 0.78 – – 0.78 24.9b –
S6 0.74 – – 0.78 24.4b –
S7 0.71 – – 0.79 20.8b –
4.85 0.18 9 S8 0.65 – – 0.65 27.9b –
S9 0.65 – – 0.67 31.7b –
S10 0.59 – – 0.63 26.7b –
1.0/2.0 0.18/0.15 9/13 S11 0.81 – – 0.73 27.7b –
S12 0.65 – – 0.69 27.5b –
S13 0.86 – – 0.74 32.4b –
1.0/2.65 0.18/0.30 9/17.5 S14 0.65 – – 0.67 24.3b –
S15 0.69 – – 0.70 25.1b –
1.0/3.5 0.18/0.30 9/17.5 S16 0.62 – – 0.70 29.8b –
S17 0.63 – – 0.70 30.0b –
1.25/2.68 0.18/0.30 6/17.5 S18 0.64 – – 0.69 26.9b –
S19 0.71 – – 0.69 27.0b –
1.0/1.5 0.18/0.38 9/30 S20 0.69 – – 0.66 24.3b –
Materials and Structures (2017)50:55 Page 9 of 17 55

Table 3 Fiber orientation factors on UHPFRC specimens—review

Reference Casting method Vf (%) df (mm) lf (mm) Specimen Orientation factor ftu (MPa) eu
set
aeq:1;1 aeq:1;2 aeq:1;3 aeq:2;1

S21 0.75 – – 0.69 30.4b –

1.0/1.78 0.18/0.15 6/13 S22 0.78 – – 0.76 26.5b –
S23 0.83 – – 0.78 35.3b –
c
Xia and Mackie [14] Prisms 50.8 9 50.8 2.0 0.20 13 FL1 0.69 – 0.41 – –
g c
9 431.8 mm cast FL2 0.91 – 0.31 – –
from one end
Kang and Kim [36] Dog-bones cast 2.0 0.20 0.13 PL1 0.64f – – 0.64 16.04a c

parallel to tensile PL2 0.71f – – 0.66 16.03a c

direction
PL3 0.72f – – 0.65 16.08a c

f a c
Dog-bones cast TL1 0.63 – – 0.41 12.67
perpendicular to TL2 0.68 f
– – 0.46 10.67 a c
tensile direction f a c
Tl3 0.64 – – 0.42 12.06
Kang et al. [13]e Beams 2.0 0.20 13 PL-TC 0.66f – – 0.70 – –
100 9 100 9 400 PL-HC – – 0.57f 0.49 – –
mm poured
parallel (PL) and PL-VC – 0.61f – 0.53 – –
f
perpendicular (TL) TL-TC 0.62 – – 0.56 – –
to tensile direction. TL-HC – – 0.62f 0.59 – –
Sections cut in
transverse (TC), TL-VC – 0.69f – 0.62 – –
Horizontal (HC)
and Vertical (VC)
direction
Yoo et al. [37] Beam specimens 2.0 0.20 13 S1-E 0.68 – – 0.75 – –
100 9 100 9 400 S2-C 0.70 – – 0.74 – –
mm cast from one
end (E) and center 16.3 S3-E 0.67 – – 0.75 – –
(C) S4-C 0.69 – – 0.75 – –
19.5 S5-E 0.68 – – 0.73 – –
S6-C 0.68 – – 0.75 – –
30 S7-E 0.65 – – 0.75 – –
S8-C 0.67 – – 0.73 – –
a
ftu obtained through direct tension test
b
Equivalent bending strength obtained on notched specimens under three-point loading
c
Specimens exhibited strain hardening but specific data was not reported
d
Atypical specimen from the set, did not exhibit strain hardening
e
Average values
f
Estimated from data reported
g
Electromagnetic field imposed on the specimen during casting

parallel to the direction of the principal tensile stress
applied, and aeq:1;3 refers to the factor calculated in the
cross section perpendicular to the transverse axis
defining the element height and thus parallel to the
direction of the principal tensile stress applied. The
orientation factor values reported according to Eq. 2,
denominated aeq:2;1 , correspond to the factor calcu-
lated for the cross section perpendicular to the
direction of the principal tensile stress applied, with
the only exception of the results reported by Kang
et al. [13] where the analysis were completed at
longitudinal, transverse and vertical sections. The
term ft;u corresponds to either the maximum tensile
stress obtained through direct tension tests or the
ultimate equivalent flexural stress obtained in bending
tests. Finally, eu corresponds to the ultimate tensile
strain before the single crack localization for those
elements tested under direct tension test configura-
tions and which exhibited some degree of strain
hardening behavior.
55 Page 10 of 17
In general, the calculated orientation factor values
are higher for mold cast specimens and for specimens
extracted parallel to the casting direction, i.e., spec-
imens along the main direction of predominantly shear
governed material flows. The orientation factor values
calculated for specimen sets F0 and FEC using Eq. 1,
0.72 and 0.70 respectively, agree well with the values
reported in Table 3 for specimen sets PL1-3 [36], PL-T
[13], S1 and S2 [37], and FL1 [14]. Those specimens
were cast in molds using a similar type and volume of
fiber reinforcement as the ones used in this study and
their casting processes might have led to the develop-
ment of favorable material flows in terms of expected
fiber orientation. Likewise, the orientation factor
values for sets F0 and FEC agree well with the values
calculated for some of the specimens extracted from
structural components at areas were well defined shear
material flow patterns were expected and along the
expected preferential fiber orientation direction, e.g.,
specimens CM0-98-T4, CM23-P-T1, HIFCOM-14-
T2 and CM22-3-e [35], as well as specimens T6-H,T2-
V, T4-V [11]. Furthermore, the orientation factor
calculated for specimen set F90 through Eq. 1, which
led to a value of 0.37, agrees well with the factor value
calculated for specimen CM0-05-TE1 [35], for which
the fibers were also expected to be predominantly
oriented perpendicular to the principal tensile stressed
direction. Even lower orientation factor values have
been reported for specimens extracted from areas with
complex and more unfavorable material flow patterns,
e.g, specimen T2H in Table 3 [11].
The calculation of the orientation factor through
Eq. 2 is more time consuming and labor intensive than
the fiber counting required for calculation through
Eq. 1. The former approach does provide a better
representation of the actual fiber orientation distribu-
tion, however, it is also more sensitive to image quality
as well as to the capabilities and limitations of the
image analysis methodology implemented. An aver-
age orientation factor value of 0.83 was calculated for
specimen set F0 using Eq. 2, which evidences again
the preferential alignment of the fibers in the direction
of the material flow. Similar values were reported by
Wille [12] for mold cast specimens where the material
was let flow along an inclined 1.0 m long chute before
being poured at one end of the beam elements.
Specimen sets F0 and FEC exhibited similar evidence
of preferential alignment. In particular for specimen
set F0, fibers might have adopted a preferential
Materials and Structures (2017)50:55
orientation following the material flow field, which,
defined by the closed formwork and the material being
poured at one end of the slab element, might have been
predominantly shear governed. As noted by Martinie
and Roussel [10], the shear induced orientation might
be almost instantaneous in the conditions of industrial
casting, which was the case for the conditions intended
in this research. Recent numerical analysis completed
by Karihaloo and Kulasegaram [22] showed that fibers
in shear governed flows tend to reorient themselves
with the direction of the flow, irrespective of the fiber
volume fraction, which in their case of study led to
orientation factor values around 0.90.
Graphical evidence of the fiber orientation distri-
bution can also be observed in Fig. 8, which shows the
histograms for the roundness distribution of the fibers
detected in some representative cross sections. The
roundness is defined as the ratio between the minor
and the major axis of the fitted ellipses, so that the
roundness is 1.0 for a circular element and it
approaches to zero for very elongated elements. The
roundness distribution for specimen sets F0 and FEC
is skewed to the right, i.e, the detected fibers tended to
be oriented perpendicular to the cut section and
parallel to the direction of the flow. That preferential
fiber alignment is not evident for specimens corre-
sponding to sets F45 and F90 which were extracted at
45 and 90 with respect to the direction of the
material flow during the casting and for which the
detected fibers tended to be less perpendicular to the
vector normal to the cut section analyzed.
Although it is not possible to establish a direct
comparison for the tensile response of specimens from
different studies, the values reported in Tables 2 and 3
evidence the correlation between the orientation factors
and the tensile response in terms of strength and strain
capacity for individual studies. In particular and for the
specimen sets in this study, the fiber orientation distri-
bution observed in Fig. 8 as well as the orientation factor
values shown in Table 2 correlate well with the tensile
response results discussed in Sect. 4.1, which demon-
strate the strong influence of the fiber orientation
distribution on the tensile strength and the effectiveness
of the fiber bridging mechanisms. As the fibers deviate
from the orientation perpendicular to the cross section,
and thus the fiber orientation factor decreases, the tensile
response is affected, as observed for specimen sets F45
and F90. This unfavorable fiber orientation distribution
might lead to the reduction or loss of the strain capacity,
Materials and Structures (2017)50:55
Fig. 8 Histograms of roundness distribution
due to the low effectiveness of the fiber bridging
mechanisms, as well as to the reduction of the tensile
capacity. Lower cracking stress and no evidence of strain
hardening were observed for specimens exhibiting
unfavorable fiber orientation distribution in previous
studies, e.g., specimen T2H [11] and specimen CM0-05-
TE1 [35]). Oesterlee referred to fibers as local defects that
might have a weakening effect on the tensile capacity and
estimated, through a simplified linear elastic fracture
mechanics approach, that the stress concentration at the
edges of the fiber cross section, considered as a local
defect, increases by a factor of at least 3 and it increases
steeply for elliptic defects [11]. The more inclined the
fibers are with respect to the main tensile stressed
direction, the larger the weakening effect might be.
Furthermore, many authors agree with the existence of an
optimal fiber orientation which improves the ultimate
load capacity and the material toughness in terms of
energy absorption capacity. The maximum pullout load
for a single straight steel fiber has been shown to slightly
decrease for angles up to 30 with respect to load
direction, which corresponds to an orientation factor
of 0.87, while it decreases more sharply for larger
angles [38, 39]. Moreover, specific pullout studies on
UHPFRC also suggested the existence of a maximum
Page 11 of 17 55
load capacity in a similar range [40]. From a structural
point of view Martinie and Roussel [10] proposed that
fibers can be considered as fully oriented when they
are oriented at less than 20 with respect to the main
tensile stress field. Therefore, the induced fiber
orientation might account for the differences in the
tensile response of the specimen sets where the fibers
were not preferentially aligned to the main loading
direction. However, further specific research is
required to quantify the combined and total effect of
the hypothesized mechanisms, as well as other fiber
and matrix related mechanisms (e.g., snubbing, fiber
bending, matrix spalling) on the cracking strength and
post-cracking behavior in sections with non-preferen-
tial fiber alignment.
4.3 Fiber orientation considerations for design
The general concept of a material reduction factor
accounting for the non-uniform fiber orientation dis-
tribution and the subsequent anisotropic tensile
response have been widely discussed [20, 24]. The
direct translation of the fiber orientation assessments
into meso-mechanical models have been suggested as a
reliable way to account for the material anisotropy in
55 Page 12 of 17
UHPFRC [11, 14, 22, 35]. Wille et al. [12] developed a
shape function concept coupling the spatial and
orientation distribution of the fibers, estimated through
the use of Eqs. 1 and 2 in discrete sections, which were
then incorporated in a backward analysis. However,
this model, as well as other similar models in the
literature, suffers from lack of generality. Some other
proposed models rely only on fiber counting and, thus,
on the fiber orientation factor defined by Eq. 1, which is
then coupled with fiber efficiency factors in order to
establish the tensile response of UHPFRC. A meso-
mechanical model following that approach was imple-
mented by Wuest [35] and Oesterlee [11]. However,
the calculation of the fiber efficiency factor depends on
the orientation angle of the fibers crossing the section
or the estimation of its average value, which leads
again to the need of explicitly analyzing the fiber
orientation distribution. For that purpose, the use of
stereological principles might provide an alternative to
estimate the required average values [41]. In a different
approach, Xia and Mackie [14] implemented a prob-
abilistic model of the axisymmetric fiber distribution to
quantify the global preference of fiber alignment,
which only requires counting the total number of fiber
footprints in the cross section. Moreover, non-destruc-
tive techniques for monitoring fiber dispersion and
orientation are also available [15, 17, 18], with those
techniques constituting a feasible alternative to assess
the fiber dispersion and the orientation distribution.
Therefore, it is clear that despite the availability of a
wide range of techniques to assess or estimate the
dispersion and orientation distribution of the fibers in
structural elements, there is still a need for reliable and
general protocols to translate the fiber orientation
distribution assessments and the corresponding fiber
orientation factors into material reduction factors that
can be fully integrated into specific design codes and
recommendations for UHPFRC and that reflect the
actual mechanical properties of the material at struc-
tural level.
Currently, the reduction factor concept proposed in
the AFGC recommendations for UHPFRC [1] is the
most widely accepted approach to account for the
anisotropic tensile response of UHPFRC in structural
elements. The recommendations provide specific
guidelines for the calculation of material reduction
factors (K factors) to take into account the difference
between the fiber orientation distribution in the mold
Materials and Structures (2017)50:55
cast specimens used to determine the intrinsic post-
cracking tensile material law and the actual orientation
of the fibers in the structural element. The term
intrinsic in such an approach refers to the material
properties measured through standard or common test
methodologies, as it could be debatable whether there
is an intrinsic tensile response when the properties
depend on factors like the geometry of the specimen,
the casting process and the test method. The method-
ology in the AFGC recommendations relies on the
completion of suitability tests, which might sometimes
be costly and resource demanding. The K factors are
determined considering the tensile strength of the
material in the principal directions of tension in the
structure. Either direct tension test methods or four
point bending test methods can be used to assess the
tensile response and determine the K factor value, both
for local and global or overall conditions. The global
factor, Kglobal , is the ratio of the mean of the peak of the
tensile response registered for the mold cast specimens
to the mean peak of the tensile response registered for
the extracted specimens. In turn, the local factor,
Klocal , is the ratio of the mean of the peak of the tensile
response registered for the mold cast specimens to the
lowest value of the peak of the tensile response
registered for the extracted specimens [1].
The importance of properly addressing the assess-
ment of the fiber orientation distribution and the
determination of reliable orientation factors for the
structural design of UHPFRC components has been
highlighted in several deployed application. However,
specific studies on the topic are scarce or the results are
not always made available; therefore, the data is
limited to a number of specific projects [1, 42], some
of them summarized in Table 4. The specimen
extraction location needs to be carefully planned in
order to properly assess and reflect the influence of the
fiber orientation distribution on the main stress
transfer mechanisms engaged in a specific targeted
application, as it might be the case in prestress
transferring zones, shear governed regions or flexural
elements. Moreover, the suitability tests allow for
better capturing the impact of complex flow conditions
as well as other constructability issues that otherwise
might be underestimated. For instance, a planned
break during concreting or the intersection of different
flow fronts might lead to higher reduction factors or
the adoption of additional reinforcement strategies, as
Materials and Structures (2017)50:55 Page 13 of 17 55

Table 4 K factors—review
Project Element Sample K Factor
Kglobal Klocal

Bourg-Lès-Valence p beam Web 45° 1.03 1.46

(2001-02) Web vertical 0.83 ? 1.00 1.22
Web horizontal [K factors adopted] 1.25 1.72
Upper flange (transverse) 1.09 1.34
Upper flange (longitudinal) 0.88 ? 1.00 1.14
Saint-Pierre-la-Cour (2005) I beam Web 45°, zone B2/B7 0.73 ? 1.00 0.86 ? 1.00
Web 45°, zone B3/B6 0.68 ? 1.00 1.36
PS34 Overpass (2005) Box beam Web (vert.), upper slab (transv.), lower 1.50 –
slab (transver.) samples. [Single
K factor adopted]
Pinel bridge (2007) Inv. T beam Variable web thickness. Web (horz., vert., 1.33 1.75
60°) samples. [K factor maximum of the
3 zones]
Pont du Diable (2009) Footbridge (Shear design) Web 45°, zone 1 0.79 ? 1.00 0.85 ? 1.00
Web 45°, zone 2 1.24 1.37
Web vertical, zone 1 0.93 ? 1.00 1.04
Web vertical, zone 2. [K factors adopted] 1.26 2.12
Achères plant (2010) Shell Bearing zone where prestressed force was 1.35 1.55
introduced. Longitudinal samples
Midspan zone for bending validation. 1.20 1.65
Longitudinal samples

reported for the PS34 Overpass and the Pont the
Diable projects. [43, 44].
The K factors for each specimen set in this study
were calculated based on the results from the direct
tension tests carried out. The values were corrected to
account for the effect of the forms and the sawn
surfaces on the fiber orientation distribution [1, 19].
The global and local K factors obtained for each
specimen set are reported in Table 5. In general, the K
values obtained for the specimen sets in this study
agree well with values reported for similar structural
components, see Table 4. The preferential alignment
of the fibers is once more evident in the results of
specimen set F0, for which the average values
calculated for the K factor were below 1.0. As an
illustrative example, the factors to be used in the case
of a similar structural element where the stress field
were mainly oriented at 45 with respect to material
flow direction would be 1.07 and 1.37 for global and
local conditions, respectively. In the hypothetical
unfavorable condition of an element subjected to a
stress field perpendicular to the material flow
direction, the value of the K factors would be higher;
1.39 and 1.68 for local and global conditions,
respectively.
As mentioned before, the translation of the fiber
orientation factors calculated based on image analysis
or other non-destructive techniques into robust design
factors for the tensile response of UHPFRC is not
completely straightforward. There is not currently a
general and reliable approach to determine the K factor
values from the results of non-mechanical assess-
ments. The lack of such approach as well as the
misinterpretation of those non-mechanical assess-
ments might lead in some cases to excessively
penalizing the mechanical properties and, therefore,
limiting or completely eliminating the comparative
advantages that the use of UHPFRC offers for
structural design.
Figure 9 shows the values of the K factors
calculated for the specimen sets tested in this study
along with the global and local K factor values
recommended for preliminary analysis in the AFGC
recommendations for UHPFRC [1]. In the same
55 Page 14 of 17 Materials and Structures (2017)50:55

Table 5 Material reduction factors; K factors and Ka

Set Peak stress K factor Ka
Average (MPa) Min (MPa) Kglobal Klocal Ka;Eq:1 Ka;Eq:2

Maya and Graybeal FEC 10.9 9.6

FE0 12.4 10.7 0.69 ? 1.00 0.80 ? 1.00 0.98 1.08
FE45 8.1 6.3 1.07 1.36 1.23 1.34
FE90 6.1 5.1 1.39 1.68 1.88 1.57
Oesterlee [11]a T-Mold 10.8
T-4/7H 10.5 9.1 0.95 ? 1.00 1.09 0.94 –
T-1/3H 3.2 2.6 3.06 3.80 3.61 –
a
Values estimated from limited data

of UHPFRC materials. Although there are a number of

Fig. 9 Material reduction factors; K factor and Ka
figure the results from the image analysis completed in
this study are represented. In order to follow a similar
approach as the one adopted in the AFGC recommen-
dations for the K factors, the fiber orientation factors
obtained from the image analysis for the extracted
specimens were normalized to the average value
obtained for the mold cast specimens. The values Ka
shown in Fig. 9 were derived from Eqs. 1 to 2 and were
calculated as aFEC =aFðiÞ and acosðaFðiÞ Þ=acosðaFEC Þ,
respectively
Figure 9, although only illustrative, establishes a
visual comparison of different fiber orientation assess-
ments; those derived from the image analysis and
those based on the measured mechanical response. A
correlation between the tensile mechanical response
and the fiber orientation distribution is observed.
Moreover, the figure illustrates the difficulty in
developing a unified approach to determine robust
and reliable design factors to take into account the
fiber orientation distribution effect on the tensile law
fiber orientation assessments reported in the literature,
some of them already summarized in Table 3, the data
is limited and similar comparisons can not be estab-
lished for all sets. Oesteerle [11] studied a vertical cast
panel and identified five different sections according
to the estimated flow pattern. Although the number of
tests is limited for a reliable calculation of the
K factors, a rough estimation led to the values reported
in Table 5 for two orthogonal directions. A high
K factor value was estimated for specimens where the
fibers were expected to be aligned perpendicular to the
principal tensile direction, which agrees well with the
low value of the fiber orientation factor calculated
through Eq. 1 and reported in Table 3 (Specimen
T2H). In that study the assessment of the fiber
orientation distribution for sections of specimens cast
in molds was not reported. However, the value of the
factor Ka was estimated assuming a value of 0.69 for
the fiber orientation factor, which represents the
average of the factor calculated using Eq. 1 for
specimens in Table 3 which were also cast in moulds
and with cross sections similar to the used by Oesterlee
[11]. Likewise, the assumed value agrees well with the
value of 0.70 obtained for the mould cast specimens in
the present study. The Ka values for those two
orthogonal specimen sets are also reported in Table 5.
The assessment of the fiber dispersion and orien-
tation distribution, which can be completed using
either destructive and non-destructive techniques,
certainly offers opportunities to control and predict
the material performance through the optimization of
the material flow, the formwork and the casting
process for specific applications. Moreover, such
Materials and Structures (2017)50:55
optimization might eventually lead to a lowering of
the material reduction factors and, thus, allow for fully
exploiting the properties of the UHPFRC materials.
Therefore, the implementation of fiber dispersion and
orientation distribution assessments along with stan-
dardized tensile test methods to fully quantify the
intrinsic tensile response of UHPFRC might allow for
establishing a robust and reliable methodology to
determine design factors accounting for the fiber
orientation. Those factors could be then implemented
in meso-mechanical models to predict the tensile
mechanical response of UHPFRC materials and
engaged in macro-mechanical models for designing
structural components.
The experimental evidence presented in this paper,
as well as a large part of the references available, deal
with elements cast under predominant shear flow
patterns, while other flow patterns (e.g extensional,
converging, diverging) have been less studied [9, 45].
A better understanding and estimation of the different
flow patterns might be crucial to establish methodolo-
gies for the assessment of the fiber orientation distri-
bution and the determination of reliable constitutive
models for design methodologies and simulation tools.
Finally, the exceptional properties of UHPFRC
materials demand comprehensive design approaches
enabling the material properties and the casting
processes to be tailored in order to achieve a specific
structural performance [9]. The reduction factor
approach is one of the key concepts to be integrated
in that comprehensive design framework. The
approach has proven so far to be a reliable method to
account for the inherent variability of the fiber
orientation and distribution and, thus, the tensile
properties of UHPFRC in large scale applications
[42]. However, further research is required to develop
reliable, cost-effective and quality control oriented
methodologies for the determination of the reduction
factors.
5 Conclusions
The present study emphasizes the importance of
accounting for the fiber orientation distribution and
the anisotropy of the tensile properties in design
guidelines for UHPFRC.
The development of standard test methods to
quantify the mechanical response of UHPFRC is
Page 15 of 17 55
overdue. The direct tension test method has proven to
be a reliable test method to characterize the mechanical
tensile response of UHPFRC. The test method allows
for testing both cast and extracted specimens and thus
directly assessing the actual material properties within
structural elements along different directions.
The experimental results suggest a strong influence
of the fiber orientation distribution not only on the post-
cracking response of UHPFRC materials (average
multi-cracking stress, strain domains, strain at local-
ization), but also on the first cracking stress. Further
research is needed to better understand and quantify the
impact that preferential fiber alignments might have on
the first cracking stress of UHPFRC, which are
characterized by a relatively high fiber volume.
Image analysis techniques provide sound evidence
of the impact of the flow pattern and the casting
process on the actual fiber orientation distribution
within a structural element. However, they are time
consuming and labor intensive, which might limit their
implementation in quality control procedures. Alter-
natively, non-destructive techniques are also available
and might constitute a feasible option for quality
control.
The assessment of the fiber orientation distribution
in structural elements, or its estimation through
simulation tools, might be useful for further optimiza-
tion of the material flow, the formwork and the casting
process for each specific application. However, the
translation of those fiber orientation assessments into
robust design safety factors might not be completely
straightforward.
The reduction factor concept adopted in the AFGC
recommendations for UHPFRC [1], and more recently
integrated in the fib Model Code 2010 [30], has proven
to be a robust approach to account for the fiber
orientation distribution impact on the tensile mechan-
ical response of UHPFRC. In particular, the reduction
factor values obtained in this experimental validation
were consistent with those previously reported for
similar elements and of the order of the preliminary
values suggested in the AFGC recommendations for
UHPFRC.
The reduction factor approach is a key concept in a
comprehensive design framework for UHPFRC struc-
tures. The implementation of fiber dispersion and
orientation distribution assessments along with stan-
dardized tensile test methods to fully quantify the
intrinsic tensile response of UHPFRC are necessary
55 Page 16 of 17
for the development of a robust and reliable method-
ology to determine material design factors accounting
for the fiber orientation.
Further research is required to better understand the
main parameters affecting the tensile response at
structural level, thus eventually leading to refine the
material reduction factors and fuller exploitation of the
material properties. Diverse material flow patterns as
well as structural element typologies are among the
factors to be considered.
Acknowledgments The research discussed herein could have
been not possible without the dedicated effort and support of the
federal and contract staff associated with the FHWA Structural
Concrete Research Program. Special recognition goes to Corey
Hollmann, Brian Nakashoji and Jose Muñoz for their valuable
contributions. Likewise, the authors would like to thank the
support of the U.S National Research Council through its
Postdoctoral Research Associateship Program.
References
1. AFGC (2013) Bétons fibrés ultra-hautes performances:
recommandations. Association Francaise de Génie Civil,
Paris
2. Richard P, Cheyrezy M (1995) Composition of reactive
powders concretes. Cem Concr Res 25(7):1501–1511
3. Naaman AE, Reinhardt HW (1996) Characterization of high
performance fiber reinforced cement composites. In: Naa-
man AE, Reinhardt HW (eds) Proceedings of 2nd interna-
tional workshop on HPFRCC, E & FN Spon, London,
pp 1–24
4. Graybeal B, Baby F (2013) Development of a direct tension
test method for ultra-high-performance fiber-reinforced
concrete. ACI Struct J 110(2):177–186
5. de Larrard F, Sedran T (1994) Optimization of ultra-high
performance concrete by the use of packing model. Cem
Concr Res 24(6):997–1009
6. Martinie L, Rossi P, Roussel N (2011) Rheology of fiber-
reinforcement cementitious materials: basic concepts and
applications to UHPFRC, Ch. 39. In: Toutlemonde F, Res-
plendino J (eds) Designing and building with UHPFRC.
Wiley, Hoboken
7. Wille K, Naaman AE, Parra-Montesinos GJ (2011) Ultra-
high performance concerete with compresive strength
exceeding 150 MPa (22 ksi): a simpler way. ACI Mater J
108:46–54
8. Yu R, Spiesz P, Brouwers HJH (2014) Mix design and
properties of ultra-high performance fibre reinforced con-
crete (UHPFRC). Cem Concr Res 56:29–39
9. Ferrara L, Ozyurt N, Prisco MD (2011) High mechanical
performance of fiber reinforced cementitious composites:
the role of ‘‘casting-flow induced’’ fibre orientation. Mater
Struct 74:109–128
10. Martinie L, Roussel N (2011) Simply tools for fiber orien-
tation prediction in industrial practice. Cem Concr Res
41:993–1000
Materials and Structures (2017)50:55
11. Oesterlee C (2010) Structural response of reinforced
UHPFRC and RC composite members, Doctoral Disserta-
tion. EPFL, Lausanne
12. Wille K, Tue NV, Parra-Montesinos GJ (2014) Fiber distri-
bution and orientation in UHP-FRC beams and their effect on
backward analysis. Mater Struct 47(11):1825–1838
13. Kang ST, Lee BY, Kim J, Kim YY (2011) The effect of fiber
distribution characteristics on the flexural strength of steel
fibre-reinforced ultra high strength concrete. Constr Build
Mater 25:2450–2457
14. Xia J, Mackie K (2014) Axisymmetric fiber orientation
distribution of short straight fiber in fiber-reinforced con-
crete. ACI Struct J 111(2):133–142
15. Lataste JF, Behloul M, Breysse D (2008) Characterisation of
fibres distribution in a steel fibre reinforced concrete with
electrical resistivity measurements. NDT E Int 41(8):638–647
16. Martinie L, Lataste JF (2015) Fiber orientation during
casting of UHPFRC: electrical resistivity measurements,
image analysis and numerical simulation. Mater Struct
48:947–957
17. Ozyurt N, Mason TN, Shah SP (2006) Non-destructive
monitoring of fiber orientation using AC-IS: an industrial
scale application. Cem Concr Res 36(9):1653–1660
18. Ozyurt N, Woo LY, Mason TN, Shah SP (2006) Monitoring
fiber dispersion in fiber-reinforced cementitious materials:
comparison of AC-impedance spectroscopy and image
analysis. ACI Mater J 103(5):340–347
19. Dupont D, Vandewalle L (2005) Distribution of steel fibres
in rectangular sections. Cem Concr Comp 27:391–398
20. Naaman A (1972) A statistical theory of strength for fiber
reinforced concrete, PhD dissertation. Massachusetts Insti-
tute of Technology, Cambridge
21. Kang S, Kim J (2012) Numerical simulation of the variation
of fiber orientation distribution during flow molding of Ultra
High Performance Cementitious Composites (UHPCC).
Cem Concr Compos 34:208–217
22. Karihaloo BL, Kulasegaram S (2015) Determination of fibre
orientation factor in high and ultra-high-performance fibre-re-
inforced self compacting concrete. In: Workshop on high
performance fiber reinforced cement composites (HPFRCC7),
Stuttgart, pp 137-144. 1–3 June 2015
23. Soroushian P, Lee CD (1990) Distribution and orientation of
fibers in steel fiber reinforced concrete. ACI Mater J
87(5):433–439
24. Aveston J, Kelly A (1973) Theory of multiple fracture of
fibrous composites. J Mater Sci 8:352–362
25. Lee S, Cho J, Vecchio F (2011) Diverse embedment model
for steel fiber-reinforced concrete in tension: model devel-
opment. ACI Mater J 108(5):516–525
26. Stroeven P (2009) Stereological principles of spatial mod-
eling applied to steel fiber-reinforced concrete in tension.
ACI Mater J 106(3):213–222
27. Markovic I (2006) High-performance hybrid-fiber concrete:
development and utilization, Ph.D Dissertation. Delft
University of Technology
28. ACI Committee 544 (1996) Designs considerations for steel
fiber reinforced concrete, ACI 544-1R-96. American Con-
crete Institute, ACI, Farmington Hills
29. CNR-DT 204 (2006) Istruzioni per la Progettazione,
l’Esecuzione ed il Controllo di Strutture Fibrorinforzato,
Consiglio Nazionale delle Risercje, Italia
Materials and Structures (2017)50:55
30. fib Model Code 2010 (2010) Comité Euro-International du
Beton-Federation Interantional de la Precontrainte. Lausanne
31. Rilem TC (2003) 162-TDF, Test and design methods for
steel fiber reinforced concrete r- deign method: final rec-
ommendations. Mater Struct 36(262):560–567
32. Blanco A, Pujadas P, de la Fuente A, Cavalaro S, Aguado A
(2013) Application of constitutive models in European
codes to RC-FRC. Constr Build Mater 40:246–259
33. JSCE (2008) Recommendations for design and construction
of high performance fiber reinforced cement composites
with multiple fine cracks. Concrete Engineering Series 82,
Japan Society of Civil Engineers, p 112
34. Rasband WS (2015) ImageJ, U.S. National Institutes of
Health, Bethesda. http://www.imagej.nih.gov/ij/,1997-
2015
35. Wuest J (2007) Comportement structural des bètons de
fibres ultra performants en traction dans des éléments
composés. PhD Dissertation. EPFL, Lausanne
36. Kang ST, Kim J (2011) The relation between fiber orien-
tation and tensile behavior in ultra-high performance fiber
reinforced cementitious composites (UPFRCC). Cem Concr
Res 41:1001–1014
37. Yoo D, Kang S, Yoon Y (2014) Effect of fiber length and
placement method on flexural behavior, tension-softening
curve, and fiber distribution characteristics of UHPFRC.
Constr Build Mater 64:67–81
38. Laranjeira F, Aguado A, Molins C (2010) Predicting the
pullout response of inclined straight fibers. Mater Struct
43(6):875–895
Page 17 of 17 55
39. Leung CKY, Shapiro N (1999) Optimal steel fiber strength
for reinforcement of cementitious materials. J Mater Civ
Eng 11(2):116–123
40. Lee Y, Kang ST, Kim JK (2010) Pullout behavior of
inclined steel fiber in an ultra-high strength cementitious
matrix. Constr Build Mater 24:2030–2041
41. Bay RS, Tucker CL (1992) Stereological measurements and
error estimates for three-dimensional fiber orientation.
Polym Eng Sci 32:240–253
42. Simon A, Corvez D, Marchand P (2013) Feedback of a ten
year assessment of fibre distribution using the K factor
concept, International Symposium on Ultra-High Perfor-
mance Fibre-Reinforced Concrete, Designing and Building
with UHPFRC: from innovation to large-scale realizations
UHPFRC 2013. RILEM Publications S.A.R.L, Bagneux
43. Behloul M, Ricciotti R, Ricciotti RF, Pallot P, Leboeuf J
(2008) Ductal Pont du Diable footbridge, France. In: Wal-
raven J, Stoelhorst D (eds) Tailor made concrete structures.
CRC Press, London, pp 335–340
44. Resplendino J (2008) Ultra high performance concretes:
recent realizations and research programs on UHPFRC
bridges in France. In: Fehling E, Schmidt M, Stürwald S
(eds) Proceedings of the second international symposium in
ultra high performance concrete. Kassel University Press,
Kassel, pp 31–49
45. Barnett S, Lataste J, Parry T, Millard S, Soutsos M (2010)
Assessment of fibre orientation in ultra high performance
fibre reinforced concrete and its effect on flexural strength.
Mater Struct 43:1009–1023