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

net/publication/322446392

Advancements in Concrete Mix Designs: High-Performance and Ultrahigh-

Performance Concretes from 1970 to 2016

Article  in  Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering · March 2018

DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0002144

CITATIONS READS

11 2,170

8 authors, including:

Muazzam Ghous Sohail Ben Wang

National University of Computer and Emerging Sciences University of Houston
16 PUBLICATIONS   64 CITATIONS    2 PUBLICATIONS   11 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Amit Jain Ramazan Kahraman

University of Southern California Fachhochschule Technikum Wien
5 PUBLICATIONS   17 CITATIONS    39 PUBLICATIONS   98 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

structural analysis View project

Shape Memory Alloy (SMA) Fiber Reinforced Polymer (FRP) Patch for Repair of Cracked Metallic Structures View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Muazzam Ghous Sohail on 26 November 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Advancements in Concrete Mix Designs:
High-Performance and Ultrahigh-Performance
Concretes from 1970 to 2016
Muazzam Ghous Sohail, Ph.D. 1; Ben Wang 2; Amit Jain 3; Ramazan Kahraman, Ph.D. 4;
Nesibe Gozde Ozerkan, Ph.D. 5; Bora Gencturk, Ph.D., A.M.ASCE 6;
Mina Dawood, Ph.D., M.ASCE 7; and Abdeldjelil Belarbi, Ph.D., F.ASCE 8
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Qatar University Library on 08/16/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: This paper reviews the methods adopted to produce high-performance concrete (HPC) and ultrahigh-performance concrete
(UHPC). The chronological development of these concretes in terms of their constituents, mixture proportions, mixing protocols, and particle
packing models from selected literature are presented. The paper highlights the earliest techniques that were used to obtain cementitious
materials with high strength and durability, including pressure mixing and heat curing. The paper also covers the work done on HPC and
UHPC since the late 1990s and summarizes the current state of the art. Numerous mixture proportions to attain target compressive strengths
between 100 and 200 MPa are presented. Higher compressive strengths are achieved with denser mixtures (with practically achievable
maximum particle packing densities, i.e., interparticle pores are minimized). In other words, particle packing density is a major attribute
in the achievement of low porosity, flowability, durability, and reduced defects in concrete. Therefore, models, theories, and trial methods to
achieve a higher packing density in concrete are presented. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0002144. © 2017 American Society of
Civil Engineers.

Introduction and Definitions
Conventional concrete, also known as normal strength concrete
(NSC), has many preferable characteristics in comparison to other
construction materials, such as the abundant availability and low
cost of its raw materials, its simple manufacturing technology,
and its convenience in forming. In most cases, it prevents corrosion
of reinforcing steel bars for long periods of time due to its alkaline
environment. Nevertheless, NSC has some serious shortcomings,
such as low tensile strength, high brittleness, low specific strength,
and low energy absorption at failure. Over the last few decades, the
1 combination of positive attributes, including higher strength, re-
Postdoctoral Researcher, Dept. of Chemical Engineering, College
of Engineering, Qatar Univ., P.O. Box 2713, Doha, Qatar. ORCID:
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1826-2741
2
Ph.D. Student, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of
Houston, Houston, TX 77204.
3
Ph.D. Student, Sonny Astani Dept. of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, Univ. of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90007.
E-mail: amitjn7042@gmail.com
4
Professor, Dept. of Chemical Engineering, College of Engineering,
Qatar Univ., P.O. Box 2713, Doha, Qatar (corresponding author). E-mail:
ramazank@qu.edu.qa
5
Research Associate, Center for Advanced Materials, Qatar Univ.,
P.O. Box 2713, Doha, Qatar.
6
Assistant Professor, Sonny Astani Dept. of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, Univ. of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90007.
E-mail: gencturk@usc.edu
7
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Univ. of Houston, Houston, TX 77204.
8
Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of
Houston, Houston, TX 77204.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on December 1, 2016; approved
on July 31, 2017; published online on December 28, 2017. Discussion
period open until May 28, 2018; separate discussions must be submitted
for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Materials in Civil
Engineering, © ASCE, ISSN 0899-1561.
durability issues of conventional reinforced concrete (RC) have
been highlighted by the observed deterioration of RC structures
under severe environments. The cost to repair infrastructure that
has been damaged by corrosion is estimated to be approximately
$22.6 billion in the United States alone (Dunn et al. 2010; Koch
et al. 2002). In addition, the necessity for higher strength for the
prestressed members and slender columns of high-rise buildings
has motivated the recent development of higher-strength concrete
mixtures (Fehling et al. 2014).
Although there is no commonly accepted definition for high-
performance concrete (HPC) and ultra high-performance concrete
(UHPC), it is generally recognized that these materials exhibit a
duced porosity, high flowability, and improved thermal resistance.
These attributes lead to improved performance in severe environ-
ments [i.e., high temperature, high relative humidity (RH), chloride
and sulfate attack, and carbonation] or challenging design or con-
struction conditions (i.e., congested reinforcements, as in bents or
connections) (Fehling 2004; Wille 2013). The relative term HPC
was first used only for concrete having higher compressive strength
(Neville and Aïtcin 1998). However, recently the term HPC was
introduced to differentiate concretes that exhibit properties beyond
just high strength. Because the expected performance for every
concrete changes with its application, it is hard to define HPC. Until
the 1970s, prior to the development of superplasticizers (SPs), con-
cretes with strengths greater than 40 MPa were considered high-
strength concretes (HSC). After the advent of SPs, 60–120 MPa
concretes became easily achievable. The American Concrete Insti-
tute (ACI) Committee 363 has revised the definition of HSC to
include mixtures with a specified design strength of 55 MPa or
more (ACI Committee 363 2005). The ACI defines HPC as “a con-
crete meeting special combinations of performance and uniformity
requirements that cannot always be achieved routinely using con-
ventional constituents and normal mixing, placing, and curing prac-
tice” (ACI Committee 363 2005). Mehta and Aïtcin (1990) used the

© ASCE 04017310-1 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2018, 30(3): 04017310

 term HPC for concrete mixtures possessing high workability, high
durability, and high ultimate strength.
Concrete termed UHPC has relatively higher amounts of bind-
ers, a water-to-binder (w/b) ratio around 0.2, and compressive
strength in excess of 150 MPa. It is understood that the resulting
composite has a very high packing density, leading to significantly
higher durability compared to conventional concrete, and it may
incorporate discontinuous fibers, leading to significantly higher
ductility and durability of the cracked matrix due to smaller crack
widths (Wille et al. 2011c). The mixture composition, require-
ments, and principles of production are also altered. As a result, the
hydration process and microstructure development of UHPC is
different from those of conventional concrete (Gu et al. 2015).
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Qatar University Library on 08/16/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Significance
This paper presents the basic concepts behind HPC and UHPC,
including the strength-porosity relationship, particle packing den-
sity, mixing and curing at elevated temperature, and behavior under
pressure. The effects of porosity on strength are discussed in detail
and the strength-porosity relationships for concrete are presented
from selected literature. Because the maximum packing density of
concrete ingredients will result in low-porosity concrete, the main
methods to obtain the maximum possible packing density of con-
crete are presented. Several breakthrough studies that have used
these concepts to obtain HPC and UHPC are presented in chrono-
logical order to present the historical development. The paper also
presents several HPC and UHPC mixture proportions from the
literature. Depending upon their geographical location, researchers
have used a variety of materials and SPs to develop concretes with
ultrahigh strength, which are presented in detail. Recommendations
are made in terms of material selection and mixing to achieve dif-
ferent performance objectives. It is expected that this paper will
help engineers and new researchers in the field to learn the funda-
mentals of HPC and UHPC mixture proportioning, material selec-
tion, and mixing procedures. Similarly, for researchers, it provides
the historical background and the state-of-the-art to build and im-
prove HPC and UHPC characteristics.
Strength-Porosity Relationship for Concrete
The porosity of concrete is defined as the volume fraction of voids
over total volume. The pores in concrete are mainly categorized
into three types. First are the gel pores, formed in calcium-silicate-
hydrate (C-S-H) gel. Being 0.0018–0.0025 μm in size, these pores
are too small to have any significant effect on the mechanical or
transfer properties of concrete; however, once the entrapped water
is removed from these pores, shrinkage of concrete will occur.
Second are the capillary pores, formed in the cement matrix due to
the anhydrate cement. These pores range from 10 to 50 nm in size;
however, with a higher water-to-cement (w/c) ratio the pore size
could be from 3 to 5 μm. Third are air voids due to deliberately
Table 1. Strength-Porosity Relationships
Researchers Equation
Powers (1958) σ ¼ S0 ð1 − PÞ3 S0 = strength at zero porosity; P = porosity; σ = compressive strength
Balshin (1949) σ ¼ S0 ð1 − PÞn S0 = strength at zero porosity; P = porosity; σ = compressive strength;
n = empirical constant
Ryshkevitch (1953) σ ¼ S0 :e−kr:P S0 = strength at zero porosity; kr = empirical constant; P = porosity
Schiller (1971) σ ¼ ks ln P0S =P ks = empirical constant; P0S = porosity at zero-strength; P = porosity
Hasselman (1962) σ ¼ S0 − kH P S0 = strength at zero porosity; kH = empirical constant; P = porosity
© ASCE 04017310-2
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2018, 30(3): 04017310
entrained air during concrete mixing; and voids that exist due to
the fact that concrete is a heterogeneous material containing ingre-
dients of varying sizes and shapes, which do not pack together
perfectly and hence leave voids in the hardened concrete. These
air voids have a normal range of 50–20 μm; however, these pores
could be up to 3 mm in size. Capillary pores and air voids adversely
affect the strength and durability of concrete, particularly when
they are interconnected (van Breugel 1991; Hu and Hendriks 2004;
Mehta and Monteiro 2006).
In evaluating the characteristics of a hydrated cement paste, pore
size distribution is considered a better criterion than total capillary
porosity. Capillary pores with a size of 50 nm are referred to as
macropores and are influential in determining strength and per-
meability characteristics. Pores smaller than 50 nm are referred
to as micropores; these pores are like gel pores, affecting drying
shrinkage and creep. Hence, porosity and pore structure are impor-
tant in the mechanical and durability properties of concrete. The
factors affecting pore volume and size distribution are initial w/c
ratio, degree of hydration, fineness of cement, and curing type and
duration (Mehta and Monteiro 2006).
The interfacial transition zone (ITZ), which is a 30–50 μm wide
zone between an aggregate and the cement matrix, also manifests
porosity due to the wall effect of large aggregates on fine particles
like cement (van Breugel 1991; Diamond and Huang 2001; Hu and
Hendriks 2004). The ITZ is considered the weakest link in con-
crete mechanical strength. Porosity in the ITZ increases near the
aggregate surface and decreases away from it. The pore sizes are
normally equal to the grain size of the cement particles. Hence, to
achieve high-strength concrete it is imperative to improve the ITZ.
A low w/c ratio and use of SPs and fine supplementary cementi-
tious materials (SCMs) were reported to be effective ways to reduce
the ITZ width and porosity (Jiang and Roy 1994; Scrivener 1999).
Porosity can be measured by ASTM C1754/C1754M-12
(ASTM 2012) or RILEM CPC 11.3 (RILEM 1994). Methods in-
clude submerging dried concrete pieces in water or mercury under
pressure and measuring the weight change to calculate the concrete
porosity. In order to achieve higher strength and increased flowabil-
ity with less segregation of concrete constituents it is imperative to
achieve porosity that is approaching zero. Gitzen (1970) found that
porosity of up to 10% could reduce strength by 50% for ceramic
materials. The same range of reductions in strength with porosity
was also observed by Roy and Gouda (1973) in cement pastes.
The dependence of concrete strength on porosity is clearly seen in
the strength-porosity relationships presented in Table 1. Although
these semiempirical relationships were developed for ceramics and
crystalline materials initially, the models were widely applied to
concrete (Beaudoin et al. 1994; Röβler and Odler 1985). Powers
(1958) worked on an empirical relationship between strength and
porosity for cementitious materials. The models presented by
Hasselman (1962), Ryshkevitch (1953), and Schiller (1971) state
a linear relationship between strength and porosity, porosity and
logarithm of strength, and strength and logarithm of porosity,
respectively. Röβler and Odler (1985) performed experiments to
Parameters Type of materials
Cement mortars
Ceramics
Sintered alumina and zirconia
Gypsum pastes
Polycrystalline refractory materials
J. Mater. Civ. Eng.
 200
Balshin (1949)
180 Ryshkevitch (1953)
Schiller (1971)
160 Hasselman (1962)
Compressive strength (MPa)
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Qatar University Library on 08/16/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
0
0.0 0.1 0.2
Porosity (Vp/Vtotal)
Fig. 1. Strength-porosity models with optimized constants by Röβler
and Odler (1985), for porosity range 0.1–0.3
study the effects of porosity on the strength of cement pastes
and compared the data against strength-porosity models presented
by Schiller (1971), Ryshkevitch (1953), Balshin (1949), and
Hasselman (1962). Röβler and Odler (1985), as presented in Fig. 1,
optimized the constants in the models to best fit experimental data.
The standard deviation and correlation coefficient of each model
were calculated to evaluate the accuracy of these equations. For
a rational range of porosity (5–30%), all the models were observed
to provide similar values. However, it was observed that a linear
plot expresses the existing strength-porosity relationships most
accurately. Röβler and Odler (1985) reported that, at equal porosity,
the strength of the samples prepared under pressure was distinctly
lower than that of those prepared by simple casting. Pressure
applied on fresh concrete removes the voids (entrapped air) and
organizes the ingredients in a densely packed structure; hence, it
increases the strength of the hardened concrete. Thus, the methods
adopted to prepare cement paste specimens also influence their
strengths. Kolias (1994) studied the compressive strength of 70
cubes against total porosity, and a linear relationship with total
porosity was observed. Papayianni and Stefanidou (2006) studied
the effect of higher porosity on the strength of lime-pozzolan mor-
tars used to repair old monuments, and reported the same trends.
Alford (1981) suggested that there is an unpredictable relationship
between total porosity and the strength of cement pastes, and that
the strength of concrete mainly depends on pore size. Schiller
(1971) and Odler and Abdul-Maula (1987) also developed strength
and porosity relationships for cement pastes, and a decrease in
strength with increased porosity was observed. Readers are further
referred to a comprehensive review paper by Beaudoin et al. (1994)
on the effect of porosity, pore size distribution, and pore specific
surface on the strength and permeability of concrete.
Packing Density Models and Particle Size
Distribution
Particle packing density of a powder mix can be defined as the
volume of solids in a unit volume; it can also be expressed as
unity minus the porosity. Typical concrete is a system of multiple
components with common particles sizes from 37 mm to 0.1 μm.
The particles should be selected and arranged in such a way to fill
up the voids between larger particles with smaller ones and so on,
© ASCE
σ=S0(1-P) ;
n
S0 = 540 MPa, n = 14.47
hence achieving a high packing density. It is apparent from the
σ=S0.e
(-kr*P)
; S0 = 636MPa , kr = 17.04 basic principles behind the design of HPC that improved strength
σ=ksln(PoS/P); P0S = 0.31, ks = 81.5
and durability are made possible only by minimizing the porosity,
σ=S0-KHP; S0 = 540 MPa, KH= 601
inhomogeneity, and microcracks in the hydrated cement paste and
the ITZ between the cementitious matrix and aggregates (Mehta
and Monteiro 2005). At the same water content, higher packing
density could improve the flowability of concrete by releasing
excess water, which otherwise would be entrapped in the pores.
Hence, the cement paste will have more water for lubrication.
Alternatively, it would improve the strength of the concrete at the
same w/b ratio without compromising flowability (Fennis and
Walraven 2011; Kwan et al. 2010). Moreover, it was observed that
below a certain w/c ratio, strength does not increase further unless
the packing density of concrete is improved (Wille et al. 2011c).
0.3 0.4 The maximum particle packing density of concrete mixtures is
achieved by optimization, analytical methods, and discrete element
models (DEMs) (Fennis and Walraven 2011), as described in the
following sections.
Optimization of Particle Size Distribution Curves
The idea of improving concrete properties by optimizing the aggre-
gate grading was first presented by Feret (1897). In optimization
of particle size distribution, the aggregate mixtures are optimized
against predefined grading curves. The first of such grading curves
was presented by Fuller and Thompson (1907); the curve is still in
use. The Fuller and Thompson (1907) curve follows


D q
PðDÞ ¼ ð1Þ
Dmax
where P = fraction that can pass the sieve with opening D; and
Dmax = maximum particle size of the mixture. The distribution
modulus q has a value between 0 and 1; the Fuller and Thompson
(1907) curve uses a value of q equal to 0.5. Andreasen and
Andersen (1930) (A&A) performed a further study on the Fuller
and Thompson (1907) model and presented a semiempirical pack-
ing model of continuous particle size distributions (PSDs), which is
also given by Eq. (1). Andreasen and Andersen (1930) proposed a
value of q between 0.33 to 0.5 and found that optimum packing
is obtained when q is 0.37. This PSD curve, with a q value of 0.37,
is known as the A&A curve. The value of q was determined ex-
perimentally and depends on particle characteristics. However, this
model fails to give the best packing in case of granular mixtures
with a high amount of fines (<250 μm), as required in the case of
self-compacting concrete (SCC) and HSC (Brouwers and Radix
2005). With angular coarse particles, the ideal curve would be best
described with a lower q, or, in other words, with a lower value,
more fine particles will be present in the mix to fill the voids be-
tween larger particles (Kumar and Santhanam 2003).
Funk and Dinger (1994) suggested that any real size distribution
of particles must have a finite lower size limit and modified the
A&A curve. This modified version of the model incorporated the
minimum particle size in the mixture as
Dq − Dqmin
PðDÞ ¼ ð2Þ
Dqmax − Dqmin
where Dmin = minimum particle size in the mix; and all the other
parameters are defined previously.
In order to obtain the optimum particle packing density, re-
searchers have followed the modified A&A curve for particle size
distribution (Brouwers and Radix 2005; Hunger 2010; Yu et al.
2014; Van Tuan et al. 2011; Yu et al. 2015). Fig. 2 shows the modi-
fied A&A, A&A, and Fuller and Thompson (1907) curves for PSD
04017310-3 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2018, 30(3): 04017310

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Qatar University Library on 08/16/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 2. Particle size distribution for modified A&A from Funk and
Dinger (1994), A&A from Andreasen and Andersen (1930), and Fuller
from Fuller and Thompson (1907) models
with q values of 0.25, 0.37, and 0.50, respectively. The modified
A&A curve was used to obtain dense packing in the case of a mix-
ture with a high proportion of fine particles.
Alternatively, packing density can be improved indirectly by us-
ing a flow cone test. In order to improve packing density (and thus
compressive strength), the amount of water is kept constant and the
flowability of the paste is increased by optimizing the ingredients of
concrete (Wille et al. 2011b). The optimized proportion of cement,
silica fume (SF), filler material like fine glass powder (GP) (with
particle size between that of cement and SF), and fine sand (with a
grain size distribution selected for maximum bulk density) could be
achieved by a flow cone test.
Wong and Kwan (2008) presented a three-tier system to obtain
higher packing densities for concretes. They proposed to calculate
the wet packing density of cementitious materials [cement, SF, fly
ash (FA), etc.] instead of the dry packing density. This was done to
remove the strong electrostatic and surface forces in the fine grains.
To overcome these forces, water was added to the cementitious ma-
terials to reduce flocculation and the measured packing density was
higher. The basic concept is to divide the concrete mix into three
tiers with increasing particle size ranges. First, the cement paste
(cementitious materials + water + SP) is prepared. Then, the mortar
(cement paste + aggregate particles smaller than 1.2 mm) and the
final concrete mix (mortar + aggregate particles larger than 1.2 mm)
are attained. The packing density is maximized at every stage. The
bulk density of powder material less than 100 μm largely depends
on compaction. Additionally, direct methods of measuring packing
density may give erroneous results because the air entrapped in
cementitious materials is neglected. The three-tier system measures
the wet packing density of cement pastes because in concrete the
densest pastes are actually more important than the packed dry ce-
mentitious material. This model also takes into account the addition
of SPs and water in achieving the maximum packing density of
cement pastes.
Analytical Packing Density Models
Analytical packing density models are used to calculate concrete
constituents proportioned to minimize the voids ratio. Furnas
(1931) presented the first analytical packing model to predict
the voids ratio of a mixture of two monosized particle groups.
Two scenarios were considered: either the larger particles were
© ASCE 04017310-4
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2018, 30(3): 04017310
dominant, with smaller particles filling the voids in between, or
the smaller particles were dominant, with larger particles added
into the mix. In this binary model, the interaction between particle
groups was not taken into account. The interaction of particles has
two physical effects on packing density, namely, the wall effect
and the loosening effect. The wall effect is caused by a large par-
ticle having smaller particles surrounding it, whereas the loosen-
ing effect arises when a smaller particle does not fit into the voids
between larger particles. Both of these phenomena affect the pack-
ing density of the mixture. Aïm and Goff (1968) implemented the
interaction of large particles on the packing density of small par-
ticles into the Furnas (1931) model. Although the aforementioned
Aïm and Goff (1968) and Furnas (1931) models are not suitable
for concrete due to the higher number of constituents in concrete
mixtures, the Furnas (1931) model laid the foundation for im-
proved multicomponent models (Jones et al. 2002). Extensive
research by Powers (1968) on the interaction between different
components in concrete mixtures contributed to particle packing
knowledge.
Stovall et al. (1986) presented a linear packing density model
(LPDM) for multicomponent grains. The packing density for a
given mixture is expressed as a function of the fractional solid
volume of each grain size present. The Mooney (1951) viscosity
model for suspension solids was used to provide a linear packing
model of a solid with infinite viscosity. The predicted values by
LPDM of packing densities for binary, ternary, and higher-order
mixtures were compared against the experimental results of
Standish and Borger (1979), and high correlations were found.
The LPDM is formulated according to
αðtÞ
cðtÞ ¼ Rt R ð3Þ
1 − d yðxÞfðx=tÞdx − ð1 − αðtÞÞ tD yðxÞgðt=xÞdx
c ¼ minðcðtÞÞ for yðtÞ > 0 ð4Þ
where c = packing density; t = grain size; and yðtÞ = voluminal
size distribution of the grain mixture [with a unit integral:
∫Dd yðxÞdx ¼ 1, where d = minimum and D = maximum grain size,
respectively]. For grains of a given class t, αðtÞ is the specific pack-
ing density. The terms fðx=tÞ and gðt=xÞ indicate the loosening
effect and the wall effect functions, respectively. These functions
describe the binary interactions between size classes, and are ex-
pected to be universal, whereas yðtÞ and αðtÞ depend on the con-
sidered granular mix, and can be measured by PSD analysis and
density measurements, respectively (de Larrard 1999; de Larrard
and Sedran 1994).
Because the LPDM is linear in nature, the curves relating pack-
ing density to the proportions of two ingredients exhibit kinks in
the vicinity of optimal values, as seen in Fig. 3 (Jones et al. 2002;
de Larrard and Sedran 1994). Such a feature does not appear in
reality. To remove this artifact, de Larrard and Sedran (1994) de-
veloped a solid suspension model (SSM) given by
βðtÞ
cðtÞ ¼ Rt R ð5Þ
1− d yðxÞfðx=tÞdx − ½1 − βðtÞ tD yðxÞgðt=xÞdx
where βðtÞ = virtual specific packing density of t-size grains. Other
variables are the same as in Eq. (3). This is an extension of multi-
component packing models including interaction between different
grains. Richard and Cheyrezy (1995) used the SSM to develop re-
active powder concrete (RPC). A t size class consists of N different
types of grains, each one characterized by its own partial volume
yi ðtÞ (with summation of all partial volumes equal to unity) and
β i ðtÞ. The overall virtual packing density βðtÞ is defined as
J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Qatar University Library on 08/16/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 3. Packing density versus fines content according to LPDM
and SSM
1 X
N
yi ðtÞ
¼ ð6Þ
βðtÞ i¼1 β i ðtÞ
A large amount of work has been carried out on aggregate pack-
ing in concrete and soils. de Larrard (1999) presented another
model called the compressible packing model (CPM), defined as
X
n X
n yi
βi
K¼ Ki ¼ 1
ð7Þ
i¼1 i¼1 ϕ
− γ1i
in which the compaction effort K (K ¼ 4.1, for loose density) is
also taken into account, and Φ is the total solid content. Moutassem
(2016) quantitatively examined the nine analytical models from the
literature to calculate the packing density of aggregates normally
used in concrete. It was observed that the Aïm and Goff (1968)
model, Furnas (1931) model, LPDM, and other models that con-
sider the spherical shape of the aggregate or binary mixture over-
estimate the packing density in cases in which the sand/total
aggregate ratio (S/A) is below 0.5, whereas they underestimate it
in cases in which it is close to 1. The best estimates for the packing
density of a mixture of coarse and fine aggregates, especially near
0.40–0.60 S/A, which is observed to be the highest packing range
for sand and coarse aggregates used in concrete, are provided
by CPM. Jones et al. (2002) compared four analytical models—
Toufar’s model (Toufar et al. 1976), Dewar’s model (Dewar 1986),
LPDM, and CPM—against experimental results and data from
Goltermann et al. (1997) and Standish and Borger (1979). The
CPM was modified to have a compaction index K equal to 12.5
instead of 4.1 as suggested by de Larrard (1999). The packing den-
sity of binary and ternary groups of different sizes of aggregates
and sands, and cement and limestone, were compared. It was con-
cluded that all models normally gave the same combinations of
materials to achieve a higher packing density. Given the similar
mean size of the two particle groups, all the models yielded good
suitability, say up to a size ratio of 0.40, but outside this range the
LPDM, CPM, and Toufar models appeared to be less suited. The
CPM with K equal to 12.5 was observed to work well in binary and
ternary aggregate mixtures. While studying the effect of particle
shape packing density in natural sands, Cho et al. (2006) observed
that particle mobility was hindered by irregularity, which affects
the aggregates’ ability to attain dense packing configurations.
© ASCE
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2018, 30(3): 04017310
When low sphericity was encountered, platy particles bridged gaps
over grains and created large open voids. Fennis and Walraven
(2011), Jones et al. (2002), Kumar and Santhanam (2003), and
Mangulkar and Jamkar (2013) reviewed the particle packing
models with a particular emphasis on concrete mixtures. Since
the introduction of computers, several computer programs and
modified models based on these analytical packing models have
also been released, like 4C-Packing, Europack, MixSim98, and
BetonlabPro. These computer programs help find the optimum
combination of mixture constituents to maximize packing density
and minimize voids (Fennis and Walraven 2011; Yu and Standish
1988, 1993).
Discrete Element Models for Packing
Computer programs are used by DEMs to simulate a virtual particle
packing structure for a selected aggregate size distribution. A ran-
dom generator system is used to simulate particulate material like
concrete constituents. This random generator system places the
particles randomly in a defined space starting form the largest one.
It is a static simulation, which means that the particle position does
not change once it is placed. During the generation process, certain
numbers of overlaps occur, and the solution is to reject them and
the generation process continues to the next solution. The final sol-
ution would be the particles of different sizes filled into a three-
dimensional space without having any contact with each other.
This gives a uniform distribution of particles but underestimates
the clustering phenomena. This is why the result is not a packing
structure.
A dynamic DEM is one in which particles can change their po-
sition in each time step under the influence of linear and rotational
velocity vectors assigned to each element. This gives more realistic
packing structures of multicomponent mixtures. The orientation
and location is changed following the Newtonian motion model.
Interparticle contact is governed by a contact model. The simula-
tions stop when a certain packing level is achieved. Stroeven and
Stroeven (1999) developed a dynamic computer simulation system:
Software Package for the Assessment of Compositional Evolution
(SPACE). The SPACE program assesses the packing characteristics
of densely packed spherical elements in rigid boundaries. A further
development of SPACE, Habanera’s discrete element simulator
(HADES), can simulate the angular particles in concrete.
History and Development of High-Performance and
Ultrahigh-Performance Concrete
Since the 1960s, in order to achieve low porosity in cement pastes,
in addition to lowering the w/c ratio and increasing the particle
packing density of concrete constituents, researchers have used dif-
ferent methods, including pressure mixing, vacuum mixing, mixing
at high temperature with pressure, and heat curing (Buitelaar 2004;
Odler and Abdul-Maula 1987; Röβler and Odler 1985). The follow-
ing sections present the chronological developments of HPC and
UHPC. Table 2 is a summary of the developments since the
1970s in the field. These concretes were selected from the numer-
eous examples in the literature because they represent examples of
major breakthroughs or significant steps forward in the field.
Low-Porosity Concrete with High Pressure,
High Temperature, and Vacuum Mixing
To reduce the porosity of powdered ceramic materials, sintering
and hot pressing are the methods that have typically been applied
[E. G. Comstock and G. Crompton, Jr., “Apparatus and method for
04017310-5 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.
 Maximum compressive
grinding,” U.S. Patent No. 2,695,478 A (1954); Kuczynski and

strength (MPa)
Kuczynski 1949]. Early efforts were made to obtain a concrete with
high compressive strength by means of similar techniques, namely,

230
510
250

200
140

90
200
reduced w/c ratios, heat curing, and application of pressure to fresh
concrete mixtures. One of the first such pastes was prepared by
Yudenfreund et al. (1972a). In the mentioned study, the high-
strength low-porosity cement paste was achieved by grinding
two types of clinkers, Type I (C3 S 53.7%, C2 S 30%, C3 A 7.3%,
C4 AF 7.4%) and Type II (C3 S 56.7%, C2 S 28.7%, C3 A 1.4%,
C4 AF 12%), with Blaine surface areas ranging from 6,000 to
9,000 cm2 =g. A w/c ratio between 0.2 and 0.3 was used. In explor-
atory work, grinding was performed by using 13 different grinding
aids, and 4 of them were selected based on their performance:
Use of polymers; pressing and extruding
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Qatar University Library on 08/16/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Use of fine powder and SP to achieve

Pressure and high temperature mixing

(1) diethyl carbonate (DEC), (2) Reax 70, (3) Tergitol nonionic
Concrete with high volume of steel

TMN, and (4) synthetic AR-100. The ground clinkers were dry
mixed with calcium lignosulfonate, 1.0% by weight in Type I
higher particle packing density

fibers with main reinforcement

clinker and 0.5% in Type II clinker, respectively. Potassium carbon-

Heat and pressure curing

ate was also added in an amount of 0.5% weight of clinkers by

Features

Use of synthetic fibers

mixing with water. With a 0.2 w/c ratio, the paste was found to
flow into the molds with no additional effort. A satisfactory setting
Vacuum mixing

time was achieved when these four grinding aids, calcium ligno-
sulfonate, and potassium carbonate were added in the cement
pastes. Due to low porosity, higher compressive strengths were ob-
served compared to ordinary cement pastes with a 0.4 w/c ratio.
Moreover, dimensional changes were also in the range of one-third
to one-half of those of ordinary cement pastes.
To reduce the entrained air in the pastes, vacuum mixing was
adopted. For mixing, a two-compartment chamber was used, one
filled with cement and lignosulfonate, the other filled with water
mixed with potassium carbonate. The air was exhausted from the
chamber. The maximum compressive strength of 25-mm paste
Engineered cementitious composites (ECC)

cubes at 1 day was 96 MPa, at 28 days it was 204 MPa, and at

180 days it was 250 MPa (Yudenfreund et al. 1972b).
Compact reinforced concrete (CRC)

To obtain very HSC with porosity approaching zero, Roy et al.

Reactive powder concrete (RPC)
Microdefect-free (MDF) cement

(1972) and Roy and Gouda (1973) used hot pressing with applied
Densified small particle (DSP)

pressures of 172–345 MPa at temperatures about 150°C on

Name

2.5-mm-diameter and 25.4-mm-long cylindrical samples. Higher

Low porosity concrete
Low porosity concrete

strengths were attained by simultaneously heating and pressing;

i.e., at the same pressure, strengths were considerably higher in
samples pressed at 150°C for only 1 h than in samples pressed at
room temperature and then water cured for several days. The
strength of hot-pressed samples at any curing age was higher than
that of samples pressed at room temperature. With hot pressing, a
maximum compressive strength of 510 MPa, a tensile strength of
44 MPa, and a shear strength of 82 MPa were achieved. The lowest
porosity of the materials measured was approximately 1.8%, indi-
Table 2. Chronological Development of HPC and UHPC

cating a very high density in these cement pastes compared to what

was previously achieved (Roy and Gouda 1973).
Bajza (1972) studied the effects of initial porosity, w/c ratio,
H. H. Bache, “Compact reinforced composite,”

type of cement, and curing conditions on the strength of cement

pastes. Pressures of 45, 206, and 420 MPa were applied to cement
paste cylinders of 3.2 cm in diameter and maximum 28-day com-
pressive strengths of 235, 313, and 333 MPa, respectively, were
U.S. Patent No. 4,979,992 A (1990)

found. The w/c ratio was varied from zero to an optimum value.
The optimum w/c was defined as, for a given pressure and applied
Richard and Cheyrezy (1995)
Reference

time, water would not be pressed out of the cement paste. A linear
Yudenfreund et al. (1972b)

relationship was observed between initial porosity and compressive

strength. Results showed that initial porosity was lower in samples
Birchall et al. (1981)

pressed at optimal w/c than in those molded in dry form (zero w/c
Roy et al. (1972)

ratio). With increasing molding pressure, initial porosity decreased.

Bache (1981)

Fig. 4 shows that at a given maturity, there is a linear relationship

Li (1992)

between compressive strength and porosity. The extrapolation of

obtained straight lines gave a theoretical compressive strength of
approximately 490 MPa for pastes having zero porosity.

© ASCE 04017310-6 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2018, 30(3): 04017310


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Qatar University Library on 08/16/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 4. Strength-porosity relationship of pressed and dry cement pastes
at different ages (data from Bajza 1972)
Röβler and Odler (1985) studied the effect of porosity on the
structure and compressive strength of hardened cement pastes.
Cylindrical cement paste samples 20 mm in diameter and 22 mm
long were prepared under a pressure of 2 MPa, which was main-
tained for 1 min. Pressing made it possible to prepare these pastes
with a w/c ratio of 0.22–0.02, compared to nonpressed samples,
which were cast with a w/c ratio of 0.22–0.45. Mortars with a
porosity of 8% and a 28-day compressive strength of 87 MPa were
achieved with a 0.22 w/c ratio. Bajza and Rouseková (1983) stud-
ied the effect of curing conditions on pore volume in pastes. Three
different curing conditions were applied: Conditions A and B
involved only hot curing with covered or uncovered samples, re-
spectively, and Condition C involved hot curing at an increased
temperature followed by steam curing at 90–100% RH. It was ob-
served that with an increase in curing time came a reduction in pore
volume. Condition C mortars exhibited a dense structure with the
smallest pore sizes. Odler et al. (1972) prepared low-porosity pastes
by reducing the water-to-solid (w/s) ratio of a cement paste. Pastes
that were prepared with a 0.3 w/s ratio showed more pore volume in
each pore group than those made with a 0.2 w/s ratio; however, the
distribution of the volume in pores of different sizes was similar for
both w/s ratios. Compressive strength was related not only to the
degree of hydration and total porosity but also to pore volume dis-
tribution. The micropores appeared to have a greater effect on the
reduction of strength than the wide pores. Other researchers also
worked on reducing the porosity of cement paste in order to achieve
a higher-strength concrete from the 1960s to the 1980s (Brunauer
et al. 1968; Powers 1960).
More recently, Dils et al. (2015) studied the effect of vacuum
mixing on the mechanical properties of concrete. In the case of vac-
uum mixing, a reduction in air pressure from 0.1013 to 0.005 MPa
was established during the mixing procedure. The air content of
fresh as well as hardened concrete was reduced with vacuum mix-
ing. The UHPC mixture’s air content was reduced from 3.9 to
0.7%. The compressive strength of the same UHPC mixture in-
creased from 144 to 162 MPa when vacuum was applied. Overall,
a 7–22% increase in the mechanical strength of five UHPC mix-
tures was reported. Special mixers with capacities of 5 and 75 L
were used. It was observed that the increase in compressive
strength in smaller batches was more pronounced than that in
larger ones.
© ASCE 04017310-7
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2018, 30(3): 04017310
The results of these efforts to achieve low-porosity HSC laid the
foundation for subsequent research on HPC and UHPC. However,
the techniques adopted were only suitable for laboratories and
could not be effectively applied on site with larger amounts of
concrete.
Macrodefect-Free Cement
Birchall et al. (1981) developed MDF cement in Denmark. This is
composed of a cement composite prepared by addition of polymers
with a low w/c ratio. The concept is to remove, to the extent pos-
sible, the defects in the cement. Compressive strength exceeding
200 MPa was achieved, with the flexural strength of the cement
composites being at least one order of magnitude greater than that
of conventional cement pastes. Expected applications of these types
of composites were electronic substrates, armor ceramics, and sub-
stitution of fiber-reinforced plastics (Rodrigues and Joekes 1998).
Alford et al. (1982) used polyacrylamide or hydroxypropyl methyl
cellulose with 1.5–4.9% by weight of cement to cast MDF compo-
sites. These MDF cements were extruded through an 11-mm cir-
cular die at a pressure of 100 MPa or mixed in a twin roll mill and
then pressed between two polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) plates
at pressures of 4–7 MPa. Flexural strengths greater than 70 MPa
were attained with these MDF cements. Calcium aluminate cement
(CAC) was preferred, because it yields higher flexural strength in
MDF cement than in ordinary portland cement (OPC). Water solu-
ble or redispersible polymers were most suitable for use in MDF
cement. Polyvinyl alcohol-co-vinyl acetate (PVA) copolymers,
poly (acrylamide), and cellulosic products were also used (Kendall
1987). Use of alcohol-soluble polymers, such as phenol resin pre-
cursors, has also been successfully implemented to produce MDF
cement (Ekincioglu et al. 2012). Although MDF cements have high
flexural strengths, their use in structural applications is limited
because, as most of the researchers have mentioned, when exposed
to vapor or water, these polymers eventually become soluble and
strength is lost (Ekincioglu et al. 2012). These water-soluble poly-
mers are used so that they can be mixed and dissolved in water in
the first place to form a paste.
Densified Small Particles
It was well established in the 1980s that by using fine powder,
the density of a concrete mixture could be increased. Moreover, the
use of SPs made it possible to disperse ultrafine and normal cement
particles more thoroughly in aqueous solutions, resulting in denser
packing between the cement particles (Buitelaar 2004). Hans
Henrik Bache (1981) prepared a densified system, densified small
particles (DSP), containing homogeneously arranged ultrafine
microsilica and SPs. The defects in DSP were minimized due to
improved particle packing density. Further, the matrix was cured
with heat and pressure. Up to 345 MPa compressive strength could
be achieved with DSP. However, the brittleness of the concrete ma-
trix increased with increasing compressive strength, which neces-
sitated the use of steel fibers beginning in the 1980s. Most of these
materials were considered special and not easily available and pro-
ducible for everyday use until UHPCs were introduced in the 1990s
and used in bulk applications. The UHPCs can be seen as a further
development of DSP due to the similar principles of achieving
higher particle packing density and ductility through dispersed
fibers.
Compact Reinforced Composites
When a cementitious matrix reaches higher strength values, as
in the aforementioned case of DSP, it becomes more brittle and
J. Mater. Civ. Eng.
 exhibits a lower strain at failure. To overcome this lower fracture
energy, researchers started using high-strength aggregates and steel
fibers in the concrete matrix (Bindiganavile et al. 2002; Buitelaar
2004). Hans Henrik Bache, in Denmark, patented a strong and stiff
composite material with high ductility called compact reinforced
composites (CRC) [H. H. Bache, “Compact reinforced composite,”
U.S. Patent No. 4,979,992 A (1990)]. These composites are built
up of a strong, rigid, ductile matrix of UHPC with dense main steel
reinforcement (up to 20%). This cementitious material possesses
compressive strength up to 450 MPa and tensile strength up to
350 MPa.
In order to obtain CRC, the base matrix was prepared with
densely packed particles 0.5–100 μm in size. The voids between
these particles were filled with ultrafine particles 0.0050–0.5 μm
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Qatar University Library on 08/16/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
in size. A dispersing agent (SP) was used to overcome the surface
forces so that the ultrafine particles were homogeneously distrib-
uted to produce a dense matrix. This material matrix (portland ce-
ment, SF, strong sand) had a compressive strength up to 270 MPa.
In order to obtain high ductility, 5–10% of fiber reinforcement
was provided [H. H. Bache, “Compact reinforced composite,”
U.S. Patent No. 4,979,992 A (1990); Buitelaar 2004]. Flexural
stresses up to 300 MPa were developed in CRC; these are consid-
erably higher compared to those of conventional steel-reinforced
concrete.
Engineered Cementitious Composites
Engineered cementitious composites (ECC) are a type of high-
performance fiber-reinforced cementitious composite (HPFRCC)
developed in the early 1990s (Li 1992). Small synthetic fibers are
used in ECC to improve its mechanical properties. A moderate ten-
sile strength of 4–6 MPa and a high ultimate tensile strain of 3–5%,
which is 300–500 times greater than that of normal concrete, are
exhibited by ECC (Li 2003). Further, ECC shows strain-hardening
after first cracking, unlike ordinary concrete and conventional fiber-
reinforced concrete (FRC) (Altwair et al. 2012; Li 2003). Even at a
large imposed deformation, the crack widths of ECC remain small,
smaller than 80 μm (Şahmaran and Li 2010).
Reactive Powder Concrete
Richard and Cheyrezy, from Scientific Division Bouygues in
France, developed a cementitious matrix material known as RPC
(Richard and Cheyrezy 1995). This UHPC exhibits compressive
strength of 200–800 MPa and flexural strength of 15–20 MPa.
The development of RPC is based on the principles of improving
homogeneity by elimination of coarse aggregates, granular mixture
optimization, application of pressure before and during setting, and
enhancement of ductility by incorporating small-sized steel fibers.
An ultradense microstructure enhances the durability of RPC and
reduces its permeability. Depending upon the type of aggregates
used, the applied curing conditions, and the ultimate strength, these
matrices were divided into two categories: RPC-200 and RPC-800.
The RPC-200 matrix was fabricated by using OPC, SF, quartz ag-
gregates (sand with particle size of 150–600 μm), crushed quartz
(with 50% of the mass below 10 μm) as filler material, and SPs
(Ng et al. 2010). Steel fibers 13 mm long and 0.15 mm in diameter
were also used in order to improve ductility. The RPC-800 matrix
used steel aggregates as an additional constituent. The CPM by de
Larrard and Sedran (1994) was used to obtain the optimum particle
packing density of fine and coarse aggregates. The RPC-200 was
moist cured at 90°C, whereas the RPC-800 was steam cured at
an elevated temperature around 250°C and a presetting pressure
was involved. Thus, RPC-800 is only suitable for use in precast
© ASCE 04017310-8
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2018, 30(3): 04017310
elements. Cwirzen et al. (2008) prepared RPC by applying two cur-
ing regimes: moist curing after demolding at 20°C or heat curing
at 90°C for 24 h after demolding and then storing in 95% RH. The
compressive strengths were between 130 and 150 MPa, and 170
and 202 MPa, respectively, for the first and second curing regimes.
Elsewhere, RPC has been moist cured at 90°C by wrapping
polyethylene sheets around RPC precast segments and injecting
hot water vapors (Blais et al. 1999). Compressive strength of
200–350 MPa was achieved for these RPCs. Due to its superior
mechanical properties, RPC-800 can be used in some applications
as a replacement for steel in mechanical parts and as an impact-
resistant material.
The Sherbrooke Bridge in Canada, built in 1997, was the first
RPC structure (Gu et al. 2015; Perry and Seibert 2008). The 60-m-
span bridge was built with 42 m3 RPC (Ductal). Top and bottom
chord members used RPC of 200 MPa strength, whereas verticals
and diagonal members were built with steel tubes filled with RPC
of 350 MPa compressive strength (Blais et al. 1999). With the
higher strength of RPC, it was possible to make lightweight pre-
stressed, posttensioned bridge members. Higher ductility permitted
omission of the main reinforcement from the bridge members.
HPC and UHPC Materials and Their Characteristics
Cement
Various types of portland cements have been used in the manufac-
turing of HPC and UHPC. However, ASTM Types I/II and IV
(ASTM C150/C150M-17) (ASTM 2017) cements are most widely
used and recommended by researchers (Deeb et al. 2012; El-Dieb
2009; Huo and Wong 2000; Thomason 2009; Willey 2013). A ce-
ment type with a low tricalcium aluminate (C3 A) content, such as
ASTM Type IV (ASTM C150/C150M-17) (ASTM 2017), is pre-
ferred due to its low heat of hydration and delayed setting time.
Aggregates
The constituents of HPC and UHPC should be of very high quality
because low-quality or weak aggregates will hinder not only the
development of compressive strength but also the tightness of the
packing density. Normally, coarse aggregate (e.g., diabase, basalt)
smaller than 10 mm is used. In the case of UHPC, coarse aggregates
are normally omitted; only sand between 150 μm and 4.75 mm is
used. In HPC, sand finer than 250 μm is not recommended because
it increases the amount of fines and, hence, increases the water
demand of the mixture.
Supplementary Cementitious Materials
The addition of supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs) in
concrete has two distinct advantages. First, they provide a pozzo-
lanic reaction and convert calcium hydroxide (CH) to C-S-H gel,
according to
CaðOHÞ2 þ SiO2 þ nH2 O → Ca:SiO:nH2 O ð8Þ
which has cementitious properties and a less-porous microstructure
compared to NSC without SCM (Aïtcin 1995; Pu 2012). Second,
due to their fineness, SCMs fill the voids of concrete mixtures,
reducing their porosity. Reduction in porosity, as mentioned earlier,
enhances the mechanical (strength and modulus of elasticity) and
rheological (flow and filling ability) properties of concrete by
releasing the water that would otherwise be trapped in pores.
Commonly used SCMs and fillers are SF, FA, quartz powder (QP),
J. Mater. Civ. Eng.
 • Grey/white silica fume
• Median particle size 10 µm
• Median particle size 0.2 - 0.8 µm
• Moderate fineness (Blain value
• Carbon < 0.7 %
about 3300-3800 cm2/g)
• Surface area 140000-200000 cm2/g • Maximum particle size 10 mm

Silica Fume Cement Coarse aggregate

Water

10-1 100 101 102 103 104 105 µm

Superplasticizer Glass Powder

Rice Husk Ash Fine aggregate

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Qatar University Library on 08/16/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

• Polycarboxylate ether • Median particle • Size distribution optimized for

• Median particle size 1.5 - 5 µm size 5-10 µm maximum packing density.
based are preferred over • SiO2 > 99 %
SNF or SMF • SiO2 > 85 %

Fig. 5. Size distribution of constituents of UHPC [adapted from Materials and Structures, “Ultra-high performance concrete and fiber reinforced
concrete: achieving strength and ductility without heat curing,” 45(3), 2011, 309–324, Kay Wille, Antoine E. Naaman, Sherif El-Tawil, and
Gustavo J. Parra-Montesinos, © RILEM 2011, with permission of Springer]

Table 3. Typical Chemical Composition and Physical Properties of Cement and Supplementary Cementitious Materials (Federico and Chidiac 2009; Ganesan
et al. 2008; Habel and Gauvreau 2008; Long et al. 2002; Naaman and Wille 2012; Papadakis et al. 1999; Schwarz et al. 2008; Willey 2013)
Cement Quartz Glass
Physical properties (OPC) Silica fume Fly ash powder powder GGBS Rice husk ash
Median particle size (μm) 10–45 0.1–1 13–40 5–45 0.1–45 6.5–45 3.8–10
BET surface area (cm2 =g) 3,300–3,800 140,000–200,000 12,000–97,000 7,500 4,000–4,630 3,720–8,000 2,500,000–3,040,000
Density (kg=m3 ) 3,150–3,160 2,220–2,260 2,250–2,560 2,700 2,490–2,579 1,200–2,780 90–490
Chemical compound (%)
SiO2 20.07–22 92.85–95 53.09–53.5 99.24–99.4 63.79–72.5 28.3–35.34 87.32–94.95
Al2 O3 4.47–6.6 0.61–0.9 20.4–24.80 0.05–0.35 0.4–2.62 11.59–13.6 0.22–0.39
Fe2 O3 2.8–2.91 0.60–0.94 8.01–8.66 0.017–0.04 0.2–1.42 0.35–0.62 0.26–0.67
CaO 60.1–63.89 0.30–0.39 2.44–3.38 0.03–0.28 9.7–12.45 38.4–41.99 0.48–0.67
MgO 3.03–3.3 0.9–1.58 1.94–2.25 0.01 2.73–3.3 7.2–8.04 0.28–0.44
SO3 2.91 — 0.23–0.6 — — 0.23–7.4 —
Alkali (Na2 O þ 0.658 K2 O) 0.68 1.07 3.27 — 12.5–14.33 — 1.97–3.08612
Loss on ignition 1.0–2.6 2.1–3 1.2–3.59 0.06 0.36–0.45 — 0.85–2.10
Note: BET = Brunauer-Emmett-Teller surface area analysis.

GP, ground granulated blast-furnace slag (GGBS), rice husk ash
(RHA), and lime powder (LP) (Graybeal 2006; Graybeal and
Russell 2013). Fig. 5 shows the size ranges of different constituents
in UHPC (Wille et al. 2011a). Certain physical and chemical char-
acteristics of cements and SCMs used in HPC and UHPC are pre-
sented in Table 3.
A byproduct created during the combustion of coal in coal-fired
power plants, FA must be disposed of or recycled. Two types of FA
are mentioned in ASTM C618-15 (ASTM 2015a): F and C, differ-
entiated by their chemical composition. Two main requirements of
ASTM C618-15 (ASTM 2015a) for FA to be used in concrete are
as follows: There must be <4% loss on ignition (LOI) and 75% of
ash should be smaller than 45 μm. Type F is normally more suitable
for concrete on the basis of durability performance. Annually,
131 million tons of FA are produced by 460 coal-fired power plants
in the United States alone (Anandhan 2014). About one-fifth of the
690 million metric tons of rice paddy waste produced worldwide
annually becomes RHA (Van Tuan et al. 2011). Approximately
8.1 million metric tons of waste glass is produced worldwide
(Shi and Zheng 2007). According to the American Coal Ash
Association (ACAA), in 2005, 71 million tons of FA was produced,
out of which 29 million tons (41%) was used in the concrete
industry. By 2014, production had decreased to 50 million tons
and 23 million tons (46%) of FA was used in the construction indus-
try in different roles, such as in concrete, grout, structural fill, and
embankments (ACAA 2015). Hence, using these materials as fillers
or pozzolans in concrete also has a positive environmental impact.
Fibers
Use of discrete fiber reinforcement in HPC and UHPC is a ne-
cessity given the brittle nature of the matrix. These fibers are
distributed in such a way that they increase the ductility, energy ab-
sorption, resistance against delamination and spalling, and fatigue
resistance of the concrete matrix. These fibers are of different
shapes and sizes, and they are mostly characterized by their length-
to-diameter (l=d or aspect) ratio. Materialwise, the fibers are made
of steel (typical sizes are l ¼ 6–60 mm and d ¼ 0.15–0.75 mm,

© ASCE 04017310-9 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2018, 30(3): 04017310

 with l=d ¼ 30–150) or carbon, polypropylene, polyethylene, poly-
vinyl alcohol, nylon, polyester, glass, and other similar synthetic
materials. These fibers can be used in a hybrid form in which small
synthetic fibers arrest microcracks and large steel fibers stop the
propagation of macrocracks. Hybrid-fiber reinforcement results
in strain hardening that is several times higher than what is obtain-
able with a single fiber size. Many researchers have used smaller
straight steel fibers 6–13 mm long and 0.6 mm in diameter in
HPC and UHPC (Alkaysi and El-Tawil 2015; Azad and Hakeem
2013; El-Dieb 2009; Wille 2013); carbon fibers in UHPC were also
studied by some researchers (Sbia et al. 2014; Naaman 2003;
Šahmenko et al. 2015). A fiber volume fraction of 1.0–2.0% is rec-
ommended by Wille (2013) based on previous UHPC mix propor-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Qatar University Library on 08/16/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
tion studies (Wille et al. 2011a, b, c). The flowability of concrete
mixtures is affected by incorporated fibers. Nevertheless, research-
ers have successfully developed self-compacting HPC and UHPC
mixtures with steel fibers (Deeb et al. 2012). Fibers are an essential
ingredient in DSP, CRC, ECC, and RPC.
Chemical Admixtures
The invention of water reducers or SPs revolutionized the concrete
industry. With high-range water reducers (HRWRs), it is possible to
obtain a flowable concrete at low water content and achieve higher
strengths; in other words, SPs save cement while achieving higher
strengths by reducing the water content. The history of SPs is con-
sidered to have initiated in Japan and Germany in the 1960s.
Kenichi Hattori of Japan introduced the first SP in 1964; it con-
sisted of beta-naphthalene sulfonates (Shah et al. 2014). Higher
vibrations or compaction efforts were required for such concrete,
which was a health concern for the laborers. This problem initi-
ated the research on flowable concrete and the use of SP in con-
crete. To respond to this problem, SCC was developed (Okamura
and Ouchi 1998). The SPs that are commonly available in the
market and used in concrete are lignosulphonates, sulphonated
melamine formaldehyde (SMF), sulphonated naphthalene formal-
dehyde (SNF), and polycarboxylate ether (PCE). These admixtures
are available in liquid form with around 40% solids content and
a specific density of 1.06. The first three families (lignosulfate,
SMF, and SNF) disperse the cement matrix based on electrostatic
charges, whereas PCE-based SPs use a stirring process to defloc-
culate the powder particles. Deeb et al. (2012) observed that PCEs
are much more efficient than sulphonated formaldehydes and give
more flow at the same w/b ratio and when the same amount of SP
is used. Gołaszewski and Szwabowski (2004) observed that the
dosage required of SNF SP is twice that required in the case of
PCE-based SP to achieve the same flowability, especially for mor-
tars with low w/c ratios.
State of the Art of High-Performance and
Ultrahigh-Performance Concrete
The aforementioned history laid the foundation of HPC and UHPC.
The term UHPC was first used in a publication by de Larrard and
Sedran (1994). The basic theory for HPC and UHPC is the same:
to reduce the porosity and w/b ratio. Generally, UHPC compres-
sive strength is greater than 150 MPa, whereas HPC compressive
strength is in the range of 40–100 MPa. The specific design pro-
cedures for UHPC are not available as they are for conventional
concrete. The majority of researchers have provided mixture pro-
portions of UHPC after having many trials with no specific design
procedures reported (Yu et al. 2014; Shi et al. 2015).
In this section, several state-of-the-art mixture proportions of
HPC (Fig. 6) and UHPC (Figs. 7 and 8) are presented, with a focus
© ASCE 04017310-10
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2018, 30(3): 04017310
on those developed since the late 1990s. These figures are arranged
according to the ascending order of the compressive strength of
concrete. The references, w/c ratio, compressive strength, and
slump (whenever available) are arranged at the bottom of each
mixture proportion; the percentage fiber content is mentioned
above each mixture inside a box (whenever applicable). The quan-
tities of ingredients are presented graphically in these figures in
kilograms per meter cubed. It is important for potential developers
to know what type of ingredients they should look for, depending
upon their geographical location, before starting trial mixtures of
HPC and UHPC. The following paragraphs describe the type of
materials most commonly used by selected researchers to cast HPC
and UHPC.
Deeb et al. (2012) designed self-compacting high-performance
fiber-reinforced concrete (SCHPFRC) and self-compacting ultra
high-performance fiber-reinforced concrete (SCUHPFRC) mix-
tures by trial methods. Self-compacting high-performance concrete
(SCHPC) and self-compacting ultra high-performance concrete
(SCUHPC) mixtures were also prepared without fibers. The authors
used an already-available mixture design, CARDIFRC, manufac-
tured at Cardiff University for high-performance vibrated concrete
(HPVC) with strength of 100 MPa as a starting point, and system-
atically altered it to attain the SCHPFRC of the same strength.
An OPC, SF with a mean particle size of 0.5 μm, crushed limestone
(4–10 mm), sand (0.15–2 mm), limestone powder (0.05–4 mm) as
filler, steel fibers (0.55 mm in diameter, 30 mm long, crimped end,
Z560 Dramix) at 0.5% of volume of concrete, SP/cement ratio of
4%, and w/b ratio of 0.24 were used. The compressive strength was
found to be around 100 MPa.
Later, SCUHPFRC was also developed by altering the
CARDIFRC mixture design. Coarse aggregates were omitted from
the mixtures and two sizes of quartz sand (9–300 μm and 250–
600 μm) were used as the main aggregates. For SCM, SF and GGBS
were used. Steel fibers Z560 0.55 mm in diameter and 30 mm long,
2.5% volume ratio of concrete, and Glenium ACE333 SP (BASF,
Florham Park, New Jersey) were used. A compressive strength of
162 MPa was achieved. The authors showed that the use of PCE-
based SPs resulted in higher flowability than SNF and SMF SPs.
Maca et al. (2012) described the formulation of mixtures of
UHPC with and without fibers and tested them under impact and
shock loading. The mixtures with fibers were designed with 1–3%
steel fiber content by volume. The paste was first optimized for
high workability and high compressive strength by increasing its
particle packing density. The first mix was developed based on
a paste with a Cement∶SF∶GP ratio of 1∶0.25∶0.25, inspired by Wille
et al. (2011b). Then, the mixtures were optimized to achieve high
strength and workability by varying the Cement∶SF∶GP and w/b
ratios. A total of 24 mixtures were prepared, then the two best-
performing mixtures were chosen to investigate the effect of fiber
content in the second step. It was observed that 2 and 3% by vol-
ume was the optimal amount of fibers with respect to mechanical
properties and workability for the mentioned study.
Ma et al. (2002) used crushed basalt (2–5 mm) as a coarse ag-
gregate, OPC (CEM I 42.5 R) and high sulphate-resistant cement
(CEM I 42 HS) (ASTM C150/C150M-17) (ASTM 2017), fine sand
(0.3–0.8 mm), SF (0.1–1 μm), QP (0.1–10 μm), and PCE-based SP
to cast self-compacting UHPC of 155 MPa compressive strength.
The addition of basalt aggregate had a positive impact on the hard-
ened density and compressive strength of self-compacting UHPC.
A compressive strength of 156 MPa was achieved using a basalt
coarse aggregate of size 2–5 mm.
El-Dieb (2009) carried out research to obtain a self-compacting
ultra high-strength concrete (UHSC) using the materials available
in the Arabian Gulf. The compressive and splitting tensile strength
J. Mater. Civ. Eng.
 3000
Fine agg. Coarse agg. Silica fume GGBS Fly ash Cement Water HRWR
0.4
222.8

2500 7.4 13.7

252.0 7.3
14.0 153.1 443 14.0 7.9 14.0 127.0 145.7
252.0
126.0 126.0 160.2 126.0 209.3 21.0
151.3
180 4.3
5.6 412
446 185.0 398
190.0 383
2000 450 432
270.0 448.0 41.0
32.6 900 550
67.5 185.0
406 775 900
408
Content (kg/m3)

132.0
29.7
40.6
39.0
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Qatar University Library on 08/16/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

1500

135.0 116.3 1037.0

993.3
1125.0 1125.0 1125.0 135.0 740.0
1104.8
1139.0
1108.9 912.0 935.0
521.4
1000
543.1

1293.6

500
845.0 861.0 863.0
776.2
675.0 675.0 623.0 675.0 646.8 629.8
578.0 608.0
527.8

0
Megat Johari et al. (2011)

Megat Johari et al. (2011)

Megat Johari et al. (2011)

Knickerbocker (2005)

Le Roy et al. (2017)

0.24 | 85 | >600[#]

0.23 | 92 | >600[#]

0.24 | 95 | >600[#]

Ozbay et al. (2011)

0.35 | 78 | 76-178[*]
0.32 | 62 | 127-178[*]

de Larrard and Sedran (2002)

de Larrard and Sedran (2002)

0.37 | 100 | 102-229[*]

0.28 | 99 | 150[*]
El-Dieb (2009)

El-Dieb (2009)

El-Dieb (2009)
w/b| fc' | slump

0.5 | 71.5 | 203[*]

0.28 | 98 | NA
Miller (2001)
Miller (2001)
Reference

0.28 | 58 | 200[^]

0.28 | 75 | 100[^]

Miller (2001)
0.28 | 87 | 90[^]
0.43 | 78.1 | 160[*]

0.41 | 80 | 150[*]

[*]: ASTM C143/C143M-15a (2015); [#]: ASTM C1611 / C1611M - 14 (2014); [^]: BN EN 12350-2 (2009); NA: Not Available

Fig. 6. Materials and mixture proportions of HPC: reference, w/c, compressive strength (f c0 ), and slump presented below each mixture

of UHSC were investigated. Durability properties including sulfate were observed as compared to ordinary concrete; the large chunks
resistance, chloride permeability, and electrical resistivity were of CH present in ordinary concrete were absent; and the pozzolanic
evaluated. Compressive and split cylinder strengths progressively reaction of SF was observed to convert these CH crystals to C-S-H
increased with increasing steel fiber content (0, 0.08, 0.12, and gel. The carbon fibers were covered with such dense gel that it
0.52%). A compressive strength of 123 MPa and split cylinder provided a better bond between the fibers and the cement paste.
strength of 7.2 MPa were achieved at 28 days with 0.52% volume Long et al. (2002) designed a very-high-performance concrete
fraction. The chloride ion diffusion, sorptivity, and charge transfer (VHPC) by incorporating large quantities of ultra fine powders,
in a rapid chloride penetration test (RCPT) increased with increas- composition optimization, and heat treatment application to spec-
ing fiber content. The resistivity of concrete decreased from 111 to imens. The specimens were demolded after 24 h, submerged in
44 kΩ with an increase in fiber content from 0 to 0.52% volume 20°C water for 72 h, and then placed in a 95°C steam room for 72 h.
fraction. The charge transfer measured from a RCPT at 28 days for To overcome the brittleness of VHPC, discrete steel fibers were
concrete without fiber was 119 coulombs; the same for concrete added to the mixture. Mortar prisms of 40 × 40 × 160 mm were
with 0.52% fiber content was 170 coulombs. cast and kept in a fog room at 20°C. A compressive strength of
Reda et al. (1999) studied the microstructure of HPC and 200 MPa was attained.
UHPC. The mixture included OPC, SF, and SP. Limestone or cal- Yoo et al. (2013) prepared a mixture of UHPC mixture with
cined bauxite was used as coarse aggregates and silica sand was fibers by using OPC (CEM I), SF, fine sand (≤0.5 mm), fillers
used as a fine aggregate. To improve the fracture toughness and of size 2 μm having 98% SiO2 , and no coarse aggregates. To im-
other mechanical properties, Panex polyacrylonitrile (PAN)-based prove workability, PCE-based SP was added. After demolding,
microcarbon fibers 3–6 mm long (Zoltek, St. Louis, Missouri) were the specimens were cured at 90  2°C for 3 days. The highest com-
incorporated. All the concrete samples were cured at 50°C and pressive strength was found to be 207.2 MPa for specimens
some concrete samples were also cured under pressure to remove with 3% steel fiber (0.22 mm in diameter, 13 mm long) content by
air voids. The achieved compressive strength was 150 MPa without volume. The effects of the volume fraction of fiber on load-carrying
fibers and 210 MPa with carbon fibers. Very dense microstructures capacity, elastic modulus in compression, flexural strength,

© ASCE 04017310-11 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2018, 30(3): 04017310

 Fine agg. Coarse agg. Silica fume GGBS Fly ash Cement Water HRWR Quartz fiber vf
3000

2.19% 0.08% 0.12% 2.23% 0.52% 2.00% 1.67% 2.23% 2.05%

34.0 34.0
33.0
33.0 33.0 247.0 33.0 247.0
2500 227.0 31.0 33.0
190.0 190.0 190.0
190.0 12.7
9.0 190.0
56.0 138.0 180.9 13.0
30.7 31.0
109.0 144.0 113.2 150.4
207.0 216.0 216.0 216.0

2000 420 786 800 800

784 784 784
731 657
784
712 664 712 710
Content (kg/m3)

120.0
60.0
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Qatar University Library on 08/16/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

900 900 900 900

1500 256.0 256.0 256.0 261.0 256.0 261.0
142.0 239.0
231.0 256.0 231.0 429.8 230.0
142.0

1155.0 157.5 157.5 157.5 157.5 119.4

1000

414.1
516.6 516.1 510.8
1353.0 1353.0 1356.0 1353.0 1381.0 1353.0 1381.0
1231.0 1231.0 1253.0 1231.0 1231.0
500 1050.0

616.5
495.0 512.7 512.2 506.9

0
w/b | fc' | slump

0.13 | 101 | 0.62[$]

0.19 | 103 | 0.81[$]

0.14 | 103.01 | 560[#]

0.19 | 104 | 1.33[$]

0.22 | 110 | 1.24[$]

0.19 | 110.01 | 780[#]

0.2 | 115 | 1.26[$]

0.19 | 116 | 0.6[$]

0.23 | 120 | 1.03[$]

0.14 | 130 | 0.73[$]

0.19 | 132 | 1.1[$]

0.23 | 134 | 1.5[$]

0.17 | 138 | NA
0.19 | 112 | 730[#]

0.19 | 114 | 715[#]

0.19 | 123 | 700[#]

Graybeal and Russell
Yao et al. (2014)

Mullen (2013)
Yang et al. (2009)
Akhnoukh and Xie

0.2 | 108 | NA

El-Dieb (2009)

El-Dieb (2009)

El-Dieb (2009)
Willey (2013)

Willey (2013)

Willey (2013)

Willey (2013)
Reference

Willey (2013)

Willey (2013)

Willey (2013)

Willey (2013)

0.13 | 124 | 1[$]

Willey, 2013

El-Dieb (2009)

(2013)
(2010)

[$]: ASTM C1437-15 (2015); [#]: ASTM C1611 / C1611M - 14 (2014); [^]: BN EN 12350-2 (2009); NA: Not Available

Fig. 7. Materials and mixture proportions of UHPC: reference, w/c, compressive strength (fc0 ), and slump presented below each mixture; % fiber
content shown in box on top

and deflection capacity were investigated. The capacity and elastic maximum particle size), oxidized carbon nanofiber (60–150 nm
modulus in compression were improved with an increase in fiber in diameter, 40–100 μm long, Pyrograf III Type PR24 from
content up to 3%. A modulus of elasticity of 52.7 GPa was found Applied Sciences, Cedarville, Ohio), and copper-coated steel fibers
for 3% fiber content for these UHPCs; the samples with 4% fiber (0.175 mm in diameter and 13 mm long). The copper coating was
content exhibited the lowest compressive strength and modulus of to increase the corrosion resistance of the fibers. Specimens were
elasticity, which was attributed to the less homogeneous mixture moist cured inside molds at a room temperature of 20°C for 20 h,
obtained with the higher fiber content. demolded, cured with steam at 70°C for 48 h, and then kept at
Alkaysi and El-Tawil (2015) used cement, SF, two types of ambient temperature with 50% RH until testing. Specimens of
fine sand, HRWR, and 1% steel fibers (by volume) to prepare the UHPC with different proportions of oxidized carbon nanofiber
UHPC mixtures. The 28-day compression strength was greater than and steel fibers were studied. Fresh mix produced static flow from
180 MPa. 110 to 180 mm, dynamic flow from 220 to 260 mm according to
Azad and Hakeem (2013) designed UHPC using OPC Type I, ASTM C230/C230M14 (ASTM 2014a) compressive strength from
fine sand, SF, SP (Glenium 51, BASF, Florham Park, New Jersey), 100 to 170 MPa, and flexural strength from 13 to 22 MPa.
and 6.3% steel fibers (0.15 mm in diameter, 12.7 mm long) by Graybeal (2006) reported the results of different curing condi-
weight of UHPC. The mixing time was about 14 min, and the mix- tions on Ductal (UHPC) by Lafarge (Paris, France) with OPC, SF,
tures were first heat cured at 90°C for 2 days, then moist cured in- find sand, ground quartz, SP (Glenium 3000 NS, BASF, Florham
side molds until 28 days before testing. Researchers achieved a Park, New Jersey), accelerator (Rheocrete CNI, BASF, Florham
UHPC with a 28-day compressive strength of 160 MPa, a direct Park, New Jersey), and 2% by volume steel fibers (0.2 mm in diam-
tensile strength of about 12 MPa, and flexural strength of 32 MPa. eter, 13 mm long). Four different curing conditions were studied:
Sbia et al. (2014) prepared UHPC mixtures by using OPC (1) steam curing at 90°C and 95% RH for 48 h after demolding,
Type I, SF (mean particle size of 200 nm), ASTM C494/C494M16 (2) curing in an ambient laboratory environment from casting until
(ASTM 2016) Type F PCE-based SP (ADVA Cast 575, W.R. testing, (3) steam curing at 60°C and 95% RH for 48 h after de-
Grace, Columbia, Maryland), silica sand (Sand 1: 0.1–0.18 mm, molding, and (4) steam curing at 90°C and 95% RH for 48 h start-
and Sand 2: 0.18–0.5 mm), granite gravel (3.5 mm mean, 8 mm ing 15 days after casting. The average compressive strengths were

© ASCE 04017310-12 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2018, 30(3): 04017310

 Fine agg. Coarse agg. Silica fume GGBS Fly ash Cement Water HRWR Quartz fiber vf
3000
2.00% 2.18% 4.00% 2.19% 1.50% 2.01% 2.50% 2.00% 6.00% 6.03% 1.00% 2.15%

202.0 202.0 202.0

33.0
33.0 16.5
2500 190.0 155.0 180.0 227.0
28.4
18.0 263.0 15.3
20.8 141.6 20.8
144.0 10.0 163.0
21.1 40.3
240.0 240.0 35.0 165.0
285.0 163.0 162.4 53.9
917 917 917 190.0
23.0 192.4
2000 784 450 786 178.0
1,033 790
609 775 959
Content (kg/m3)

180.0 544
900
1,040 1,040
229.2 90.0 229.2 665 229.2
1500 1,050
256.0 256.0
192.0 183.0
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Qatar University Library on 08/16/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

311.5 194.0
258.3 198.0
239.8
200.0 220.0
923.0 214.0
1000
310.0 310.0
275.0

1443.0 1443.0 1443.0

1353.0 1356.0 1334.0
400.0 400.0 1220.0
1136.7 1141.0
500 1019.0 1005.0 1055.0
940.0
730.0
616.0
400.0 400.0

0
Richard and Cheyrezy

Richard and Cheyrezy

Aoude et al. (2015)

Wang et al. (2012)

Aoude et al. (2015)

Habel et al. (2006)

0.19 | 149 | 0.79[$]

0.22 | 154 | 1.22[$]

0.12 | 155 | 1.23[$]

0.17 | 162 | 830[#]

Alkaysi and El-Tawil

0.18 | 165.01 | 340[#]
Reda et al. (1999)

Azad and Hakeem

Reda et al. (1999)

Deeb et al. (2012)
0.15 | 150 | 690[#]

0.15 | 155.7 | 690[#]

0.15 | 155.9 | 700[#]

0.18 | 145 | 580[#]

0.18 | 153 | 515[#]

Aoude et al. (2015)

0.18 | 140 | NA

0.18 | 165 | NA
0.15 | 160 | NA

0.15 | 169 | NA
w/b | fc' | slump

Ma et al. (2002)

Ma et al. (2002)
Willey (2013)

Willey (2013)

Willey (2013)

0.17 | 178 | NA
0.13 | 150 | NA

0.14 | 200 | NA
Reference

(2013)

(2015)
(1995)

(1995)
[$]: ASTM C1437-15 (2015); [#]: ASTM C1611 / C1611M - 14 (2014); NA: Not Available

Fig. 8. Materials and mixture proportions of UHPC: reference, w/c, compressive strength (fc0 ), and slump presented below each mixture; % fiber
content shown in box on top

193, 126, 174, and 172 MPa, respectively, for each of these curing on top of freshly cast specimens at room temperature for 24 h,
conditions. demolding, and further curing in a moist room until testing; (2) sub-
Wille et al. (2011b) developed UHPC with and without fi- merging the freshly cast specimens into a room temperature lime
bers using commercially available materials in the United States. water bath for 24 h, demolding, and curing specimens in a moist
To make the design more practical for field applications the con- curing room until testing; and (3) submerging the freshly cast
cretes were prepared without heat curing, pressure curing, or use of specimens in a room temperature lime water bath for 24 h, demold-
a special mixer. The researchers used cement, SF, GP, SPs, and two ing, curing in a 90°C hot water bath for 72 h, and then keeping in a
types of sand with maximum grain sizes 0.2 and 0.8 mm in the moist cure room (∼23°C, >95% RH) until testing. Researchers
mixtures. An enhanced performance was achieved by optimizing tested flow and compressive strength at 4, 7, 14, and 28 days.
the packing density of the cementitious matrix, and using steel Results showed an increase from 60 to 133% in ASTM C1437-15
fibers. A 28-day compressive strength of 194–292 MPa and a ten- (ASTM 2015b) flow (the flow is defined as “the resulting increase
sile strength of 6.1–37 MPa were observed. in average base diameter of the mortar mass, expressed as a per-
Wille (2013) carried out research on the development of a cost- centage of the original base diameter”) and 60–154 MPa in 28-day
effective nonproprietary UHPC to be used for highway bridges. compressive strength. It was shown that the third curing method
Several concrete mix proportions with 12 different types of ce- yielded the highest concrete strength.
ments, 5 types of SF, 13 types of SCM, 8 types of HRWR, and Wang et al. (2012) developed UHPC with common technology
5 types of steel fibers were tested. The recommended UHPC mix and ordinary raw materials. The materials used were OPC, semi-
proportions used portland cement Type II/V, gray SF, Class C FA, condensed SF, GGBS, LP, fine aggregate (fineness modulus 2.3),
Premia 150 HRWR, fine basalt aggregates, and Nycon straight steel crushed limestone (20 mm) as coarse aggregate, amino sulfonic
fibers. The recommended UHPC mix cost about $983=m3 (half of acid-based SPs, and citric acid retarder. A slump flow of 690 mm
the cost was due to steel fibers), and achieved compressive strength and a 28-day compressive strength of 150 MPa were achieved. It
from 155 to 200 MPa and tensile strength above 5 MPa. was found that a w/b ratio of 0.16 and cementitious material content
Willey (2013) conducted a series of trials to obtain a proper of 900 kg=m3 , which contained 50% cement, 10% silica fume,
mixture design for UHPC and a curing method. Portland ce- 20% GGBS, and 20% limestone powder, were preferable for the
ment of ASTM Type I, Type I/II, Type III, and Type V (ASTM successful UHPC mixes.
C150/C150M-17) (ASTM 2017), Lafarge cement, SF, fine sand, Other mixture proportions for HPC by Miller (2001), Megat
ground quartz, a SP, an accelerator, and steel fibers were used in Johari et al. (2011), Ozbay et al. (2011), Le Roy et al. (2017),
the mixes. Three curing methods were used: (1) placing a wet rag and de Larrard and Sedran (2002) are also presented in Fig. 6.

© ASCE 04017310-13 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2018, 30(3): 04017310

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Qatar University Library on 08/16/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 10. Effect of dry unit weight on compressive strength of HPC

Fig. 9. Effect of w/b ratio on compressive strength of HPC and UHPC and UHPC

Additional UHPC mixtures by Aoude et al. (2015), Habel et al. 220

(2006), Sobuz et al. (2016), Tafraoui et al. (2009), de Larrard and
HPC
Sedran (2002), Mullen (2013), Yang et al. (2009), and Yao et al. 200 UHPC
(2014) are also presented in Figs. 8 and 9 but omitted from the
discussion here. 180
Compressive strength (MPa)
Figs. 6–8 show that although the w/b ratio varied from as low as
160
0.12 to as high as 0.30, researchers who targeted a compressive
strength above 80 MPa have used w/b ratios less than 0.25. Fig. 9 140
presents compressive strength against w/b ratio for selected studies.
It was observed that by reducing the w/b ratio the compressive 120
strength increased; however, the data were observed to be scattered.
100
For UHPC mixtures at the same w/b ratio different strengths were
achieved due to other factors like the amount and type of cement 80
or SF. The effect of SP has to be considered with the w/b ratio,
because reducing the w/b ratio without SP will give a less workable 60
concrete but the strength would also be lower because no water
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
would be available for the hydration of cement. As an example, Aggregate/cement ratio
Willey et al. (2013) reported two different strength values, 103 and
149 MPa, at a w/b ratio of 0.18. The reason for having higher Fig. 11. Effect of a/c ratio on compressive strength of HPC and UHPC
strength at the same w/b ratio was the use of steel fibers in the mix-
ture with higher strength. Akhnoukh and Xie (2010) achieved a
103-MPa compressive strength at a 0.18 w/b ratio, mainly due to
the use of FA and less SF and cement. aggregate-to-cement (a/c) ratio on the strength of concrete. The
Knickerbocker (2005) used a w/b of 0.25 and achieved a com- a/c ratio of UHPC is around or in some cases less than 1. In general,
pressive strength equal to 71.5 MPa. The reason could be that a as the a/c ratio increases, the compressive strength of concrete is
large amount of cement content (50%) as replaced by FA without reduced.
using SF. On other hand, Miller (2001) used a w/b ratio of 0.30 and
achieved a compressive strength of 86 MPa. The use of SF and less
coarse aggregate could be the explanation for relatively higher Mixing Procedures for HPC and UHPC
strength.
Regarding the relationship between compressive strength and In preparing UHPC, the mixing time, mixing speed, temperature,
the density of concrete, Fig. 10 shows a general trend that with an and mixing sequence should be carefully considered to obtain the
increase in dry unit weight of concrete, compressive strength in- desired properties (Dils et al. 2012). Because HPC and UHPC have
creases. More than a few studies follow this trend; however, some much smaller-sized ingredients than conventional concrete, a dif-
have yielded lower compressive strength with higher density. ferent procedure for mixing is adopted that ensures the breakage
Knickerbocker (2005) achieved a concrete density of 2,831 kg=m3 of agglomerated small particles and a homogenous dispersion.
but the strength was only 71.5 MPa. This could be attributed to the Compared to that for conventional concrete, a higher energy is
fact that a higher amount of coarse and fine aggregates was used, required during the mixing of HPC and UHPC; hence, the mixing
and FA was used up to 50% for replacement of cement. Fig. 10 time needs to be increased. Due to increased input energy, large
shows that in some cases, in UHPC and HPC with the same range amounts of cementitious materials, reduced or omitted coarse
of dry unit weights, the UHPC has higher values than the HPC: aggregate, and low water content, HPC and UHPC may overheat.
even at the same unit weight, the strengths achieved in UHPC Therefore, modified mixing procedures are required that avoid
are higher than those in HPC. Fig. 11 presents the effect of the overheating (Graybeal and Russell 2013). Different researchers

© ASCE 04017310-14 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2018, 30(3): 04017310

 fc0 (MPa)
adopted specific mixing protocols to achieve a homogenous mix-

210

166

208
ture. Wille et al. (2011c) mixed all dry ingredients first before
adding water and HRWR. Graybeal (2006) and Tue et al. (2008)
studied the influence of SP addition time on the properties of
fresh UHPC. The SP was added to the UHPC in two different
ways: direct addition and stepwise addition. An enhancement in
dispersion and flowability was observed with the stepwise addition
of SP.

Flow (mm)
Mixing procedures used by different researchers are summa-
rized in Table 4. The mixing procedure is clearly more involved

200b
910a

710a
for UHPC mixtures than for conventional concrete. The time of
mixing to obtain a final workable concrete could be around 1 h.
Most of the researchers obtain a homogenous dry mix of all the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Qatar University Library on 08/16/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ingredients of UHPC before adding water and SPs. The dry mixing
gives a higher packing density and, hence, fewer pores to be filled
by water. Otherwise, if water is added without extensive dry mix-
ing, the smaller ingredients, specially SF, would capture the water

Coupled speed mixer

60-L horizontal pan

(Chinese Standards
on their surface and workability may be compromised in the final

GB/T 1346-89)
Intensive mixer
mixer (60 rpm)
product.

Mixer
An intensive mixer was found to perform better than planetary
and trough mixers in the case of UHPC. The coefficient of variance
for concrete homogeneity (a small number indicates higher effi-
ciency) was found to be minimized for intensive mixers (Dils
et al. 2012). Intensive mixers have a rotating pan that transports
the material to an eccentrically mounted mixing rotor at the center.
There is a material scraper at the bottom and on the wall of the
pan. The quantity of liquid ingredients, like water and SP, can be
reduced without compromising consistency and strength with an

2. Add cement and supplemental material, mix for additional 5 min.

2. Add 1/2 quantity of mixing water containing SP and mix for 2–

3. Add remaining SP and water and mix for more than 2–3 min at
4. Add water-HRWR mixture within 1 min after pouring is started.
intensive mixer (Dils et al. 2012).

5. Add remaining HRWR within 1 min after pouring is started.

3. Continue mixing until flowing and homogenous concrete is

8. Continue mixing until fluidity is optimized (between 5 and

1. Dry mix all materials using intensive mixer for 2 min.

Summary and Conclusions

The main principles and procedures to achieve HPC and UHPC,

1. Mix dry ingredients at low speed for 1 min.

including the strength-porosity relationship, particle-packing den-
1. Dry mix sand/aggregate and SF for 5 min.

2. Add water and SP and mix about 6 min.

sity, mixing, and curing at elevated temperatures and under pres-
sure, are presented in this review paper. The characteristics of
Procedure

several breakthrough works on HPC and UHPC are presented in

chronological order to highlight the methods adopted by scientists
3. Add 1/3 of HRWR to water.

to achieve higher strength and workability. The paper will help en-
7. Add fibers if applicable.

gineers and new researchers in the field to learn the fundamentals

6. Increase mixing speed.

of HPC and UHPC mixture proportioning, material selection, and

mixing procedures, and to build on and improve HPC and UHPC 3 min at low speed.
characteristics.
The main conclusion of this extensive review is that low
Table 4. Summary of Mixing Procedures Used for UHPC

high speed.
porosity and a higher packing density are essential to achieve high
10 min).

formed.

strength, acceptable flowability, and minimal segregation. For

ceramic materials, increases in porosity of up to 10% can reduce
strength by 50%. The same range of reduction in strength with
porosity is also observed in cement pastes. The prevailing
strength-porosity models are presented in graphical form and it
is observed that in the realistically possible range of porosities
all the models give linear relationships between strength and
porosity.
Earlier techniques like pressure mixing, pressure with heat cur-
ing, and vacuum mixing used to cast low-porosity concrete are
practical at the laboratory scale. However, for large-scale casting,
Wille et al. (2011c)

Long et al. (2002)

these techniques cannot develop further. Use of polymers in ce-

Ma et al. (2002)

ment pastes give excellent mechanical properties; however, these

cement pastes are useful in repair work or coating purposes and not
Reference

for new construction. Such cement pastes are not suitable for struc-
tural application, mainly due to the water and vapor solubility of
the polymers used.

© ASCE 04017310-15 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2018, 30(3): 04017310

 Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Qatar University Library on 08/16/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Table 4. (Continued.)
Reference Procedure Mixer Flow (mm) fc0 (MPa)

© ASCE
b
Sbia et al. (2014) 1. Mix cement, SF, sand, and gravel at low speed for 5 min. Hobart Model 200 150
2. Mix at low speed for 1 min and add water and dispersed A200F
nanomaterials.
3. Mix at medium speed for 2 min.
4. Mix at high speed for 2 min, after adding steel fibers.
Willey (2013) 1. Mix dry materials for about 10 min, until homogenous mix is Hobart mixer (19 L) 250b 156
achieved.
2. Add 3/4 of water and SP, mix for about 20 min.
3. Add remaining water and SP, mix for about 40 min.
de Larrard and Sedran (1994) 1. Prepare mortars by adding water and 33% SPs to SF and mixing Conventional — 235.8
using three-speed mixer until homogenous slurry is achieved. three-speed mixer
2. Add cement with additional 50% of SP. (blender)
3. Add sand and mix for 1 min at high speed.
4. Complete mixing with addition of remaining 17% SP and mixing
for additional 1 min at high speed.
Deeb et al. (2012) 1. Dry mix coarsest constituent (coarse aggregates) and finest Planetary mixer 910a 162
constituent (SF).
2. Add next-coarsest (sand) and next-finest constituents (cement)
into first mixture.
3. Mix constituents for 2 min before each addition and continue until
all dry materials are added.
4. Mix 2/3 of total amount of SP with water. Add 1/2 this liquid
solution to dry constituents and mix for 2 min.
5. Add remaining 1/2 water-SP solution and mix for

04017310-16
additional 2 min.
6. Continue this process until all water-SP mixture is added:
about 10 min.
7. Add remaining 1/3 SP and mix for 2 min.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2018, 30(3): 04017310

Sobuz et al. (2016) 1. Mix all dry components (cement, silica fume, and aggregates) for Pan mixer (80 L) 773a 158
1 min until well combined.
2. Add water and SP, mix until concrete is visibly flowable: between
7 and 35 min depending on total water content.
3. After concrete starts to flow, add fibers and mix for
additional 5 min.
Tafraoui et al. (2009) 1. Mix dry powders at low speed for 2 min Mortar mixer (10 L) — 192
2. Add water and 1/2 SP and mix at low speed for 3 min.
3. Add remaining SP and mix at low speed until start of fluxing.
4. Add fibers and mix at high speed for 1 min.
a
ASTM C1611/C1611M-14 (ASTM 2014b)
b
ASTM C1437-15 (ASTM 2015b)

J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

 The use of ultra fine powder materials like microsilica to
improve the packing density of concrete prevailed until the devel-
opment of HPC and UHPC. The DSP, CRC, ECC, and RPC for-
mulations were based on this concept of using ultra fine powder as
a secondary cementitious material to have a pozzolanic effect as
well as fill the pores of concrete. In addition, the application of
packing models further improved the performance of these cemen-
titious materials.
Even after three decades of research on HPC and UHPC, de-
sign standards that can be used to obtain a specified strength and
workability are still lacking. Most of the research started from a
reference concrete mixture and then many trials were performed
to achieve the desired properties. In commercial use, several trials
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Qatar University Library on 08/16/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
were done before casting the concrete for structural applications.
The quantities in the mixture proportion were found to vary
substantially in a range depending upon the targeted strength. The
reviewed studies did not show a consistent pattern regarding what
mixture proportions would produce a desired compressive strength
and flowability. At the same w/c ratio very different compressive
strengths were achieved; a mixture proportion with higher cement
content may not produce higher strength and workability, depend-
ing on the type of cement, SCM, and aggregates used.
Types I, II, and IV cements are normally used mainly due to the
lower C3 A content in these cements. Use of SF with a low carbon
content is preferred; gray as well as white SFs were used. As
pozzolanic or filler materials, SF, GGBS, FA, RHA, GP, and QP
are recommended. For HPC, it is desirable to use sands with a par-
ticle size of 250–600 μm. Finer sands are not recommended because
they would increase the amount of powder and, in turn, increase
the water demand. For UHPC, fine silica sands of <200 μm were
mostly used. Coarse aggregates were rarely used to cast UHPC,
whereas for HPC, limestone, granite, and natural crushed stone ag-
gregates with a maximum size less than 12.5 mm are recommended.
The PCE-based SPs are preferred over SNF and SMF SPs.
An appropriate mixing procedure for HPC and UHPC is as im-
portant as selecting good-quality ingredients. If not handled care-
fully, the small particles, especially of SF, form small pellet balls in
the mix and water gets entrapped in these pellets, which results in a
very dry mix. A longer mixing time is usually required to break
these pellets. To avoid allowing these pellets to form, the SP is
added just after the dry mixing of ingredients. This combination
is mixed for a certain amount of time before the water is added.
If SPs are in powder form, they should be dry mixed with the other
dry ingredients at the early stage. Further, a stepwise addition of
SP enhances the workability of concrete. Dry mixing to obtain a
homogeneous mixture of all the ingredients prior to adding water
is recommended. This way, the water demand is reduced because
the pores between larger particles are filled by smaller ones, which
allows more water to be available for hydration and workability.
The packing density of concrete ingredients is the major factor
affecting the strength and workability of concrete. Moreover, in the
studies presented in this paper, emphasis was clearly on achiev-
ing lower porosity as much as possible to produce high-strength,
flowable, and durable concrete. Hence, it is imperative for concrete
constituents to be selected in a proportion and size that gives the
highest packing density and minimum porosity of the hardened
concrete. The modified A&A curve (Andreasen and Andersen
1930) is widely used to obtain the maximum packing density of
aggregates, and other more advanced models have recently been
developed. The modified A&A model (Funk and Dinger 1994),
when applied to fine ingredients like cement and SF, may not pro-
duce the highest packing density due to strong electrostatic forces
between these powders. Wong and Kwan (2008) proposed a wet
packing density for cementitious materials in their three-tier system
© ASCE 04017310-17
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2018, 30(3): 04017310
of packing density. The optimized PSD curves, if applied to all
ingredients from largest to smallest, result in less fines, i.e., low
cement, SF, or QP content, which hinders the use of these curves
in the case of UHPC.
Analytical models have been improved from simple monosized
spherical particles to multigrain nonspherical interacting particles.
de Larrard and Sedran (1994) successfully used SSM and CPM to
obtain a mixture for UHPC. The compaction factor required to
reach maximum packing density was also incorporated by CPM.
It has been observed that DEMs are gaining recognition. However,
a large number of parameters need to be considered and a large
amount of computational work is required to complete the simu-
lations. A packing model should be a part of the concrete mixture
proportioning procedure for UHPC.
Acknowledgments
This research was funded by the Qatar National Research Fund
(a member of the Qatar Foundation) under Grant No. NPRP-7-
410-2-169. The statements made herein solely belong to the authors
and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the sponsor.
References
4C-Packing [Computer software]. Danish Technological Institute,
Copenhagen, Denmark.
ACAA (American Coal Ash Association). (2015). “American coal combus-
tion products production & use statistics.” Farmington Hills, MI.
ACI Committee 363. (2005). “High-strength concrete.” ACI 363R,
Farmington Hills, MI.
Aïm, R. B., and Goff, P. L. (1968). “Effet de paroi dans les empilements
désordonnés de sphères et application à la porosité de mélanges
binaires.” Powder Technol., 1(5), 281–290 (in French).
Aïtcin, P.-C. (1995). “Developments in the application of high-performance
concretes.” Constr. Build. Mater., 9(1), 13–17.
Akhnoukh, A. K., and Xie, H. (2010). “Welded wire reinforcement versus
random steel fibers in precast/prestressed ultra-high performance
concrete I-girders.” Constr. Build. Mater., 24(11), 2200–2207.
Alford, N. M. (1981). “A theoretical argument for the existence of high
strength cement pastes.” Cem. Concr. Res., 11(4), 605–610.
Alford, N. M., Groves, G. W., and Double, D. D. (1982). “Physical proper-
ties of high strength cement pastes.” Cem. Concr. Res., 12(3), 349–358.
Alkaysi, M., and El-Tawil, S. (2015). “Structural response of joints made
with generic UHPC.” Proc., Structures Congress 2015, ASCE, Reston,
VA, 1435–1445.
Altwair, N. M., Megat Johari, M. A., and Saiyid Hashim, S. F. (2012).
“Flexural performance of green engineered cementitious composites
containing high volume of palm oil fuel ash.” Constr. Build. Mater.,
37, 518–525.
Anandhan, S. (2014). “Recent trends in fly ash utilization in polymer
composites.” Int. J. Waste Resour., 4, 149.
Andreasen, A. H. M., and Andersen, J. (1930). “Über die Beziehung
zwischen Kornabstufung und Zwischenraum in Produkten aus losen
Körnern (mit einigen Experimenten).” Colloid Polym. Sci., 50(3),
217–228 (in German).
Aoude, H., Dagenais, F. P., Burrell, R. P., and Saatcioglu, M. (2015).
“Behavior of ultra-high performance fiber reinforced concrete columns
under blast loading.” Int. J. Impact Eng., 80, 185–202.
ASTM. (2012). “Standard test method for density and void content
of hardened pervious concrete.” ASTM C1754/C1754M-12, West
Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2014a). “Standard specification for flow table for use in tests
of hydraulic cement.” ASTM C230/C230M-14, West Conshohocken,
PA.
ASTM. (2014b). “Standard test method for slump flow of self-consolidating
concrete.” ASTM C1611/C1611M-14, West Conshohocken, PA.
J. Mater. Civ. Eng.
 ASTM. (2015a). “Standard specification for coal fly ash and raw or
calcined natural pozzolan for use in concrete.” ASTM C618-15, West
Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2015b). “Standard test method for flow of hydraulic cement
mortar.” ASTM C1437-15, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2016). “Standard specification for chemical admixtures for
concrete.” ASTM C494/C494M-16, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2017). “Standard specification for portland cement.” ASTM C150/
C150M-17, West Conshohocken, PA.
Azad, A. K., and Hakeem, I. Y. (2013). “Flexural behavior of hybrid
concrete beams reinforced with ultra-high performance concrete bars.”
Constr. Build. Mater., 49, 128–133.
Bache, H. H. (1981). “Densified cement/ultra fine particle based materials.”
2nd Int. Conf. on Superplasticizers in Concrete, Aalborg Portland,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Qatar University Library on 08/16/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Ottawa.
Bajza, A. (1972). “On the factors influencing the strength of cement
compacts.” Cem. Concr. Res., 2(1), 67–78.
Bajza, A., and Rouseková, I. (1983). “Effect of heat treatment conditions
on the pore structure of cement mortars.” Cem. Concr. Res., 13(5),
747–750.
Balshin, M. Y. (1949). “Relation of mechanical properties of powder metals
and their porosity and the ultimate properties of porous metal-ceramic
materials.” Dokl. Akad. Nauk. SSSR, 67(5), 831–834.
Beaudoin, J. J., Feldman, R. F., and Tumidajski, P. J. (1994). “Pore struc-
ture of hardened portland cement pastes and its influence on properties.”
Adv. Cem. Based Mater., 1(5), 224–236.
BetonlabPro [Computer software]. Institutfrancaise des sciences et technol-
ogies des transports, de l’amenagement et des reseaux (IFSTTAT),
Marne la Vallee, Paris.
Bindiganavile, V., Banthia, N., and Aarup, B. (2002). “Impact response
of ultra-high-strength fiber-reinforced cement composite.” Mater. J.,
99(6), 543–548.
Birchall, J. D., Howard, A. J., and Kendall, K. (1981). “Flexural strength
and porosity of cements.” Nature, 289(5796), 388–390.
Blais, P. Y., et al. (1999). “Precast, prestressed pedestrian bridge—World’s
first reactive powder concrete structure.” PCI J., 44(5), 60–71.
Brouwers, J. J. H., and Radix, H. J. (2005). “Self-compacting concrete:
The role of the particle size distribution.” 1st Int. Symp. on Design,
Performance and Use of SCC, Changsha, Hunan, China, RILEM
Publications Sarl, Bagneux, France, 109–118.
Brunauer, S., Mikhail, R. S., and Yudenfreund, M. (1968). “Hardened ce-
ment pastes of low porosity—Exploratory studies.” Research Rep. 68-9,
Engineering Research and Development Bureau, Washington, DC.
Buitelaar, P. (2004). “Ultra high performance concrete: Developments and
applications during 25 years.” Int. Symp. on UHPC, Iowa State Univ.,
Ames, IA.
Cho, G.-C., Dodds, J., and Santamarina, J. C. (2006). “Particle shape
effects on packing density, stiffness, and strength: Natural and crushed
sands.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241
(2006)132:5(591), 591–602.
Cwirzen, A., Penttala, V., and Vornanen, C. (2008). “Reactive powder
based concretes: Mechanical properties, durability and hybrid use with
OPC.” Cem. Concr. Res., 38(10), 1217–1226.
Deeb, R., Ghanbari, A., and Karihaloo, B. L. (2012). “Development of self-
compacting high and ultra high performance concretes with and without
steel fibres.” Cem. Concr. Compos., 34(2), 185–190.
de Larrard, F. (1999). Concrete mixture proportioning: A scientific
approach, CRC Press, New York.
de Larrard, F., and Sedran, T. (1994). “Optimization of ultra-high-
performance concrete by the use of a packing model.” Cem. Concr.
Res., 24(6), 997–1009.
de Larrard, F., and Sedran, T. (2002). “Mixture-proportioning of high-
performance concrete.” Cem. Concr. Res., 32(11), 1699–1704.
Dewar, J. D. (1986). “Ready-mixed concrete mix design.” Munic. Eng.,
3(1), 35–43.
Diamond, S., and Huang, J. (2001). “The ITZ in concrete: A different
view based on image analysis and SEM observations.” Cem. Concr.
Compos., 23(2–3), 179–188.
© ASCE 04017310-18
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2018, 30(3): 04017310
Dils, J., Boel, V., and De Schutter, G. (2015). “Vacuum mixing technology
to improve the mechanical properties of ultra-high performance
concrete.” Mater. Struct., 48(11), 3485–3501.
Dils, J., De Schutter, G., and Boel, V. (2012). “Influence of mixing pro-
cedure and mixer type on fresh and hardened properties of concrete:
A review.” Mater. Struct., 45(11), 1673–1683.
Dunn, R. C., Ross, R. A., and Davis, G. D. (2010). “Corrosion monitoring
of steel reinforced concrete structures using embedded instrumenta-
tion.” NACE Corrosion Conf. and Expo, NACE International, San
Antonio, TX, 1–10.
Ekincioglu, O., Ozkul, M. H., Struble, L. J., and Patachia, S. (2012).
“Optimization of material characteristics of macro-defect free cement.”
Cem. Concr. Compos., 34(4), 556–565.
El-Dieb, A. S. (2009). “Mechanical, durability and microstructural charac-
teristics of ultra-high-strength self-compacting concrete incorporating
steel fibers.” Mater. Des., 30(10), 4286–4292.
Europack version 1.1 [Computer software]. Idorn G M Consult A/S,
Virun, Denmark.
Federico, L. M., and Chidiac, S. E. (2009). “Waste glass as a supplemen-
tary cementitious material in concrete: Critical review of treatment
methods.” Cem. Concr. Compos., 31(8), 606–610.
Fehling, E., Michael, S., Joost, W., Leutbecher, T., and Fröhlich, S. (2014).
Ultra-high performance concrete UHPC: Fundamentals, design,
examples, Wiley, New York.
Fehling, E. M. S. (2004). “Ultra high performance concrete (UHPC).”
Proc., Int. Symp. on Ultra High Performance Concrete, Kassel Univer-
sity Press, Kassel, Germany.
Fennis, S., and Walraven, J. (2011). “Design of ecological concrete by par-
ticle packing optimization.” Tese (doutorado), Technische Universiteit
Delft, Delft, Netherlands, 256.
Feret, R. (1897). “Etudes sur la constitution intime des mortiers hydrauli-
ques.” Bulletin de la Socit d’Encouragement pour l’Industrie Nationale
2, 1591–1625 (in French).
Fuller, W., and Thompson, S. E. (1907). “The laws of proportioning
concrete.” Trans. Am. Soc. Civ. Eng., 59(2), 67–143.
Funk, J. E., and Dinger, D. R. (1994). “Introduction to predictive pro-
cess control.” Predictive process control of crowded particulate suspen-
sions, Springer, New York, 1–16.
Furnas, C. C. (1931). “Grading aggregates. I: Mathematical relations for
beds of broken solids of maximum density.” Ind. Eng. Chem., 23(9),
1052–1058.
Ganesan, K., Rajagopal, K., and Thangavel, K. (2008). “Rice husk ash
blended cement: Assessment of optimal level of replacement for
strength and permeability properties of concrete.” Constr. Build. Mater.,
22(8), 1675–1683.
Gitzen, W. H., ed. (1970). Alumina as a ceramic material, Wiley,
New York.
Gołaszewski, J., and Szwabowski, J. (2004). “Influence of superplasticizers
on rheological behaviour of fresh cement mortars.” Cem. Concr. Res.,
34(2), 235–248.
Goltermann, P., Johansen, V., and Palbøl, L. (1997). “Packing of aggre-
gates: An alternative tool to determine the optimal aggregate mix.”
ACI Mater. J., 94(5), 435–443.
Graybeal, B. A. (2006). “Material property characterization of ultra-high
performance concrete.” FHWA Rep. No. FHWA-HRT-06-103, Federal
Highway Administration Research and Technology, Turner-Fairbank
Highway Research Center, McLean, VA.
Graybeal, B. A., and Russell, H. G. (2013). “Ultra-high performance
concrete: A state-of-the-art report for the bridge community, June
2013—FHWA-HRT-13-060.” 〈https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications
/research/infrastructure/structures/hpc/13060/〉 (Nov. 9, 2015).
Gu, C., Ye, G., and Sun, W. (2015). “Ultrahigh performance concrete—
Properties, applications and perspectives.” Sci. China Technol. Sci.,
58(4), 587–599.
Habel, K., and Gauvreau, P. (2008). “Response of ultra-high performance
fiber reinforced concrete (UHPFRC) to impact and static loading.” Cem.
Concr. Compos., 30(10), 938–946.
Habel, K., Viviani, M., Denarié, E., and Brühwiler, E. (2006). “Develop-
ment of the mechanical properties of an ultra-high performance fiber
reinforced concrete (UHPFRC).” Cem. Concr. Res., 36(7), 1362–1370.
J. Mater. Civ. Eng.
 Hasselman, D. P. H. (1962). “On the porosity dependence of the elastic
moduli of polycrystalline refractory materials.” J. Am. Ceram. Soc.,
45(9), 452–453.
Hu, J., and Hendriks, C. F. (2004). Porosity of concrete—Morphological
study of model concrete, Delft Univ. of Technology, Delft, Netherlands.
Hunger, M. (2010). An integral design concept for ecological self-
compacting concrete, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, Eindhoven,
Netherlands.
Huo, X., and Wong, L. (2000). Early-age shrinkage of HPC decks under
different curing methods, ASCE, Philadelphia.
Jiang, W., and Roy, D. M. (1994). “Strengthening mechanisms of high-
performance concrete.” Spec. Publ., 149, 753–768.
Jones, R., Zheng, L., and Newlands, M. (2002). “Comparison of particle
packing models for proportioning concrete constituents for minimum
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Qatar University Library on 08/16/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
voids ratio.” Mater. Struct., 35(5), 301–309.
Kendall, K. (1987). “Macro defect free (MDF) cements.” Eur. J. Eng. Edu.,
12(1), 21–25.
Knickerbocker, D. J. (2005). Behavior of high performance concrete inte-
gral abutment bridges, Vanderbilt Univ., Nashville, TN.
Koch, G. H., Brongers, M., Thompson, N. G., Virmani, Y. P., and Payer,
J. H. (2002). “Corrosion cost and preventive strategies in the United
States.” FHWA-RD-01-156, R315-01, Final Rep., Federal Highway
Administration, Washington, DC.
Kolias, S. (1994). “Investigation of the possibility of estimating concrete
strength by porosity measurements.” Mater. Struct., 27(5), 265–272.
Kuczynski, G. C., and Kuczynski, G. C. (1949). “Self diffusion in sintering
of metallic powders.” Trans. Am. Inst. Min. Metall. Pet. Eng. Soc. Min.
Eng. AIME, 185, 169–178.
Kumar, S. V., and Santhanam, M. (2003). “Particle packing theories and
their application in concrete mixture proportioning: A review.” Indian
Concr. J., 77(9), 1324–1331.
Kwan, A. K. H., Chen, J. J., Fung, W. W. S., and Li, L. G. (2010).
“Improving packing density of powder in cement paste for production
of high-performance concrete.” Adv. Mater. Res., 168–170, 1640–1647.
Le Roy, R., Le Maou, F., and Torrenti, J. M. (2017). “Long term basic creep
behavior of high performance concrete: Data and modelling.” Mater.
Struct., 50(1), 85.
Li, V. C. (1992). “Performance driven design of fiber reinforced cementi-
tious composites.” Proc., 4th RILEM Int. Symp. on Fiber Reinforced
Concrete, RILEM Publications Sarl, Bagneux, France, 12–30.
Li, V. C. (2003). “On engineered cementitious composites (ECC)—A re-
view of the material and its applications.” J. Adv. Concr. Technol., 1(3),
215–230.
Long, G., Wang, X., and Xie, Y. (2002). “Very-high-performance concrete
with ultrafine powders.” Cem. Concr. Res., 32(4), 601–605.
Ma, J., Dietz, J., and Dehn, F. (2002). “Ultra high performance self com-
pacting concrete.” Lacer, 7, 33–42.
Maca, P., Zatloukal, J., and Konvalinka, P. (2012). “Development of ultra
high performance fiber reinforced concrete mixture.” IEEE Symp. on
Business, Engineering and Industrial Applications (ISBEIA), IEEE,
New York, 861–866.
Mangulkar, M. N., and Jamkar, S. S. (2013). “Review of particle packing
theories used for concrete mix proportioning.” Int. J. Sci. Eng. Res.,
4(5), 143–148.
Megat Johari, M. A., Brooks, J. J., Kabir, S., and Rivard, P. (2011).
“Influence of supplementary cementitious materials on engineering
properties of high strength concrete.” Constr. Build. Mater., 25(5),
2639–2648.
Mehta, P. K., and Aïtcin, P.-C. (1990). “Principles underlying production of
high-performance concrete.” Cem. Concr. Aggregat., 12(2), 70–78.
Mehta, P. K., and Monteiro, P. J. M. (2006). Concrete: Microstructure,
properties, and materials, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Mehta, P. K., and Monteiro, P. J. M. (2005). Concrete: Microstructure,
properties, and materials, 3rd Ed., McGraw-Hill, New York.
Miller, R. A. (2001). “High performance concrete showcase bridge.”
PCI J., 46(6), 42–55.
MixSim98 version 5 [Computer software]. Questjay, Ltd., Kent, U.K.
Mooney, M. (1951). “The viscosity of a concentrated suspension of
spherical particles.” J. Colloid Sci., 6(2), 162–170.
© ASCE 04017310-19
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2018, 30(3): 04017310
Moutassem, F. (2016). “Assessment of packing density models and opti-
mizing concrete mixtures.” Int. J. Civ. Mech. Energy Sci. (IJCMES),
2(4), 29–36.
Mullen, C. (2013). “Determining the effect of thermal treatment timing
on ultra-high performance concrete beams.” Master’s thesis, Michigan
Technological Univ., Houghton, MI.
Naaman, A. E. (2003). “Engineered steel fibers with optimal properties for
reinforcement of cement composites.” J. Adv. Concr. Technol., 1(3),
241–252.
Naaman, A. E., and Wille, K. (2012). “The path to ultra-high performance
fiber reinforced concrete (UHPFRC).” 3rd Int. Symp. on UHPC,
M. Schmidt, E. Fehling, C. Glotzbach, S. Fröhlich, and S. Piotrowski,
eds., Kassel University Press, Kassel, Germany, 3–15.
Neville, A., and Aïtcin, P.-C. (1998). “High performance concrete: An
overview.” Mater. Struct., 31(2), 111–117.
Ng, K. M., Tam, C. M., and Tam, V. W. Y. (2010). “Studying the production
process and mechanical properties of reactive powder concrete: A Hong
Kong study.” Mag. Concr. Res., 62(9), 647–654.
Odler, I., and Abdul-Maula, S. (1987). “Investigations on the relationship
between porosity structure and strength of hydrated portland cement
pastes. III: Effect of clinker composition and gypsum addition.” Cem.
Concr. Res., 17(1), 22–30.
Odler, I., Hagymassy, J., Yudenfreund, M., Hanna, K. M., and Brunauer, S.
(1972). “Pore structure analysis by water vapor adsorption. IV: Analysis
of hydrated portland cement pastes of low porosity.” J. Colloid Interface
Sci., 38(1), 265–276.
Okamura, H., and Ouchi, M. (1998). “Self-compacting high performance
concrete.” Prog. Struct. Eng. Mater., 1(4), 378–383.
Ozbay, E., Gesoglu, M., and Guneyisi, E. (2011). “Transport properties
based multi-objective mix proportioning optimization of high perfor-
mance concretes.” Mater. Struct., 44(1), 139–154.
Papadakis, V. G., Pedersen, E. J., and Lindgreen, H. (1999). “An AFM-
SEM investigation of the effect of silica fume and fly ash on cement
paste microstructure.” J. Mater. Sci., 34(4), 683–690.
Papayianni, I., and Stefanidou, M. (2006). “Strength-porosity relationships
in lime-pozzolan mortars.” Constr. Build. Mater., 20(9), 700–705.
Perry, V. H., and Seibert, P. J. (2008). “The use of UHPFRC (Ductal®) for
bridges in North America: The technology, applications and challenges
facing commercialization.” UHPC Proc., 2nd Symp., Kassel University
Press, Kassel, Germany, 815–822.
Powers, T. C. (1958). “Structure and physical properties of hardened port-
land cement paste.” J. Am. Ceram. Soc., 41(1), 1–6.
Powers, T. C. (1960). “Properties of cement paste and concrete physical
properties of cement paste.” Proc., 4th Int. Symp. on the Chemistry
of Cement, National Bureau of Standards, Gaithersburg, MD.
Powers, T. C. (1968). The properties of fresh concrete, Wiley, New York.
Pu, X. (2012). Super-high-strength high performance concrete, CRC Press,
New York.
Reda, M. M., Shrive, N. G., and Gillott, J. E. (1999). “Microstructural
investigation of innovative UHPC.” Cem. Concr. Res., 29(3), 323–329.
Richard, P., and Cheyrezy, M. (1995). “Composition of reactive powder
concretes.” Cem. Concr. Res., 25(7), 1501–1511.
RILEM. (1994). “CPC 11.3. Absorption of water by concrete by immersion
under vacuum.” RILEM recommendations for the testing and use of
constructions materials, E & FN Spon, London.
Rodrigues, F. A., and Joekes, I. (1998). “Macro-defect free cements: A new
approach.” Cem. Concr. Res., 28(6), 877–885.
Roy, D. M., and Gouda, G. R. (1973). “High strength generation in cement
pastes.” Cem. Concr. Res., 3(6), 807–820.
Roy, D. M., Gouda, G. R., and Bobrowsky, A. (1972). “Very high strength
cement pastes prepared by hot pressing and other high pressure tech-
niques.” Cem. Concr. Res., 2(3), 349–366.
Röβler, M., and Odler, I. (1985). “Investigations on the relationship be-
tween porosity, structure and strength of hydrated portland cement
pastes. I: Effect of porosity.” Cem. Concr. Res., 15(2), 320–330.
Ryshkevitch, R. (1953). “Compression strength of porous sintered alumina
and zirconia.” J. Am. Ceram. Soc., 36(2), 65–68.
Şahmaran, M., and Li, V. C. (2010). “Engineered cementitious composites:
Can it be accepted as a crack-free concrete.” Trans. Res. Rec., 2164,
1–8.
J. Mater. Civ. Eng.
 Šahmenko, G., Krasnikovs, A., and Eiduks, M. (2015). “Ultra high perfor-
mance concrete reinforced with short steel and carbon fibers.” Proc.,
10th Int. Scientific and Practical Conf., Environment. Technology.
Resources, Rezekne, Latvia, 193–199.
Sbia, L. A., Peyvandi, A., Soroushian, P., Lu, J., and Balachandra, A. M.
(2014). “Enhancement of ultrahigh performance concrete material
properties with carbon nanofiber.” Adv. Civ. Eng., 2014, 854729.
Schiller, K. K. (1971). “Strength of porous materials.” Cem. Concr. Res.,
1(4), 419–422.
Schwarz, N., Cam, H., and Neithalath, N. (2008). “Influence of a fine glass
powder on the durability characteristics of concrete and its comparison
to fly ash.” Cem. Concr. Compos., 30(6), 486–496.
Scrivener, K. (1999). “Characterisation of the ITZ and its quantification by
test methods.” Engineering and transport properties of the interfacial
transition zone in cementitious composites: State-of-the-art report
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Qatar University Library on 08/16/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
of RILEM TC 159-ETC and 163-TPZ, M. G. Alexander, G. Arliguie,
G. Ballivy, A. Bentur, and J. Marchand, eds., RILEM Publications,
Mainz, Germany.
Shah, S. N. R., Aslam, M., Shah, S. A., and Oad, R. (2014). “Behaviour of
normal concrete using superplasticizer under different curing regimes.”
Pak. J. Eng. Appl. Sci., 15, 87–94.
Shi, C., Wu, Z., Lv, K., and Wu, L. (2015). “A review on mixture design
methods for self-compacting concrete.” Constr. Build. Mater., 84,
387–398.
Shi, C., and Zheng, K. (2007). “A review on the use of waste glasses in the
production of cement and concrete.” Resour. Conserv. Recycl., 52(2),
234–247.
Sobuz, H. R., Visintin, P., Mohamed Ali, M. S., Singh, M., Griffith, M. C.,
and Sheikh, A. H. (2016). “Manufacturing ultra-high performance con-
crete utilising conventional materials and production methods.” Constr.
Build. Mater., 111, 251–261.
Standish, N., and Borger, D. E. (1979). “The porosity of particulate
mixtures.” Powder Technol., 22(1), 121–125.
Stovall, T., de Larrard, F., and Buil, M. (1986). “Linear packing density
model of grain mixtures.” Powder Technol., 48(1), 1–12.
Stroeven, P., and Stroeven, M. (1999). “Assessment of packing character-
istics by computer simulation.” Cem. Concr. Res., 29(8), 1201–1206.
Tafraoui, A., Escadeillas, G., Lebaili, S., and Vidal, T. (2009). “Metakaolin
in the formulation of UHPC.” Constr. Build. Mater., 23(2), 669–674.
Thomason, J. C. (2009). “Development of high performance structural
lightweight portland cement concrete.” Master’s thesis, Tennessee Tech-
nological Univ., Cookeville, TN.
Toufar, W., Born, M., and Klose, E. (1976). “Contribution ofoptimization
of components of different density in polydispersed particles systems.”
Freiberger booklet A 558, VEB Deutscher Verlag ftir Grundstoflindus-
trie, Leipzig, Germany (in German).
Tue, N. V., Ma, J., and Marko, O. (2008). “Influence of addition method
of suplerplasticizer on the properties of fresh UHPC.” 3rd Int. Symp.
on UHPC, M. Schmidt, E. Fehling, C. Glotzbach, S. Fröhlich, and
S. Piotrowski, eds., Kassel University Press, Kassel, Germany, 93–100.
van Breugel, K. (1991). “Simulation of hydration and formation of
structure in hardening cement-based materials.” Ph.D. thesis, Delft
University Press, Delft, Netherlands.
© ASCE 04017310-20
View publication stats J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2018, 30(3): 04017310
Van Tuan, N., Ye, G., van Breugel, K., Fraaij, A. L. A., and Bui, D. D.
(2011). “The study of using rice husk ash to produce ultra high perfor-
mance concrete.” Constr. Build. Mater., 25, 2030–2035.
Wang, C., Yang, C., Liu, F., Wan, C., and Pu, X. (2012). “Preparation of
ultra-high performance concrete with common technology and materi-
als.” Cem. Concr. Compos., 34(4), 538–544.
Wille, K. (2013). “Development of non-proprietary ultra-high performance
concrete for use in the highway bridge sector.” Rep. No. PB2013-
110587, National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA.
Wille, K., Naaman, A. E., and El-Tawil, S. (2011a). “Optimizing ultra-high
performance fiber-reinforced concrete.” Concr. Int., 33(9), 35–41.
Wille, K., Naaman, A. E., El-Tawil, S., and Parra-Montesinos, G. J.
(2011b). “Ultra-high performance concrete and fiber reinforced con-
crete: Achieving strength and ductility without heat curing.” Mater.
Struct., 45(3), 309–324.
Wille, K., Naaman, A. E., and Parra-Montesinos, G. J. (2011c). “Ultra-high
performance concrete with compressive strength exceeding 150 MPa
(22 ksi): A simpler way.” ACI Mater. J., 108(1), 46–54.
Willey, J. (2013). “Use of ultra-high performance concrete to mitigate im-
pact and explosive threats.” Master’s thesis, Missouri Univ. of Science
and Technology, Rolla, MO.
Wong, H. H. C., and Kwan, A. K. H. (2008). “Packing density of cementi-
tious materials. Part 1—Measurement using a wet packing method.”
Mater. Struct., 41(4), 689–701.
Yang, S. L., Millard, S. G., Soutsos, M. N., Barnett, S. J., and Le, T. T.
(2009). “Influence of aggregate and curing regime on the mechanical
properties of ultra-high performance fibre reinforced concrete
(UHPFRC).” Constr. Build. Mater., 23(6), 2291–2298.
Yao, D., Jia, J., Wu, F., and Yu, F. (2014). “Shear performance of
prestressed ultra high strength concrete encased steel beams.” Constr.
Build. Mater., 52, 194–201.
Yoo, D.-Y., Lee, J.-H., and Yoon, Y.-S. (2013). “Effect of fiber content
on mechanical and fracture properties of ultra high performance fiber
reinforced cementitious composites.” Compos. Struct., 106, 742–753.
Yu, A. B., and Standish, N. (1988). “An analytical-parametric theory of the
random packing of particles.” Powder Technol., 55(3), 171–186.
Yu, A. B., and Standish, N. (1993). “A study of the packing of particles with
a mixture size distribution.” Powder Technol., 76(2), 113–124.
Yu, R., Spiesz, P., and Brouwers, H. J. H. (2014). “Mix design and proper-
ties assessment of ultra-high performance fibre reinforced concrete
(UHPFRC).” Cem. Concr. Res., 56, 29–39.
Yu, R., Spiesz, P., and Brouwers, H. J. H. (2015). “Development of ultra-
high performance fibre reinforced concrete (UHPFRC): Towards an
efficient utilization of binders and fibres.” Construct. Build. Mater.,
79, 273–282.
Yudenfreund, M., Odler, I., and Brunauer, S. (1972a). “Hardened portland
cement pastes of low porosity. I: Materials and experimental methods.”
Cem. Concr. Res., 2(3), 313–330.
Yudenfreund, M., Skalny, J., Mikhail, R. S., and Brunauer, S. (1972b).
“Hardened portland cement pastes of low porosity. II: Exploratory stud-
ies. Dimensional changes.” Cem. Concr. Res., 2(3), 331–348.
J. Mater. Civ. Eng.