See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/288507709

Mechanical Properties of Ultra High Performance Concrete (UHPC)

Conference Paper · October 2012

CITATIONS READS

2 233

2 authors, including:

Ghafur H. Ahmed
Erbil polytechnic university
5 PUBLICATIONS   3 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

segmental bridge box girders View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ghafur H. Ahmed on 28 December 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Twelfth International Conference on Recent Advances in Concrete Technology and Sustainability Issues
Prague, Czech Republic, October 31-November 2, 2012

Mechanical Properties of Ultra High Performance Concrete (UHPC)

Omer Q. Aziz and Ghafur H. Ahmed

SYNOPSIS
Ultra-high performance concrete (UHPC) has evolved in the last couple of decades and it is relatively new type
of concrete that exhibits mechanical properties that are far superior to those of conventional concrete and in
some cases rival those of steel. The main characteristics that distinguish UHPC from conventional concrete are:
the improved compressive strength, improved tensile strength, the addition of steel fibers, high binder content,
and high dosage of super-plasticizers, low water-to-binder (w/b) ratio and lack of coarse aggregates. For
understanding the possibility of making UHPC with different compositions and mix proportions, more than
(224) concrete specimens with different size and shape were cast and tested with concentrating on mechanical
properties in different ages and comparing the results also with conventional concrete mixes.

Keywords: steel fibers, super plasticizer, silica fume, reactive powder concrete (RPC), ultra-high performance
concrete.

Biography: ACI member Omar Q. Aziz is Assistant professor in Civil Engineering Department, College of
Engineering, University of Salahaddin-Hawler, Kurdistan-Iraq, BS (1990) in Civil Engineering, MS (1993) and
PhD (1997) in Structural Engineering, University of Technology, Baghdad-Iraq. His research interests are High
Strength Concrete, Deep Beams and Corbels;
E-mail: dr omer qarani@yahoo.com
Ghafur H. Ahmed is a Research Engineer; He received his BS in Civil Engineering in (2002) and MS in
Structural Engineering (2009) in University of Salahaddin-Hawler, now he is Quality Manager and head of
research section in Hawler Construction Laboratories, Kurdistan Region-Iraq;
E-mail: eng.ghafur.ahmed@gmail.com

INTRODUCTION
Advances in the knowledge and understanding of the behaviors of concrete on the micro-structural level have
led to the development of the next generation of concrete, namely ultra-high performance concrete (UHPC).
UHPC is a new class of concrete that has been developed in recent decades. When compared with high
performance concrete (HPC), UHPC tends to exhibit superior properties such as advanced strength, durability,
ductility and long-term stability 1, 2, 3.
UHPC relies on the same principles as conventional concrete, but provides improved mechanical properties
resulting from changes in the blend composition. The compressive strength (the property most often associated
with concrete) of UHPC can exceed the compressive strength of conventional reinforced concrete by an order of
magnitude. Additionally, UHPC exhibits a tensile strength much higher than conventional concrete, which will
allow for the possibility of eliminating steel reinforcement in some applications. The high strength of UHPC
allows the designer to use smaller sections, resulting in the use of less material, to yield the same capacity, as
illustrated in Fig.1.
The high durability property of UHPC directly correlates to a longer service life, which makes it an ideal
material for a number of structural applications 4. Concrete brittleness increases with an increase in compressive
strength and hence high strength concretes are much more brittle than those exhibiting less strength. The main
reason for the use of fibers in a brittle matrix is to improve ductility of the cement matrix 5.

RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
UHPC is relatively a new type of concrete. Most of studies which have investigated UHPC were concentrated
on the reactive powder concrete basics, using quartz sand as the only aggregate type. Authors believe that, the
design and use of the materials has not yet been optimized or streamlined, as a result, the cost is still
significantly higher than that of conventional concrete; therefore, it is of great advantage to decrease the initial
costs, by replacing a portion of expensive elements (silica fume/cement) by relatively cheaper elements
(aggregates); investigating three alternative mix proportions with different age, shape and size of the testing
specimens.

BASIC PRINCIPLES FOR OBTAINING UHPC

To obtain UHPC the concrete designer should adhere to the following basic principles:
1. Increase in homogeneity by eliminating coarse aggregate;
2. Increase of density by optimizing grain size distribution in such a way to achieve maximum packing of
particles;

1
 Twelfth International Conference on Recent Advances in Concrete Technology and Sustainability Issues
Prague, Czech Republic, October 31-November 2, 2012

3. Improvement of placed concrete by heat treatment;

4. Water quantity in concrete is optimally reduced, that its quantity is insufficient for cement hydration, which
can result in the formation of micro cracks because of desiccation; non-hydrated cement acts as reactive
micro aggregate of high modulus of elasticity that can hydrate subsequently;
5. Improvement in ductility by adding higher quantity of fibers.
By adhering to the first four principles high compressive strengths can be achieved, while by adding fibers
tensile strength and ductility are improved, thereby ensuring deformation and redistribution of forces and
prevention of brittle failure of the structure or the test element 1, 5.

EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION

Concrete Types and Compositions

1. Normal Strength Concrete (NSC) : It was produced by conventionally known materials of concrete ( i.e.
cement, sand, gravel and water)
2. High Strength Concrete (HSC): Produced from the same materials of NSC, with different mix proportions
and containing super plasticizer.
3. Ultra-High Performance Concrete (UHPC):
3.1. Reactive Powder Concrete (RPC): Produced from (cement, silica fume, stone powder, fine sand, super
plasticizer, water and steel fibers).
3.2. Modified Reactive Powder Concrete (MRPC): Produced from the same materials of RPC whereas all
of the fine sand and/or a portion of cement or silica fume were replaced by a well graded normal sand
and gravel.

Materials
The following materials were used for producing concrete mixes:
1. Normal Portland Cement (OPC -I 42.5 R), according to ASTM C150 6.
2. Silica Fume (CSF-90), according to ASTM C1240 7.
3. Lime Stone Powder 150-250 µm (No.100- No.60).
4. Normal Fluvial Sand, according to ASTM C33 8.
5. Fine Fluvial Sand 150-600 µm (No.100-No.30), for reactive powder based mixes.
6. Coarse aggregate (Gravel), GI- with maximum size of 12.5mm (½") for NSC and HSC, according to ASTM
C33 (size no.8) and GII- with maximum size of 9.5mm (⅜"), according to ASTM C33 (size no.89) for
MRPC mixes.
7. Super plasticizer- Glenium ACE 30.
8. Water, normal drinking water.
9. Steel fibers, two types of steel fibers were used, a type with: l=20mm (0.787 in.), Ø =0.4mm (0.016 in.) and
aspect ratio of 50 (for trial B6 only), another type with: l= 20mm (0.787 in.), Ø=0.2mm (0.008 in.) and
aspect ratio of 100, both with fy = 1100 MPa (159.5 ksi) & E=210 GPa (30,450 ksi).

INVESTIGATION OF UHPC PROPERTIES

Mechanical properties of UHPC were determined and compared with other concrete types

Compressive Strength (f 'c)

Eighteen trial mixes were performed and divided into two groups, the first group (A) deals with mixes that
contain coarse aggregates with varying proportions to obtain a different classes of strength, in this group water-
to-binder ratio (w/b) ranged from 0.75 to as low as 0.16, and binders-to-aggregates (b/a) ranged from 0.14 to as
high as 1.63, as shown in Table 1; while the second group (B) containing no coarse aggregates and based on
RPC principles, in this group (w/b) ranged from 0.16 to 0.26 and (b/a) ranged from 1.10 to 5.00, as listed in
Table 2.
For each concrete mix, six 100 mm (4 in.) side length cubes were cast; two of them were tested at age of 7, 28
and 90 days, except of which were selected for comparison purposes for other tests, fifteen cubes were cast,
three of them tested at age of 7, 28, 56, 90 and 150 days. The cubes were subjected either to standard curing
regime (SCR) at 20°C (68°F), or heat treatment curing regime (HTCR) that cubes were immersed in a hot water
at 60°C (140°F) for 5 days; 36 hours after casting, then normally cured in the laboratory temperature and
humidity until 28 days.
The marked mix proportions from Table-1 & Table-2 were selected to obtain required different concrete
compressive strength and compositions for the series of remaining planned tests. Table-3 shows the amounts of
materials required for one cubic meter of concrete in each mix.

2
 Twelfth International Conference on Recent Advances in Concrete Technology and Sustainability Issues
Prague, Czech Republic, October 31-November 2, 2012

For determination of UHPC compressive strength the 100 mm (4 in.) cubes were used, because the maximum
capacity of testing machine was 2000kN (450 kip), and it can test 150mm (6 in.) cubes only for 88.9MPa (12.9
ksi). For comparison of results the same size was used for NSC and HSC. Compressive strength tests were
performed on Ø100/200mm (4/8 in.) well capped cylinders (except for UHPC) according to ASTM C39 9,
100 mm (4 in.) cubes ASTM C109 10 and a portion of prisms ASTM C349 11. Relation between cube’s and
cylinder’s compressive strength was determined experimentally, but for UHPC the compressive strength
obtained in cube tests was used as the compressive strength of cylinders, because of difficulties with UHPC
cylinders grinding (not capping) and research show that, there is no considerable difference between both values
observed for UHPC 1, 2, 12, 13.
The results of trial mixes show that UHPC gave compressive strength 2-3 times higher than HSC and 4-5 times
higher than NSC, and these ratios are higher in early ages. It can be noted in Table 4, (Group-A) and Table 5
(Group-B), that group-A, generally have a higher fresh and oven dry unit weight than group-B, and this can be
explained considering that group-B does not contain gravel particles, however group-B mixes have smaller
porosity, which refers to better packing of particles and denser matrix. The rates of strength increasing in both
groups are shown in Fig.2, also it can be noted that UHPC was less significant from advanced ages,
proportionally.
When taking economical considerations for the selected mixes, CEF (Cement Efficiency Factor- which is
compressive strength, divided by cement used for one meter cube (35.3 ft3) of concrete) can be calculated.
Referring to Table 3 and Table 6 the CEF for UHPC-1 is 0.16 and greater than 0.13 for NSC, means that
UHPC-1 is more economic, while HSC mix needs for optimization, since its CEF is 0.12.
Another factor that must be discussed here is the cylinder compressive strength, which is generally used for
design purposes, for this reason cylinders were capped and tested in compression for NSC and HSC, while for
UHPC it is recommended 1, 14 to subject cylinders to grinding, but grinding can not be performed, due to lack of
special machines, therefore the same value which obtained in cubes was used for cylinders, as discussed in 1, 2, 12,
13
for UHPC. Fig.3 explained that there is no considerable change in compressive strength, after 56 days age.

Splitting Tensile Strength (ft)

Tests were carried out on Ø100/200mm (4/8 in.) and Ø150/300mm (6/12 in.) cylindrical specimens according to
ASTM C496 15 standards. The average splitting tensile strength of three cylinder specimens in each size was
recorded. Wooden thin strips were placed along the contact lines between the cylinder surface and the machine
jaws to provide uniformity in loading.
One of the perfectly enhanced characteristics of UHPC was splitting tensile strength. The results of tests
performed on splitting tensile strength, are shown in Table 7, and it can be noted that UHPC has a splitting
tensile strength twice that of HSC and (3 to 5) times as for NSC, and the table shows that generally, splitting
tensile strength is about (6-8) % of it’s compressive strength, and it is clear that Ø100mm (4 in.) cylinders give
the results about 4 % higher than Ø150mm (6 in.) cylinders for UHPC, while for NSC the value is about 10 %.

Flexural Strength (fr)

Tests were performed for the selected concrete types (NSC, HSC, UHPC1, UHPC2 and UHPC3) with prisms
75x75x300mm (3x3x12 in.) loaded in third point according to ASTM C1018 16, the point load was located in
75mm (3 in.) from supports with shear span to depth ratio of one.
The results of the tested prisms are shown in Table 8, for selected mixes, and it can be noted that flexural
strength of UHPC is (2-3) and (3-5) times higher than that of HSC and NSC, respectively; as shown in Fig.4.
Flexural strength of UHPC is about 8-15% of its compressive strength, while the values for HSC and NSC are
generally of lesser magnitude.
The maximum deflections shown in Table 8, indicates that deflection of UHPC-1 at failure was 5.7 times higher
than that of NSC; while, for the same load level (NSC failure load) the deflection of UHPC-1 was just 13.6 % of
that in NSC.
For a more detailed evaluation of the brittleness and failure mechanisms of selected concrete mixtures, the
fracture energy (Gf) and the characteristic length (lch) were also determined. The area under the load deflection
curves, gives the fracture energy related to the projected cross section, which is required to split the concrete
specimen completely; characteristic length (lch) was used to evaluate the brittleness of the material; according to
Eq. (1), a small value of (lch) represents a high brittleness.

E.G f
lch  2
………………. (1)
ft

In Table 9, the fracture energy of UHPC-1 is higher than NSC and HSC by about 43 and 16 times, respectively;
while for UHPC-2 in spite of its high compressive strength, the absence of steel fibers causes to give fracture

3
 Twelfth International Conference on Recent Advances in Concrete Technology and Sustainability Issues
Prague, Czech Republic, October 31-November 2, 2012

energy just 11% of UHPC-1, but still giving fracture energy (Gf) 370% higher than NSC. The characteristic
length of UHPC-1 is 6.5 times that of NSC and 7.5 times of HSC. When comparing characteristic length (lch) of
UHPC-2 and HSC with NSC, it can be seen that both behave as more brittle materials in which gave
characteristic length (lch) less than NSC by 3% and 14%, respectively.
For calculating area under the load-displacement curves, the plotted data in the diagrams was fitted to 4th degree
polynomial curves, with a high correlation coefficient (R²), and then the equation of curves was integrated up to
the failure points.

Stress-Strain Relationship
The stress-strain curves of control mixes are shown in Fig.5-a, in which the strains were measured by electronic
strain gauges (ESG); while, obtained curves from ASTM C469 17 test for UHPC-1, are shown in Fig.5-b; both
for Ø150mm (6 in.) cylinders in 150 days age. In the curves of Fig.5-a, it can be noted that UHPC mixes have a
longer linear elastic part with strains 3 and 10 times smaller than that for HSC and NSC respectively, for the
same stress levels.
In Fig.5-b the curves are approximately parallel, while the ultimate axial strain is approximately twice the
ultimate lateral strain at failure, but the data recorded from strain gauges appear to be more accurate. The
ultimate stress recorded in curves for UHPC, is slightly lower than the compressive strength of selected mixes,
the difference is mainly refer to the non-plane ends of the cylinders, which was in best performance case
achieved (by grinding) in this investigation of 2mm (0.079 in.), and the value was too high comparing with that
given by ASTM C39 9 that maximum permitted value is 0.05mm (0.002 in.). Research 14 shows that improper
planed ends of compression cylinders may cause the reduction of compressive strength by about 40%.

Modulus of Elasticity (Ec)

Modulus of Elasticity and Poisson’s ratio was determined using Ø150/300mm (6/12 in.) cylinders and apparatus
defined in ASTM C469 17. Concrete electronic strain gauges 90mm (3.543 in.) in length were also used for
determining axial compression strain, Young’s Modulus. Another way for determining modulus of elasticity
was using results obtained from flexural strength tests.
The results of modulus of elasticity were obtained by three ways, as shown in Table 10. The calculation of
modulus of elasticity according to ASTM C469 17 and concrete strain gauges (CSG) principles, were depend on
0.000050 axial strain and 40% of ultimate load, as described in ASTM C469; while, in case of using third point
loading prisms, modulus of elasticity mainly depends on 40% of ultimate load (for ensuring un-cracked prism
sections) and the central deflection corresponding to that load, as described by Eq. (2).

Pa Pa
 cl 
48 EI
 
3l 2  4 a 2 
2GA
…….…….. (2)

The experimental results were compared with the theoretical results that obtained by the equations of: ACI 318-
08 18, CEB-FIP-90 1, ACI-363 19, FHWA 1 respectively in Eqs. (3, 4, 5 and 6).

Ec  4700 f c ………….. (3)

Ec  95003  f c  8 ………….. (4)

Ec  3320 f c  6900 ………….. (5)

Ec  3837 f c f c =28-193MPa (4-28 ksi) ………….. (6)

The results show that the data obtained from prisms are slightly higher than that of Ø150mm (6 in.) cylinders
with using concrete strain gauges; for NSC and HSC. The modulus of elasticity of UHPC is approximately
twice that of conventional concrete. By comparing the data with the results of theoretical equations, it is clear
that the results are closest to FHWA equation, which is especially derived to include UHPC compressive
strength ranges; the results are also close to ACI 363 equation; while, ACI 318 and CEB-90 equations provide
overestimated values in all cases.
The Poisson’s ratio was determined just in case of UHPC-1; the value of 0.186 is less than 0.200 which is
normally expected for conventional concrete; a very dense packing matrix and lesser lateral confinement effects
of UHPC or accuracy of the test may cause this deviation.

4
 Twelfth International Conference on Recent Advances in Concrete Technology and Sustainability Issues
Prague, Czech Republic, October 31-November 2, 2012

Freezing and High Temperature Tests

These tests were performed to study the effect of freezing and high temperature in early ages of concrete, for
this reason, nine - 100mm (4 in.) cubes were cast for each (NSC, HSC and UHPC1). The cubes remained 48
hours in molds then 72 hours of curing, finally each 3 of them were subjected for 48 hours to different
temperatures: +300°C (+572°F) in electric oven, +18°C (+64.4°F) average laboratory temperature and -30°C (-
22°F) in freezer. Two hours before testing the entire cubes were laid in the laboratory weather.
The results of performed tests on temperature effects in early age of 7 days for selected mixes are shown in
Table 11, there can be noted that UHPC is extremely durable, and losing a negligible percent of strength when
subjected to freezing, while it is most interesting from high temperature, due to high cement content and
development of hydration.

Bond Strength
The test was performed with interesting in ASTM C900 20 and Jungwirth et al tests 21 . The test covers
determination of the pullout strength of hardened concrete by measuring the force required to pull embedded
steel bars and the attached concrete fragment from a concrete test specimen. The steel bars with diameters 6, 8
and 10mm (1/4 ", 5/16" and 3/8") for each of NSC, HSC and UHPC1, were inserted in fresh concrete inside 100mm
(4 in.) cubes with bond length of 100mm (4 in.), and tested in 56 days age.
The results of tests which were carried out for investigating the bond strength between the selected concrete
mixes (56 days age) and deformed steel bars are shown in Table 12. The main obstacle for obtaining pullout
strength of UHPC was the length of the bond of 100mm (4 in.), which led to bar rupture before pullout (UHPC
bond strength is about 60MPa (8.7 ksi)) 21. Using a shorter bond length or a larger bar diameters may fix the
problem.

CONCLUSIONS
From the tests performed on the properties of UHPC, the following conclusions can be drawn:
1. UHPC has extra ordinary mechanical properties, compared with HSC and NSC enhancement can be
obtained in: compressive strength by 117% and 293%, splitting tensile strength by 85% and 271%, flexural
strength by 239% and 463%, and modulus of elasticity by 60% and 106%, respectively.
2. UHPC has smooth and dark surface, it is extremely durable against weather at early ages (like 3-7 day),
with a negligible reduction in strength (-0.9%) against freezing in -30°C (-22°F) for 48 hrs, which is (18)
times lesser than that of NSC, and high temperature +300°C (572°F) for 48 hrs is beneficial for UHPC
strength, by increasing 14% more than that of NSC.
3. Replacement of a part of the binders in UHPC by well graded, small size aggregates (≤ 10mm (3/8")) can
effectively be beneficial both for workability, early age surface cracks and for economical considerations.
4. By considering CEF (Cement Efficiency Factor), UHPC is more economic than NSC and HSC.
5. UHPC has a very high fracture energy compared with HSC and NSC, due to its strong matrix and fiber
content, the fracture energy increased by 16.2 times and 43.2 times, and characteristic length (ductility) by
7.5 times and 6.5 times, respectively.
6. To avoid extra brittle behavior of UHPC and explosion during testing, the short steel fibers should be added
to the matrix which increases in compressive strength by 13 %, splitting tensile strength by 24 %, flexural
strength by 113 % and modulus of elasticity by 11%.
7. UHPC has high bond strength with reinforcement bars. For obtaining the value of the strength, small bar
diameters must not be used, that leads to rupture of the bar, before the bond failure, as decreasing the
bonding length may not be represent the true values of the strength, therefore it is better to use a larger bar
diameters (like 25mm (1 in.)) for 100mm (4 in.) length of the bond. The property can be interested in the
locations where the pullout strength is critical.
8. Due to high initial costs of UHPC, the optimization of materials is required and the designer should avoid a
large reduction of strength for safety, since the tests performed on UHPC cubes show that when the first
failure occurred the matrix of concrete is not damaged fully, and can resist for the second loading about
80% of its initial strength and in the 6th cycle of failure the remained compressive strength is still about
20 MPa (2.9 ksi).

NOTATION
a = shear span of prisms in two point load test, mm (in.);
A' = effective shear area, equals to 0.8bd, where b is width and d is depth of prisms, mm² (in2)
E, Ec = modulus of elasticity of concrete, GPa (ksi)
f 'c = compressive strength of concrete cylinders, MPa (ksi)
fcu = compressive strength of concrete cubes, MPa (ksi)
fcp = compressive strength of the portion of prisms failed in flexure test, MPa (ksi)
ft, fct = splitting tensile strength of concrete, MPa (ksi)

5
 Twelfth International Conference on Recent Advances in Concrete Technology and Sustainability Issues
Prague, Czech Republic, October 31-November 2, 2012

fr = flexural strength of concrete, MPa (ksi)

G = shear modulus, GPa (ksi)
Gf = fracture energy (area under load-deflection curve) kN.mm (kip.in)
I = moment of inertia of the prism section, mm4 (in4),
l = clear span of prisms, mm (in)
lch = characteristic length, as measure of concrete brittleness, mm (in)
P = load in elastic range, kN (kip)
Δcl = centerline deflection, mm (in)

REFERENCES
1. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), "Material Property Characterization of Ultra-High Performance
Concrete", Highway Research Center, McLean, VA 22101-2296, Aug. 2006.
2. Weiße, D. and Ma, J., "Mechanical Properties of Ultra High Strength Concrete", Leipzig University,
Germany, 2003.
3. Garas, V. Y., "Creep of Ultra-High Performance Concrete", Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA,
30332, CEE 8813, 2007.
4. Harris, D. K., "Characterization of Punching Shear Capacity of Thin UHPC Plates", MSc thesis, Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia, Dec. 2004.
5. Skazlić, M. and Bjegović, D., "Perspectives of Designing with New Concrete Types", University of Zagreb,
Annual 2005 of the Croatian Academy of Engineering, ISSN 1332-3482, Pp.167-178.
6. American Society for Testing and Material, ASTM C150, "Standard Specification for Portland Cement",
2000.
7. American Society for Testing and Material, ASTM C1240, "Standard Specification for Use of Silica Fume
as a Mineral Admixture in Hydraulic-Cement Concrete, Mortar, and Grout", Jul. 2000.
8. American Society for Testing and Material, ASTM C33, "Standard Specification for Concrete Aggregates",
2001.
9. American Society for Testing and Material, ASTM C39/C39M, "Standard Test Method for Compressive
Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens", 2001.
10. American Society for Testing and Material, ASTM C109/C109M, "Standard Test Method for Compressive
Strength of Hydraulic Cement Mortars [Using 50-mm Cube Specimens]", 1999.
11. American Society for Testing and Material, ASTM C349, "Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength
of Hydraulic-Cement Mortars (Using Portions of Prisms Broken in Flexure)", 1997.
12. Holschemacher, K. and Klotz, S., "Ultra High Strength Concrete under Concentrated Load", Leipzig
University, 2003, Germany.
13. Weiße, D. and Holschemacher, K., "Some Aspects about the Bond of Reinforcement in Ultra High Strength
Concrete", Leipzig University, Fachbereich Bauwesen, 2003, Germany.
14. Lubbers, A. R., "Bond Performance between Ultra-High Performance Concrete and Prestressing Strands",
MSc thesis, Ohio University, Aug. 2003.
15. American Society for Testing and Material, ASTM C496, "Standard Test Method for Splitting Tensile
Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens", 1996.
16. American Society for Testing and Material, ASTM C1018, "Standard Test Method for Flexural Toughness
and First-Crack Strength of Fiber-Reinforced Concrete (Using Beam With Third-Point Loading) ", 1997.
17. American Society for Testing and Material, ASTM C469, "Standard Test Method for Static Modulus of
Elasticity and Poisson’s Ratio of Concrete in Compression", 1994.
18. ACI 318-08, "Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary", Reported by ACI
Committee 318, 2008.
19. ACI 363R-92, "State of the Art Report on High-Strength Concrete", Reapproved by ACI Committee 363,
1997.
20. ACI 234R-06, "Guide for the Use of Silica Fume in Concrete", Reported by ACI Committee 234, 2006.
21. Jungwirth, J. and Muttoni, A., "Structural Behavior of Tension Members in UHPC", Swiss Federal Institute
of Technology, Lausanne, Switzerland, 2004

TABLES AND FIGURES

List of Tables:
Table 1 –Trial Mixes Group – A
Table 2 – Trial Mixes Group – B
Table 3 – Selected Concrete Mixes, Amounts for 1 m3 (ft3)
Table 4 – Results of Trial Mixes (Group-A)

6
 Twelfth International Conference on Recent Advances in Concrete Technology and Sustainability Issues
Prague, Czech Republic, October 31-November 2, 2012

Table 5 – Results of Trial Mixes (Group-B)

Table 6 – Compressive Strength of Selected Mixes
Table 7 – Splitting Tensile Strength of Selected Mixes (150 days)
Table 8 – Flexural Strength of Selected Mixes (150 days)
Table 9 – Fracture Energy and Characteristic length
Table 10 – Modulus of Elasticity of Selected Mixes
Table 11 – Temperature Effects on Selected Mixes
Table 12 – Pullout Strength of Selected Mixes

List of Figures:
Fig. 1 – Comparison of material section weights for equivalent flexural strength
Fig. 2 – Cumulative Compressive Strength, Group (A & B)
Fig. 3 – Compressive Strength of Selected Mixes vs. Age
Fig. 4 – Flexural Strength of Selected Mixes
Fig. 5 – Stress-Strain relationship for Control Mixes

Table 1 -Trial Mixes Group – A - (by weight)

Binders Aggregates Steel SP water Ratio
Trial No. Curing regime
C SF FL S G Fibers (Gl/C) (w/b) (b/a)
A1 1.00 3.00 4.00 0.75 0.14
A2 1.00 3.00 4.00 0.62 0.14
A3 1.00 0.15 1.25 1.75 0.005 0.37 0.38
A4 SCR 1.00 1.20 1.80 0.005 0.32 0.33
A5 1.00 0.20 0.80 2.40 3.60 0.040 0.23 0.33
A6 1.00 0.08 1.33 2.00 0.024 0.21 0.32
A7 1.00 0.15 0.48 0.72 0.036 0.16 0.96
A8 1.00 0.30 0.32 0.48 0.15 0.060 0.17 1.63
HTCR
A9 1.00 0.15 0.48 0.72 0.12 0.036 0.16 0.96

Table 2 -Trial Mixes Group – B - (by weight)

Binders Steel SP Water Ratio
Trial No. Curing Regime FS
C SF FL Fibers Gl/C w/b C/b b/a
B1 1.00 0.25 1.10 0.04 0.26 0.80 1.14
B2 SCR 1.00 0.30 0.30 1.45 0.06 0.20 0.63 1.10
B3 1.00 0.30 0.30 1.45 0.06 0.18 0.63 1.10
B4 1.00 0.30 0.30 1.00 0.18 0.06 0.23 0.63 1.60
B5 1.00 0.30 1.00 0.06 0.20 0.77 1.30
B6 1.00 0.30 1.00 0.26 0.06 0.20 0.77 1.30
HTCR
B7 1.00 0.30 0.30 1.45 0.20 0.06 0.18 0.63 1.10
B8 1.00 0.30 1.00 0.16 0.08 0.17 0.77 1.30
B9 1.00 0.30 0.20 0.30 0.13 0.06 0.16 0.67 5.00

Where: C: Cement, SF: Silica Fume, FL: Filler, b: binders, G: Gravel, S: Sand, FS: Fine Sand, a: aggregates,
w: water, Gl (SP): Glenium, SP: Super-Plasticizer.

Table 3 - Selected Concrete Mixes, Amounts for 1 m3 (ft3)

C SF NS G FS Steel Fibers SP water
Trial Mix
Kg Kg (Vol. %) Liter
No. Symbol
(lb) (lb) (ft3)
290 870 1160 0 180
A2 NSC - - -
(18.1) (54.3) (72.4) (0) (0.180)
575 690 1035 3 190
A4 HSC - - -
(35.9) (43.1) (64.6) (0.003) (0.190)
945 145 455 680 133 (1.7 %) 34 178
A9 UHPC-1 -
(59.1) (9.1) (28.4) (42.5) (8.3) (0.034) (0.178)

7
Twelfth International Conference on Recent Advances in Concrete Technology and Sustainability Issues
Prague, Czech Republic, October 31-November 2, 2012

965 148 465 695 35 180

A7 UHPC-2 - -
(60.2) (9.2) (29.0) (43.4) (0.035) (0.180)
930 280 930 243 (3.1 %) 56 235
B6 UHPC-3 - -
(58.1) (17.5) (58.1) (15.2) (0.056) (0.235)

Table 4 – Results of Trial Mixes (Group-A)

Weight - kN/m³ fcu –MPa
Slump
Trial (lb/ft3) Porosity (ksi)
mm
No. Oven %
(in.) Fresh 7 28 90
Dry
130 26.7 23.9 16.9 19.6 25.6
A1 6.7
(5.1) (163) (146) (2.5) (2.8) (3.7)
50 26.3 24.1 28.0 38.8 46.2
A2 6.4
(2.0) (161) (148) (4.1) (5.6) (6.7)
120 26.7 23.8 60.1 68.7 73.1
A3 5.3
(4.7) (163) (146) (8.7) (10.0) (10.6)
>230 26.9 25.1 64.2 76.4 80.0
A4 5.4
(>9.1) (165) (154) (9.3) (11.1) (11.6)
60 26.1 25.4 56.8 78.4 89.0
A5 4.1
(2.4) (160) (155) (8.2) (11.4) (12.9)
110 26.5 24.9 76.3 93.4 98.9
A6 4.6
(4.3) (162) (152) (11.1) (13.5) (14.3)
200 25.8 23.6 112.0 125.2 131.6
A7 3.9
(7.9) (158) (144) (16.2) (18.2) (19.1)
175 26.7 23.7 116.0 128.3 129.7
A8 4.2
(6.9) (163) (145) (16.8) (18.6) (18.8)
160 26.8 24.4 114.6 131.4 140.7
A9 3.9
(6.3) (164) (149) (16.6) (19.1) (20.4)

Table 5 - Results of Trial Mixes (Group-B)

Weight -
fcu –MPa
Slump kN/m³
Trial Porosity (ksi)
mm (lb/ft3)
No. %
(in.) Oven
Fresh 7 28 90
Dry
80 24.9 22.6 69.0 81.3 84.9
B1 6.6
(3.1) (152) (138) (10.0) (11.8) (12.3)
50 24.9 22.8 70.5 78.0 92.4
B2 5.2
(2.0) (152) (140) (10.2) (11.3) (13.4)
60 24.6 23.2 78.0 100.2 108.6
B3 3.3
(2.4) (151) (142) (11.3) (14.5) (15.7)
210 26.6 25.1 121.6 125.0 128.4
B4 2.9
(8.3) (163) (154) (17.6) (18.1) (18.6)
185 25.2 23.4 114.0 120.0 127.6
B5 3.5
(7.3) (154) (143) (16.5) (17.4) (18.5)
150 26.9 24.6 119.6 126.8 130.3
B6 3.2
(5.9) (165) (151) (17.3) (18.4) (18.9)
50 25.9 23.4 111.0 117.4 120.7
B7 4.1
(2.0) (159) (143) (16.1) (17.0) (17.5)
>230 26.4 23.1 120.0 123.9 127.4
B8 4.4
(>9.1) (162) (141) (17.4) (18.0) (18.5)
190 25.6 23.8 114.3 119.1 122.0
B9 4.9
(7.5) (157) (146) (16.6) (17.3) (17.7)

8
Twelfth International Conference on Recent Advances in Concrete Technology and Sustainability Issues
Prague, Czech Republic, October 31-November 2, 2012

Table 6 - Compressive Strength of Selected Mixes – MPa (ksi)

fcu - days fcyl fcp (prism)

Mix f ´c/fcu
7 28 56 90 150 150 days 150 days
28.0 38.8 43.5 46.2 47.4 38.4 48.5
NSC 0.81
(4.1) (5.6) (6.3) (6.7) (6.9) (5.6) (7.0)
64.2 76.4 78.3 80.0 81.1 69.7 83.2
HSC 0.86
(9.3) (11.1) (11.4) (11.6) (11.8) (10.1) (12.1)
114.6 131.4 137.0 140.7 151.1 151.1 159.0
UHPC-1 1.00
(16.6) (19.1) (19.9) (20.4) (21.9) (21.9) (23.1)
112.0 125.2 128.2 131.6 133.2 133.2 138.7
UHPC-2 1.00
(16.2) (18.2) (18.6) (19.1) (19.3) (19.3) (20.1)
119.6 126.8 129.1 130.3 131.5 131.5 135.3
UHPC-3 1.00
(17.3) (18.4) (18.7) (18.9) (19.1) (19.1) (19.6)

Table 7 – Splitting Tensile Strength of Selected Mixes (150 days)

fct – MPa
fct / f ´c (%)
Mix f ´c – MPa (ksi) fct (150/100)
fct /f’c0.5
Type (ksi) Ø 150mm Ø100mm Ø150 Ø100 (6in/4in)
(Ø 6 in.) (Ø 4 in.) (Ø 6) (Ø 4)
38.4 2.68 2.97 0.48
NSC 7.0 7.7 0.902
(5.6) (0.39) (0.43) (0.18)
69.7 5.95 0.71
HSC - - 8.5 -
(10.1) (0.86) (0.27)
151.1 10.52 11.03 0.90
UHPC-1 6.9 7.3 0.954
(21.9) (1.53) (1.60) (0.34)
133.2 8.61 8.91 0.77
UHPC-2 6.5 6.7 0.966
(19.3) (1.25) (1.29) (0.29)
131.5 13.76 1.20
UHPC-3 - - 10.5 -
(19.1) (2.00) (0.46)

Table 8 - Flexural Strength of Selected Mixes (150 days)

Pmax ∆cl fr f 'c

Mix fr / f 'c
kN mm MPa fr/f’c0.5
Type (%)
(kip) (in.) (ksi)
7.4 0.110 3.95 38.4 0.64
NSC 10.3
(1.7) (0.0043) (0.57) (5.6) (0.24)
12.3 0.140 6.56 69.7 0.79
HSC 9.4
(2.8) (0.0055) (0.95) (10.1) (0.30)
41.7 0.626 22.24 151.1 1.81
UHPC-1 14.7
(9.4) (0.0246) (3.22) (21.9) (0.69)
19.6 0.160 10.45 133.2 0.91
UHPC-2 7.8
(4.4) (0.0063) (1.52) (19.3) (0.35)
36.8 0.602 19.63 131.5 1.71
UHPC-3 14.9
(8.3) (0.0237) (2.85) (19.1) (0.65)

9
Twelfth International Conference on Recent Advances in Concrete Technology and Sustainability Issues
Prague, Czech Republic, October 31-November 2, 2012

Table 9 - Fracture Energy and Characteristic length

Gf ft E lch
Concrete Ratio to R² Ratio to
Type kN.mm* [N/mm**] NSC curve
MPa GPa mm
NSC
(kip. in) x10-3 (ksi) (ksi) (in.)
0.478 [0.255] 2.97 23.5 679.4
NSC 1.00 1.0000 1.00
(4.2) (0.43) (3408) (26.7)
1.274 [0.680] 5.95 30.3 582.0
HSC 2.67 0.9992 0.86
(11.3) (0.86) (4394) (22.9)
20.66 [11.02] 11.03 48.5 4393.1
UHPC-1 43.2 0.9813 6.47
(183.0) (1.60) (7033) (173.0)
2.250 [1.200] 8.91 43.5 657.5
UHPC-2 4.71 0.9979 0.97
(19.9) (1.29) (6308) (25.9)
17.04 [9.088] 13.76 44.1 2116.8
UHPC-3 35.6 0.9828 3.12
(150.9) (2.00) (6395) (83.3)

* From load-deflection curves, ** from flexural stress-deflection curves.

Table 10 - Modulus of Elasticity of Selected Mixes

Results Experimental Results Theoretical Results [Eqs. 3, 4, 5 & 6]

Method ASTM C469 CSG Prism ACI-318 CEB-90 ACI-363 FHWA

Parameter f 'c µ E - GPa (ksi)

38.4 23.1 23.5 29.1 33.7 27.5 23.8
NSC - -
(5.6) (3350) (3408) (4220) (4887) (3988) (3451)
69.7 29.3 30.3 39.2 40.0 34.6 32.0
HSC - -
(10.1) (4249) (4394) (5684) (5800) (5017) (4640)
151.1 47.7 49.0 48.5 57.8 50.6 47.7 47.2
UHPC-1 0.19
(21.9) (6917) (7105) (7033) (8381) (7337) (6917) (6844)
133.2 43.5 54.2 48.7 45.2 44.3
UHPC-2 - - -
(19.3) (6308) (7859) (7062) (6554) (6424)
131.5 45.2 44.1 53.9 48.5 45.0 44.0
UHPC-3 - -
(19.1) (6554) (6395) (7816) (7033) (6525) (6380)

Table 11 - Temperature Effects on Selected Mixes

fcu – MPa
% changed by
Mix (ksi)
N (18° C) H (300° C) F (-30° C) Heating Freezing
29.8 35.5 24.9
NSC 19.1 -16.4
(4.3) (5.1) (3.6)
57.2 67.5 53.7
HSC 18.0 -6.1
(8.3) (9.8) (7.8)
124.1 151.2 123.0
UHPC-1 21.8 -0.9
(18.0) (21.9) (17.8)

10
Twelfth International Conference on Recent Advances in Concrete Technology and Sustainability Issues
Prague, Czech Republic, October 31-November 2, 2012

Table 12 - Pullout Strength of Selected Mixes

Pullout Strength – MPa
Concrete
(ksi)
Mix Type
f 'c - MPa Ø6 mm Ø8 mm Ø10 mm
(ksi) (1/4") (5/16") (3/8")
35.2 8.9 9.4 8.7
NSC
(5.1) (1.3) (1.4) (1.3)
67.3 10.9 11.1
HSC rupture
(9.8) (1.6) (1.6)
137.0
UHPC-1 rupture rupture rupture
(19.9)

Fig.1 - Comparison of material section weights for equivalent flexural strength [4]
kg/m * 0.672 = lb/ft

Fig.2 - Cumulative Compressive Strength, Group (A & B) - MPa * 0.145 = ksi

11
 Twelfth International Conference on Recent Advances in Concrete Technology and Sustainability Issues
Prague, Czech Republic, October 31-November 2, 2012

Fig.3 - Compressive Strength of Selected Mixes vs. Age - MPa * 0.145 = ksi

Fig.4 - Flexural Strength of Selected Mixes

MPa * 0.145 = ksi & mm ÷ 25.4 = in.

Fig.5 - Stress-Strain relationship for Control Mixes - MPa * 0.145 = ksi

Note:
SI units were used as standard in research project, and US units are approximate.

12

View publication stats