Construction and Building Materials 232 (2020) 117152

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Review

Performance evaluation of Ultrahigh performance fibre reinforced

concrete – A review
Faiz Uddin Ahmed Shaikh a, Salmabanu Luhar b,⇑, Hasan Sß ahan Arel c, Ismail Luhar d
a
School of Civil and Mechanical Engineering, Curtin University, Perth, Australia
b
Institute of Mineral Resources Engineering, National Taipei University of Technology, Taipei, Taiwan
c _
Faculty of Architecture, Izmir _
University, Izmir, Turkey
d
Shri Jagdishprasad Jhabarmal Tibrewala University, Rajasthan, India

h i g h l i g h t s

 Fibers might be wielded for the fabrication of Ultrahigh performance fibre reinforced concrete.
 UHPFRC unveiling a higher compressive, tensile and flexural strengths.
 UHPFRC is having higher ductility as well as admirable durability.
 The article reviewed the mechanical properties, specimens size effect, as well as loading rate effect.
 The article also reveals the effects of fıbre– type, geometry, length, volume and orientation on concrete attribute.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Ultrahigh performance fibre reinforced concrete (UHPFRC) is a newfangled cement-based material
Received 17 June 2019 unveiling a compressive strength of more than 150 MPa, higher tensile and flexural strengths, ductility
Received in revised form 22 September as well as admirable durability. This review of the past researches on diverse influential features is vital
2019
in obtaining fundamental data for its viability for the application. Consequently, this study aimed to
Accepted 3 October 2019
review the available literatures on UHPFRCs that examine the attributes of ideal UHPFRC, such as
mechanical properties viz., compressive, tensile and flexural strengths; mixing proportions and environ-
ment friendliness; curing regimes; effect of specimens size on its compressive, flexural and tensile
Keywords:
Ultrahigh performance fibre reinforced
strength as well as loading rate; effects of fıbre properties – type, geometry, length, and volume fractions,
concretes (UHPFRC) orıentatıon and quantıty attrıbutes of UHPFRC is endeavoured along with relevant discussion.
Compressive strength Subsequently, the best UHPFRC mixture was determined to be obtainable with 2% to 3% of steel fibre con-
Impact strength tent and water/cement ratio of <0.2. Additionally, the UHPFRCs that were subjected to curing at 90 °C
Bond behavior yielded compressive, tensile, and flexural strengths that were 49% better than the samples cured at
Steel fibre 20 °C. The review elucidates the key points of producing environmental friendly UHPFRC material for
Tensile and flexural strengths future applications as the current UHPFRC contains about twice the amount of cement compared to ordi-
Supplementary cementitious materials
nary concrete.
Ó 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Ideal UHPFRC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Mix Proportion of UHPFRC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Sustainable UHPFRC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Curing Regimes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. UHPFRC Mechanical Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.1. Compressive Strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: ersalmabanu.mnit@gmail.com (S. Luhar).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.117152
0950-0618/Ó 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2 F.U.A. Shaikh et al. / Construction and Building Materials 232 (2020) 117152

6.2. Tensile and Flexural Strengths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

6.3. Impact Strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7. Effects of specimen size on mechanical properties of UHPFRC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8. Effects of fıbre geometry, length, and volume fractions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
9. Effects of fıber orıentatıon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
10. Effect of fıbre type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
11. Effect of quantity of fıbres . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
12. Applications and prospective recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
13. Conclusions and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Declaration of Competing Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

1. Introduction
Concrete is the utmost expansively employed building material
owing to its widespread application and rewards despite its short-
comings, such as its moderately lower tensile strength or brittle-
ness [1–4] and comprehensively employed construction
materials on the earth which is an impetus of constructional and
infrastructural development of any nation since Romans had initi-
ated its use as ‘‘Opus Caementicium” [5,6]. However, an exigency
of various performances by concrete has escalated with the
increasing demands of today’s construction and infrastructure
industries and has attained levels that traditional concrete cannot
satisfy [7,8]. High-performance concrete (HPC) is preferential to
conventional concrete on account of high strength and durability
in engineering applications [9]. However, although it has greater
strength, its brittleness is known be higher than that of traditional
concrete. The use of HPC dates to the 1970s. HPCs with 62-MPa
compressive strength were used for the Water Tower Place in Chi-
cago in 1974, HPCs with 69-MPa compressive strength were uti-
lized for the construction of Taipei 101 in Taiwan in 2004, and
HPCs with a compressive resistance of 80 MPa were employed
for the 126 floors of the Burj Khalifa in the United Arab Emirates,
Dubai in 2009 [10]. Despite its frequent use, several disadvantages
stand out. For instance, if high-performances and conventional
concretes are subject to heat, high-performance concrete’s
strength loss is higher than conventional concrete [11]. Ultra-
high-performance fibre-reinforced concrete (UHPFRC) is produced
by combining HPC and fibre at 3 vol% or above [12,13]. UHPFRC is a
form of concrete with a high compression intensity (150–200 MPa)
(Fig. 1 demonstrations a compressive stress-strain curve), a lower
water to concrete ratio of 0.2 or less, high bending strength, a ten-
sile strength of >7 MPa (Fig. 2 illustrations the tensile stress-strain
curve), a maximum aggregate diameter of less than 1 mm, superior
ductility in tension and bending, high fracture toughness and low
maintenance. Despite its low water/concrete ratio, it has high
workability (200 mm) and retains its pump ability [14–17].
UHPFRC has been an attractive alternative material for High eleva-
tion buildings, pre-stressed girders as well as long span bridges
because of its superior compressive and tensile strengths and
toughness performance [18,19]. Fig. 3 shows the SEM images of sil-
ica fume-substituted normal concrete (a), fibre-reinforced concrete
(b), HPC (c), and ultra-HPFRC (d).
2. Ideal UHPFRC
The strength of UHPFRC depends on three characteristics:
cement paste pore structure, quality of the aggregate, and struc-
ture of the aggregate–matrix and fibre-matrix interfaces. The
weakest among these characteristics is the interface area, which
could be enhanced by reducing the water to cement ratio as well
as custody the aggregate diameter below 1 mm. However, both
methods have upper limits. Cementitious materials, such as fly
ash, slag, and silica fume, not only lower the cost of production
but also increase the strength [20,21]. The durability of high-
strength concrete is determined as functions of full volume and
the pore s. The quality of the aggregate directly affects the high-
strength concrete [22–27]. UHPFRCs are not generally used when
traditional concrete is productive because of its elevated manufac-
turing price, providing the required output. In this regard,
researchers pointed out three main factors that can be reduced
to lower the cost without compromising the quality of the product,
namely, the high-strength fibre quantity added to the mix, the
powder quantity, and the curing [28–30]. For the production of

Fig. 1. Typical compressive strength – strain curve [44]. Fig. 2. Uni-axial direct tensile stress – elongation curve [45].
 F.U.A. Shaikh et al. / Construction and Building Materials 232 (2020) 117152
Fig. 3. SEM images of NC, FRC, HPC and UHPFRC concretes – a) [135], b) [136], c) [137,138], d) [139].
UHPFRC the mean particle size is frequently less than 1 mm, but
aggregates are up to 8 mm to 15 mm. [31]. The reactive powder
concrete (RPC) word can be used if the maximum total size is
roughly 0.5 mm. The aggregate must be mechanically strength to
ensure that the concrete is not fragile [32]. When coarse aggregates
are added to the mortar, the cement content is decreased. coarse
aggregates are not often used in UHPFRC, but can be used if the
structural component size is greater than the aggregates thickness
[33]. In UHPFRC, costly silica sands are usually used. However, nat-
ural sand can usually be substituted for silica sand and retain
excellent mechanical efficiency and ductility. The use of natural
sand does not have a significant impact on UHPFRC strength [34].
Depending on the concrete type and application, the fiber content
can differ considerably. When it is important to workability attri-
bute, the fibers in the concrete are usually a mixture of a large
number of short fibers and a few lengthy fibres [35]. The fibers
may be less than 12 mm and the complete quantity can be 11 per-
cent [36]. Approximately 2.5% steel fibers with aspect ratio of 40 to
60 have however been demonstrated to produce the highest out-
comes in terms of fresh and hardened concrete characteristics.
The length of the fibers should be set to the maximum aggregate
diameter in order to ensure low porosity. At least ten times the
maximum overall diameter should be the length of the fiber.
Unless high-performance plasticizers are added, the UHPFRC can-
not workable, i.e. up to 5 percent by weight of a cement. The aspect
ratio of fibers has a major impact on the fibers ’ facility to mix into
the concrete and on the workability of the concrete. Workability
reduces in particular with the increase in the aspect ratio [37].
UHPFRCs are sometimes undergoing heat therapy in order to
enhance the concrete quicker (compressive and tensile resistance),
decrease shrinking time and creep impacts and considerably
enhance the concrete’s durability [38]. Heat treatment begins to
produce more hydrates, leading to enhanced features [39]. The req-
uisites to obtain maximum performance from UHPFRCs can be
summarized into four: (1) improving the homogeneity using sand
3
with a grain size of 150 to 600 mm, (2) increasing the density by
adding cement and silica fume, (3) improving ductility by adding
steel fibres, and (4) implementing temperature treatment (90 °C)
to improve the UHPFRC microstructure and increase early age
durability [34,40,41].
3. Mix Proportion of UHPFRC
The raw materials of UHPFRCs and concretes with normal fibres
are the same, except the superplasticizer, aggregates and the min-
eral additives with different binding characteristics. The hydration
process of the paste phase and the microstructure of the hydrated
paste demonstrate variances because the water/cement or water/
binder ratios are low and high-range water reducers are employed
in UHPFRCs. To achieve the required UHPFRC output: (1) the
cement fineness should be high; (2) the quantity of C3S should
be high; (3) C3A and C4AF quantities should be low; and (4) it
should have a cubic polymorph structure, and the amount of alkali
and alkaline sulfates should be limited. The UHPFRCs collapse
when aggregates crack. Thus, an aggregate with low durability
would cause the UHPFRC to have low durability as well. In
UHPFRCs, the high-range water reducer rapport with the cement
is highly important. Sufficient workability should be provided
and not be exhausted in a short period. The purpose behind adding
steel fibres to the cement is to establish a crack control and resis-
tance to the pull-out force that the cement matrix cannot carry for
a long time after the peak load. Bending strength addresses the fra-
gility of the steel fibre, and the fibre amounts are the utmost
imperative features in determining the characteristics of UHPFRCs.
Preferably, the water/binder and water/cement ratios are main-
tained at approximately 0.16–0.2 in UHPFRCs [42,43]. The content
of cement usually varies from 600 to 1000 kg/m3 having 3000 and
4500 cm2/kg of fineness shall be used. Ordinary Portland cement
with low C3A content is suggested to use owing to its low water
Table 1

4
Research studies that examined the ideal mixture ratios of UHPFRCs at a wide range.

References Mix design (kg/m3) Fiber

[46] 875 CEM I 52.5 R, 44 micro silica, 218.7 Microsand (0–1 mm), 202.1 water, 45.9 Superplasticizer, 1054.7 Sand (0–2 mm), 0.23 w/c, Short straight steel fibers (length of 13 mm and diameter of 0.2 mm), 2.5
0.19 w/b (vol.%), Specific density 7800 kg/m3
[47] Proportions by weight 1.0 Portland cement, 0.3 Filler (crushed quartz with an average diameter of 10 lm and a density of 2600 kg/ steel fibers, Diameter of 0.2 mm, lengths of 16, Proportions by
m3), 1.1 Fine aggregate (sand with a diameter of < 0.5 mm), 0.02 Water-reducing admixture, 0.2 w/b Diameter of 0.2 mm, lengths of 19 (Used together at weight 0.25
the same time) (volume of 1.5%)
[55] (Proportions by weight) 1.00 CEM I 52.5R, 0.25 Silica fume, 0.25 Glass powder, 0.22 Water, 0.031 high-range water reducer (Sika Steel fiber, 13 mm long with a diameter of 0.15 mm 0.2 (Proportions by
SVC 20 Gold) , 0.019 high-range water reducer (Sika ViscoCrete 20He), 0.42 Fine sand (0.1/0.6 mm), 0.8 Fine sand (0.3/0.8 mm), and tensile strength of 2800 MPa weight)
0.176 w/b
[61] 800 CEM I 52.5R, 176 water, 40 high range water reducers, 336 fine sand (0.1/0.6 mm), 640 fine sand (0.3/0.8 mm), 200 silica Steel fiber Short high strength 13  0.15 mm 160 kg (%2 by
fume, 200 glass power volume)
[145] (proportions by weight) 1.00 Cement I 52.5 R, 0.22 water, 0.05 0.95 Fine sand (0.3/0.8 mm) (proportions by weight) Steel Fibers (13  0.15 mm) 0.05
high range water reducer, 0.42 Fine sand (0.1/0.6 mm), 0.25 Silica 0.90 Fine sand (0.3/0.8 mm), 0.1
fume, 0.22 w/c 0.85 Fine sand (0.3/0.8 mm) 0.15
0.80 Fine sand (0.3/0.8 mm) 0.2

F.U.A. Shaikh et al. / Construction and Building Materials 232 (2020) 117152
0.75 Fine sand (0.3/0.8 mm) 0.25
0.70 Fine sand (0.3/0.8 mm) 0.3
[67] 657 CEM I 52.5 N, 418 Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag, 119 Silica fume, 1051 Silica sand, 59 Superplasticizers, 185 Water, steel fibers, 13 mm length and 0.16 mm diameter 3%
0.15 w/b
[146] 1050 CEM I 52.5 N, 730 Quartz sand (Diameter < 500 lm), 275 Silica Fume (spec. surf. 12 m2/g), 35 Superplasticizer, 0.14 w/b steel fibers, straight (10 mm, 0.2 mm) 470
[147] 768 OPC (Type 1, 42.5R), 1140 Mining sand (Diameter < 1180 lm), 192 Silica fume (23.7 m2/g), 40 Superplasticizer (PCE-based), Steel fiber (Lf = 10 mm, df = 0.2 mm), 157
144 Water, 0.15 w/b
[148] 825 OPC (Type 1, 42.5R), 1140 Mining sand (Diameter < 1180 lm), 181 Silica fume (23.7 m2/g), 45 Superplasticizer (PCE-based), Steel fiber (Lf = 10 mm, df = 0.2 mm), 90
174 Water, 0.17 w/b
[45] 1011 Blast furnace slag cement III/40, 58 Silicate fume, 79 Sílica flour (18 lm), 60 Aggregates (150–300 lm), 823 Aggregates (425– Steel fibers 12 mm long with diameter of 0.18 mm 158
600 lm), 76 Micro fibers de wollastonite, 50 Plasticizer PA, 162 Water, 3.75 Air (%), 0.19 w/b
[149] 657 CEM I 52.5 N, 418 Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag, 119 Silica fume, 1051 Silica sand (average size 0.27 mm), 40 steel fiber 13 mm length and 0.2 mm diameter 157
Superplasticizers, 185 Water, 0.15 w/b
[150] 657 CEM1 52.5 N, 418 Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag, 119 Silica fume, 1051 Silica sand (average size 0.27 mm), 40 straight high carbon steel with a tensile strength of %2 By volume
Superplasticizers, 185 Water 2000 MPa, 13 mm in length and 0.20 mm in diameter
[144] (Proportions by weight) 1.00 Cement PC Type I (3930 cm2/g Blaine value), 0.25 Silica fume (very low carbon content (0.3%) and a Steel fibers straight, lf/df = 13 mm/0.20 mm Proportions by
median particle size of 1.2 lm), 0.25 Silica powder (median particle size 1.7 lm) , 0.22 Water, 0.0054 Superplasticizer (Solid weight 0.25
content), 0.26 Fine sand 1 (max. grain size 0.2 mm), 1.03 Fine sand 2 (max. grain size 0.8 mm), 0.22 w/b
[88] 960 CEM II/A-L 42.5 R, 240 Silica fume (specific surface area of about 18 m2/g), 24 Superplasticizer, 960 (Sand well-graded very The steel fibers, 13 mm long and 0.18 mm thick with 192
fine natural sand was used with particle size up to 100 lm), 227 Water, 0.24 w/c, 0.19 w/b an aspect ratio of 72
[141] (Proportion of materials by weight ratio), 1.0 ordinary Portland cement, 0.25 silica fume, 0.3 filler, 1.1 fine aggregate steel fibers with a diameter of 0.2 mm and a length of 2.0%
(diameters<0.5 mm), crushed quartz with an average diameter of 10 lm, 0.02 Water-reducing admixture, 0.2 w/c 13 mm. yield strength of 2500 MPa.
[151] 1051 CEM I 52.5, 273 silica fume, 733 Sand (dmax = 0.5 mm), 165 Water, 35 Superplasticizer, Air content 4% of total volume, 0.14 Steel fibers (1/d = 50) 468
w/b
[152] 2349 Premix EIFFAGE B1M2, 195 Water, 50 Superplasticizer Glenium G51, 1.9 void ratio (%) Fibers metal 195
[44] 657 cement, 418 Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag, 119 Microsilica (silica fume), 1051 Silica sand, 40 Superplasticizers, 185 Steel fiber, fibers are of type OL13 with 2000 MPa 157 (2%)
Water tensile strength, 13 mm length and 0.2 mm diameter
[153] Proportions by weight, 1.0 Cement PC Type I, 0.25 Silica Fume, 0.25 Quartz Powder, 0.22 Water, 0.0054 Superplasticizer (solid Steel, straight, lf/df = 13 mm/0.2 mm 0.25, (2.5% by
content), 0.26 Fine sand A (max. grain size 0.2 mm), 1.03 Fine sand B (max. grain size 0.8 mm), volume)
[154] 1410.2 CEM I 52.5, 366 Silica Fume, 80.4 Fine Sand (maximum size of 0.5 mm), 200.1 Water, 44.1 Superplasticizer, 0.13 w/b microfibers and straight steel fibers (10 mm/0.2 mm) 706.5
[143] 2195 (Premix = Proprietary mixture designs, including inert and cementitious constituents), 30 High-range water-reducing 13 mm steel fibers, 0.2 mm in diameter (%2 Steel 156
admixture, 130 water fiber volumetric percentage)
2161 (Premix = Proprietary mixture designs, including inert and cementitious constituents), 29 High-range water-reducing 13 mm steel fibers, 0.2 mm in diameter (2.5% Steel 195
admixture, 128 water fiber volumetric percentage)
2296 (Premix = Proprietary mixture designs, including inert and cementitious constituents), 50 High-range water-reducing 20 mm steel fibers, 0.3 mm in diameter (2.5% Steel 195
admixture, 190 water fiber volumetric percentage)
[26] 1277.4 CEM III/B (66–80% high percentage of blast furnace slag), 95.8 Silica fume, 664.6 Sand, 42.3 Superplasticizer, 198 Water, W/ 235.5 Steel fibers (13/0.16 mm)
C = 0.155
[60] (proportions by weight), 1.00 Cement, 0.25 Silica fume, 0.25 Glass powder (Median particles size is 1.7 lm), 0.19 Water, 0.011 0.27 (proportions by weight) Fiber, Straight steel fiber,
Superplasticizer, 0.28 Sand A (Maximum grain size is 0.2 mm), 0.64 Sand B (Maximum grain size is 0.8 mm), length/diameter = 13 mm/0.20 mm
Table 1 (continued)

References Mix design (kg/m3) Fiber

[155] (Proportion by weight), 1.00 Cement 52.5 ordinary Portland cement, 0.41 high strength fine aggregate (size ranging from 1 to short straight steel fiber, 6 mm long, diameter of approximately 0.2 mm (The
3 mm), 0.3 Silica flour (size between 0.1 mm and 0.3 mm and surface area ranging from 20 to 28 m2/g), 0.32 Silica fume (average tensile strength and Young’s modulus for the steel fibers were reported to be
size of 0.04 mm), 0.19 water, 0.19 W/C 1.2 GPa and 210 GPa)
[68] 795.4 CEM I 52,5R HS-NA Cement, 168.6 sika silicoll uncompact, 24.1 sika viscocrete, 198.4 fine quartz, 971 sand quartz (0.125/ 79.31 steel fiber (1%)
0.5), 0.255 w/c, 0.210 w/b 160.25 steel fiber (2%)
[156] 1.00 Type 1 Portland cement, 0.25 Water, 0.25 Silica fume, 1.10 Sand (grain size lower than 0.5 mm), 0.30 Silica four (2 lm 2% Steel Smooth fiber, 0.2 Diameter, 13 Length, 2500 Tensile strength (MPa)
diameter, including 98% SiO2), 0.018 Superplasticizer, 0.2 w/b
[62] 1.00 Cement, 0.25 Water, 0.25 Silica fume, 1.10 Sand (grain size smaller than 0.5 mm), 0.30 Silica flour (2 lm diameter, including 2% Steel Smooth fiber, 0.2 Diameter, 13 Length, 200 Tensile strength (GPa)
98% SiO2), 0.018 Superplasticizer, 0.2 w/b
[157] 855 cement, 470 quartz sand (9–300 lm), 470 quartz sand (250–600 lm), 214 microsilica, 188 water, 28 Superplasticizer, 0.22 (390 kg, 0.16 mm diameter, 6 mm long), (78 kg, 0.16 mm diameter, 13 mm
water/cement, 0.18 water/binder used together at the same time
[64] Percentage by Weight (%),28.6 Cement, 9.3 Silica Fume, 8.5 Ground Steel Fibers, diameter of 0.2 mm and a nominal length of Percentage by Weight (%) 6.4
Quartz, 41.1 Fine Sand, 0.5 Superplasticizer, 5.6 Water 12.7 mm. Its yielding stress is 3150 MPa and ultimate stress
is 3250 MPa.
[158] Relative weight ratios to cement, 1.00 Type I Portland cement, 0.25 Water, 0.25 Silica fume (200,000 cm2/g Specific surface), 1.10 0.2 mm Diameter, 13.0 mm Length, 7.8 g/cm3 1%
Sand (grain size smaller than 0.5 mm and 2-lm-diameter), 0.30 Silica flour (98% SiO2), 0.016 Superplasticizer, 0.2 w/b Density, 2500 MPa Tensile strength 2%

F.U.A. Shaikh et al. / Construction and Building Materials 232 (2020) 117152
3%
4%
[159] Ductal Premix (consist of Portland cement, silica fume, quartz sand with a maximum particle diameter of 1.2 mm and very fine Short straight steel fiber, diameter 0.2 mm, 15 mm 157 kg/m3, (%2)
powder composed mainly of quartz as the mineral admixture), w/c 0.22, 155 water, 25 superplasticizer long
[160] DuctalÒ (712 kg/m3 Portland Cement, 1020 Fine Sand, 231 Silica Fume, 211 Ground Quartz, 30.7 high-range water-reducing Short straight steel fiber 1%, 2%, 3%
admixture, 30 Accelerator, 109 Water), 0.22 w/c
[59] (Relative weight ratios to cement), 1.00 Type I Portland cement, 0.25 water, 0.25 silica fume, 1.10 sand (grain size smaller than 2% Steel fiber, 0.2 mm Diameter, 13.0 mm Length, 2500 MPa Tensile strength
0.5 mm), 0.30 silica flour (2 lm-diameter, 98% SiO2) , 0.016 superplasticizer, 0.2 w/b
[142] 654 type I Portland cement, 109 silica fume (specific surface area 2200 m2/kg), 109 fly ash (specific surface area 686 m2/kg), 218 Cold drawn low carbon steel fiber, 13 mm length, 2%
slag (specific surface area 766 m2/kg), 1090 sand, 32.7 superplastizer, 0.16 w/b 0.175 mm diameter, tensile strength 1800 MPa 3%
4%
[66] 880 Standard Portland pozzolan cement with a strength category of 52.5 N/mm2, 220 Undensified silica fume with 97% purity in 401 Brass Coated Steel Fibers 6 mm and 0.16 mm diameter, 80 Brass Coated
SiO2, 475 Calcareous Sand 125–250 lm, 358 Calcareous Sand 250–500 lm, 172 Water, 67 Polycarboxylate polymer based Steel Fibers 13 mm and 0.16 mm diameter used together at the same time
superplasticizer, 0.20 Water/cement, 0.16 Water/binder

5
6 F.U.A. Shaikh et al. / Construction and Building Materials 232 (2020) 117152

Table 2
Curing regimes.

References Curing type

[46] The prisms are demolded approximately 24 h after casting and then cured in water at about 21 °C.
[54] The samples were de-molded after 24 h. Thereafter, the recommended curing treatment for the UHPFRC (steaming at 90 °C and 100% relative humidity for
48 h) was applied. The samples were then cured in water at 27 °C ± 2 °C until the testing day.
[34] The specimens were then covered with damp hessian and polythene sheeting. After one day, they were de-molded and cured in water either at 20 °C or at
90 °C. The heat cured specimens were stored in a hot water bath from an age of 1 day until 7 days. These specimens were then stored in air at room
temperature until testing. The 20 °C cured specimens were kept in a standard curing tank until testing.
[56] Thermal treatment for 5 days with a constant temperature of 90 °C, water curing for 5 days with a constant temperature of 20 ± 2 °C, Subsequently the
specimens were kept in the temperature 20 ± 2 °C and relative humidity 60 ± 5% until testing
[57] The concrete samples underwent 5 days of moist curing followed by dry curing under ambient conditions, with the concrete properties determined on the
day of the column tests
[47] The cylindrical test specimens were cured by steam curing at a temperature above 90 °C for 48 h, and then they cured at room temperature for 60 days
until testing
[145] Specimens were removed from molds after 24 h and subsequently placed in water tanks for another 27 days
[67] The specimens were cured in a steam curing tank at 90 °C for 3 days.
[146] The evolution of the relative humidity in the material was recorded in a sealed specimen under isothermal conditions at T = 20 °C. The relative humidity
was constant at 100% until 32 h after the addition of water and then decreased monotonically
[45] The specimens were covered with a damp cloth and a polythene sheet in their molds for 24 h before being demolded and cured for 28 days in a fog room
with a controlled environment of 100% relative humidity and 23 ± 1 °C.
[149] Specimens mixes were covered with damp hessian and polythene sheets, and kept at laboratory temperature 20 °C for 24 h. After all the specimens were
checked for initial set, demolding took place at approximately 24 h. All the specimens were placed in a curing tank in an elevated temperature of 90 °C for
the next 48 h and finally kept at laboratory temperature until the testing day
[150] All the samples were cured after casting under approximately 20 °C for the first 24 h, followed by a hot water curing tank at 90 °C for the next 48 h and
finally dry cured at laboratory temperatures until testing
[144] After casting, the specimens were covered with plastic sheets and stored at room temperature for 24 h. Then they were taken out of their molds and stored
in a water tank at 20 °C for an additional 25 days. All specimens were tested at the age of 28 days after being removed from water and left to dry in the
laboratory environment for 48 h.
[88] Three prismatic specimens (40 by 40 by 160 mm) were manufactured for each mixture and for each curing time in order to evaluate mechanical behavior
of the seven UHPFRC mixtures. they were soft cast in steel forms (vibrated for 30 s after casting), then wet cured at 20 °C (standard curing) for compressive
strength measurements.
[151] Cast in 50  200  500 mm3 molds. No thermal treatment was applied. After 3 days in sealed conditions, the specimens were removed from molds and
exposed to wet curing until 28 days (Table 2). Afterwards, specimens were stored in a room at 20 ◦C and 50% relative humidity. The specimens were
submitted to tensile tests after at least 1 month of storage and brought back to the room.
[105] No thermal treatment was applied. After 3 days under sealed conditions, the specimens were removed from molds and exposed to wet curing until
28 days.
[161] All test specimens were covered with plastic sheets just after concrete casting and cured at room temperature for the first 48 h prior to demolding. After
demolding, heat curing (90 ± 2 °C) was carried out for 3 days, and then the specimens were stored in the laboratory with room temperature until testing.
[162] The temperature evolution of the UHPFRC, extrapolated from semi-adiabatic tests, showed a dormant period of more than 24 h. The final adiabatic
temperature was 115 °C.
[147] The specimens were cured by steam curing for 48 h at a temperature of 90 °C and 100% relative humidity, and subsequently cured in water maintained at
room temperature of 27 ± 2C until the testing day.
[148] The specimens were left for one day after casting without curing, apply curing treatment includes steaming the UHPFC at 90 °C for 60 h.
[44] Specimens were then cast in molds under a frequency vibrator for<1 min. They were then covered with a polyethylene sheet and allowed to harden at
laboratory temperature (20 °C) for one day. All the specimens were then taken out of the molds and were placed in a special curing tank at 90 °C for 2 days.
[153] After casting, the specimens were covered with plastic sheets and stored at room temperature for 24 h. Then they were taken out of their molds and stored
in a water tank at 20 °C for an additional 25 days. All specimens were tested at the age of 28 days.
[143] Steam treatment curing at 90 °C (194°F) and 95% humidity for 48 h, Laboratory curing
[155] The specimens underwent a curing regimen. Placed the specimens in a constant 22 °C temperature and 100% humidity room, and performed demold 24 h
later. 48 h later, specimens were submerged in a water bath maintaining 90 °C for 24 h. Finally, put the concrete specimens to the autoclave, raised the
autoclave temperature from the room temperature to 200 °C within 2.5 h. Kept 1.1 MPa autoclave pressure and 200 °C temperature for a moment. Then,
naturally cooled down the specimens to the room temperature.
[156] After demolding, the specimens were steam cured at a high temperature of 90 ± 2 °C for 3 days and then stored at room temperature again until testing.
[62] All test specimens were demolded after 24 h and immediately sealed with aluminum adhesive tape. The shrinkage measurement began just after UHPFRC
casting and was performed in a room with a temperature of 23 ± 1 °C and a humidity of 60 ± 5%.
[65] After casting, the specimens are covered and stored at room temperature for 24 h. Afterward they are removed from their molds and stored in a water tank
at 20 °C for additional 25 days. All specimens are then tested at 28 days. About 48 h prior to testing the specimens are removed from water and left to dry
in the laboratory environment. About 24 h prior to testing, a spray coating is applied on the surface of the middle portion of each specimen for better crack
detection.
[163] The specimens were covered with plastic sheets and stored at room temperature for 48 h prior to demolding. Water curing with high temperature
(90 ± 2 °C) for 3 days after demolding was carried out. All specimens were tested in dry conditions for 21 days. Two to three layers of polyurethane were
sprayed on all surfaces of the specimens after drying to facilitate crack detection.
[157] Specimens were heated to a maximum temperature of 90 °C from the room temperature of about 25 °C. Each 24-h thermal cycle consisted of a gradual
temperature rise period of 30 min, followed by a dwell period of 8 h and ending with a slow temperature drop. This thermal cycle mimics a summer’s day
in arid hot climate when the temperature of exposed concrete surface is known to reach the chosen maximum temperature. The number of thermal cycles
varied from 0 to 90 cycles. After the requisite number of thermal cycles, the specimens were tested at room temperature.
[140] The mixes can be cured at ambient temperature for 28 days or at the elevated temperature of 90 °C for just 7 days with no noticeable difference in the
mechanical properties.
[64] Ice cubes are added during the casting to control the mixing temperature and working properties and are necessary if the environmental temperature is
higher than 25 ◦C.
[158] The test specimens were cured at room temperature for the first 48 h prior to demolding. After demolding, heat curing (90 ± 2 °C) was performed for
3 days.
[159] After their removal from the molds, all specimens were cured at 90 °C for 2 days
[142] The specimens were stored in the condition of 20 °C and 95% relative humidity for 24 h, and then removed from the molds and cured in the same condition
for 90 days. After curing, the hardened UHPCC were cut and ground into smooth cylinder specimens with thickness of 35 mm and diameter of 75 mm.
 F.U.A. Shaikh et al. / Construction and Building Materials 232 (2020) 117152
consumption. This is preferably due to the very small water/bind-
ing proportion of UHPFRC. Silica fumes (SF) consist of very lower
particles (around 1/100) than cement particles. Its tiny size makes
SF very effective as filler and improves the density of packing. A
large amount of silica fumes of about 10 to 30 percent of the
cement mass are required to fill the voids between cement
particles.
4. Sustainable UHPFRC
The mixture ratios, fibre characteristics, and material attributes
obtained from various studies of UHPFRCs are outlined in Table 1.
The table shows that silica fume is mixed with immense amounts
of cement in most study (>80 percent) in the blend that makes
UHPFRC carbon footprint and its price very high. This high-
performance material, which reduces its extensive implementation
in many nations in infrastructure, has the disadvantages of high
price and high carbon footprint. A number of researchers have
soughed to assess the effects of different additional cementitious
materials (SCM), for instance, slag, palm oil ash, fly ash, as a
replacement of cement in the UHPFRC binder to tackle the high
carbon footprint and high costs of the UHPFRC. Mahmud et al.
[44] A research indicated where slag was used to substitute cement
with 35 percent by mass. In this research, compression strength
with approximately 150 MPa and uniaxial tensile strength with
approximately 9 MPa are noted. Toledo-Filho et al. [45] reported
that a compressive strength of 160 MPa, 11 MPa tensile strength
and an ultimate tensile strain of 0.25%, in which 52% of blast fur-
nace slag mixed to cement to produce UHPFRC. The effects of slag,
fly ash and limestone powder as partial (30% each) substitution of
Cement on mechanical characteristics of the UHPFRC were
assessed in other research by Yu et al. [46]. The results indicate a
decrease in UHPFRC compressive strength with 30% slag relative
to UHPFRC control and less decline in fly ash and limestone powder
composites. In the event of flexural resistance similar findings are
also noted. In another research the compressive strength of
Fig. 4. Studies with compressive strength between 150 and 170 MPa.
7
UHPFRC has also been decreased because palm oil fuel ash has
been added as part of a cement substitution by Aldahdooh et al.
[47]. In their research, the palm oil fuel ash was used to replace
cement as 30%. Yu et al. [48] also used as a partial substitute of
cement as municipal waste bottom ash (20 wt%) in UHPFRC. Lam-
propoulos et al. [49] developed UHPFRC containing 35% slag, 10%
silica fume, 55% cement and 3% steel fibres which unveiled com-
pressive strength-164 MPa, tensile strength as well as strain capac-
ities are 12 MPa and 0.35%, respectively. Hasan et al. [50] and
Hasan and Jones [51] also developed UHPFRC using similar mix
proportions of Lampropoulos et al. [49] however, with steel fibres
content of 2% which revealed analogous compressive strength-
164 MPa but considerable inferior tensile strength of 7.4 MPa.
Makita and Bruhwiler [26] reported fatigue behaviour of UHPFRC
made by low heat cement containing about 66–80% slag and
8.5% silica fume as addition to cement in their composite. Shaikh
et al. [52] recently evaluated the impact of the different fly ash con-
tent of 20% to 50% as part of a cement substitution on the UHPFRC
compressive strength and tensile stress strain behaviour. Their
outcome showed approximately 4–14% less compressive strength,
approximately 14–19% less ultimate tensile strength, about 10–
37% fewer ultimate tensile strain and about 22–48% less energy
consumption during strain hardening than the control UHPFRC.
Their findings indicate that their tensile strength is lower. Their
findings have shown that UHPFRC with 40 percent fly ash has a sig-
nificantly greater ultimate tensile strain, higher ultimate tensile
strength, and energy absorption capacities than the one with 30
percent fly ash whereas the former has a slightly reduced CO2
emission about 15% than the latter.
5. Curing Regimes
UHPFRCs might not display significant changes in terms of
mechanical characteristics after 28 days. Although the lengthening
of the curing process yields a certain amount of increase in the
mechanical characteristics, the increase in the mechanical charac-
8 F.U.A. Shaikh et al. / Construction and Building Materials 232 (2020) 117152

Fig. 5. Studies with compressive strength between 170 and 190 MPa.

Fig. 6. Studies with compressive strength between 190 and 300 MPa.

teristics after one year is not significantly different from those of
the 28-day-old samples. In fact, the samples that were cured in
air and contained silica fume displayed time-dependent strength
retrogression. Two types of heat treatments are applied in
UHPFRCs [39]. (1) Autoclaving takes place at a moderate 65 °C
temperature because greater temperatures affect the threat of
delayed ettringites formation at elevated humidity. In particular,
this method decreases the early setting time. (2) Concrete was
paced where the temperature gradually increased to around 85°
C to 90° C. The cement is maintained at relative moisture of almost
100% over 1 to 2 days at this temperature. This therapy is imple-
mented after the concrete is settled [38]. The characteristics of
the concrete material are affected by this kind of therapy owing
to more hydrates in the concrete. Subsequent to the treatment, cer-
tain aspects of the concrete’s durability are improved, the long-
term performance is better; shrinkage as well as creep are reduced.
 F.U.A. Shaikh et al. / Construction and Building Materials 232 (2020) 117152 9

Table 3
Compressive strengths and specimen sizes.

References Specimen size and Comp. Strength at 28 day (MPa)

[46] UHPFRC is cast in molds with the size of 40 mm  40 mm  160 mm and compacted on a vibrating table, 156 MPa
[34] The compressive strengths of the samples that were cured below 20 °C were not noted due to the yielded strengths being below 150 MPa
For the samples that were cured at 90 °C; 50 mm cubes, when using silica sand 170 MPa, fine ordinary sand type I 177 MPa, Fine ordinary sand II 175 MPa,
recycled glass cullet 153 MPa
[54] 100 mm concrete cubes (With the 637.9 cement, 173 MPa), (With the 700 cement, 175 microsilica fume, 175 MPa), (With the 700 cement, 250 microsilica
fume 176.9 MPa), (With the 850 cement, 265.5 microsilica fume, 160 MPa), (With the 850 cement, 212.5 microsilica fume, 173 MPa), (With the 850
cement, 159.5 microsilica fume, 170 MPa), (With the 850 cement, 175 microsilica fume, 150 MPa), With the (720.49 cement, 181.41 MPa)
[56] 70  70  70 mm cubes, thermal treated 181.2
[57] When 100 mm  200 mm cylinders, 4% steel fiber is used 153Mpa. When 6% steel fiber is used 165 MPa
[47] Cylindrical test specimens with a diameter of 100 mm and a height of 200 mm 166.9
[55] Flexural strength was evaluated on 40  40  160 mm prisms and compressive strength was determined on the halves of these prisms 151.7
following
[61] Cylinders with 100 mm diameter and height of 200 mm 151.7
[145] Cylinders were 200 mm high with diameter of 100 mm. When 0.5% fiber is used 154 MPa, when 1% fiber is used 149 MPa, when 1.5% is used 149 MPa,
when 2% fiber is used 164 MPa, when 2.5% fiber is used 159 MPa, when 3% fiber is used 148 MPa
[67] Cube compressive tests (100 mm side) 164
[146] Compressive strength was determined on cylindrical specimens (£ 11 cm, length 22 cm) 168
[147] 100 mm cube 170
[148] 100 mm cube 172
[45] 50  100 mm cylindrical specimens 156
[149] 100 mm cube 151
[150] 100 mm cube 164.3
[144] 100 mm cube, Steel fibers straight, lf/df = 13 mm/0.20 mm, Proportions by weight steel fiber 0.25 201
[88] prismatic specimens (40 by 40 by 160 mm) 156
[141] cylindrical specimens with a diameter of 100 mm and a height of 200 mm 194
[151] cast in 50  200  500 mm3 molds 168
[152] Nine standard 110  220 mm control cylinders were cast 170
[164] The compressive strengths were determined on 11/22 cm cylinders. 192.4
[105] Cast horizontally in 50  200  500 mm3 molds. 168
[161] Cylindrical specimens with a dimension of u 100  200 mm were used. Relative weight ratios to cement is 0.
When shrinkage reducing admixture was used 200.14 MPa, when 0.01 shrinkage reducing admixture was used 186.75 MPa, when 0.02 shrinkage reducing
admixture was used 194.85 MPa
[162] Cylinders (16 cm, length = 32 cm) 168
[44] Cylindrical, 50 mm diameter  100 mm 150
[153] Prism shaped specimens with a slenderness of 2 (50  50  100 mm) 201
[154] 11/22 cm cylinders 190
[143] All of these values were calculated from tests on cast cylinders, with cylinders with a diameter of 76 and 110 mm, The result of steam curing at 2195 kg
premix was 220 MPa, the result of lab curing at 2195 kg premix was 192 MPa, the result of steam curing at 2161 kg premix was 212 MPa, the result of
2296 kg premix was 213 MPa
[26] prisms with a section of 40 mm  40 mm and a length of 160 mm were cast 56 daily
217
[60] 250
[155] 150 mm cube 300
[68] 1% fiber, a diameter of 100 mm and a height of 100 mm (cube) 176.27
1% fiber, a diameter of 100 mm and a height of 200 mm (cylinder) 178.28
2% fiber, 100 mm  100 mm  100 mm (cube) 178.03
2% fiber, 100 mm  100 mm  100 mm (cylinder) 178.35
[165] The length and width of the tested tunnel lining segments were 1000 mm and 500 mm respectively, while their thickness was 100 mm. The
crown height of the tested segment was 100 mm from the horizontal surface. This was intended to represent a segment taken from a tunnel
having a diameter of 1.9 m.
When 8 mm length fiber is used 1% result is 156 MPa, when it is used 3% result is 164 MPa, when it is used 6% result is 171 MPa
When 12 mm length fiber is used 1% result is 158 MPa, when it is used 3% result is 166 MPa, when it is used 6% result is 173 MPa
When 16 mm length fiber is used 1% result is 159 MPa, when it is used 3% result is 165 MPa, when it is used 6% result is 170 MPa
[63] three cylindrical specimens of diameter 100 mm and length 200 mm were prepared and tested according to ASTM C 39 197.3
[156] Three cylindrical specimens with a dimension of u 100 200 mm 201.8
[62] cylinder u 100  200 mm 196.4
[157] 0 thermal cycle 200 MPa, 30 thermal cycle 224 MPa, 90 thermal cycle 225 MPa
[140] When 0.5% of 6 mm and 2.5% of 30 mm fibers are used together 167.1 MPa, when 1.0% of 6 mm and 2.5% of 30 mm fibers are used together 171.7 MPa,
when 1.5% of 6 mm and 2.5% of 30 mm fibers are used together 176.9 MPa, when 2.0% of 6 mm and 2.5% of 30 mm fibers are used together 182.4 MPa
[58] The compressive test was carried – out on cube specimens (100 * 100 * 100 mm) and cylinders with (100 mm diameter and 200 mm height) after 28 days
curing (1%, length of 30 mm and a diameter of 1.0 mm and steel fibers, cube 151 MPa, cylinder 137 MPa), (1%, length of 50 mm and a diameter of 1.0 mm
and steel fibers, cube 154 MPa, cylinder 141 MPa), (2%, length of 50 mm and a diameter of 1.0 mm and steel fibers, cube 163 MPa, cylinder 147 MPa), (2%,
length of 30 mm and a diameter of 1.0 mm and steel fibers, cube 160 MPa, cylinder 145 MPa), (3%, length of 50 mm and a diameter of 1.0 mm and steel
fibers, cube 169 MPa, cylinder 154 MPa), (3%, length of 30 mm and a diameter of 1.0 mm and steel fibers, cube 166 MPa, cylinder 151 MPa)
[64] The compressive tests were conducted on 7 cm diameter, 14 cm long cylinders with both ends ground. Mean strength of 228 MPa was recorded, giving a
characteristic value of 197 MPa with 95% confidence. The design strength is set at 180 MPa accordingly.
[158] Dimension of 100  200 mm, with 1% fiber 195 MPa, with 2% fiber 200 MPa, with 3% fiber 209 MPa, with 4% fiber 183 MPa
[159] 214.7 MPa
[160] Cylinders 100  200 mm. With 1% fiber 154.8 MPa, with 2% fiber 162.4 MPa, with 3% fiber 158.7 MPa
[156] Dimension of 100  200 mm, 152 MPa
[142] Dimension of 100 mm  100 mm  100 mm. With 2% fiber 151 MPa, with 3% fiber 177 MPa, with 4% fiber 194 MPa
[66] 173.0 MPa
10 F.U.A. Shaikh et al. / Construction and Building Materials 232 (2020) 117152
Fig. 7. UHPFRC sample after the compressive strength experiment– [39,140].
The heat curing is an expensive and energy-consuming approach to
improve the material characteristics of UHPFRC. It restricts
UHPFRC manufacturing to precast sector, and thus restricts the
use in the cast in situ implementation of this material [34]. Devel-
oping UHPFRCs without heat treatment or pressure treatment
would encourage use of the product, but because of all the influ-
encing parameters it was a long time quite difficult [53,54]. Table 2
represents the curing regimes that were applied in various
UHPFRCs in the literature. It can be seen that about 2/3rd of the
studies presented in that table applied heat treatment during first
few days of their curing periods.
6. UHPFRC Mechanical Properties
6.1. Compressive Strength
According to Association Française de Génie Civil (AFGC)’s rec-
ommendations [39], cylinders with sizes of 7  14 cm or
11  22 cm should use to determine UHPFRC compressive
strength. In accordance with Eurocode 2, the compressive strength
can also be measured on cubes, provided that the coefficient for
switching from cylinders to cubes is validated in design or test
suitability. The compressive strength as well as ration of water to
cement relations of the studies that yielded values of 150–
170 MPa, 170–190 MPa, and 190–300 MPa are depicted in Figs. 4–
6, respectively. The relationship between the specimen size and
the compressive strength after curing of 28 days is shown in
Table 3.
Table 3 and Figs. 4–6 demonstrate that with the decrease of the
ratio of water to cement, the compressive strength increases. The
increase of the cement content with the compressive strength does
not yield a positive trend. The main reason behind this situation is
assumed to be the increase in capillary porosity. This situation is
not dependent on one variable when the studies reach >170 MPa
of compressive strength. The total amount of binder should be
between (cement + SF) 850 and 1000 kg/m3, that of sand should
be between 700 and 1050 kg/m3, and that of superplasticizer
should be between 30 and 50 kg/m3. The water/binder ratio should
be < 0.18 and the water/cement ratio < 0.2. The samples should be
subjected to 90 °C heat curing. Quartz should be used as the sand
type (specific surface area, 20,000–25,000 m2/kg), and the steel
fibre volume should be between 2% and 4%. The preferred sand
type should have a homogenous matrix. Thus, internal structure
and geometric shape are the determinants of compressive strength
and are necessary to avoid aggregate types, such as bottom ash or
recycled glass.
Yang et al. [34] reported that fine sand aggregate is an impor-
tant factor in compressive strength of UHPFRC and recycled glass
cullet due to its weak internal structure and its decreasing effect
on the compressive strength compared to ordinary fine sand. Yu
et al. [47] reported that when approximately 20% of quartz powder
is used instead of cement, the hydration of the cement and the
compressive strength improves due to the nucleation effect of
the fine particles. Aldahdooh et al. [54] discovered that the capil-
lary porosity increases with the amount of binder. They reported
that compressive strength can decrease due to the bleeding and
segregation that occur with the usage of an over the optimum dose
of superplasticizer. Lim and Hong [55] reported that the compres-
sive strength after 28 days of curing without using fibre is 2.5% and
6% higher than those using polypropylene and steel fibres, respec-
tively. The crack that occurs due to the compressive strength is
shown in Fig. 7.
Magureanu et al. [56] informed that the highest compressive
strength is obtained through the samples made of hybrid fibres
and 4% nano-silica mixture. They also suggested that polypropy-
lene fibre do not contribute to the compressive strength that
causes a statistically significant change. Aoude et al. [57] noted
that the application of steel fibers has an impact on elastic modulus
and compressive strength pre-cracking values, but has an signifi-
cant impact on post-cracking and failure mechanisms. Eldin et al.
[58] described that compressive strength is higher in the samples
containing 3% fibre than those with 1% and 2%; the samples that
are produced with aspect ratio of 50, have higher compressive
strength than those with 30. Othman and Marzouk [59] reported
that increasing the fibre content of UHPFRCs to 3% further enriches
the impact strength compared to 1% and 2%.
6.2. Tensile and Flexural Strengths
For UHPFRCs, tensile and flexural strengths are also essential
mechanical characteristics along with the compressive strength
[33]. The compatibility of the fibres with the matrix and their sizes
influence tensile behavior as shown in Fig. 26. Table 4 shows the
tensile strength values in accordance with the sample sizes, fibre
content, and type in the studies reviewed. Table 5 shows the flex-
ural strength values.
Steel fibres have an important role in the flexural and tensile
strengths of UHPFRC. While samples type ‘‘dog-bone” were mostly
used to measure the tensile strength (Fig. 8 shows the samples of
the tensile strength experiments of Graybeal and Baby [60]), differ-
ent sizes of prisms were used in flexural strength measurement
(Fig. 9 shows the 40  40  160 mm prismatic sample used in
the flexural strength experiment of Magureanu et al. [56]). When
the studies were evaluated, the highest tensile strengths were
observed and showed the following hierarchy: twisted fibres > -
long smooth fibres > hooked fibres > straight fibres. The common
data show that the samples of twisted fibres with 2% to 3% cured
at 90 °C yielded higher flexural and tensile strengths compared
to the other fibres. The addition of 1% to 3% percent of shrinkage
reducing additive to the mixture increased the flexural strength
values further. Flexural strength is directly affected by
the homogenous spread of the aggregate in the mixture and the
 F.U.A. Shaikh et al. / Construction and Building Materials 232 (2020) 117152 11

Table 4
Tensile strengths and specimen sizes.

References Specimen size Tensile Strength at 28 day (MPa)

[56] 100  100  100 mm cube samples (thermal treatment, 5 days, 90 °C, 20.4 MPa), (water curing regime, 5 days,
water, temperature 20 ± 2 °C, 12.6 MPa)
[65] Shape dog-bone, Length 178 mm, width 51 mm and depth of constant area (when there is 22% Straight steel 15 MPa), (when there is 2.5% Straight steel
25 mm 16.5 MPa), (when there is 3% Straight steel 17.8 MPa), (when there is 1.5%
Hooked steel 12.4 MPa), (when there is 2% Hooked steel 14.7 MPa), (when
there is 3% Hooked steel 19.3 MPa), (when there is 1.5 Twisted steel
11.1 MPa), (when there is 2% Twisted steel 14.2 MPa), (when there is 3%
Twisted steel 19.6 MPa)
[163] The section of tensile specimens used is 50  100 mm, the gage length of When long smooth, steel is used 0.5% 11.419 MPa, when used 1.0%
the specimens is 175 mm 13.305 MPa, when used 1.5% 13.217 MPa
When hooked A uses 0.5% 10.895 MPa, when uses 1.0% 12.249 MPa, when
uses 1.5% 13.842 MPa
When hooked B, uses 0.5% 10.310 MPa, when uses 1.0% 11.331 MPa, when
uses 1.5% 12.014 MPa
When twisted uses 0.5% 13.498 MPa, when uses 1.0% 14.772 MPa, when
uses 1.5% 18.560 MPa

[144] It is pointed out that the small dimensions of the specimen in height
(25.4 mm) and width (50.4 mm)
[157] – Indirect tensile strength, 0 thermal cycle 27 MPa, 30 thermal cycle 31 MPa,
[46] – When 0.5% of 6 mm and 2.5% of 30 mm fibers used together 21.1 MPa, 1.0%
[58] Cylindrical specimens with diameter 100 mm and height 200 mm were cast
[164] Un-notched dog-bone specimens of 70 cm length and 10  5 cm2 cross
section
[146] The tensile properties were determined with a uniaxial tensile test on
notched plates having a cross-section of 20*5 cm2 and a reduced cross-
section of 16*5 cm2 at the notches
[143] The limit of the hydraulic wedge grip mouth opening led to the selection of
a prismatic specimen with a 50.8 mm square cross section for all tests. The
tapered aluminum plates affixed to two sides of each end of each specimen
were nominally 4.76 mm thick and linearly tapered to 1.0 mm thick over a
50.8 mm length. Two different specimen lengths, with corresponding
changes in instrumented gauge lengths, aluminum plate dimensions, and
grip lengths, were tested within the program. ‘‘Long” refers to a 431.8 mm
total length prism, while ‘‘short” refers to a 304.8 mm total length prism. In
all cases, the specimens were single-point cast in prismatic molds, allowing
the UHPFRC to flow along the length of the form.
[64] 196.4 cm  4 cm  16 cm prisms
[54] To measure the direct tensile strength, dog bone-shaped specimens with a
testing section length of 80 mm and cross section of 16 mm  30 mm were
used.
[47] Test specimens had an overall width of 125 mm, a height of 300 mm, and a
thickness of 25 mm, but an effective width and a height are 75 and 150 mm,
respectively.
[56] The splitting tensile strength was measured on 100  100  100 mm cubes
[55] Direct tensile tests were carried out on dog-bone shaped specimens
without a notch. The length of the specimens was 330 mm and the cross-
section of the narrowed part was 30  30 mm.
[145] Uniaxial tensile strength was determined on dog-bone shaped specimens
where the cross-section of the gauge section had a square shape with a side
length of 30 mm. Length of the gauge section was 80 mm and total length of
the dog-bone specimen was 330 mm.
When straight steel, diameter 0.2 mm, length 13 mm, tensile strength
2600 MPa, uses 1.5% 8.3 MPa, when uses 2% 11.3 MPa, when uses 2.5%
14.2 MPa
When hooked steel, diameter 0.38 mm, length 30 mm, tensile strength
2900 MPa, uses 1% 9.4 MPa, when uses 1.5% 11.7 MPa, when uses 2%
14.0 MPa
When high twisted steel, diameter 0.3 mm, length 30 mm, tensile strength
2100 MPa uses 1% 8.0 MPa, when uses 1.5% 11.6 MPa, when uses 2%
14.9 MPa
When low twisted steel, diameter 0.3 mm, length 30 mm, tensile strength
3100 MPa uses 1.5% 3.3 MPa
90 thermal cycle 31 MPa
of 6 mm and 2.5% of 30 mm fibers used together 23 MPa, 1.5% of 6 mm and
2.5% of 30 mm fibers used together 23.7 MPa, 2.0% of 6 mm and 2.5% of
30 mm fibers used together 26.6 MPa
(1%, length of 30 mm and a diameter of 1.0 mm and steel fibers, 12.73)
(1%, length of 50 mm and a diameter of 1.0 mm and steel fibers, 15.4 MPa)
(2%, length of 50 mm and a diameter of 1.0 mm and steel fibers, 17.45 MPa)
(2%, length of 30 mm and a diameter of 1.0 mm and steel fibers, 15.59 MPa)
(3%, length of 50 mm and a diameter of 1.0 mm and steel fibers, 19.10 MPa)
(3%, length of 30 mm and a diameter of 1.0 mm and steel fibers, 17.82 MPa)
Age 90, Uniaxial tensile strength 14 MPa
11 MPa
2% steel fiber at Long specimen and steam curing is 11.20 MPa,
2% steel fiber at Short specimen and steam curing is 10.29 MPa,
2% steel fiber at Long specimen and lab. curing is 9.18 MPa,
2% steel fiber at Short specimen and lab. curing is 8.56 MPa,
2.5% steel fiber at Long specimen and steam curing is 11.56 MPa,
2.5% steel fiber at Short specimen and steam curing is 11.36 MPa,
2.5% steel fiber at Short specimen and lab. uring is 10.53 MPa
The corrected characteristic tensile strength is 8.1 MPa
In the one with 720.49 cement, on the 28th day, the average strength still
increased by up to 12.49 MPa.
11.5 MPa
Thermal treated (5 days, 90 °C) 20.4 MPa, water curing regime (5 days,
water, temperature 20 ± 2 °C) 12.6 MPa
10.4 MPa
When 0.5% fiber is used 7.5 MPa, when 1% fiber is used 7.8 MPa, when 1.5%
is used 9.9 MPa, when 2% fiber is used 164 MPa, when 2.5% fiber is used
8.9 MPa, when 3% fiber is used 10.9 MPa

(continued on next page)

12 F.U.A. Shaikh et al. / Construction and Building Materials 232 (2020) 117152

Table 4 (continued)

References Specimen size Tensile Strength at 28 day (MPa)

[67] direct tensile tests of 6 dog-bone specimens with dimensions of 40 mm, The experimental results indicate a variation of the tensile strength
150 mm and 13 mm were carried out between 11.74 MPa and 14.20 MPa. An average stress–strain curve was
calculated and the average strength was found equal to 12 MPa

[45] for the uni-axial tensile behavior 50  12x 200 mm prisms
[149] two unnotched dog-bone specimens of slightly different geometries, each
with an overall length of 200 mm, were prepared. The cross section of the
specimens starts with 50  50 mm and changes to a prismatic shape of
26  50 mm after either 25 or 50 mm away from each ends of the
specimens
An average first-crack stress of 9.2 MPa and was reached at a deflection of
about 0.026 mm. The maximum post-cracking stress was about 11.1 MPa
and was achieved at an elongation of about 0.213 mm. Note that the
elongation at maximum stress is about 8 times higher than that observed at
first crack.
9.07 MPa

[162] cast in 50  200  500 mm3 moulds 11 MPa

[158] Relative weight ratios to cement, when 0 shrinkage reducing admixture is
used is 13.38 MPa, when 0.01 shrinkage reducing admixture is used is
12.5 MPa, when 0.02 shrinkage reducing admixture is used is 11.2 MPa

[162] A uniaxial tensile test is developed for UHPFRC. Prismatic specimens with a In tension the UHPFRC was characterized by a nearly linear-elastic stress
cross-section of 20  5 cm2 are built-in the testing machine by applying the increase until the first cracking strength 9.1 MPa (at 28 days), followed by
principle ‘‘gluing without adherence” strain-hardening until a strain of 0.28% at the tensile strength 11.0 MPa (at
28 days).
[44] 9 MPa
[60] 18 MPa

[165] The length and width of the tested tunnel lining segments were 1000 mm
and 500 mm respectively, while their thickness was 100 mm. The crown
height of the tested segment was 100 mm from the horizontal surface. This
was intended to represent a segment taken from a tunnel having a diameter
of 1.9 m.
When 8 mm length fiber is used 1% 17.6 MPa, when used 3% 21.9 MPa,
when used 6% 39.8 MPa
When 12 mm length fiber is used 1% 15.8 MPa, when used 3% 16.6 MPa,
when used 6% 17.3 MPa
When 16 mm length fiber is used 1% 13.9 MPa, when used 3% 18.9 MPa,
when used 6% 33.8 MPa
 F.U.A. Shaikh et al. / Construction and Building Materials 232 (2020) 117152 13

Table 4 (continued)

References Specimen size Tensile Strength at 28 day (MPa)

[63] 11.4 MPa

[62] Direct tensile test, A dog-bone shaped specimen was fabricated with a cross 7.4 MPa
section of 50  100 mm in the middle

[160] Cylinders 100  200 mm When there is 1% fiber 7.3 Pa, when there is 2% fiber 11.1 MPa, when there
is 3%fiber 14.0 MPa

Table 5
Flexural Strengths of Studies.

Researchers Specimen size Flexural Strength at 28 day (MPa)

[54] For the bending tensile strength measurement, four-point bending tests In the one with 720.49 kg cement 30.31 MPa
were conducted. The beams used to measure the bending tensile strength
had a length of 279 mm, cross section of 51 mm  51 mm, upper loading
span of 76 mm, lower support span length of 229 mm, and crosshead
loading rates of 0.1 mm/min.
[56] The flexural strength was investigated by performing a 3-point bending In the one with dimensions of 40  40  160 mm 22.30 MPa, in the one
test using 40  40  160 mm and 100  100  300 mm prismatic with dimensions of 100  100  300 mm 16.6 MPa
specimens. The specimens were thermal treated
[55] Flexural strength was evaluated on 40  40  160 mm prisms 40.1
[45] 100  12x 400 mm plate specimens From the results we obtained, a mean bending tensile strength at the first
crack of 18.2 MPa at a deflection of about 0.08 mm. The maximum post-
cracking strength reached at a maximum bending strength level of
23.0 MPa at a deflection of about 0.4 mm. Furthermore, a four-point
bending test for 12 mm thick specimen and span of 300 mm showed a peak
capacity of 35.0 MPa and for a specimen thickness of 100 mm the capacity
was 23.0 MPa.
[143,144] lf/df = 13 mm/0.20 mm, Proportions by weight steel fiber 0.25, 30 MPa
[34] 50  50  200 mm prisms The compressive strengths of the samples that were cured below 20 °C
were not noted due to the yielded strengths being below 150 MPa. Because
it does not provide an opportunity to compare the flexural strength values
of the samples that were cured at 20 °C’ were not written
In the samples that were cured at 90 °C’ de; when using silica sand 24 MPa,
fine ordinary sand type I 23 MPa, Fine ordinary sand II 25 MPa, recycled
glass cullet 21.5 MPa
[88] Three prismatic specimens (40 by 40 by 160 mm) 38 MPa
[141] A three-point bending test, The prism specimen had a height of 100 mm, a 30.5 MPa
width of 100 mm, a span of 300 mm and a length of 400 mm
[161] three-point flexure test was performed using 100  100  400 mm sized Relative weight ratios to cement, when using 0 shrinkage reducing
beam specimens with a 10-mm notch at mid-length admixture is 36.72 MPa, when using 0.01 shrinkage reducing admixture is
38.39 MPa, when using 0.02 shrinkage reducing admixture is 31.88 MPa
[44] Fifteen beams of similar geometry with depth varying from 30 mm to In the samples with a depth of 30 mm it is 22.32 MPa, with a depth of
150 mm are tested under 3-point bending, width b = 150 mm and span 60 mm it is 21.00 MPa, with a depth 90 mm it is 20.48 MPa, with a depth of
l = 500 mm 120 mm it is 20.11 MPa, with a depth of 150 mm it is19.76 MPa
[63] 100  100 mm and length of 400 mm were fabricated by placing concrete 31.6 MPa
at the corner of the beam. three-point flexure tests were performed as per
JCI-S-002–2003 for the beams with a 30-mm notch at the mid-length
[156] three-point bending test was performed according to a previous study. 32.6 MPa
Three 100  100  400-mm-sized beams with a 10-mm notch at the mid-
length were fabricated and tested.
[48,157] 100  100  500 mm beam up to 30 MPa
[58] 100  100  500 mm prism (1%, length of 30 mm and a diameter of 1.0 mm and steel fibers, 16.8 MPa)
(1%, length of 50 mm and a diameter of 1.0 mm and steel fibers, 18.4 MPa)
(2%, length of 50 mm and a diameter of 1.0 mm and steel fibers, 20 MPa)
(2%, length of 30 mm and a diameter of 1.0 mm and steel fibers, 19.2 MPa)
(3%, length of 50 mm and a diameter of 1.0 mm and steel fibers, 22.4 MPa)
(3%, length of 30 mm and a diameter of 1.0 mm and steel fibers, 21.6 MPa)
[156] Three-point flexure test, 100  100  400 mm sized beam specimens with When there is 1% fiber 23 MPa, when there is 2% fiber 33 MPa, when there
a 10 mm notch at mid-length were fabricated and tested. is 3% fiber 41 MPa, when there is 4% fiber 44 MPa
[159] 40 MPa
[160] Three point flexural strength test, 100  100  400 mm prisms with a clear span of 300 mm, when there is 1% fiber is 8.5 Pa, when there is 2% fiber is
19.2 MPa, when there is 3% fiber is 28.3 MPa
14 F.U.A. Shaikh et al. / Construction and Building Materials 232 (2020) 117152
Fig. 9. The 40*40*160 mm prismatic sample used in the studies of Magureanu et al.
[142].
Fig. 8. Tensile strength experiment samples of Graybeal and Baby’s studies [141].
porosity and fibre content (as the fibre quantity increased, flexural
strength also increased). Fig. 10 shows the link between fibre and
flexural strength. The type of sand, rather than the amount of sand
used, resulted in significant changes in the flexural strength values,
and the best results were obtained with quartz sand compared to
fine ordinary sand type I.
Magureanu et al. [56] indicated that UHPFRCs exhibit higher
flexural strength compared to UHPCs by 150% to 165%, the speci-
men sizes have an effect on flexural strength, and smaller-sized
specimens yield higher flexural strengths. Máca et al. [61] reported
that the highest flexural strength is obtained when a 3% fibre vol-
ume is used. They also indicated that specimens exposed to 90 °C
temperature have higher flexural strength than those exposed to
20 °C. Yoo et al. [62] reported that bending-related deflection
decreases with the increase in shrinkage reducing admixture con-
tent, and the highest benefit is obtained when 1% of the shrinkage-
reducing admixture is used. Mahmud et al. [44] indicated that until
a depth of 150 mm, the beams do not have a significant effect on
the flexural strengths. Yoo et al. [63] claimed that unlike conven-
tional concrete and FRC beams, only very thin flexural microcracks
occur in beams of the UHPFRC up to the peak load owing to strain
hardening features. Farhat et al. [64] specified that the observed
flexural failures were typically characterized by a single flexural
crack in the middle third of the beam extending upwards to the
top fiber of the concrete between the load points as well as down-
wards via the repair material. Eldin et al. [58] reported that steel
fibres have a very important effect on flexural strength, and sam-
ples that have steel fibres show 40% higher flexural strength than
those without steel fibres. Also, the same authors reported further
that fibres have a very important effect on tensile strength and the
samples that contain fibres have 55% more tensile strength.
The report showed a rise in tensile strength by 34 percent in the
UHPFRC, with a 1 percent stainless steel fibre fiber quantity,
Fig. 10. Flexural strength – fiber content correlation. Yo et al. [143].
compared to UHPC without steel fibre, and by 67 percent for
UHPFRC with a 3 percent stainless steel fibre fiber quantity. The
UHPFRC samples have a tensile strength 2.2 times greater than
those in the UHPC, reported by Magureanu et al. [56]. Wille et al.
[65] reported that increased use of smooth fibers partially miti-
gates the need for additional mechanical bonds in hooked and
twisted fibre.
6.3. Impact Strength
The impact strength of concrete leads to elevated localized
strain rates. High strain rates trigger enhanced tensile and com-
pressive strengths (See Table 6). UHPFRCs has high energy absorp-
tion capacity and, with their high-strain, has the ability to control
structural defects [37]. Several studies examined the behaviors of
UHPFRCs against dynamic impact effect when concrete is replaced
by fly ash, silica fume and slag, as well as when the concrete is
mixed with different fibre contents [66]. Máca et al. [61] suggested
that high-strength fibres improve the impact behavior in terms of
penetration depth of UHPFRC compared to normal concrete. How-
ever, they reported that fibres that are added with 1% have no sig-
nificant effect. They determined that the optimum ratio is 2%, and
fibres that are added in this ratio improve the impact load resis-
tance. Fig. 11 shows the impact effect of slabs that were applied
in the examinational studies by Maca et al. [61]. Researchers
unearthed that a bullet could not penetrate into the UHPFRC slabs
and hence, it bounces back. Sovják et al. [67] reported that having
more than 2% of steel fibres in the UHPFRC mixtures have no pos-
itive effect in terms of penetration depth. Feng et al. [68] indicated
that short and straight fibres have a positive effect on impact resis-
tance. Zhang et al. [66] suggested that steel fibres have a significant
effect on dynamic strength, deformation, and energy absorption.
The presence of these fibres improves dynamic strength, energy
absorption, and deformation.
7. Effects of specimen size on mechanical properties of UHPFRC
There exist two most extensively adopted rules for research
investigations on ‘‘size effect” for researchers. A deterministic and
powerful law for size effect was suggested by Bazant [69] which
states that larger specimens release more stored energy to the front
of the fracture than narrower samples. Furthermore, for the first
moment Weibull [70] implemented a Statistical Size Effect law,
which states that bigger samples are much more likely to fail than
lower samples. The size impact of concrete is therefore quite impor-
tant if material evaluation results for the structural layout are
agreed upon because the sizes of the specimen used for material
testing and structural components are generally different. With
that in mind, numerous researchers [43,70–75] have investigated
 F.U.A. Shaikh et al. / Construction and Building Materials 232 (2020) 117152
Table 6
Studies that examine impact strength of UHPFRCs.
References Impact strength
[55] Rectangular slabs with dimensions 300  400 mm and
thickness of 50 mm, the weight of the projectile was 124
grains (8.04 g) and the average muzzle velocity was 710 m/
s. In total 18 slabs were tested for impact loading, panel was
punched but the projectile bounced back,
[145] Rectangular slabs with dimensions of 300  400 mm and
thickness of 50 mm and 45 mm, The weight of the both steel
jacketed projectiles was 8.04 g. The length of the deformable
and non-deformable projectile was 23.2 mm and 26.6 mm,
respectively. Yield strength of the mild-steel core was
determined by compressive tests as 550 MPa. Distance to
the slab was 20 m.
[155] The ogival nose projectile was characterized with diameter
of 10.8 mm, caliber-head-radius of 3.0 and amass of 30 g;
while the geometry of the 44.5 g conical nose projectile was
featured by 6 mm diameter, 13 mm nose height and 91 mm
total height. The UHPFRC targets were casted as 104 mm
diameter cylinder with depth of about 50 mm and 100 mm,
respectively.
[159] I section, 200 mm depth, 150 mm width, 1700 mm length, 3
deformed bar with diameter 13 mm, effective depth
170 mm, 400 kg hammer, radius 90 mm, beam was
supported over a span of 1200 mm.
[142] All tests were conducted under the condition that air
pressure in the high-pressure steel bottle was about
3.4 MPa. Under this condition, the projectile speed was
roughly 8.9 m/s. Then, the specimen was impacted
repeatedly by the projectile with speed of 8.9 m/s until the
specimen was broken into pieces.
[66] 1000  1000  50 mm, the two identical vertical walls had a
thickness of 25 cm and were reinforced on both faces with
dense steel mesh. The vertical walls were fixed on a 50-cm
reinforced slab, with top and bottom reinforcement mesh.
Two different types of projectiles were used, namely ‘‘Solid
Round’’ projectiles 12.7 mm and ‘‘Anti-tank Explosive
Shells’’ 40 mm. (Initial velocity: 120 m/s, Maximum
(impact) velocity: 300 m/s, Total projectile mass: 2250 g,
Mass of hollow charge: 900 g, shooting distance: 90 m),
(Maximum velocity: 820 m/s, Bullet mass: 116 g., Bullet
diameter: 12.7 mm., Shooting distance: 300 m)
the effect of size for UHPFRC at both type of load i.e. quasi-static as
well as impact loads. For most part, laboratory examinations are
carried out by means of reduced scale, and therefore, simplifica-
tions must be prepared for real structures. This is the core reason
why a number of researchers have paid attention to investigate
the size effect of elements in the context of UHPFRC [70,76–80]. A
research lab analysis has been put to trial for the size effect of ele-
ments on the compressive strength of UHPFRC employing hetero-
geneous fibre dosages by An et al. [75]. In that event, four cubic
15
(Specimen number 1, 692 Muzzle velocity [m/s], 80 Crater diameter-front side [mm], 19
Penetration depth [mm], 63 Mass loss [g], 63 Spalling [g]), (Specimen number 2, 706
Muzzle velocity [m/s], 68 Crater diameter-front side [mm], 21 Penetration depth [mm], 44
Mass loss [g], 44 Spalling [g])
crater diameter, (deformable projectile, when 1% fiber is used is 85 mm,
(300  400 mm large and when 2% fiber is used is 74 mm, when 3% fiber is used is
50 mm thick slab) 73 mm), the panel was punched but the projectile bounced
back
penetration depth (deformable projectile, when 1% fiber is used is 20 mm,
(300  400 mm large and when 2% fiber is used is 20 mm, when1% fiber is used is
50 mm thick slab) 19 mm), the panel was punched but the projectile bounced
back
Debris fragment mass non-deformable projectile, when 2% fiber is used is 60 g,
(300  400 mm large and other fiber ratios were not measured
50 mm thick slab)
Debris fragment mass Non-deformable projectile, when 0.5% fiber is used is 295 g,
(300  400 mm large and when 1% fiber is used is 99 g, when 1.5% fiber is used is
45 mm thick slab) 109 g, when 2% fiber is used is 98 g, when 2.5% fiber is used
is 126 g. The projectile passed through the slab entirely
Impact velocity-Residual Non-deformable projectile, when 0.5% fiber is used is
velocity (300  400 mm 705 m/s-226 m/s, when 1% fiber is used is 703 m/s-228 m/s,
large and 45 mm thick when 1.5% fiber is used is 712 m/s-161 m/s, when 2% fiber is
slab) used is 720 m/s-71 m/s, when 2.5% fiber is used is 711 m/s-
47 m/s
Ogival nose projectile (UHPFRC cylinder thickness 51 mm, 817 m/s striking
velocity, 1.5 mm depth of penetration), (UHPFRC cylinder
thickness 50.5 mm, 823 m/s striking velocity, 10 mm depth
of penetration), (UHPFRC cylinder thickness 52 mm, 816 m/
s striking velocity, 0 mm depth of penetration)
Conical nose projectile (UHPFRC cylinder thickness 50.5 mm, 1382 m/s striking
velocity, 28 mm depth of penetration), (UHPFRC cylinder
thickness 98.4 mm, 1360 m/s striking velocity, 24 mm depth
of penetration), (UHPFRC cylinder thickness 95.7 mm,
1380 m/s striking velocity, 17 mm depth of penetration),
(Maximum load at Heights 0.8 m; 238.77 kN, ultimate load 128.17 kN, ultimate midspan
deflection 16.8 mm)
(Maximum load at Heights 1.0 m; 241.3 kN, ultimate load 128.36 kN, ultimate midspan
deflection 16.9 mm)
(Maximum load at Heights 1.2 m; 243.4 kN, ultimate load 128.52 kN, ultimate midspan
deflection 17.0 mm)
(Maximum load at Heights 1.4 m; 254.23 kN, ultimate load 128.67 kN, ultimate midspan
deflection 17.1 mm)
(Maximum load at Heights 1.6 m; 246.83 kN, ultimate load 128.79 kN, ultimate midspan
deflection 17.1 mm)
(impact times/absorption energy/average strain rate/dynamic compressive strength)
(when 2% fiber is used; 1/0.770/24.8/154.1, 2/0.682/20.8/156.4, 3/0.682/21.9/154.7, 4/1.1/
39.1/141.7, 5/1.41/85.6/111.1, 6/0.753/129.5/33.3)
(when 3% fiber is used; 1/0.786/30.5/146.3, 2/0.788/27.8/148.9, 3/1.069/42.5/138.3, 4/
1.365/95.5/88.2, 5/1.802/124.6/40.6, 6/0.594/125.8/32.1, 7/0.155/142.1/13.2)
(when 4% fiber is used; 1/0.633/25.1/157.5, 2/0.663/29.6/154.2, 3/0.672/28.0/147.4, 4/
0.839/30.5/145.8, 5/1.382/45.8/126.2, 6/1.522/51.8/116.9, 7/1.640/79.7/98.2, 8/1.075/
111.4/46.1, 9/0.349/138.4/20.5)
(Average results for Solid Round projectiles 12.7 mm; 63.3 cm3 Crater volume, 0.17 kg
Mass loss)
(Average results for Anti-Tank Explosive Shells 40 mm; 490 cm3 Crater volume, 1.29 kg
Mass loss)
samples of incongruent sizes possessing side lengths of 50 mm,
70.7 mm, 100 mm, as well as 150 mm were considered. The cubic
samples enjoying generously proportioned size have demonstrated
inferior compressive strengths in comparison with those of diminu-
tive size. Also, the samples lacking in fibres have got the nod on the
same line of action with regard to the effect of size on the compres-
sive strength in comparison with high-strength and standard con-
crete. While, the quantity of fibre is escalating, the size effect is
also turning out to be more momentous. By dint of three and
16 F.U.A. Shaikh et al. / Construction and Building Materials 232 (2020) 117152
Fig. 11. Impact effect of UHPFRC slab – [40].
four-points bending analyses, Mahmud et al. [44] also Wille and
Parra-Montesinos [70] have conducted experiments for effect of
size of specimen on the flexural strength performance of UHPFRC.
The upshots have driven them to ultimate conclusion that the effect
of size of samples on the attribute of flexural strength in UHPFRC is
inconsequential which trails the yield measure as it is highly duc-
tile. Also, Spasojavic et al. [76], have proven that the impact on size
in small flexural UHPFRC employees was not a large thing. Lepech
and Li [81], have likewise uncovered that engineered cementitious
composites has put on show no high-flying modification with
respect to flexural strength in accordance with the size of sample
owing to it’s ductility. What’s more to add, Nguyen et al. [73] have
portrayed about the flexural output of UHPFRC with a higher tensile
ductility is less sensitive to the size impact than UHPFRC with a
lower ductility, namely the flexural strength, normalised deflection
plus toughness. Conversely, their results were near linear elastic
fracture mechanics (LEFM) as opposed to the yield criterion
[44,70], that was contradictory to the end results of other preceding
investigations of Mahmud et al. [44].
Analogously, Kazemi and Lubell [78] have expressed that smal-
ler UHPFRC specimens were found with higher compressive and
flexural strengths, along with direct shear strengths, in comparison
with bigger specimens. Conspicuously, a boosted size consequence
on the shear strength had attained with more quantity of fibres.
Also, Frettlohr et al. [80] have headed that when the sample size
Fig. 12. Crack patterns on surface; (a) Beams of small size, (b) Beams of medium-sized and (c) Beams of large-sized. [71].
improved, the uni-axial tensile and flexure strengths of UHPFRC
decreased idiosyncratically, and that a better flexural resistance
impact was controlled than for the uni-axial tension testing [79].
The mutually conflicting results can be due to the reality that
although the flexural strength after cracking is mainly affected
by the fiber bridging ability instead of the matrix strength [82],
nevertheless, when the size impact was tested, they did not indi-
cate the fiber orientation. Not only have that, the placement meth-
ods used in such research have not been described. Consequently,
Yoo et al. [83] accounted that the divergences in the outcomes of
size consequence attained from preceding researchers [44,70,73]
were the result of dissimilar fibre orientation attributes. Their
study evidenced an effect of clear size in beams prepared with
UHPFRC, despite of application of matching placement techniques
owing to various flow velocity gradients for varying sizes of spec-
imens that escorts to various fiber distribution attributes. Their
[83] verification indicated that when identical fiber allocation
characteristics such as the fiber orientation, and number per unit
area were acquired, the resulting size impact on UHPFRC beams
was immaterial [83]. Accordingly, different fibre-distribution char-
acteristics were mainly the effects of size in UHPFRC beams.
Moreover, Yoo et al. [83], of late, carried out several flexural
testing of UHPFRC fiber distribution attributes (i.e., fiber orienta-
tion and fiber dispersion) with distinct dimensions and performed
image analysis, along with amount of fibers per unit area at the
local cracks. Parallel to the findings achieved by Nguyen et al.
[73], UHPFRC beams produced from the positioning of concrete
on one end and allowing it to flow were noticeably reduced in flex-
ural performance, as the sample size increased despite the fibre
aspect ratio 65 to 100 or fiber forms [79]. Nevertheless, the diver-
gent characteristics of fiber distribution were the primary founda-
tion for the size impact in UHPFRC beams. The larger beams have a
low fiber orientation with less fibre. Yoo et al. [71] had made sure
that when analogous for all test beams with unlike dimensions,
characteristics of fiber distribution were obtained in contrast to
the dissimilar properties, which are considerably less sensitive to
the size impact on flexural strength, as given away in Figs. 12
and 13. In view of that, finally, it was summarized that the size
consequence in UHPFRC beams is predominantly on account of
the different fibre distribution characteristics; as a consequence,
by guaranteeing analogous fibre distribution attributes, a trivial
dimension effect on the flexural resistance could be achieved for
 F.U.A. Shaikh et al. / Construction and Building Materials 232 (2020) 117152 17

Fig. 13. Cracking effect; (a) number of cracks and (b) average crack spacing. [71].

Fig. 14. Effect of specimen size on compressive performance of concrete [75].

Fig. 15. Effect of quantity of fibres per unit area on the specimen size [72].

UHPFRC incorporating steel fibres about 2%. Size effect on com-

pressive strength properties is demonstrated in Fig. 14. Fig. 16. Torex twisted triangular and square steel fibre [86].

The impact of rate of load on the size impact and the fracture
behavior of the concrete was researched by Bazant and Gettu
[81]. The dimension effect on the concrete fracture was signifi-
cantly strengthened by the time to failure escalation and by the
declined effective process area length the fragilities augmented
by trimming down the loading rate. Krauthammer et al. [84] of
axial (compressive) impact tests using cylindrical samples further
described the insinuation of the rate of loading for the dimension
effect of high-strength concrete. Tran et al. [43] examined the
impact of sample size on UHPFRC dynamic tensile. Their findings
represented that the strength of the tensile after cracking
enhanced as the sample dimension boosted, whereas the strain
competence and hardening declined. The sample size did not influ-
ence the scores of cracks. In accordance with them [43], the ground
for the boosted strength of tensile post-cracking is the inertial
impact of the sample itself. The inferior capacity of strain as well
as toughness were met with bigger samples owing to the enhanced
sample dimension resulted in a more possibility of attaining more
18 F.U.A. Shaikh et al. / Construction and Building Materials 232 (2020) 117152
Fig. 17. Bending behaviour of torex and hooked based UHPFRC [86].
Fig. 18. Load-displacement curves with different fiber content [131].
Fig. 19. Effect of fibre geometry on pullout behaviour of UHPFRC matrix [144].
substantial imperfections, piloting to poorer crack linking capabil-
ity. Also UHPFRC beams, dimensions effect with a wide range of
(straight and twisted) steel fibers under impact loads have dis-
closed by Yoo and Banthia [72]. The impact of sample size and
impact of the UHPFRC fiber content proportion are displayed in
Fig. 15.
8. Effects of fıbre geometry, length, and volume fractions
‘‘Torex fibre” is a novel kind of twisted steel fibre that has been
developed by Naaman [85] in 1990 which is portrayed in Fig. 16. It
is made out of high-strength steel cable and has a polygonal
transversal geometry, which allows for a twist on the axis. The
original thought after defining its transversal geometry was based
on the Fibre Intrinsic Efficiency Ratio (FIER). FIER is strongly allied
to the strength of composites in post-cracking stage. When the
cross-sectional area is constant, the triangular and square-shaped
fibres are 28 percent and 12 percent more efficient, respectively
at augmenting the FIER value as compared to fibre having
circular-shaped [86]. When FIER value was augmented, the bond-
ing of fibres with matrix like adhesion as well as the friction was
also improved. The twisting of the fibres has brought about
improvement in the mechanical bond. The archetypical fibre stress,
slip curves of straight, hooked-end, as well as twisted steel fibres
incorporated in the UHPFRC matrix are evaluated by Wille and
Naaman [87].
Wille and Naaman [87] articulated that twisted addition of
hooked at end steel fibre, which was discovered to be three times
greater than short straight-line fiber of steel, achieved peak fibre
stress. On the basis of enhanced fibre pull-out capability, the
strength for tensile and strain of post-cracking competence of
UHPFRC were correspondingly augmented to a large extent
through employing the deformed (twisted plus hooked-end) steel
fibres, in comparison with the short straight-line fibers of steel
[88]. The tensile strength of 2 percent of twisted steel fiber was
14.9 MPa, and its strain capability of 0.61%; the values of tensile
steel were approximately 32 and 205% greater, respectively com-
pared to those with 2 percent of brief metal fibres. Bending beha-
viour of torex and hooked end steel fibres reinforced UHPFRC are
depicted in Fig. 17 [86]. Fig. 17 shows comparison between
UHPFRC specimen with torex fibres and commercially available
hooked steel fibres. Fig. 17 clearly indicate that torex fibres exhibit
good performance compare to hooked steel fibres. More to add,
Yoo and Yoon [82] recorded that UHPFRC beams with twisted steel
fibers have a flexural approximately 1.7 times higher than beams
with short steel fibers. The squeezing deportment, like the com-
pressive strength, elastic modulus, as well as strain capacity were
also enhanced through the addition of twisted steel fibres as com-
pared to short straight line steel fibres. However, the enhancement
was comparatively of no consequence in comparison with moni-
tored value for the tensile performance. In recent times, Yoo
et al. [89,90] proposed one additional method for increasing
UHPFRC’s flexural efficiency under uniaxial as well as biaxial stress
and its capacity of fracture by using lengthy straight steel fibres. By
increasing the fiber length, UHPFRC flexural resistance, deflection
ability and robustness were significantly improved. UHPFRC panels
showed an increase in flexural strength by only approximately 26
percent and 13 percent and an increase in deflection capabilities by
153 percent and 67 percent compared to those with medium and
short steel fibres. Not only that but also application of longer sized
steel fibres the fracture energies were almost 121 percent and 35
percent greater in comparison with medium and short steel fibres
[90]. Employing longer steel fibres boosts the bond area among the
fibre as well as the matrix that escorts to higher fibre pullout load
carting competence and capacity of slip [91]. What is more to add,
the number of crack surface fibers that is a major factor affecting
the tensile behavior post-cracking has been modified in the same
diameter trivially with fiber length. For illustration, the fiber count
 F.U.A. Shaikh et al. / Construction and Building Materials 232 (2020) 117152 19

Fig. 20. Fibre distribution (a) Conventional concrete, (b) High strength concrete [98].

Fig. 21. Binary images of fibre orientation at center of UHPFRC beam; (a) Lf = 13 mm, (b) Lf = 16.3 mm, (c) Lf = 19.5 mm and (d) Lf = 30 mm. [90].

per unit area for short fibres was 34,00/cm2, the medium fiber
33,12/cm2 and the long one 35,79/cm2 [90].
The root cause of the incongruous change in the number of
fibers per unit area, although the actual number of fibers incorpo-
rated into the mixture decreases with the same fiber longitudi-
nally. The option is that fibers can increase with the fiber length
on crack surfaces depending on their volume content. Because
the fibers are included in the mixture. In brief, The shorter the
length of the fibre, the faster the mixing, hence the greater the
amount of fibers on the crack area. The post-cracking flexural
strength and resistance parameters were more or less linearly rein-
forced with an increase in the fiber volume fraction in the three lin-
ear (or bi-linear) tensioning curve. Otherwise, The fibre volume
fraction was trivially affected by the first cracking flexural strength
and the corresponding deflection [92–94]. Approximately 64 MPa,
which is nearly seven times greater than the flexural strength
without fibers after cracking with short straight line steel fibers
at a volume fraction of 5 percent [93]. A greater number of steel
fibers and elastic modules up to a fiber volume fraction of 3 per-
cent negligibly improve the compressive resistance [94]. Since
the compressive strength has a major impact on fiber dispersion
homogeneity, the optimal fiber volume fraction producing a max-
imum compression force is different for various scientists. Prabha
et al. [94] have found out that UHPFRC fibers have a maximum
compressive strength of up to a fiber volume fraction of 3 per cent
with 2 vol% 13 mm long steel fibers.
While on the other hand, Yunsheng et al. [92] described that the
compressive resistance improved constantly by up to 4% increase
in fiber quantity-a compressive force 30–50 MPa greater that with-
out fiber showed the 4 vol% steel fiber sample. In addition, by com-
bining up to 2 vol% of steel fiber in the matrix, the fiber extraction
performance was improved [94]. In this order both the strength of
the tensile fibers and the stress capacity of UHPFRC were amplified
by increasing their fiber volumes from 8 to 14 MPa, and from 0.17
to 0.24 percent, as well as for straight steel fibers from 8 to 15 MPa,
and in this order, from 0.33 to 0.61 percent. Nevertheless, the ten-
sile resistance of the UHPFRC increased with an accelerating fiber
quantity from 9 to 14 MPa for hooked end steel fibers, whereas
the stress capacity was continuous at about 0.46% [94]. Load-
displacement curves concerning fibre volume ratio and impact of
fibre geometry on pull-out strength of embedded in UHPFRC
matrix are shown in Figs. 18 and 19.
Fig. 18 demonstrate the load displacement curve for diverse fibre
volume ratios. It is clear that, as the fiber content increases, original
rigidity does not alter substantially, while the load in the softening
portion is gradually increasing to fragile behaviour. While the struc-
20 F.U.A. Shaikh et al. / Construction and Building Materials 232 (2020) 117152
Fig. 22. Fibre orientation and dispersion parameters; (a) fibre dispersion coefficient, (b) number of fibre in the unit area, (c) packing density and (d) fibre orientation
coefficient. [90].
tural ductility rises with the FRC content of fiber, there is no apparent
trend in displacement at peak load with the UHPFRC fiber volume
ratios. Fig. 19 illustrates fibre stress along with slip curves for hooked
end steel fibre, twisted steel fibre as well as straight steel fibre in
UHPFRC. From the figure, it could be seen that the pull-out stress
of twisted steel fibre is three times higher than straight steel fibre
[93]. Twisted as well as hooked end steel fibres are enhanced the pull
out resistance as compared to straight steel fibres [93].
9. Effects of fıber orıentatıon
The UHPFRC is used to manufacture structures with various
positioning methods [95–97]. Boulekbache et al. studied [98] that
fiber is rotated with various flow rates of fiber-reinforced concrete
that can be flowing. The fibres, which exert strength and moments
on the fibres, are vertically lined up in radial flow and parallel to
the flow direction in shear flow. The manufactured UHPFRC steel
bar beams by Kang et al. [99] were putting concrete using two dif-
ferent placement methods (i) allowing for one end of form to flow
to another end or (ii) the center agreeing to flow to both ends. Their
experiment results revealed a peak load that was about 15%
greater than when cement was put at the center of the concrete
beams. Due to UHPFRC’s flow capacity, more fibers are oriented
towards the longitudinal direction of the beam. The rectangular
slabs, unlike positioning processes, were also made by Ferrara
et al [95] and Kwon et al. [96] and examined how fiber orientation
affects UHPFRC flexural performance. The case of placing concrete
on a short edge of the mould and allowing for its flow [95] showed
poor flexure in comparison to the parallel beams positioned as per-
pendiculars to the flow direction. The perpendicular arrangement
of the fibers was ascribed to the beam length as shown in
Fig. 20. Fig. 21 illustrates fibre orientation and dispersion in the
middle of the UHPFRC beams on the cutting plane. Likewise, the
beams paralleled with the flow direction showed a much lower
load capacity in the situation where the concrete is placed in the
center (radial flow) [96] compared to the beams in other areas.
They also proved an unusual behaviour in flexural for UHPFRC,
which is softening of deflections. They showed Mechanical and
structural performance under tension as well as flexure are influ-
enced by the fiber orientation. Consequently, a lot of investigations
[15,70,96–98] have been carried out to quantifiably estimate how
the fibre orientation features affect the mechanical attributes of
UHPFRC and pencil in a few valuable upshots. Fibre orientation
and dispersion parameters are shown in Fig. 22.
The effects of casting methods, namely layer casting plus
middle-casting, casting speed and the flexural behaviour of uniax-
ial UHPFRC beams, were investigated by Wille and Parra-
Montesinos [70]. It was noted that a snake-like flow pattern could
be prevented when casting velocity increased and a thinner layer
could be made with a preferable fiber layer in the beam axis to
increase flexural efficiency. In addition, the beams cast in the cen-
ter show a transitional flexural resistance between the beams cast
in layers which have a high as well as low casting speed. Likewise,
Yoo et al. [97] also supervised that the center beams contributed to
greater flexural strength than the edge beams. The energy of the
 F.U.A. Shaikh et al. / Construction and Building Materials 232 (2020) 117152
Fig. 23. Compressive strength (a) and Flexural strength (b) under quasi-static loading [106].
fractures was nevertheless somewhat influenced by the casting
method since the benefit of the greater strength resistance com-
pensated for a rapid decrease in stress after peak. They also sub-
mitted image analysis and verified that more steel fiber is
positioned in the center for beams cast in the center (at peak time
region) than the beams cast on the edge to evaluate the experi-
ment results realistically. The flexural efficiency of UHPFRC panels
under a biaxial stress condition was examined by Barnett et al. [15]
and Yoo et al. [96]. However, various methodologies were
employed-the method of the newly fetched biaxial flexural testing
(BFT) suggested by Zi et al.[100]. However, similar testing findings
had been achieved. The UHPFRC panel cast in the center showed
significantly greater flexing forces than the panels cast using vari-
ous placing techniques, i.e. casting around, casting arbitrarily and
casting around the perimeter of the panel on a number of points.
Yoo et al. [97] used binary images on the crack surfaces instead
to work on picture analyses, which were changed by a high-
resolution camera with RGB pictures. The information from the
analyses showed that, the rise in the flow speed in the other panels
with varied positioning methods, a larger amount of stainless-steel
fibers in the center panels were lined up at a correct angle to the
flow direction. The aforementioned improved fiber arrangement
led to a greater flexural strength and strength in the center of
the panels than in the others. The fiber movement was evaluated
arithmetically by Kang and Kim [101], based on the Jeffery equa-
tion [102], assuming that there were no fiber interactions. They
described that the fibers were switched more parallel to the direc-
tion of the stream (for shear flow) and more vertical to the direc-
tion of the stream (for the radial flow). The actual findings from
shear and radial fluxes that have been tested by Yoo et al. [97] have
been unsurpassed by these statistical findings. According to Yoo
et al. [97] and Lee et al. [103], the fiber orientation distribution
Probability Function (PDF) for both UHPFRC and Engineered
Cementitious Composites (ECC) showed completely poles apart
from the behavior of suppositions for two and three dimensional.
Nevertheless, the use of a 2-D arbitrary fiber orientation is more
worthwhile in simulating the flexural behavior of uniaxial UHPFRC
beams than the 3-D random fiber orientation, based on analysis
based on micro-mechanics [87] it can be significant.
The findings of quite a number of previous studies [70,73,90,99]
show that the fiber distribution characteristics of fibre orientation
and number per unit region are considerably influenced by the ten-
sile or flexural efficiency of UHPFRC at virtually static stresses. This
21
occurred because its post-cracking characteristics are more influ-
enced than matrix strength by the fiber bridge ability. The fiber
distribution features are therefore also intended to affect the ten-
sile or flexural conduct at elevated load rates of UHPFRC. However,
only a tiny amount of investigators [97] studied the impact of fiber
orientation on UHPFRC impact resistance. Yoo et al. [97] have
lately experimentally studied for the first time how the rate based
UHPFRC flexural features are affected by fibre orientation. Investi-
gations were carried out successfully; [97] the fiber orientations in
the UHPFRC beams were intentionally good and poor, with two dif-
ferent dimensions. A correct fiber orientation is the case that the
fibers are mostly well aligned in the direction of tensile load, while
the poor fiber orientation suggests that most fibers are arbitrary or
tend to tensile loads. Based on the image analysis, quantitatively
explored the characteristics of fiber distribution, together with
fiber orientation, dispersion and unit number in the unit region.
When correct fibre orientation was authorized-fibers are aligned
in a more tensile stress direction-the fibre orientation significantly
affected the flexural performance in UHPFRC at impact load and
increased impact strength, i.e. improved flexural strength and
energy absorption ability. Despite the potential energy and sample
size, UHPFRC beams with correct fiber orientation showed greater
resistance to flexural impacts. The findings of Xu et al. [104] on sin-
gle fiber pull out tests are supported by the finding that the
increased fiber pull-out strength is achieved if it tends slightly in
the direction of load. Ideal alignment in the casting direction is
almost impossible because interaction between fiber to fibre, with
the fiber concentration is generated and stress applied by a fluid-
speed trimmer in the fiber is reduced when the fiber structure
approaches the flow direction. Consequently, the fibre-friendly
beam may be more fibre-friendly with a slightly tendency toward
the stress than its counterpart beam, with an increase in impact
resistance under flexure. It has been noted as a whole that appro-
priate fiber aligning with the tensile load requires excellent shock
or blast resistance to be achieved in UHPFRC components.
10. Effect of fıbre type
The effect of a type of fiber on the tensile behavior of UHPFRC at
quasi static and impact loads has been demonstrated by research
tests by Tran et al. [43]. The highest impact resistance in the
postcracking strength, stain capabilities and toughness were
22 F.U.A. Shaikh et al. / Construction and Building Materials 232 (2020) 117152
demonstrated in UHPFRC dog-bone samples with lengthy and
straight steel strain range from 5 to 24/s. Although the use of
twisted steel fibers demonstrated maximum tensile resistance at
quasi-static loads, the strain capabilities and toughness at high
tensile rates were found to be substantially below both longer
and short steel fibers due to fiber splintering. Also, analogous find-
ings of comments have been recorded by some additional investi-
gators [44,58].
Wille et al. [105] pointed out that twisted steel fibers, due to
their limited strain state resistivity tolerance, led to lower tensile
strength at elevated load rates than straight steel fibres. Not only
that, Yoo et al. [106] have pointed out that the UHPFRC beams have
been controlled with a greater flexure resistance and energy
absorption ability after cracking than those with short twisting
and straight-driven steel fibers as shown in the Fig. 23. The mixing
proportions, straight stainless-steel fiber type and mechanical sta-
tic characteristics of the sample S65 are much closer to commercial
UHPFRC [90]. It can therefore be concluded that using long straight
or twisted steel fibre improves commercial UHPFRC impact
strength. In addition, the improved impact strength with lengthy
straight steel fibers compared to twisted fibers was supervised in
the UHPFRC. This was allocated to the lower stress sensitivity to
DIF, shown by the twisted steel fibers, for postcracking strength,
which leads to a reduced increase in strength at an accelerating
stress rate. The clarifications are in line with the results collected
by Tai et al. [107] that show that twisted steel fibers have a
reduced rate sensitivity to impact fiber pull out than straight steel
fibers. Nevertheless, it is controversial that although single, twisted
fiber in UHPFRC displays a high bond strength and dissipating
energy capabilities at impact pull-out loads, UHPFRC-composites
containing numerous twisted fibers arbitrarily oriented to the pro-
vision of an expanded weak effect resistance, as opposed to
straight fibres [107]. In addition, due to the wonderful fiber bridg-
ing ability, the deflection-hardening behavior of UHPFRC has been
recorded at impact loads. [97].
In addition, Pyo et al. [108] conducted an impact test for
UHPFRC using a customized Strain Energy Frame Impact Machine.
The investigations of the UHPFRC with twisted steel fibres, though,
witnessed for higher impact resistance in the context of post-
cracking strength and ability to absorb energy in comparison with
straight steel fibres having a variety of aspect ratios. The preceding
testing upshots were divergent to this work creating an inconsis-
tency among them. This might be owing to the variations in testing
equipment and fibre characteristics, like dispersion, aspect ratio,
Fig. 24. Pressure-deflection relationships for UHPFRC slabs obtained under static
uniformly distributed loading. [122].
fibre tensile strength, number of twists and fibre orientation.
Therefore, advance research work should be put in execution to
pencil in unambiguous conclusions concerning the effectiveness
of the use of UHPFRC twisted steel fibers for loading provisions.
The inferior quality impact resistance of the UHPFRC with the mas-
sive quantity of twisted steel fibers can indeed be allocated to the
fact that twisted steel fiber has increased its bond strength because
the fiber splitting rate is more likely to result in tension or fiber
pulling at elevated stress rates. Therefore, the significantly
decreased output energy of twisted steel fibers at greater strains
has given the implementation of straight steel fibers a lower
impact strength.
Yu et al. [109] have shown that UHPFRC’s impact strength in
place of the short fibers is controlled by the lengthy steel fibres.
The impact resistance of UHPFRC was degraded, according to
[109], with the constant content of the fiber volume increasing
the substitution rate for long fibers to short fibres. Nevertheless,
the improved impact strength and static flexural efficiency of
UHPFRC in lengthy fibres have been accomplished based on the
previous trial results by Tran and Kim [104] and Yoo et al. [110].
In consequence, fusion of long or medium-length steel fibres, both
static and impact loads were promoted to improve the tensile or
flexural performance of UHPFRC.
Millard et al. [111] studied UHPC containing an amalgam of
both short as well as long steel fibres and found it displaying infe-
rior strain-rate sensitivity, signalling lesser dynamic increase factor
at equal strain-rate, in comparison with that embracing merely the
single short fibres. The core reason behind this was the reality that
the mixture of fibres is greater effectually governs the formation of
lateral crack development than its corresponding part. The pitiable
fibre distribution in UHPFRC has been attained often when mal-
formed steel fibres were incorporated. Predominantly, when the
hooked steel fibre was integrated with UHPFRC mix, deficient sep-
aration of fibres was monitored on account of its bundles, escalat-
ing crises for constructability and cracking of matrix at close to the
fibre end hook [112]. For that reason, a depreciated pull-out capac-
ity of the hooked fibre took place resulting in the weak flexural
performance of UHPFRC in comparison with one those containing
straight steel fibres. Long straight steel fibers demonstrated maxi-
mum rate sensitivity after cracking when the short straight steel
fibers showed the greatest strain and peak resistance sensitivity
[43].
On the other hand, one more study by [113], straight steel fibres
aspect ratio had not displayed any obvious impact on the dynamic
increase factor of the post-cracking resistance to flexural. These
scientists have significantly tracked the remaining flexure strength
and toughness significantly increased by the use of lengthy
stainless-steel fibers following impact damage in comparison with
small stainless steel fibers. Long, straight fibers of steel are there-
fore effective reinforcements to improve the strength of UHPFRC
following impact harm after cracking and residual loads. Yoo
et al. [89,106] has already demonstrated the effectiveness of using
lengthy straight steel fibers in UHPFRC in quasi-static loading
states. The collective application of micro steel as well as Basalt
fibres piloted to enhanced resistance to the impact and Trinitro-
toluene (TNT) blast [114,115], resultant of the synergistic impact
among the fibres. On the basis of the testing findings [114], little
permeation depth of UHPFRC was attained by repetitive impact
on utilizing both – steel as well as basalt fibres. On relying preced-
ing comparative pull-out behaviours of steel and polymeric fibres
entrenched in control or high-strength cement matrix, In addition,
polymeric fibres are advantageous to contribute pull-out beha-
viour as slip-hardening in comparison with steel fibres. Although,
the inferior tensile resistance of most of polymeric fibres, narrowed
their use in UHPFRC owing to the fibre fracture prior to absolute
pull-out. Recently, Polyethylene (PE) fibres displaying the extre-
 F.U.A. Shaikh et al. / Construction and Building Materials 232 (2020) 117152
mely high tensile performance of roughly around 2700 MPa are
developed, and they were productively employed to the cement
matrix with the sky-scraping compressive strength of more than
150 MPa [116]. Given the fact that the polymeric fibres by and
large offer enhanced pull-out behaviour than steel fibres, the use
of PE fibres in UHPFRC mix may provide an enhancement in the
context of impact resistance. Of late, Ranade et al. [117] have com-
pared the resistance against impact of high strength concrete pos-
sessing PE fibres and UHPFRC along with steel fibres- hooked type
and reported that the PE fibres demonstrated flexural behaviour
more ductile in nature along with dispersed manifold micro size
cracks than the UHPFRC on subjecting to impact loads drop-
weight type.
11. Effect of quantity of fıbres
Rong and Sun [113] performed tests with various amounts of
short straight steel fibers on the UHPFRC dynamic tensile beha-
viour with the help of a SHPB test machine and concluded consid-
erably based on their test results. They specifically indicated that
the tensile strength of UHPFRC increased, supported by the
upshots of Yunsheng et al. [118], by an rise in stress rates and fiber
volume content. In contrast to UHPC without any fiber, UHPFRC’s
low strain rates achieved 2 and 2,5 times greater tensile strengths
with stainless steel fibres of 3 and 4 vol%. Also, the direct tensile
behavior of UHPFRC was calculating by Pyo et al. [119,120], with
various amounts of fiber of steel. Parallel to Rong and Sun [113],
they advocated that the tensile performance, strain capacity to
absorb energy be increased by increased twisted steel fibers
amount at high strain rates [119], while the strain hardening
response was monitored through the use of the Strain Energy
Frame Impact Machine. Therefore, Pyo et al. [120] and Yoo et al.
[121] studies were used to determine UHPFRC strain and
deflection-hardening behavior in respect of impact loads. Beyond
the debates, it is important to think that UHPFRC’s dynamic tensile
performance is improved in straight and deformed steel fiber
instances with a greater content of fibre.
Mao et al. [122] were also along the same lines as UHPFRC pan-
els improve their blast resistance, with fiber volume content
increasing up to 6%. With a rise in fiber content from two to six vol-
umes percent at matching explosive charges and standby distance,
the maximum 1/4 deflection of UHPFRC panels was significantly
decreased. On the other side, the optimized fibre-volume content
of UHPFRC to decrease local smashing was suggested as about
2 vol% on the basis of an previous research conducted by Máca
et al. [61,123]. Their experimental findings however have
improved the effect strength of UHPC panels by integrating short
stainless steel fibres, while further increases in fiber content
beyond 1 vol% and 2 vol% showed no noticeable insinuations on
the penetration depth and crater diameter of UHPFRC panels by
effect of projectile impact accordingly. Finally, the discussion leads
to the conclusion that the massive breakdown of UHPFRC elements
is improved by an increase in the fiber content up to 6% while the
increase in the resistance to local damage by the projectile impact
is limited to the fiber content and is discovered to be around 2% of
its optimum quantity. The tensile strength of UHPFRC increases,
without a doubt, when the amount of steel fibers is increased,
because more fibers are bridging the splits and restricting the fur-
ther spreading and amplification of the splits. But increasing the
fibers has also resulted to disadvantages such as reduced down-
flow ability, greater porosity, more fiber alignment, fiber ball phe-
nomenon and so on, and therefore, a linear rise in tensile strength
with the fiber amount has not been achieved.
Also, Yoo et al. [110] noted, because of numerous shortcomings,
a non-linear increase in the post-cracking flexural strength of
UHPFRC with a fibre refractory index.
23
As the steel fibres cover a momentous portion of the entire cost
of fabrication for UHPFRC, it is more methodically carrying great
weight to put forward an optimum quantity of steel fibres, con-
tributing adequate impact resistance, in comparison with explain
that elevated impact resistance is attained at more fibre volume
contents, which is rather expected, in the context of being econom-
ical. Tai [124] accounted that, while flat end projectile was utilized,
harsher smash up was monitored for the UHPFRC panels lacking
fibre scabbing larger area in comparison with standard strength
concrete panels, because of their brilliant fragility. The failure
mode of UHPFRC panels with no fibre was switched from fragile
to pseudo plastic through incorporating steel fibres: on an adding
up of 1 vol% steel fibres, around 50% slighter scabbing area was
occupied [124]. Fascinatingly, Millard et al. [111] noted that the
increase of UHPFRC flexural strength by elevated rate of load, i.e.
loading rate sensitivity, can be reduced by increasing the fiber con-
tent between 0% and 6%. In accordance with their description
[111], the effects of a greater loading rate are allocated to the
decline, because fibers bridge the cracks in low resistance areas
are reduced to lateral crack growth. Pressure deflection relations
for UHPFRC slab loaded with a uniform static load and the relation
between the quantity of the fiber and the critical scale size of the
slab are indicated in Figs. 24 and 25.
12. Applications and prospective recommendations
The strength and lightness of the structural elements have the
power over the bulk of the applications whereas the rest of the uti-
lizations consider the belligerent resistance, sustainability, and
durability of the material to safeguard chiefly the existing or new-
fangled structures. Quite a lot of applications like anchor pre-
stressing are erected primarily and essentially on compressive
strength for columns or extremely stressed features. Also, UHPFRC
has been found fitting to apply in architectural constructions. The
erection of copious prototype structures have been made for
UHPFRC in so many countries such as New Zealand, Japan, Germany,
USA, Canada, South Korea, Australia, France, Malaysia, etc. In 1997,
UHPFRC was applied for the first time ever for a UHPFRC-infilled
steel tube composite to build footbridges in the city named Sher-
brooke, in southern Quebec, Canada [125]. This was the era of com-
mencement of UHPFRC to draw attention of universal researchers,
concrete technologists, academicians, engineers, several depart-
ments and authorities of government, etc. The eye-catching illustra-
tion to implement UHPFRC structurally was during the period of
1997–98 in France, whereby the replacement of beams for Civaux
and Cattenom cooling towers was performed displaying how it
can be employed in aggressive conditions of the environment. One
more example can be cited from the city of Seoul, South Korea during
the year 2002 whereby the first footbridge of 120 m was built totally
Fig. 25. Fibre volume and critical scaled distance of slab relation [122].
24 F.U.A. Shaikh et al. / Construction and Building Materials 232 (2020) 117152

of substandard bridge substructures, and blast mitigation and safe-

keeping utilizations. The elevated-capacity UHPFRC projects for
infrastructures are highlighted by accomplished projects of bridge
viz., the Seonyu Footbridge of South Korea; the Sherbrooke Foot-
bridge of Canada; Shepherds Gully Creek Bridge of Australia; the
Bourg Les Valence Bridge of France; Gärtnerplatz footbridge in
2007 at Kassel, Germany; Seonyu footbridge in the year 2002, Seoul,
Korea); and Sakata-Mirai footbridge of 2002, in Japan as well as roof-
ing panels for silo in the year 2001, Joppa, Illinois USA; Cattenom
nuclear power plant in 1997–1998, France; Shawnessy station in
2005, Calgary, Canada; and roof of Millau Viaduct tollgate during
2004, France.
Recommendations are necessary to suggest for healthier under-
standing of the potential of UHPFRC. So far, the majority of the
investigations were carried out on RC beam elements in context
of UHPFRC but studies on other structural elements such as walls
and columns are quite essential. Moreover, the durability perfor-
mances of strengthened RC members such as resistance to attack
of chemicals, namely, acid, sulphate as well as chloride ion attacks
should also be examined and studied in detail to offer the requisite
fortification against infiltration by such deteriorating factors creat-
ing a concern for durability and sustainability. Not only have that,
there is quite a significant call for study the performances of
UHPFRC under diverse conditions of environments including those
of aggressive kind.

13. Conclusions and Discussion

The following findings can be taken on the basis of a review of

previous literature from UHPFRC and conversations:

 The best mechanical characteristics in most UHPFRCs were

Fig. 26. Tensile behaviour of UHP-FRC using twisted steel fibres with increasing
volume content and same fibre aspect ratio [120].
with UHPFRC in the world as reported by Deem [126]. Subsequently,
the VSL road bridge of Shepherds Gully Creek in Australia was built
and launched in 2005 for public use. However, the pressing UHPFRC
beams built with standard concrete, but the dimensions of element
were significantly declined along with desirable durability and
lightness [127–129]. UHPFRC can be employed in an extensive range
of utilizations for highway infrastructures thereby offering a longer
period of design, slender overlays, shelves and claddings on account
of its enhanced durability as well as higher compressive and tensile
strengths. Hitherto, the examples of highway bridges built with
UHPFRC are a comparatively limited in quantity available in more
often than not in Canada [130–132] and USA. The key investigations
have been carried out in France, with significant development on the
topic of bridges made up with UHPFRC. In Australia and Italy certain
applications are also available [133,134]. What’s more, a lot of uses
of UHPFRC are regarded as significant e.g. In the precast concrete
piles, thin-bound overlays of degraded decks, the seismic retrofit
obtained with water to cement ratio less than 0.20, steel fibre
3 percent of volume, steel fibre length of about 13 mm hook
end type in the UHPFRC mixtures. The highest mechanical char-
acteristics were obtained with the specimens exposed to ther-
mal curing at 90 °C. The compressive performance of the
samples that were exposed to thermal curing was higher than
those exposed to water curing.
 The most imperative factors that affect the behaviour of the
UHPFRC were identified to be the fibre type, fibre geometry,
fibre volume fractions, the distribution as well as orientation
of the fibres in the concrete, and the matrix of the UHPFRC.
Twisted steel fibres reinforced UHPFRCs exhibited much higher
mechanical properties than those reinforced by hooked end
steel fibres followed by those reinforced by smooth straight
steel fibres. Increasing the fibre length does not effect after
13 mm.
 UHPFRCs showed about 2.2 times higher tensile and flexural
strengths than their counterpart ultrahigh strength concrete.
The impact resistance performance of UHPFRC was better than
static load, and impact resistance improved with the boost in
fibre content up to 2%. UHPFRC was capable of dissipating
higher absorbed energy by impact than traditional concrete
with fibres. Steel fibres contents of >2% showed no positive
effect in terms of penetration depth of UHPFRC due to impact.
 Although the mixtures with long fibres exhibited a slight
enhanced in flexural strength of UHPFRC compared to those
with short fibres, however, UHPFRCs reinforced by short steel
fibre yielded the same compressive strength values. Short fibres
are preferred because long fibres pointedly inferior the worka-
bility of the mixes.
 Using lengthy straight UHPFRC steel fibers was generally more
efficient than the twisted and rounded steel fibre in terms of
enhancing the bond strength and energy dissipation capabilities
 F.U.A. Shaikh et al. / Construction and Building Materials 232 (2020) 117152
and displaying the greatest impact resistance, with post-
cracking strength and energy absorption capabilities. UHPFRC
has also shown very high stress sensitivity. The twisted steel
fibers were, however, the most efficient way to improve energy
dissipation at quasi-static and dynamic concentrations. A
decrease in diameter increased the UHPFRC straight steel fiber
rate sensitivity.
 Larger UHPFRC specimens contributed to inferior mechanical
strengths to smaller samples. In addition, a higher size impact
for bending strength was achieved than the strengths obtained
by uni axial test. The magnitude of the flexural resistance was
mainly because of discrepancies in the characteristics of fibre
allocation, i.e. bigger samples escorted to a weak fiber direction
and fewer fibres.
 At greater stress rates, a substantial improvement in UHPFRC’s
mechanical properties was achieved. The content of the fiber
quantity has no significant effect on rate of strain sensitivity.
The use of twisted steel fibers reduced tensile strength, com-
pared to straight steel fibers, by approximately 10 percent, at
a elevated strain rate of 10–1/s in UHPFRC. The strength of flex-
ure resistance is twice and dissipated energy of three or four
times more than standard fiber-reinforced concrete (FRC).
 While more studies reported static and dynamic mechanical
properties of conventional UHPFRCs containing cement as well
as silica fume as the binder, relatively fewer studies reported
mostly static mechanical performance of UHPFRCs comprising
various supplementary cementitious materials. The application
of supplementary cementitious materials for diverse scale sub-
stitution of cement as well as silica fume could considerably
diminish the materials cost of UHPFRC and carbon footprint of
this material. In an estimate, 40 percent fly ash in the UHPFRC
shows approximate 35 percent lower CO2 emissions than the
control UHPFRC. It is also shown that UHPFRC incorporating
suitable quantity of supplementary cementitious materials
could attain mechanical properties which are slightly lower
than the conventional UHPFRC.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
References
[1] P. Rashiddadash, A.A. Ramezanianpour, M. Mahdikhani, Experimental
investigation on flexural toughness of hybrid fiber reinforced concrete
(HFRC) containing metakaolin and pumice, Constr. Build. Mater. 51 (2014)
313–320.
[2] S. Thokchom, P. Ghosh, S. Ghosh, Performance of fly ash based geopolymer
mortars in sulphate solution, J. Eng. Sci. Technol. Rev. 3 (2010) 36–40.
https://doi.org/10.25103/jestr.031.07.
[3] S. Luhar, T.-W. Cheng, D. Nicolaides, I. Luhar, D. Panias, K. Sakkas, Valorisation
of glass wastes for the development of geopolymer composites – durability,
thermal and microstructural properties: a review, Constr. Build. Mater. 222
(2019) 673–687, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.06.169.
[4] S. Luhar, T.-W. Cheng, D. Nicolaides, I. Luhar, D. Panias, K. Sakkas, Valorisation
of glass waste for development of Geopolymer composites – mechanical
properties and rheological characteristics: a review, Constr. Build. Mater. 220
(2019) 547–564, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.06.041.
[5] S. Luhar, T.-W. Cheng, I. Luhar, Incorporation of natural waste from
agricultural and aquacultural farming as supplementary materials with
green concrete: a review, Compos. B Eng. 175 (2019), https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.compositesb.2019.107076 107076.
[6] S. Luhar, P. Chaudhary, I. Luhar, Influence of Steel Crystal Powder on
Performance of Recycled Aggregate Concrete 431 (2018) 102003,
https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899x/431/10/102003.
[7] S. Luhar, S. Chaudhary, I. Luhar, Development of rubberized geopolymer
concrete: strength and durability studies, Constr. Build. Mater. 204 (2019)
740–753, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.01.185.
25
[8] S. Luhar, S. Gourav, A review paper on self healing concrete, J. Civ. Eng. Res. 5
(3) (2015) 53–58, https://doi.org/10.5923/j.jce.20150503.01.
[9] V. Kodur, R. Mcgrath, Fire endurance of high strength concrete columns, Fire
Technol. 39 (1) (2003) 73–87.
[10] D.E. Dixon, J.R. Prestrera, G.R. Burg, E.A. Abdun-Nur, S.G. Barton, L.W. Bell, S.J.
Blas Jr, R.L. Carrasquillo, P.M. Carrasquillo, A.C. Carter, Standard Practice for
Selecting Proportions for Normal, Heavyweight, and Mass Concrete (ACI
211.1-91), (1991).
[11] J. Xiao, Z. Li, J. Li, Shear transfer across a crack in high-strength concrete after
elevated temperatures, Constr. Build. Mater. 71 (2014) 472–483.
[12] C. Wang, C. Yang, F. Liu, C. Wan, X. Pu, Preparation of ultra-high performance
concrete with common technology and materials, Cem. Concr. Compos. 34 (4)
(2012) 538–544.
[13] K. Koh, G. Ryu, S. Kang, J. Park, S. Kim, Shrinkage properties of ultra-high
performance concrete (UHPC), Adv. Sci. Lett. 4 (3) (2011) 948–952.
[14] F. Lagier, B. Massicotte, J.-P. Charron, Experimental investigation of bond
stress distribution and bond strength in unconfined UHPFRC lap splices under
direct tension, Cem. Concr. Compos. 74 (2016) 26–38.
[15] S.J. Barnett, J.-F. Lataste, T. Parry, S.G. Millard, M.N. Soutsos, Assessment of
fibre orientation in ultra high performance fibre reinforced concrete and its
effect on flexural strength, Mater. Struct. 43 (7) (2010) 1009–1023.
[16] C.M. Tam, V.W. Tam, K.M. Ng, Assessing drying shrinkage and water
permeability of reactive powder concrete produced in Hong Kong, Constr.
Build. Mater. 26 (1) (2012) 79–89.
[17] D.K. Thai, S.E. Kim, Failure analysis of UHPFRC panels subjected to aircraft
engine model impact, Eng. Fail. Anal. 57 (2015) 88–104.
[18] M.A. Saleem, A. Mirmiran, J. Xia, K. Mackie, Ultra-high-performance concrete
bridge deck reinforced with high-strength steel, ACI Struct. J. 108 (5) (2011)
601.
[19] B.A. Graybeal, Flexural behavior of an ultrahigh-performance concrete I-
girder, J. Bridge Eng. 13 (6) (2008) 602–610.
[20] C. Shi, Z. Wu, J. Xiao, D. Wang, Z. Huang, Z. Fang, A review on ultra high
performance concrete: Part I. Raw materials and mixture design, Constr.
Build. Mater. 101 (2015) 741–751.
[21] A.N. Mohammed, M.A.M. Johari, A.M. Zeyad, B.A. Tayeh, M.O. Yusuf,
Improving the engineering and fluid transport properties of ultra-high
strength concrete utilizing ultrafine palm oil fuel ash, J. Adv. Concr.
Technol. 12 (4) (2014) 127–137.
[22] S. Luhar, S. Chaudhary, I. Luhar, Thermal resistance of fly ash based
rubberized geopolymer concrete, J. Build. Eng. 19 (2018) 420–428, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2018.05.025.
[23] S. Luhar, S. Chaudhary, U. Dave, Salmabanu Luhar, Effect of different
parameters on the compressive strength of rubberized geopolymer
concreteEffect of different parameters on the compressive strength of
rubberized geopolymer concrete, in: Multidisciplinary Sustainable
Engineering: Current and Future Trends, 2016, pp. 77–86, https://doi.org/
10.1201/b20013-13.
[24] M. Yalçın, C. Tasßdemir, G.I.H. _ Ekim, M. Yerlikaya, Design of steel Fiber-
Reinforced Concrete Based on Usability and Bearing Capacity Limits, 7.
National Congress on Concrete, Deevelopments Implementations Concr.
Technol. (2007) 353–362.
[25] B.A. Graybeal, Compressive behavior of ultra-high-performance fiber-
reinforced concrete, ACI Mater. J. 104 (2) (2007) 146–152.
[26] T. Makita, E. Brühwiler, Tensile fatigue behaviour of Ultra-High Performance
Fibre Reinforced Concrete combined with steel rebars (R-UHPFRC), Int. J.
Fatigue 59 (2014) 145–152.
[27] E. Brühwiler, E. Denarié, Rehabilitation and strengthening of concrete
structures using ultra-high performance fibre reinforced concrete, Struct.
Eng. Int. 23 (4) (2013) 450–457.
[28] D.-Y. Yoo, N. Banthia, Mechanical properties of ultra-high-performance fiber-
reinforced concrete: a review, Cem. Concr. Compos. 73 (2016) 267–280.
[29] W. Wang, J. Liu, F. Agostini, C.A. Davy, F. Skoczylas, D. Corvez, Durability of an
ultra high performance fiber reinforced concrete (UHPFRC) under progressive
aging, Cem. Concr. Res. 55 (2014) 1–13.
[30] S.-T. Kang, J.-K. Kim, The relation between fiber orientation and tensile
behavior in an Ultra High Performance Fiber Reinforced Cementitious
Composites (UHPFRCC), Cem. Concr. Res. 41 (10) (2011) 1001–1014.
[31] K. Habel, Structural behaviour of elements combining ultra-high performance
fibre reinforced concretes (UHPFRC) and reinforced concrete, (2004).
[32] F. Toutlemonde, J. Resplendino, Designing and Building with UHPFRC: State of
the Art and Development, ISTE2011.
[33] E. Camacho, J.Á. López, P.S. Ros, Definition of three levels of performance for
UHPFRC-VHPFRC with available materials, Ultra-High Performance Concrete
and Nanotechnology in Construction. Proceedings of Hipermat 2012. 3rd
International Symposium on UHPC and Nanotechnology for High
Performance Construction Materials, kassel university press GmbH, 2012, p.
249.
[34] S. Yang, S. Millard, M. Soutsos, S. Barnett, T.T. Le, Influence of aggregate and
curing regime on the mechanical properties of ultra-high performance fibre
reinforced concrete (UHPFRC), Constr. Build. Mater. 23 (6) (2009) 2291–2298.
[35] P. Rossi, Ultra-High Performance Fiber-Reinforced Concretes, Concr. Int. 23
(12) (2001) 46–52.
[36] P. Rossi, Ultra high performance concretes, Concr. Int. 30 (02) (2008) 31–34.
[37] R. Suter, L. Moreillon, C. Clergue, R. Racordon, Using UHPFRC for Complex
Façade Elements, Designing Build. UHPFRC (2011) 405–420.
26 F.U.A. Shaikh et al. / Construction and Building Materials 232 (2020) 117152
[38] A.G. de travail BFFUP, Ultra High Performance Fiber-Reinforced Concretes:
Interim Recommendations, Scientific and Technical Committee, Association
Française de Genie Civil (2002).
[39] A. Simon, New AFGC Recommendations on UHPFRC: Chapter 1–Mechanical
Characteristics and Behavior of UHPFRC, Designing and Building with
UHPFRC (2011) 723-742.
[40] B.A. Tayeh, B. Abu Bakar, M. Megat Johari, A. Zeyad, Microstructural analysis
of the adhesion mechanism between old concrete substrate and UHPFC, J.
Adhes. Sci. Technol. 28 (18) (2014) 1846–1864.
[41] B.A. Tayeh, B.A. Bakar, M.M. Johari, M. Ratnam, The relationship between
substrate roughness parameters and bond strength of ultra high-performance
fiber concrete, J. Adhes. Sci. Technol. 27 (16) (2013) 1790–1810.
[42] Y. Farnam, S. Mohammadi, M. Shekarchi, Experimental and numerical
investigations of low velocity impact behavior of high-performance fiber-
reinforced cement based composite, Int. J. Impact Eng. 37 (2) (2010) 220–229.
[43] N.T. Tran, T.K. Tran, D.J. Kim, High rate response of ultra-high-performance
fiber-reinforced concretes under direct tension, Cem. Concr. Res. 69 (2015)
72–87.
[44] G.H. Mahmud, Z. Yang, A.M. Hassan, Experimental and numerical studies of
size effects of Ultra High Performance Steel Fibre Reinforced Concrete
(UHPFRC) beams, Constr. Build. Mater. 48 (2013) 1027–1034.
[45] R. Toledo Filho, E. Koenders, S. Formagini, E. Fairbairn, Performance
assessment of ultra high performance fiber reinforced cementitious
composites in view of sustainability, Mater. Des. (1980–2015) 36 (2012)
880–888.
[46] R. Yu, P. Spiesz, H. Brouwers, Mix design and properties assessment of ultra-
high performance fibre reinforced concrete (UHPFRC), Cem. Concr. Res. 56
(2014) 29–39.
[47] W.-Y. Lim, S.-G. Hong, Shear Tests for Ultra-High Performance Fiber
Reinforced Concrete (UHPFRC) Beams with Shear Reinforcement, Int. J.
Concr. Struct. Mater. 10 (2) (2016) 177–188.
[48] P. Fidjestol, R. Thorsteinsen, P. Svennevig, Making UHPC with local
materials—the way forward, Proc. HiPerMat (2012) 207–214.
[49] K. Wille, A.E. Naaman, G.J. Parra-Montesinos, Ultra-high performance
concrete with compressive strength exceeding 150 MPa (22 ksi): a simpler
way, ACI Mater. J. 108 (1) (2011).
[50] R. Yu, P. Spiesz, H.J.H. Brouwers, Development of ultrahigh performance fibre
reinforced concrete: towards an efficient utilization of binders and fibres,
Constr Build Mater. 79 (2015) 273–282.
[51] M.A.A. Aldahdooh, N.M. Bunnori, M.A.M. Johari, Development of green
ultrahigh performance fibre reinforced concrete containing ultrafine palm
oil fuel ash, Constr Build Mater. 48 (2013) 379–389.
[52] R. Yu, P. Tang, P. Spiesz, et al., A study of multiple effects of ano silica and
hybrid fibers on the properties of ultrahigh performance fibre reinforced
concrete incorporating waste bottom ash, Constr Build Mater. 60 (2014) 98–
110.
[53] F.U.A. Shaikh, T. Nishiwaki, S. Kwon, Effect of fly ash on tensile properties of
ultra-high performance fiber reinforced cementitious composites (UHP-
FRCC), J. Sustainable Cement-Based Mater. (2018), https://doi.org/10.1080/
21650373.2018.1514672.
[54] M. Aldahdooh, N.M. Bunnori, M.M. Johari, Evaluation of ultra-high-
performance-fiber reinforced concrete binder content using the response
surface method, Mater. Des. 52 (2013) 957–965.
[55] P. Máca, R. Sovják, P. Konvalinka, Mix design of UHPFRC and its response to
projectile impact, Int. J. Impact Eng. 63 (2014) 158–163.
[56] C. Magureanu, I. Sosa, C. Negrutiu, B. Heghes, Physical and mechanical
properties of ultra high strength fiber reinforced cementitious composites,
Korea Concrete Institute, Fracture Mechanics of Concrete and Concrete
Structures, 2010, pp. 1497–11491.
[57] H. Aoude, F.P. Dagenais, R.P. Burrell, M. Saatcioglu, Behavior of ultra-high
performance fiber reinforced concrete columns under blast loading, Int. J.
Impact Eng. 80 (2015) 185–202.
[58] H.K.S. Eldin, H.A. Mohamed, M. Khater, S. Ahmed, Mechanical Properties
ofUltra-High Performance Fiber Reinforced Concrete, (2014).
[59] D.-Y. Yoo, N. Banthia, S.-W. Kim, Y.-S. Yoon, Response of ultra-high-
performance fiber-reinforced concrete beams with continuous steel
reinforcement subjected to low-velocity impact loading, Compos. Struct.
126 (2015) 233–245.
[60] M. Xu, K. Wille, Fracture energy of UHP-FRC under direct tensile loading
applied at low strain rates, Compos. B Eng. 80 (2015) 116–125.
[61] P. Máca, R. Sovják, T. Vavřiník, Experimental investigation of mechanical
properties of UHPFRC, Procedia Eng. 65 (2013) 14–19.
[62] D.-Y. Yoo, J.-J. Park, S.-W. Kim, Y.-S. Yoon, Influence of reinforcing bar type on
autogenous shrinkage stress and bond behavior of ultra high performance
fiber reinforced concrete, Cem. Concr. Compos. 48 (2014) 150–161.
[63] D.-Y. Yoo, N. Banthia, Y.-S. Yoon, Flexural behavior of ultra-high-performance
fiber-reinforced concrete beams reinforced with GFRP and steel rebars, Eng.
Struct. 111 (2016) 246–262.
[64] J. Xia, Ultra-high Performance Fiber Reinforced Concrete In Bridge Deck
Applications, (2011).
[65] K. Wille, S. El-Tawil, A. Naaman, Properties of strain hardening ultra high
performance fiber reinforced concrete (UHP-FRC) under direct tensile
loading, Cem. Concr. Compos. 48 (2014) 53–66.
[66] D. Nicolaides, A. Kanellopoulos, P. Savva, M. Petrou, Experimental field
investigation of impact and blast load resistance of Ultra High
Performance Fibre Reinforced Cementitious Composites (UHPFRCCs),
Constr. Build. Mater. 95 (2015) 566–574.
[67] A. Lampropoulos, S.A. Paschalis, O. Tsioulou, S.E. Dritsos, Strengthening of
reinforced concrete beams using ultra high performance fibre reinforced
concrete (UHPFRC), Eng. Struct. 106 (2016) 370–384.
[68] Y. Kusumawardaningsih, E. Fehling, M. Ismail, UHPC compressive strength
test specimens: cylinder or cube?, Procedia Eng 125 (2015) 1076–1080.
[69] Z.P. Bazant, Size effect in blunt fracture: concrete, rock, metal, J. Eng. Mech.
110 (4) (1984) 518–535.
[70] K. Wille, G.J. Parra-Montesinos, Effect of beam size, casting method, and
support conditions on flexural behavior of ultra-high-performance fibre
reinforced concrete, ACI Mater. J. 109 (3) (2012) 379–388.
[71] D.Y. Yoo, N. Banthia, S.T. Kang, Y.S. Yoon, Size effect in ultra-high performance
concrete beams, Eng. Fract. Mech. 157 (2016) 86–106.
[72] D.Y. Yoo, N. Banthia, Size-dependent impact resistance of ultra-high
performance fibre-reinforced concrete beams, Constr. Build. Mater. 142
(2017) 363–375.
[73] D.L. Nguyen, D.J. Kim, G.S. Ryu, K.T. Koh, Size effect on flexural behavior of
ultra-high-performance hybrid fibre-reinforced concrete, Compos Part B Eng.
45 (1) (2013) 1104–1116.
[74] D.L. Nguyen, G.S. Ryu, K.T. Koh, D.J. Kim, Size and geometry dependent tensile
behavior of ultra-high-performance fibre-reinforced concrete, Compos Part B
Eng. 58 (2014) 279–292.
[75] M.Z. An, L.J. Zhang, Q.X. Yi, Size effect on compressive strength of reactive
powder concrete, J. Chin. Univ. Min. Technol. 18 (2) (2008) 279–282.
[76] A. Spasojavic, D. ReDaelli, M. Fernandez Ruiz, A. Muttoni, Influence of tensile
properties of UHPFRC on size effect in bending, in: Proceedings of the 2nd
International Symposium on Ultra High Performance Concrete. Kassel,
Germany, 2008, pp. 303-310.
[77] M. Lepech, V.C. Li, Brittle Matrix Composites-7, Warsaw, Poland, in:
Preliminary Findings on Size Effect in ECC Structural Members in Flexural,
2003, 57-66.
[78] S. Kazemi, A.S. Lubell, Influence of specimen size and fibre content on
mechanical properties of ultra-high-performance fibre-reinforced concrete,
ACI Mater J. 109 (6) (2012) 675–684.
[79] K.H. Reineck, S. Greiner, Scale effect and combined loading of thin UHPFRC
members, Adv. Constr. Mater. (2007) 211–218.
[80] B. Frettl€ohr, K.H. Reineck, H.W. Reinhardt, Size and shape effect of UHPFRC
prisms tested under axial tension and bending, in: Proceedings of High
Performance Fibre Reinforced Cement Composites 6, Netherlands, 2012, 365-
372.
[81] Z.P. Bazant, R. Gettu, Size effect in concrete structures and influence of
loading rate, in: Proc., 1st Mat. Engrg. Congr., Serviceability and Durability of
Construction Materials ASCE, Boston, 1990, 1113–1123.
[82] D.Y. Yoo, Y.S. Yoon, Structural performance of ultra-high-performance
concrete beams with different steel fibres, Eng. Struct. 102 (2015) 409–423.
[83] D.Y. Yoo, S.T. Kang, N. Banthia, Y.S. Yoon, Nonlinear finite element analysis of
ultra-high-performance fibre-reinforced concrete beams, Int. J. Damage
Mech. (2016).
[84] T. Krauthammer, M.M. Elfahal, J. Lim, T. Ohno, M. Beppu, G. Markeset, Size
effect for high-strength concrete cylinders subjected to axial impact, Int. J.
Impact Eng. 28 (9) (2003) 1001–1016.
[85] A.E. Naaman, New fibre technology: cement, ceramic and polymeric
composites, Concr. Int. 20 (7) (1998) 57–62.
[86] A.E. Naaman, Engineered steel fibres with optimal properties for
reinforcement of cement composites, J. Adv. Concr. Tech. 1 (3) (2003) 241–
252.
[87] K. Wille, A.E. Naaman, Pullout behavior of high-strength steel fibres
embedded in ultra-high-performance concrete, ACI Mater J. 109 (4) (2012)
479–488.
[88] V. Corinaldesi, G. Moriconi, Mechanical and thermal evaluation of Ultra High
Performance Fiber Reinforced Concretes for engineering applications, Constr.
Build. Mater. 26 (1) (2012) 289–294.
[89] D.Y. Yoo, G. Zi, S.T. Kang, Y.S. Yoon, Biaxial flexural behavior of ultra high
performance fibre-reinforced concrete with different fibre lengths and
placement methods, Cem. Concr. Compos 63 (2015) 51–66.
[90] D.Y. Yoo, S.T. Kang, Y.S. Yoon, Effect of fibre length and placement method on
flexural behavior, tension-softening curve, and fibre distribution
characteristics of UHPFRC, Constr. Build. Mater 64 (2014) 67–81.
[91] D.Y. Yoo, N. Banthia, G. Zi, Y.S. Yoon, Comparative biaxial flexural behavior of
ultra-high-performance fibre-reinforced concrete panels using two different
test and placement methods, J. Test. Eval. (2016).
[92] Z. Yunsheng, S. Wei, L. Sifeng, J. Chujie, L. Jianzhong, Preparation of C200
green reactive powder concrete and its staticedynamic behaviors, Cem.
Concr. Compos 30 (9) (2008) 831–838.
[93] S.T. Kang, Y. Lee, Y.D. Park, J.K. Kim, Tensile fracture properties of an ultra high
performance fibre reinforced concrete (UHPFRC) with steel fibre, Compos
Struct. 92 (1) (2010) 61–71.
[94] S.L. Prabha, J.K. Dattatreya, M. Neelamegam, M.V. Seshagirirao, Study on
stress-strain properties of reactive powder concrete under uniaxial
compression, Int. J. Eng. Sci. Technol. 2 (11) (2010) 6408–6416.
 F.U.A. Shaikh et al. / Construction and Building Materials 232 (2020) 117152
[95] L. Ferrara, N. Ozyurt, M. Di Prisco, High mechanical performance of fibre
reinforced cementitious composites: the role of ‘‘casting-flow induced” fibre
orientation, Mater Struct. 44 (1) (2011) 109–128.
[96] S.H. Kwon, S.T. Kang, B.Y. Lee, J.K. Kim, The variation of flow-dependent
tensile behavior in radial flow dominant placing of Ultra High Performance
Fibre Reinforced Cementitious Composites (UHPFRCC), Constr. Build. Mater
33 (2012) 109–121.
[97] D.Y. Yoo, N. Banthia, S.T. Kang, Y.S. Yoon, Effect of fibre orientation on the rate
dependent flexural behavior of ultra-high-performance fibre-reinforced
concrete, Compos Struct. (2016).
[98] B. Boulekbache, M. Hamrat, M. Chemrouk, S. Amziane, Flowability of fibre
reinforced concrete and its effect on the mechanical properties of the
material, Constr. Build. Mater 24 (9) (2010) 1664–1671.
[99] S.T. Kang, B.Y. Lee, J.K. Kim, Y.Y. Kim, The effect of fibre distribution
characteristics on the flexural strength of steel fibre-reinforced ultra high
strength concrete, Constr. Build. Mater 25 (5) (2011) 2450–2457.
[100] G. Zi, H. Oh, S.K. Park, A novel indirect tensile test method to measure the
biaxial tensile strength of concretes and other quasibrittle materials, Cem.
Concr. Res. 38 (6) (2008) 751–756.
[101] S.T. Kang, J.K. Kim, Numerical simulation of the variation of fibre orientation
distribution during flow molding of Ultra High Performance Cementitious
Composites (UHPCC), Cem. Concr. Compos 34 (2) (2012) 208–217.
[102] G.B. Jeffery, The motion of ellipsoidal particles immersed in a viscous fluid,
Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. 102 (715) (1922) 161–179.
[103] B.Y. Lee, J.K. Kim, Y.Y. Kim, Prediction of ECC tensile stresse strain curves
based on modified fibre bridging relations considering fibre distribution
characteristics, Comput. Concr. 7 (5) (2010) 455–468.
[104] N.T. Tran, D.J. Kim, High energy absorption capacity of ultra-high
performance hybrid-fibre-reinforced concretes under direct tensile impact,
in: 4th International Symposium on Ultra-High Performance Concrete and
High Performance Construction Materials, Kassel, Germany, 2016, 8.
[105] J.-P. Charron, E. Denarié, E. Brühwiler, Transport properties of water
and glycol in an ultra high performance fiber reinforced concrete
(UHPFRC) under high tensile deformation, Cem. Concr. Res. 38 (5)
(2008) 689–698.
[106] D.Y. Yoo, N. Banthia, Y.S. Yoon. Impact resistance of ultra-high-performance
fibre-reinforced concrete with different steel fibres. 9th RILEM International
Symposium on Fibre Reinforced Concrete (BEFIB 2016), Pacific Gateway
Hotel, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2016.
[107] Y.S. Tai, S. El-Tawil, T.H. Chung, Performance of deformed steel fibres
embedded in ultra-high performance concrete subjected to various pullout
rates, Cem. Concr. Res. 89 (2016) 1–13.
[108] S. Pyo, S. El-Tawil, A.E. Naaman, Direct tensile behavior of ultra high
performance fibre reinforced concrete (UHP-FRC) at high strain rates, Cem.
Concr. Res. 88 (2016) 144–156.
[109] R. Yu, P. Spiesz, H.J.H. Brouwers, Static properties and impact resistance of a
green Ultra-High Performance Hybrid Fibre Reinforced Concrete (UHPHFRC):
experiments and modeling, Constr. Build. Mater. 68 (2014) 158–171.
[110] D.Y. Yoo, S.W. Kim, J.J. Park, Comparative flexural behavior of ultra-
highperformance concrete reinforced with hybrid straight steel fibres,
Constr. Build. Mater. 132 (2017) 219–229.
[111] S.G. Millard, T.C.K. Molyneaux, S.J. Barnett, X. Gao, Dynamic enhancement of
blast-resistant ultra high performance fibre-reinforced concrete under
flexural and shear loading, Int. J. Impact Eng. 37 (4) (2010) 405–413.
[112] L. Flanders, T. Rushing, E. Landis, Energy dissipation mechanisms in the
fracture of fibre reinforced ultra high performance concrete, in: 4th
International Symposium on Ultra-High Performance Concrete and High
Performance Construction Materials (HiPerMat2016), Kassel, Germany, 2016,
1–8.
[113] Z. Rong, W. Sun, Experimental and numerical investigation on the dynamic
tensile behavior of ultra-high performance cement based composites, Constr.
Build. Mater. 31 (2012) 168–173.
[114] D.Y. Yoo, S.T. Kang, Y.S. Yoon, Enhancing the flexural performance of
ultrahigh- performance concrete using long steel fibres, Compos. Struct.
147 (2016) 220–230.
[115] J. Lai, X. Guo, Y. Zhu, Repeated penetration and different depth explosion of
ultra-high performance concrete, Int. J. Impact Eng. 84 (2015) 1–12.
[116] L. Jianzhong, Z. Yaoyong, W. Huifang, Penetration and explosion of ultra-high
performance fibre reinforced cement composite subjected to impact, in:
Proceedings of High Performance Fibre Reinforced Cement Composites
(HPFRCC7), Stuttgart, Germany, 2015, pp. 325–332.
[117] R. Ranade, V.C. Li, W.F. Heard, B.A. Williams, Impact resistance of high
strength-high ductility concrete, Cem. Concr. Res. 98 (2017) 24–35.
[118] Z. Yunsheng, S. Wei, L. Sifeng, J. Chujie, L. Jianzhong, Preparation of C200
green reactive powder concrete and its static–dynamic behaviors, Cem.
Concr. Compos. 30 (9) (2008) 831–838.
[119] S. Pyo, S. El-Tawil, Capturing the strain hardening and softening responses of
cementitious composites subjected to impact loading, Constr. Build. Mater.
81 (2015) 276–283.
[120] S. Pyo, K. Wille, S. El-Tawil, A.E. Naaman, Strain rate dependent properties of
ultra high performance fibre reinforced concrete (UHP-FRC) under tension,
Cem. Concr. Compos. 56 (2015) 15–24.
[121] D.Y. Yoo, N. Banthia, S.T. Kang, Y.S. Yoon, Effect of fibre orientation on the
rate-dependent flexural behavior of ultra-high-performance fibre-reinforced
concrete, Compos. Struct. 157 (2016) 62–70.
27
[122] L. Mao, S.J. Barnett, A. Tyas, J. Warren, G.K. Schleyer, S.S. Zaini, Response of
small scale ultra high performance fibre reinforced concrete slabs to blast
loading, Constr. Build. Mater. 93 (2015) 822–830.
[123] P. Máca, R. Sovják, T. Vavriník, Resistance of ultra high performance fibre
reinforced concrete to projectile impact, Struct. Under Shock Impact XII 126
(2013) 261–272.
[124] Y.S. Tai, Flat ended projectile penetrating ultra-high strength concrete plate
target, Theor. Appl. Fract. Mech. 51 (2) (2009) 117–128.
[125] R. Adeline, M. Lachemi, P. Blais, (1998). Design and behavior of the
Sherbrooke Footbridge. International Symposium on High-Performance and
Reactive Powder Concretes, Sherbrooke, Canada.
[126] S. Deem, (2001). Concrete Attraction-Something New on the French Menu-
Concrete.
[127] J. Resplendino, First recommendations for Ultra-High Performance Concretes
and examples of applications, Proceedings of the International Symposium
on Ultra High Performance Concrete, pp.79-89, Kassel, Germany, 2004.
[128] P. Acker, M. Behloul, Ductal Technology: a Large Spectrum of Properties, a
Wide Range of, Proceedings of the International Symposium on Ultra High
Performance Concrete, Kassel, 2004, pp. 11–23.
[129] H. Park, E. Chuang, F.-J. Ulm, Model-Based Optimization of Ultra High
Performance Concrete Highway Bridge Girders , Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, Cambridge, USA, March 2003.
[130] A.E. Naaman, K. Chandrangsu, Innovative bridge deck system using high
performance fiberreinforced cement composites, ACI Struct. J. 101 (1) (2004)
57–64.
[131] B.A. Graybeal, J.L. Hartmann, Construction of an optimized UHPC vehicle
bridge, Seventh International Symposium on the utilization of High-Strength/
HIgh-Performance Concrete, ACI Special Publication SP-228, Vol. 2, pp. 1109-
1118, Washington D.C., USA, June, 2005.
[132] E. Brühwiler, E. Denarié, K. Habel, Ultra-High Performance Fibre Reinforced
Concrete for advanced rehabilitation of bridges, Proceedings Fib Symposium
‘‘Keep Concrete Attractive”, Budapest, Hungary, Editors G. L. Balasz, A.
Borosnyoi, pp. 951-956, Budapest, Hungary, 2005.
[133] B. Cavill, G. Chirgwin, The world first Reactive Powder Concrete road bridge
at Shepherds Gully Creek, NSW, 21th Biennal Conference of the Concrete
Institute of Australia, Brisbane, 17-19 July, 11 pp., Brisbane, Australia, July,
2003.
[134] A. Meda, G. Rosati, Design and construction of a bridge in very high
performance fiber-reinforced concrete, ASCE Journal of Bridge Engineering,
Vol. 8, No. 5, pp. 281-287, September-Octobre, 2003.
[135] C. Ferraris, E. Garboczi, P. Stutzman, J. Winpigler, J. Clifton, Influence of silica
fume on the stresses generated by alkali-silica reaction, Cem., Concr.
Aggregates 22 (1) (2000) 73–78.
[136] Z.S. Metaxa, M.S. Konsta-Gdoutos, S.P. Shah, Mechanical properties and
nanostructure of cement-based materials reinforced with carbon nanofibers
and Polyvinyl Alcohol (PVA) microfibers, in Advances in the Material Science
of Concrete, in: Session at the ACI Spring 2010 Convention, 2010, pp. 115–
126.
[137] B.A. Tayeh, B. Abu Bakar, M. Johari, A. Zeyad, The role of silica fume in the
adhesion of concrete restoration systems, Adv. Mater. Res., Trans. Tech. Publ.
(2013) 265–269.
[138] M. Jalal, A. Pouladkhan, O.F. Harandi, D. Jafari, Comparative study on effects of
Class F fly ash, nano silica and silica fume on properties of high performance
self compacting concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 94 (2015) 90–104.
[139] N. González, J. Castaño, Y. Alvarado, I. Gasch, Influence of fiber volume and
subsequent curing on post-crack behavior of an ultra high performance
concrete (UHPC), Revista Ingeniería de Construcción 29 (3) (2015) 220–233.
[140] B. Karihaloo, CARDIFRC–from concept to industrial application, High
Performance Fiber Reinforced Cement Composites 6, Springer, 2012, pp.
397–404.
[141] I.H. Yang, C. Joh, B.-S. Kim, Structural behavior of ultra high performance
concrete beams subjected to bending, Eng. Struct. 32 (11) (2010) 3478–3487.
[142] W. Zhang, Y. Zhang, G. Zhang, Single and multiple dynamic impacts
behaviour of ultra-high performance cementitious composite, J. Wuhan
Univ. Technol.-Mater. Sci. Ed. 26 (6) (2011) 1227–1234.
[143] B.A. Graybeal, F. Baby, Development of direct tension test method for ultra-
high-performance fiber-reinforced concrete, ACI Mater. J. 110 (2) (2013).
[144] K. Wille, D.J. Kim, A.E. Naaman, Strain-hardening UHP-FRC with low fiber
contents, Mater. Struct. 44 (3) (2011) 583–598.
[145] R. Sovják, T. Vavřiník, J. Zatloukal, P. Máca, T. Mičunek, M. Frydrýn, Resistance
of slim UHPFRC targets to projectile impact using in-service bullets, Int. J.
Impact Eng. 76 (2015) 166–177.
[146] K. Habel, M. Viviani, E. Denarié, E. Brühwiler, Development of the mechanical
properties of an ultra-high performance fiber reinforced concrete (UHPFRC),
Cem. Concr. Res. 36 (7) (2006) 1362–1370.
[147] B.A. Tayeh, B.A. Bakar, M.M. Johari, Y.L. Voo, Mechanical and permeability
properties of the interface between normal concrete substrate and ultra high
performance fiber concrete overlay, Constr. Build. Mater. 36 (2012) 538–548.
[148] L.K. Askar, B.A. Tayeh, B. Abu Bakar, Effect of different curing conditions on
the mechanical properties of UHPFC, Awam International Conference on Civil
Engineering (AICCE’12) and Geohazard Information Zonation (GIZ’12), 2012,
pp. 28-30.
[149] A. Hassan, S. Jones, G. Mahmud, Experimental test methods to determine the
uniaxial tensile and compressive behaviour of ultra high performance fibre
reinforced concrete (UHPFRC), Constr. Build. Mater. 37 (2012) 874–882.
28 F.U.A. Shaikh et al. / Construction and Building Materials 232 (2020) 117152
[150] A. Hassan, S. Jones, Non-destructive testing of ultra high performance fibre
reinforced concrete (UHPFRC): a feasibility study for using ultrasonic and
resonant frequency testing techniques, Constr. Build. Mater. 35 (2012) 361–
367.
[151] J.-P. Charron, E. Denarié, E. Brühwiler, Permeability of ultra high performance
fiber reinforced concretes (UHPFRC) under high stresses, Mater. Struct. 40 (3)
(2007) 269–277.
[152] F.S. Ahmad, G. Foret, R. Le Roy, Bond between carbon fibre-reinforced
polymer (CFRP) bars and ultra high performance fibre reinforced concrete
(UHPFRC): Experimental study, Constr. Build. Mater. 25 (2) (2011) 479–485.
[153] K. Wille, A. Naaman, Fracture energy of UHPFRC under direct tensile loading,
FraMCoS-7 international conference, Jeju, Korea, 2010.
[154] A. Kamen, Time dependent behaviour of ultra high performance fibre
reinforced concrete (UHPFRC), 6th International PhD Symposium, Civ. Eng.
(2006).
[155] J. Feng, W. Sun, Z. Liu, C. Cui, X. Wang, An armour-piercing projectile
penetration in a double-layered target of ultra-high-performance fiber
reinforced concrete and armour steel: Experimental and numerical
analyses, Mater. Des. 102 (2016) 131–141.
[156] D.-Y. Yoo, K.-Y. Kwon, J.-J. Park, Y.-S. Yoon, Local bond-slip response of GFRP
rebar in ultra-high-performance fiber-reinforced concrete, Compos. Struct.
120 (2015) 53–64.
[157] F. Farhat, D. Nicolaides, A. Kanellopoulos, B.L. Karihaloo, High performance
fibre-reinforced cementitious composite (CARDIFRC)–Performance and
application to retrofitting, Eng. Fract. Mech. 74 (1) (2007) 151–167.
[158] D.-Y. Yoo, J.-H. Lee, Y.-S. Yoon, Effect of fiber content on mechanical and
fracture properties of ultra high performance fiber reinforced cementitious
composites, Compos. Struct. 106 (2013) 742–753.
[159] K. Fujikake, T. Senga, N. Ueda, T. Ohno, M. Katagiri, Study on impact response
of reactive powder concrete beam and its analytical model, J. Adv. Concr.
Technol. 4 (1) (2006) 99–108.
[160] H. Othman, H. Marzouk, Impact response of ultra-high-performance
reinforced concrete plates, ACI Struct. J. 113 (6) (2016) 1325.
[161] D.-Y. Yoo, S.-T. Kang, J.-H. Lee, Y.-S. Yoon, Effect of shrinkage reducing
admixture on tensile and flexural behaviors of UHPFRC considering fiber
distribution characteristics, Cem. Concr. Res. 54 (2013) 180–190.
[162] K. Habel, E. Denarié, E. Brühwiler, Time dependent behavior of elements
combining ultra-high performance fiber reinforced concretes (UHPFRC) and
reinforced concrete, Mater. Struct. 39 (5) (2006) 557–569.
[163] S.H. Park, D.J. Kim, G.S. Ryu, K.T. Koh, Tensile behavior of ultra high
performance hybrid fiber reinforced concrete, Cem. Concr. Compos. 34 (2)
(2012) 172–184.
[164] A. Kamen, E. Denarié, H. Sadouki, E. Brühwiler, UHPFRC tensile creep at early
age, Mater. Struct. 42 (1) (2009) 113.
[165] M.L. Nehdi, S. Abbas, A.M. Soliman, Exploratory study of ultra-high
performance fiber reinforced concrete tunnel lining segments with varying
steel fiber lengths and dosages, Eng. Struct. 101 (2015) 733–742.