Construction and Building Materials 226 (2019) 743–758

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

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

Weibull modulus from size effect of high-performance fiber-reinforced

concrete under compression and flexure
Duy-Liem Nguyen a,⇑, Duc-Kien Thai b, Tri-Thuong Ngo c, Tuan-Kiet Tran a, Tri-Thong Nguyen a
a
Faculty of Civil Engineering, Ho Chi Minh City University of Technology and Education, 01 Vo Van Ngan St, Thu Duc District, Ho Chi Minh City, Viet Nam
b
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Sejong University, South Korea
c
Faculty of Civil Engineering, Thuyloi University, Viet Nam

h i g h l i g h t s

The Weibull modulus in compressive and bending failure of HPFRCs.

Proposed models for explaining the size effect in compression and bending of HPFRCs.

The relationship between bending strength and compressive strength of HPFRCs.

The conversion factors for compressive specimens with various sizes and shapes using HPFRCs.

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

Article history: The Weibull modulus, a material parameter describing the size effect of brittle material, of high-
Received 2 February 2019 performance fiber-reinforced concretes (HPFRCs) was investigated under compression and flexure. The
Received in revised form 30 May 2019 compressive specimens were as follows: 70.7  70.7  70.7 mm (cube), 100  100  100 mm (cube),
Accepted 19 July 2019
150  150  150 mm (cube), Ø100  200 mm (cylinder), Ø150  300 mm (cylinder). The bending speci-
mens were as follows: 40  40  120 mm, 100  100  300 mm and 150  150  450 mm. For each size
or shape, two HPFRCs having different fiber content were examined as follows: HPFRC1 having no fiber
Keywords:
and HPFRC2 containing 1.0% macro hooked fibers blended with 0.5% micro smooth fibers by volume.
High-performance
Size effect
There was a clear size effect on the compressive and bending parameters for both the investigated
Weibull HPFRCs. The derived Weibull modulus of the investigated HPFRCs for the mechanical parameters varied
Brittleness from 1.33 to 8.74. Furthermore, the correlation between the bending and compressive strengths of the
Hybrid fiber two HPFRCs and their conversion factors for various sizes and shapes of the compressive specimens were
explored.
Ó 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction properties, such as high corrosion resistance [5], self damage-

The high demand for enhancing resistance of civil and limitary
infrastructure under extreme loads endlessly attracts many
researchers to develop new advanced materials with superior
properties. High-performance steel-fiber-reinforced concretes
(HPFRCs) or ultra-high-performance steel-fiber-reinforced con-
cretes (UHPFRCs) are favorable construction materials partially
meeting the demand, because this material can produce high com-
pressive and tensile resistances, high ductility and toughness
owing to the mechanism of work hardening accompanied by mul-
tiple tiny cracks [1–5]. In addition to high structural resistance,
HPFRCs and UHPFRCs also demonstrate some non-structural
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: liemnd@hcmute.edu.vn (D.-L. Nguyen).
sensing [6–8], self crack-healing [9], self compacting [6,8], these
smart properties strongly support HPFRCs and UHPFRCs for classi-
fication as multifunctional or smart materials [10]. What are the
main differences between HPFRCs and UHPFRCs? The compressive
strength of HPFRCs is about 80–100 MPa [1,6,7] but that of
UHPFRCs must exceeds 150 MPa [2–4]. The different compositions
and curing methods of HPFRCs and UHPFRCs, as provided in
Table 1, are thought to result their different compressive strengths.
Compared with normal concrete, the densified microstructures of
HPFRCs and UHPFRCs help enhance their high compressive
strengths. On the one hand, sand in both materials plays the role
of coarse aggregates while others, such as silica fume, silica powder
or fly ash, plays the role of fine aggregates with their much smaller
particle-sizes. On the other hand, the smaller particle-sizes of an
aggregate will produce lower porosity around this particle due to

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.07.234
0950-0618/Ó 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
744 D.-L. Nguyen et al. / Construction and Building Materials 226 (2019) 743–758

Table 1
Composition of mortar matrices.

HPFRC
Cement (Type 3) Silica fume Silica sand Fly ash Superplas-ticizer Water Water curing
0.80 0.07 1.00 0.20 0.04 0.26 25 °C/28 days
UHPFRC
Cement (Type 1) Silica fume Silica sand Silica powder Superplas-ticizer Water Water curing
1.00 0.25 1.10 0.30 0.067 0.20 90 °C/3 days

the lower capillary attraction of water [11]. The rest of the water representative ductile materials exhibiting constant failure
around the particle after hydrating will vaporize and originate strengths regardless of the specimen size. The size effect of brittle
the porosity inside the concrete. These reasons help decrease the materials on strength has been mainly responsible for the
air voids embedded in the concrete and produce the very densified following trend: the bigger-sized specimen produces lower
microstructures of HPFRCs and UHPFRCs. Even though HPFRCs has
demonstrated lower compressive strength than UHPFRCs, HPFRCs
has still been encouraged to apply in civil infrastructure owing to
its superior tensile properties and simpler curing, i.e, HPFRCs can
be cured in normal condition with temperature ranging from 20
to 30 degrees Celsius, whereas UHPFRCs often requires special
treatments in production such as high temperature curing, high
pressure, extensive vibration [3]. In addition, HPFRCs using fly
ash, one of waste products from a coal-fired power plant, will help
increase fly ash utilization and environmentally friendly impacts.
Strength dependences on size of concretes or structural mem-
bers made from concrete have been reported in many studies
[11–21]. Also, high-strength concrete was reported to produce a
clear size and shape effect on compressive strength [22]. This
natural property is entirely dissimilar to metals, which are

Fig. 2. Experimental program.

Fig. 1. Characteristic compressive and flexural behavior of HPFRC with their main
parameters. Fig. 3. Photos of two steel fibers used in their hybrid system.
 D.-L. Nguyen et al. / Construction and Building Materials 226 (2019) 743–758 745

strength. Consequently, the phenomenon of size effect highly
affects the reliability and safety factor of construction, thus it
should be considered noticeably in design work, which has been
primarily based on the reported data from small specimens tested
in laboratories.
Although the ductility of HPFRCs or UHPFRCs could be
improved by embedded fibers bridging the tiny cracks and devel-
oping a work hardening behavior, it is still in question whether this
advanced material may demonstrate its size effect on the mechan-
ical properties. Few studies [23–27] reported the size effect on
fiber-reinforced concrete. According to [23], HPFRCs produced a
significant size effect on the bending response but an insignificant
size effect on the tensile response of HPFRCs. The engineered
cement composites were evaluated to produce an unimportant size
effect on bending in comparison with reinforced concrete speci-
mens [24]. The significant size effect on bending resistance of

a) Silica sand b) Fly ash c) Cement

d) Water e) Superplasticizer f) Silica fume

Fig. 4. Photos of componential materials manufacturing the investigated HPFRCs.

Table 2
Properties of fibers.

Fiber type Diameter (mm) Length (mm) Aspect ratio (L/d) Density (g/cc) Tensile strength (MPa) Shape
Macro fiber 0.5 35 70 7.9 >1200 circular, hooked
Micro fiber 0.2 13 65 7.9 >2500 circular, smooth

a) Compression b) Bending
Fig. 5. Test setup for compression and bending test.
746 D.-L. Nguyen et al. / Construction and Building Materials 226 (2019) 743–758

Table 3
Compressive resistances of the investigated HPFRCs.

Specimen type (Specimen name) HPFRC1 HPFRC2

Maximum force, P max (kN) Deformation, D (mm) Maximum force, P max (kN) Deformation, D (mm)
70.7  70.7  70.7 (CU070) 422 0.238 490 0.231
402 0.231 572 0.259
487 0.273 586 0.308
Average value 437.10 0.247 549.42 0.266
Standard deviation 44.44 0.023 51.81 0.039
100  100  100 (CU100) 799 0.310 991 0.330
794 0.270 1010 0.300
908 0.300 916 0.310
Average value 833.80 0.293 972.33 0.313
Standard deviation 64.32 0.021 49.50 0.015
150  150  150 (CU150) 1757 0.375 2186 0.480
1612 0.420 1880 0.360
1536 0.360 2053 0.450
Average value 1634.85 0.385 2039.55 0.430
Standard deviation 112.39 0.031 153.31 0.062
Ø100  200 (CY100) 558 0.480 644 0.700
580 0.560 641 0.580
551 0.440 579 0.600
Average value 563.05 0.493 621.28 0.627
Standard deviation 15.09 0.061 36.24 0.064
Ø150  300 (CY150) 1091 0.570 1239 0.870
1215 0.720 1338 0.900
1261 0.780 1475 0.600
Average value 1188.70 0.690 1350.51 0.790
Standard deviation 88.06 0.108 118.20 0.165

The bold values were used for comparatively evaluation.

HPFRCs was also discovered by Kim et al. [25]. Nguyen et al.

recently explored the size effects on both tensile and flexural
response of UHPFRCs [26,27], even though the size effects on them
showed different significances. In the structural members, the size
effect on shear of composite beam using UHPFRC-normal concrete
jointly was reported by Hussein and Amleh [28]. Some other stud-
ies are available on the size-dependent mechanical properties of
UHPFRCs under flexure [29,30] or under combined flexure and
axial forces [31]. Generally, the size-dependent mechanical behav-
iors of HPFRC or UHPFRC have existed and clarified their brittle
nature.
Up to now, the brittleness of cement-based materials has been
indicated by Weibull modulus (named m) characterizing the defect
distribution in the specimen or the structural members [32,33].
The Weibull modulus has been considered as a material parameter
with its constant value describing the degree of size effect. The
main tendency of size effect in brittle materials is that a more brit-
(a) Compressive force tle material commonly produces a lower value of m [12]. Even
though the measured data from testing structural members give
the most precise values, the structural member sizes are various
and their testing involves huge space, large equipment, great
expense and a great deal of time. Therefore, the determination of
the Weibull modulus of brittle cement-based materials helps civil
engineers estimate the mechanical properties of structural mem-
bers from test results with small specimens based on the Weibull’s
size effect law. For this purpose, further studies are required
regarding the following questions:
a) What value is the Weibull modulus of HPFRC? There has so
far been limited information on it, especially under compression.
Comparatively, the Weibull modulus of concrete strength was
found to be in the range of 4.2–24.2 [21], while that of UHPFRC
strength was explored with the value m betwwen 6.4–9.6 under
flexure [27] and amounted to 8.5 under direct tension [34]. In addi-
tion to research on the Weibull modulus of strength, it is impera-
tive to investigate the Weibull modulus of ductility and
(b) Deformation toughness of HPFRCs because these parameters also demonstrated
key superior properties of HPFRC, and they may be affected by the
Fig. 6. Compressive resistances of the investigated HPFRCs. size effect also [27,34].
 D.-L. Nguyen et al. / Construction and Building Materials 226 (2019) 743–758 747

b) What model can be used to explain the size effect on com-
pression and flexure? Under direct tension, a weakest-link in a
chain was modeled for the size effect on tensile resistance [35].
The chain breaks when the weakest element fails, and the more
elements in the chain, the higher probability containing the defect
element, which is the weakest element, will result an easy break
failure. However, failure mechanism in compression or flexure is
dissimilar to that in tension, and building new models is needed
to explain the size effect on them.
c) For normal concrete, direct or indirect tensile strength is
strongly dependent upon compressive strength. Practically, the
relationship between the indirect tensile strength and cylin-
der compressive strength has been recommended as square root s-
cale according to ACI 318 [36]. For HPFRC, the relationship
between the bending strength and the compressive strength is
identical to that of conventional concrete?
Motivated by those questions, the authors carried out the
experimental research which focused on the brittleness of HPFRCs
by mean of the Weibull modulus in both compression and bending.
The data in this paper was partially based on the master thesis [37]
of the last author, and the first author was the thesis advisor. The
main target of this research was to explore the brittleness of
HPFRCs causing size effect on the compressive and bending resis-
tance of HPFRCs. There are four objectives in this research as fol-
lows: (1) to investigate the compressive and bending response of
HPFRCs, (2) to explore the relationship between bending strength
and compressive strength, (3) to discover the Weibull modulus in
compressive and bending failure of HPFRCs, and 4) to propose
models for explaining the size effect in compression and bending.
2. Characteristic parameters in mechanical responses of HPFRC
Like other concretes, HPFRC produces significantly
stronger resistance in compression than in tension. The compres-
sive behavior of HPFRCs often demonstrates a quasi-linear
response prior to the peak of curve, as shown in Fig. 1a, and then
a load-drop response with brittle failure revealed by the large
explosion. In this research, the peak ultimate stress and its corre-
sponding strain were notated as rcu and ecu ; respectively, while
the area under the compressive stress versus strain response curve
prior to the peak was derived as the compressive toughness,
notated T cu . The rcu can be obtained by dividing the maximum
measured force (P max ) by the cross-sectional area. Under direct ten-
sion and bending, the work hardening behaviors of HPFRC, com-
monly called strain hardening in tension or deflection hardening
in bending, can be generated with a suitable type and an appropri-
ate volume content of added fibers [38,39]. The work hardening
behavior refers to the increase of stress (or force) after the first
crack and is accompanied by multiple tiny-cracks produced by
embedded fibers bridging the cracks. The work hardening response
is one of the most superior structural properties of HPFRC because
this mechanism can result its high ductility, high toughness, and it
can warn the critical state of structural members before collapsing.
A typical deflection hardening response curves of HPFRC is illus-
trated in Fig. 1b. In this figure, the limit of proportionality, notated
LOP, is at the end of the linear elastic portion, while the modulus of
rupture, notated MOR, is at the peak bending stress after the first
crack. The condition for deflection hardening behavior is that the
bending strength at MOR, fMOR, is greater than or equal to the bend-
ing stress at LOP, fLOP. The area under the bending stress-
normalized deflection relationship curve prior to the peak is
derived as the flexural toughness, notated as TMOR. The normalized
deflection (d=S) is obtained by dividing the midspan deflection by
the length of span, while the bending stress, notated as f, under
the three-point bending test (3PBT), can be computed by Eq. [1].
The relationship between the moment, loading force, and bending
strength at MOR is given by Eq. [2]:
PS
f ¼ 1:5 2
ð1Þ
bh
2
PMOR S bh
MMOR ¼ ¼ f MOR  ð2Þ
4 6

Table 4
Compressive parameters of the investigated HPFRCs.

Specimen type (Specimen name) Compressive strength, rcu Strain capacity, ecu (%) Compressive toughness,
(MPa) T cu (MPa)
HPFRC1 HPFRC2 HPFRC1 HPFRC2 HPFRC1 HPFRC2
70.7  70.7  70.7 (CU070) 84.49 98.07 0.34 0.33 0.153 0.163
80.41 114.36 0.33 0.37 0.147 0.221
97.44 117.32 0.39 0.44 0.197 0.312
Average value 87.45 109.92 0.35 0.38 0.166 0.232
Standard deviation 8.89 10.37 0.03 0.06 0.028 0.075
100  100  100 (CU100) 79.94 99.06 0.31 0.33 0.133 0.176
79.40 101.01 0.27 0.3 0.112 0.146
90.80 91.63 0.3 0.31 0.141 0.138
Average value 83.38 97.23 0.29 0.31 0.129 0.153
Standard deviation 6.43 4.95 0.02 0.02 0.015 0.020
150  150  150 (CU150) 78.09 97.15 0.25 0.32 0.098 0.167
71.63 83.56 0.28 0.24 0.116 0.103
68.26 91.23 0.24 0.3 0.084 0.149
Average value 72.66 90.65 0.26 0.29 0.100 0.140
Standard deviation 5.00 6.81 0.02 0.04 0.016 0.033
Ø100  200 (CY100) 71.05 81.97 0.24 0.35 0.141 0.165
73.85 81.56 0.28 0.29 0.105 0.117
70.17 73.78 0.22 0.3 0.078 0.119
Average value 71.69 79.10 0.25 0.31 0.108 0.13
Standard deviation 1.92 4.61 0.03 0.03 0.031 0.027
Ø150  300 (CY150) 61.71 70.12 0.19 0.29 0.041 0.118
68.75 75.71 0.24 0.3 0.015 0.116
71.34 83.44 0.26 0.2 0.080 0.057
Average value 67.27 76.42 0.23 0.26 0.046 0.10
Standard deviation 4.98 6.69 0.04 0.06 0.033 0.034

The bold values were used for comparatively evaluation.

748 D.-L. Nguyen et al. / Construction and Building Materials 226 (2019) 743–758

3. Materials and testing methods

A testing plan was designed to investigate the size effect on the compressive
and bending response of the HPFRCs, as described in the flowchart of Fig. 2. As
described in Fig. 2, there are five series of the compressive specimens with different
sizes and shapes as follows: cube 70.7  70.7  70.7 mm (named CU070), cube
100  100  100 mm (named CU100), cube 150  150  150 mm (named CU150),
cylinder Ø100  200 mm (named CY100), cylinder Ø150  300 mm (named
CY150). Under bending, there are three series of bending specimens with identical
shapes but different sizes as follows : 40  40  120 mm (named BE040),
100  100  300 mm (named BE100) and 150  150  450 mm (named BE150).
Two types of HPFRCs were investigated for each series, and they had the same mor-
tar matrix but different fibers added: HPFRC1 containing no fiber whereas HPFRC2
containing 1% macro steel hooked fibers blended with 0.5% micro smooth fibers by
volume.

3.1. Materials and preparation of specimens

The photos of steel hooked fibers and smooth fibers mixed in HPFRC2 are shown
in Fig. 3, while the photos of componential materials manufacturing HPFRCs are
shown in Fig. 4. Table 1 provides the composition and Table 2 provides the proper-
(a) Size and geometry effect on ties of the fibers used. The hooked and smooth fibers had their aspect ratios of
compressive strength 35 mm/0.5 mm and 13 mm/0.2 mm, respectively. All componential materials were
mixed by laboratory mixer having 150-L volume capacity. The dry componential
materials including cement, silica sand, fly ash, silica fume were firstly mixed for
10 min. Then water was added. Next, super plasticizer was regularly added and
mixed for 15–20 min. When the mortar showed appropriate flowabiliy and viscos-
ity, the micro fibers then the macro fibers were step by step distributed by hand and
mixed for about 5–10 min (for HPFRC2 with hybrid steel fibers). Next, the mixture
was cast in specimen molds, then vibrated slightly for minimizing the air foams
embedded inside the poured specimen. After that, the poured specimens were cov-
ered using plastic sheets and placed in a laboratory room prior to demolding for one
day at room temperature. The specimens were cured in water for 28 days at a tem-
perature of 22–29 °C after demolding. Later, the specimens were moved out of the
curing water then dried under laboratory temperature. The specimens were exper-
imentally examined at the age of 30–34 days.

3.2. Experimental test setup and loading procedure

All specimens were experimentally examined using a universal testing machine

(UTM) with the mode test of displacement control. The test set-ups for compression
and bending are shown in Fig. 5. At least three specimens of each series were tested
then analysed. The compressive specimens subjected to uniaxial loading and the
displacement of loading was approximately considered as the deformation of the
tested specimen. Similarly, the bending specimens subjected to 3PBT loading and
(b) Size and geometry effect on compressive the displacement of loading were approximately considered as the midspan deflec-
strain capacity tion of the beam. The laboratory room had a temperature of 25 ± 5 degrees Celsius
and a relative humidity of 70 ± 8%. All the tested specimens were applied with a
fixed loading speed of 1 mm/min. The measured loads and displacements were
transformed into compressive or bending parameters.

4. Testing results and discussion

4.1. Compressive behaviors of the investigated HPFRCs with their size

and shape effects

Table 3 summarizes the measured compressive resistances of

(c) Size and geometry effect on
compressive toughness
Fig. 7. Size and geometry effect on compressive parameters of the investigated
HPFRCs.
where S is the span length, b is the width and h is the depth of rect-
angular section; P is the load applied to the tested specimen.
the studied HPFRCs including the maximum forces and their corre-
sponding deformations for all the tested series. Fig. 6 shows the
changes of the maximum forces and their corresponding axial
deformations regarding the specimen types. As shown in Table 3
and Fig. 6, the compressive resistances clearly increased with
increases in the size of the tested specimens having the same
shape. In detail, the orders in term of the compressive resistances
are as follows: CU150 > CU100 > CU070 and CY150 > CY100. On
the contrary, the trends of the compressive parameters, including
the compressive strength (rcu ), strain capacity (ecu ), compressive
toughness (T cu ) notably decreased with increases in size of the
tested specimens having the same shape in both the studied
HPFRCs, as shown in Table 4 and Fig. 7. In detail, the orders in
terms of all the compressive parameters are as follows:
CU070 > CU100 > CU150 and CY100 > CY150, i.e., there were oppo-
site orders between the compressive parameters and the compres-
sive resistances. However, with different shapes between the cubes
 D.-L. Nguyen et al. / Construction and Building Materials 226 (2019) 743–758 749

and the cylinders, the size effect was not clear, e.g., the compres-
sive strength of the CU150 was higher than that of the CY100
despite having a bigger size than the CY100, as described in
Fig. 7(a). There was a central zone with no lateral stress in the
cylinder specimen, whereas the cube specimen had lateral stress
throughout its height, as illustrated in Fig. 8 [40]. This was consid-
ered as the main cause of the low compressive strength in the
cylinder specimen. Fig. 9 shows the compressive stresses versus
strain response curves of the HPFRCs. As displayed in Fig. 9, regard-
less of the specimen types, the ascending portions up to the peak
stresses were almost linear and rather consistent with each other.
Beyond the peak stresses, the descending portions did not produce
a sudden drop load like those of the UHPFRCs [41]. The lower den-
sity of the HPFRC may cause a difference of failure behavior after

a
a
Centeral zone unaffected
by lateral stress

H=2d
30o
a

0.268d
30o
Cube specimen affected by lateral
stresses throughout its height
d

Fig. 8. Ratio of height to diameter effecting on concrete strength of cylinder and cube specimen.

(a) Cube specimen of HPFRC1 (b) Cylinder specimen of HPFRC1

(c) Cube specimen of HPFRC2 (d) Cylinder specimen of HPFRC2

Fig. 9. Compressive stress versus strain response curves of the HPFRCs.
750 D.-L. Nguyen et al. / Construction and Building Materials 226 (2019) 743–758

Table 5
Bending resistances of the investigated HPFRCs.

Specimen type (Specimen name) HPFRC1 HPFRC2

Moment, MMOR (kN.m) Deflection, dMOR (mm) Moment, M MOR (kN.m) Deflection, dMOR (mm)
40  40  120 (BE040) 0.10 0.82 0.36 0.94
0.11 0.86 0.40 0.94
0.12 0.95 0.42 0.91
Average value 0.11 0.88 0.39 0.93
Standard deviation 0.01 0.07 0.03 0.01
100  100  300 (BE100) 1.24 1.47 3.53 2.64
1.24 1.65 3.16 2.88
1.23 1.71 3.53 2.49
Average value 1.23 1.61 3.41 2.67
Standard deviation 0.01 0.12 0.21 0.20
150  150  450 (BE150) 1.52 1.85 8.04 1.94
2.32 2.16 8.62 2.03
2.04 2.57 8.94 1.80
Average value 1.96 2.19 8.54 1.92
Standard deviation 0.40 0.36 0.46 0.11

The bold values were used for comparatively evaluation.

normal concrete. The mechanical parameters of the HPFRCS,

including strength, strain capacity and toughness, should be
focused on to investigate in this study.

4.2. Bending behaviors of the investigated HPFRCs with their size

effects

The bending resistances of the investigated HPFRCs, including

(a) Moment at MOR
(b) Deflection at MOR
Fig. 10. Bending resistances at MOR of the investigated HPFRCs.
the peak curve when compared to the HPFRC and UHPFRC. In gen-
eral, the size-dependent compressive parameters of the studied
HPFRCs revealed that the HPFRCs were still brittle materials like
moment (M MOR ) and the midspan deflection at MOR (dMOR ) for all
bending series are given in Table 5, while Fig. 10 shows the
changes of MMOR and dMOR regarding the specimen types. The trend
of M MOR was clear but that of dMOR was not clear: the M MOR of smal-
ler specimen was lower than that of the bigger one for both
HPFRC1 and HPFRC2, as shown in Fig. 10 (a), however, the dMOR
of smaller specimen was lower than that of the bigger one for only
HPFRC1 but not for HPFRC2. For HPFRC2, the dMOR of the medium
bending size (BE100) was observed to be the highest, as shown
in Fig. 10(b). In detail, the order in term of the moment at MOR
are as follows: BE150 > BE100 > BE040 for both HPFRC1 and
HPFRC2, while the order in term of the deflection at MOR are
ranked as follows: BE150 > BE100 > BE040 for HPFRC1, and
BE100 > BE150 > BE040 for HPFRC2.
Table 6 and Fig. 11 provide the derived bending parameters of
both HPFRCs, including the bending strength (f MOR ), normalized
deflection (dMOR =S) and bending toughness at MOR (T MOR ). The size
effect on f MOR ; dMOR =S and T MOR were generally clear for both HPFRCs,
except for the dMOR =S of HPFRC2. The dMOR =S of BE100 using HPFRC2
was the highest. The order in term of f MOR and T MOR are ranked as
BE040 > BE100 > BE150 for both HPFRC1 and HPFRC2 while the
order in term of dMOR =S are BE040 > BE100 > BE150 for HPFRC1,
and BE100 > BE040 > BE150 for HPFRC2. The order between
MMOR and f MOR were clearly opposite whereas the orders between
dMOR and dMOR =S were generally reverse. Fig. 12 shows the bending
stress versus normalized deflection response curves of both HPFRCs
with all specimen types. As presented in Fig. 12, the ascending por-
tions up to the peak of the bending stresses are considerably scat-
tered, and there is little difference between the response curves of
HPFRC1 and HPFRC2. Some tested series, such as series BE150 in
Fig. 12a and BE040 in Fig. 12b, performed the increases of curve
slopes before the peaks which were thought to correlate with redis-
tribution of stress between componential materials forming
HPFRCs. This shape also was discovered in several composites and
indicated the initiation of failure [42,43]. The mechanism behind
this behavior should be further investigated to deeply understand
it. In general, the size-dependent bending parameters of the studied
 D.-L. Nguyen et al. / Construction and Building Materials 226 (2019) 743–758 751

Table 6
Bending parameters of the investigated HPFRCs.

Specimen type (Specimen name) Bending strength, f MOR (MPa) Normalized deflectiondMOR =S Bending toughness, T MOR
(%) (MPa)
HPFRC1 HPFRC2 HPFRC1 HPFRC2 HPFRC1 HPFRC2
40  40  120 (BE040) 9.40 34.17 0.68 0.78 0.032 0.124
10.35 37.09 0.72 0.78 0.037 0.129
11.48 39.23 0.79 0.76 0.047 0.134
Average value 10.41 36.83 0.73 0.77 0.039 0.129
Standard deviation 1.04 2.54 0.06 0.01 0.008 0.005
100  100  300 (BE100) 7.42 21.18 0.49 0.88 0.019 0.101
7.42 18.97 0.55 0.96 0.019 0.110
7.36 21.18 0.57 0.83 0.025 0.107
Average value 7.40 20.44 0.54 0.89 0.021 0.106
Standard deviation 0.04 1.28 0.05 0.06 0.003 0.005
150  150  450 (BE150) 2.71 14.30 0.41 0.43 0.005 0.035
4.12 15.33 0.48 0.45 0.008 0.038
3.63 15.90 0.57 0.40 0.012 0.035
Average value 3.49 15.17 0.48 0.43 0.009 0.036
Standard deviation 0.71 0.81 0.08 0.02 0.004 0.002

The bold values were used for comparatively evaluation.

HPFRCs were observed, although the size effect on normalized
deflection of HPFRC2 was not particularly clear.
4.3. Sensitivity of size to the compression and bending parameters of
the investigated HPFRCs
In order to discover the most sensitive mechanical parameter of
investigated HPFRCs, a linear relationship between normalized
mechanical parameter and normalized size was built for each ser-
ies, as illustrated in Fig. 13. In this figure, the relationship with stif-
fer slope demonstrates a higher sensitivity. In this study, the
normalized size and the normalized mechanical parameter of each
shape were defined as the ratio of the value of the smallest speci-
men to that of the largest specimen (size of 150 mm: CU150 for
cube, CY150 for cylinder and BE150 for bending prism). The
mechanical parameters included rcu ; ecu and T cu under compres-
sion, f MOR ; dMOR =S and T MOR under bending. Table 7 and Fig. 14 pro-
vide the values of all the mechanical parameters and the derived
slopes indicating their sensitivity. For both HPFRC1 and HPFRC2,
the toughness was the most sensitive mechanical parameter in
both compression and bending, and their ranking was
T cu > ecu > rcu in compression, and T MOR > f MOR > dMOR =S in bending.
In the same HPFRC, the bending specimen was more sensitive than
the cube, and the cylinder specimen was observed to produce a
lowest sensitivity. Generally, the HPFRC1 was more sensitive than
the HPFRC2. The toughness was the most sensitive mechanical
parameter because it was affected by the size effect on strength
in addition to the size effect on strain (or normalized deflection).
Besides, the bending specimen contained a compressive zone and
a tensile zone, which was size-dependent [23]. The combination
of their size effects could result the more sensitivity than the com-
pressive specimen. Finally, the fact that HPFRC2 was mixed by
hybrid steel fibers helped this material become more ductile to
failure, i.e., the crack bridging of the embedded fibers could effi-
ciently prevent quick crack propagation. This is the possible reason
that leads to less brittleness of HPFRC2.
4.4. Relationship between the bending strength and compressive
strength of the HPFRCs
For normal concrete, there is a strong correlation between the
modulus of rupture and the compressive strength, which is com-
monly described under the square root proportionality in some
codes, e.g., ACI 318 [36] provides Eq. [3] for this type of relation-
ship. For HPFRCs, the direct tensile strength or indirect tensile is
significantly enhanced owing to the addition of discrete fibers in
the plain mortar matrix, which can generate a favorable achieve-
ment from the fiber-matrix bond and the fiber pullout
[6,26,27,38]. The square root scale between the bending strength
and the compressive strength of HPFRCs has often been reported
[44,45] although some other researchers suggested a power rela-
tionship between them [46,47]. In this research, the authors used
the square root relationship and explored the coefficient of MOR,
a, as given in Eq. [4] for the HPFRCs.
qffiffiffiffi
0
f r ¼ 0:63 f c ð3Þ
qffiffiffiffi
0
f MOR ¼ a f c ð4Þ
0
where f c is the compressive strength using a cylinder specimen of
150x300 mm, f r and f MOR are the bending strength of normal con-
cretes and HPFRCs, respectively.
Table 8 provides the derived values of a for both HPFRC1 and
HPFRC2 according to various types of tested bending specimens.
The a of HPFRC2 were derived as 1.74 (BE150), 2.34 (BE100) and
4.21 (BE040), and these values were much higher than that of nor-
mal concrete with a = 0.63. Compared with the HPFRC2, the
HPFRC1 produced a lower a: 0.43 (BE150), 0.90 (BE100) and 1.27
(BE040), and these values were also different from that of normal
concrete, although the a range of HPFRC1, from 0.43 to 1.27, con-
tained a value of 0.63. The enhancements of the bending strength
and the square root of compressive strength of the HPFRCs were
scattered and very dependent upon the investigated HPFRC, i.e.,
dependent upon the embedded fibers.
4.5. Conversion factors with different sizes and shapes for the
compressive specimens of the HPFRCs
Up until now, there have been two main shapes for the com-
pressive specimens, including the cube and cylinder, according to
the testing standards applied. The cylinder specimen of
150  300 mm has been used mainly in Australia, Canada, United
States, while the cube specimens with sizes of 150 mm and
100 mm have been used commonly in Europe [48]. Therefore, the
demand for a conversion of compressive strength with various
sizes and shapes of specimens is very high, even for HPFRCs. In this
study, the conversion factors, b, of the tested compressive speci-
mens were based on the cube specimens of 150 mm (CU150).
Eq. [5] was used to convert the compressive strengths of all the
752 D.-L. Nguyen et al. / Construction and Building Materials 226 (2019) 743–758

tested series, and the conversion factors are summarized in Table 9. rCU150
b¼ cu
ð5Þ
As shown in Table 9, the conversion factors for HPFRC2 were the rSpe:
cu
type

same as for normal concrete, which were referred to [49], but

the conversion factors of HPFRC1 were considerably smaller than where rCU150
cu and rSpe:
cu
type
are the compressive strength of the CU150
those of normal concrete. type and the tested type, respectively.

5. Weibull modulus of the HPFRCs

5.1. Weibull statistical law of brittle materials exhibiting their size

effects

Two main approaches, the deterministic approach and the sta-

tistical approach, have so far been available to explain the size
dependence on the strength of quasibrittle materials [27]. Wei-
bull’s theory has been representative for a statistical approach,
whereas Bažant’s theory has typically demonstrated the determin-
istic approach regarding fracture mechanics. In Weibull theory, a
bigger-sized specimen would produce a lower strength because
the bigger-sized specimen consists of more elements having a
higher probability of failure [33]. Two different-sized specimens
have effective volumes V E1 and V E2 , and their failure strengths of
S1 and S2 , respectively. The relationship between them is per-
formed by Eq. [6].
(a) Size effect on bending strength at MOR  m1
S1 V E2
¼ ð6Þ
S2 V E1

where m and V E are the Weibull modulus and the effective volume
of the specimen, respectively. The effective volume of the specimen
was derived based on the loading condition, while the Weibull
modulus was considered a material parameter notifying a size
effect degree.
As described in Eq. [6], if two specimens have effective vol-
umes: V E1 > V E2 , they will produce their strengths: S1 > S2 . A mate-
rial with a greater value of m implies less brittle; and a metal or
ductile material has an infinite value of m. The probability of failure
Pf ðSÞ, in Weibull’s theory, is given in Eq. [7] by Weibull [33]. This
equation could be written into [8] using a logarithmic function.
  m 
S
Pf ðSÞ ¼ 1  exp V E ð7Þ
S0
( " #)
1
In ln
¼ m lnðSÞ þ lnðV E Þ  m lnðS0 Þ ð8Þ
(b) Size effect on normalized deflection at MOR 1  Pf ðSÞ

yi ¼ mxi þ b ð9Þ

where S0 and S are the scale parameter and the maximum failure
strength, respectively. P f ðSÞ is i=ðn þ 1Þ, n is the number of analysed
specimens while i is the order of failure strength:
S1  S2 :::  Si :::  Sn .
Using the least square method on the linearized regression
model given by Eq. [9], the value of the Weibull modulus, m, can
n h io
be estimated using Eq. [10] with the data: yi ¼ ln ln ð1i=ðnþ1Þ 1
Þ
P
and the corresponding xi ¼ lnðSi Þ, the average value yav ¼ 1n i yi
P
and xav ¼ 1n i xi .
P
i ½ðyi
 yav Þðxi  xav Þ
m¼ P 2
½10
i ðxi  xav Þ

In this research, the Weibull modulus for HPFRC1 and HPFRC2

were investigated with six mechanical parameters which included
(c) Size effect on bending toughness at MOR rcu , ecu and T cu under compression, f MOR , dMOR =S and T MOR under
bending. Mathematically, the parameter S would be assigned by
Fig. 11. Size effect on bending parameters at MOR of the investigated HPFRCs. six mechanical parameters, respectively.
 D.-L. Nguyen et al. / Construction and Building Materials 226 (2019) 743–758 753

(a) HPFRC1 (b) HPFRC2

Fig. 12. Bending stress versus normalized deflection response of the investigated HPFRCs.

deflection of HPFRC2 as discussed above, only a total of 6 tested

Fig. 13. Illustrated diagrams to determine the most sensitive mechanical
parameter.
5.2. Weilbull modulus of the compressive and bending parameters of
the HPFRCs
Fig. 15 shows the least-squares method to obtain the Weibull
modulus of rcu , ecu and T cu . Each compressive parameter was anal-
ysed using 9 tested specimens with cube shape, because the cylin-
der had a different shape resulting a wrong size effect as
mentioned above. Fig. 16 shows the Weibull distribution of
rcu ; ecu and T cu . Under bending, the Weibull modulus of
f MOR ; dMOR =S and T MOR also were derived using the least-squares
method, and the results are shown in Fig. 17. Each bending param-
eter was analysed using 9 tested specimens, except that the dMOR =S
of HPFRC2 was not used the data of BE100. Since the size of BE100
produced the unusual trend of size effect on the normalized
specimens of BE040 and BE150 were analysed. Fig. 18 shows the
Weibull distribution of f MOR , dMOR =S and T MOR . Table 10 summarizes
all the derived values of the Weibull modulus in both compression
and bending. As provided in Table 10, the Weibull modulus of both
HPFRCs in bending is lower than that in compression regardless
the mechanical parameters, i.e., the size effect on bending is more
important than the size effect on compression. The combination of
size effect on compression at the top of the beam and tension at
bottom of the beam caused a significant size effect on bending of
the HPFRCs. Under compression, the Weibull modulus, m, of
HPFRC1 and HPFRC2, were obtained as follows: 8.69 and 8.74 for
rcu , 6.17 and 5.59 for ecu , 3.78 and 2.94 for T cu , respectively. Under
bending, the Weibull modulus, m, of HPFRC1 and HPFRC2, were
obtained as follows: 1.90 and 2.31 for f MOR , 4.57 and 2.54 for
dMOR =S, 1.33 and 1.50 for T MOR ; respectively. The orders of Weibull
modulus were observed as follows: mT cu < mecu < mrcu in compres-
sion, and mT MOR < mf MOR < mdMOR in bending of the HPFRCs. These
orders were completely suitable with the description of sensitivity
to mechanical parameters studied in the previous section, i.e., the
higher sensitive mechanical parameter accompanied by the lower
Weibull modulus. The values of the Weibull modulus of the
HPFRCs for failure strength in the range of 1.90 to 8.74 in this
study, was somewhat smaller than the Weibull modulus for failure
strength of concrete reported by Bažant [21], with a range between
4.2 and 24.2. Moreover, the Weibull modulus of post-cracking
properties of UHPFRC was reported to be 6.4–9.6 for strength,
1.94–2.03 for tensile strain capacity and toughness [27,34], i.e.,
the Weibull modulus of UHPFRC also are in the lower zone of

Table 7
Derived slope to discover the sensitivity of normalized size to the normalized mechanical parameters (referred to Figs. 13, 14).

Mechanical parameter Normalized size of HPFRC1 Normalized size of HPFRC2

Cube70.7/150 = 0.47 Cylinder100/150 = 0.67 Beam40/150 = 0.27 Cube70.7/150 = 0.47 Cylinder100/150 = 0.67 Beam40/150 = 0.27
rcu 1.20 (2.28) 1.07 (3.20) – 1.21 (2.29) 1.04 (3.11) –
ecu 1.38 (2.60) 1.07 (3.22) – 1.33 (2.51) 1.19 (3.57) –
T cu 1.67 (3.15) 2.37 (7.11) – 1.66 (3.14) 1.38 (4.15) –
f MOR – – 2.98 (4.07) – – 2.43 (3.31)
dMOR =S – – 1.52 (2.07) – – 1.79 (2.44)
T MOR – – 4.33 (5.91) – – 3.58 (4.89)

The derived slope are in brackets while the normalized mechanical parameters are outside.
754 D.-L. Nguyen et al. / Construction and Building Materials 226 (2019) 743–758

Table 9
Conversion factors with different sizes and shapes for the compressive specimen.

Concrete type Basic Conversion factor, b ¼ rCU150

cu =rSpe:
cu
type

specimen
CU070 CU100 CU150 CY100 CY150
HPFRC1 CU150 0.83 0.87 1.00 1.01 1.08
HPFRC2 CU150 0.82 0.93 1.00 1.15 1.19
Normal concrete CU150 0.85 0.91 1.00 1.17 1.20

5.3. Proposed models for size effect on compression and bending of the
HPFRCs

Weibull’s size effect law is based on a statistical approach: a

bigger tensile specimen has weaker strength because it simply
comprises more elements leading to a higher probability of failure.
Fig. 19(a) shows the well-known Weibull weakest-link model as a
chain subjected to a tensile load. Nonetheless, the Weibull
weakest-link models for compression and bending have been
(a) For HPFRC1 unavailable until now. In this study, the authors proposed a stack
of bricks for the Weibull weakest-link model under compression,
as described in Fig. 19(b). According to this figure, the stack of
bricks collapsed when the weakest element failed, and the more
elements in the stack, the higher probability containing the defect
element causing a collape. Fig. 19(c) shows the proposed Weibull
weakest-link model subjected to bending loads as a system of a
brick-chain combination. This model conjoined the chain model
in tension and the stack-of-brick model in compression: as one
model broke, the system of them would fail. The proposed models
are useful to easily explain the size effect on compression and
bending.

6. Conclusions

The brittleness of HPFRCs indicated by the Weibull modulus,

which characterized the defect distribution and size effect of the
quasibrittle material, was investigated under uniaxial compression
and bending. This study was conducted using two types of HPFRCs:
HPFRC1 having no fiber and HPFRC2 containing 1.0% macro hooked
fibers blended with 0.5% micro smooth fibers. Five types of com-
pressive specimens and three types of bending specimens were
(b) For HPFRC2 tested with various sizes and shapes. Based on the experimental
Fig. 14. Sensitivity of normalized size on normalized mechanical parameters of the
tests and the analytical analyses, some remarkable conclusions
investigated HPFRCs. can be extracted as follows:

The investigated HPFRCs exposed clear size effects not only in

Table 8 terms of the compressive parameters, including compressive
Coefficient of MOR in relationship with the square root of the compressive strength.
strength, strain capacity and compressive toughness, but also
Concrete type Specimen dimension Coefficient of MOR in terms of the bending parameters, including bending strength,
qffiffiffiffiffi
a ¼ f MOR = f 0c normalized deflection and bending toughness at MOR. With the
same shape, the bigger-sized specimen produced the lower
HPFRC1 40  40  120 1.27
0
100  100  300 0.90
mechanical parameters of the investigated HPFRCs
f c = 67.27 MPa
(CY150) 150  150  450 0.43
For both HPFRC1 and HPFRC2, the toughness produced the most
HPFRC2 40  40  120 4.21 sensitivity to the mechanical parameter in both compression
0
f c = 76.42 MPa 100  100  300 2.34 and bending. The ranking was observed as follows:
(CY150) 150  150  450 1.74 T cu > ecu > rcu in compression, and T MOR > f MOR > dMOR =S in bend-
Normal concrete (CY150) All dimensions 0.63
ing. Besides, the bending specimen produced more sensitivity
to the mechanical parameter than the cube-shaped compressive
specimen, and the cylinder-shaped compressive specimen pro-
normal concrete, like HPFRC. Although Weibull modulus for strain duced the least sensitivity.
capacity (or normalized deflection) and toughness are new con-
For both HPFRC1 and HPFRC2, the relationship between the
cepts, not mentioned yet for concrete and brittle material, it is bending strength and the square root of the compressive
quite necessary to scale these mechanical parameters from one strength were scatter and much dependent upon the added
component size to another of HPFRC. fibers.
 D.-L. Nguyen et al. / Construction and Building Materials 226 (2019) 743–758 755

(a) Compressive strength (a) Compressive strength

(b) Compressive strain capacity (b) Compressive strain capacity

(c) Compressive toughness (c) Compressive toughness

Fig. 15. Using the least-squares method to obtain the Weibull modulus of the Fig. 16. Weibull distribution of the compressive parameters.
compressive parameters.
756 D.-L. Nguyen et al. / Construction and Building Materials 226 (2019) 743–758

(a) Bending strength (a) Bending strength

(b) Normalized deflection by span

(b) Normalized deflection by span

(c) Bending toughness

Fig. 17. Using the least-squares method to obtain the Weibull modulus of the (c) Bending toughness
bending parameters.
Fig. 18. Weibull distribution of the bending parameters.
 D.-L. Nguyen et al. / Construction and Building Materials 226 (2019) 743–758 757

Table 10
Weibull modulus of the investigated HPFRCs.

Compressive strength, rcu Strain capacity, ecu Compressive toughness, T cu

HPFRC1 HPFRC2 HPFRC1 HPFRC2 HPFRC1 HPFRC2
8.69 8.74 6.17 5.59 3.78 2.94

Bending strength, f MOR Normalized deflection, dMOR =S Bending toughness, T MOR

HPFRC1 HPFRC2 HPFRC1 HPFRC2 HPFRC1 HPFRC2

1.90 2.31 4.57 2.52 1.33 1.50

with the description of sensitivity to the mechanical parameters

studied, i.e., the higher sensitive mechanical parameter accom-
panied by the lower Weibull modulus.

The Weibull weakest-link models for compression and bending
were proposed: a stack of bricks subjected to compressive load
and a system of brick-chain combination subjected to bending
load. The proposed models are useful to explain the size effect
Weakest on compression and bending regarding the statistical approach.
element

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with

respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.

Acknowledgments

This research was funded by the Vietnam National Foundation

(a) As a chain in tension
(b) As a stack of bricks
for Science and Technology Development (NAFOSTED) under grant
in compression
number 107.01-2017.322. The authors are grateful for the financial
support. The opinions expressed in this paper are those of the
authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the sponsors.

References

[1] A.E. Naaman, H.W. Reinhardt, Characterization of high performance fiber

(c) As a system of brick-chain combination in bending
Fig. 19. Weibull weakest-link models in tension, compression and bending.

The conversion factors of HPFRC2 for various sizes and shapes of
compressive specimens were same those of normal concrete,
while the conversion factors of HPFRC1 were considerably
smaller than those of normal concrete.

The derived Weibull modulus of the HPFRCs varied from 1.33 to
8.74, comparatively smaller than those of normal concrete. The
orders of the Weibull modulus were observed as follows:
mT cu < mecu < mrcu in compression, and mT MOR < mf MOR < mdMOR =S in
bending of the HPFRCs. These orders were completely suitable
reinforced cement composites, in: A.E. Naaman, H.W. Reinhardt (Eds.), High
Performance Fiber Reinforced Cement Composites: HPFRCC 2, Proceedings of
2nd International Workshop on HPFRCC, 1996, Chapter 41, RILEM, No. 31, E.&
FNSpon, London, p. 1–24.
[2] ACI Committee 239, Ultra-High-Performance Concrete: An Emerging
Technology Report, 2018.
[3] B. Graybeal, Compressive behavior of ultra-high-performance fiber-reinforced
concrete, ACI Mater. J. 104 (2) (2007) 146–152.
[4] D.L. Nguyen, D.K. Thai, D.J. Kim, Direct tension-dependent flexural behavior of
ultra-high-performance fiber-reinforced concretes, J. Strain Anal. Eng. Des. 52
(2) (2017) 121–134.
[5] N.T. Tran, S.H. Pyo, D.J. Kim, Corrosion resistance of strain-hardening steel-
fiber-reinforced cementitious composites, Cem. Concr. Compos. 63 (October)
(2015) 17–29.
[6] D.L. Nguyen, J. Song, C. Manathamsombat, D.J. Kim, Comparative
electromechanical damage-sensing behavior of six strain-hardening steel-
fiber-reinforced cementitious composites under direct tension, Composites:
Part B 69 (2015) 159–168.
[7] J. Song, D.L. Nguyen, C. Manathamsombat, D.J. Kim, Effect of fiber volume
content on electromechanical behavior of strain-hardening steel-fiber-
reinforced cementitious composites, J. Compos. Mater. (2015). https://doi.
org/10.1177/0021998314568169.
[8] M.K. Kim, D.J. Kim, Y.K. An, Electro-mechanical damage self-sensing behavior
of ultra-high-performance fiber-reinforced concrete, Composites Part B 134
(2018) 254–264.
[9] D.J. Kim, S.H. Kang, T.H. An, Mechanical characterization of high-performance
steel-fiber reinforced cement composites with self-healing effect, Materials
(Basel) 7 (1) (2014) 508–526.
[10] D.D.L. Chung, Electrically conductive cement-based materials, Adv. Cem. Res.
16 (4) (2004) 167–176.
[11] S. Igarashi, A. Bentur, S. Mindess, The effect of processing on the bond and
interfaces in steel fiber reinforced cement composites, Cem. Concr. Compos. 18
(5) (1996) 313–322, https://doi.org/10.1016/0958-9465(96)00022-4.
[12] Z.P. Bažant, J. Planas, Fracture and Size Effect on Concrete and other
Quasibrittle Materials, CRC Press LLC, United States, 1997.
758 D.-L. Nguyen et al. / Construction and Building Materials 226 (2019) 743–758
[13] Mohsen A. Issa, Mahmoud A. Issa, M.S. Islam, A. Chudnovsky, Size effects in
concrete fracture: part I, experimental setup and observations, Int. J. Fract. 102
(2000) 1–24.
[14] H. Mihashi, N. Nomura, J.K. Kim, Fracture mechanics properties and size effect
in concrete, in: A. Carpinteri (Ed.), Size-Scale Effects in the Failure Mechanisms
of Materials and Structures, E & FN Spon, London, 1996, pp. 399–410.
[15] V. Saouma, C. Barton, Fractals, fractures, and size effects in concrete, J. Eng.
Mech. 120 (1994) 835–854.
[16] F.H. Wittmann, H. Mihashi, N. Nomura, Size effect on fracture energy of
concrete, Eng. Fracture Mech. 35 (1990) 107–115.
[17] J. Walraven, Scale effect in beams with unreinforced webs, loaded in shear, in:
Progress in concrete research, Annual Report, Delft University of Technology,
Netherlands, vol. 1, 1990, pp. 101–112.
[18] P. Rossi, X. Wu, F. Le Maou, A. Belloc, Scale effect on concrete in tension, Mat.
Struct. 27 (1994) 437–444.
[19] C.H. Wu, Y.C. Kan, C.H. Huang, T. Yen, L.H. Chen, Flexural behavior and size
effect of full scale reinforced lightweight concrete beam, J. Mar. Sci. Technol.
19 (2011) 132–140.
[20] H.M. Abdalla, B.L. Karihaloo, Determination of size-independent specific
fracture energy from three point bend and wedge splitting tests, Mag. Concr.
Res. 55 (2003) 133–141.
[21] Z.P. Bažant, Probabilistic modeling of quasibrittle fracture and size effect, in:
Corotis et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on
Structural Safety and Reliability, Swets & Zeitlinger, 2001, pp. 1–23, ISBN 90
5809 197 X.
[22] A.S. Malaikah, Effect of specimen size and shape on the compressive strength
of high strength concrete, Pertanika J. Sci. Technol. 13 (1) (2015) 87–96.
[23] K. Chandrangsu, A.E. Naaman, Comparison of tensile and bending response of
three high performance fiber-reinforced cement composites. Ann Arbor, MI,
USA, in: A.E. Naaman, H.W. Reinhardt (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth
International Workshop on High Performance Fiber Reinforced Cement
Composites (HPFRCC4), 2003, pp. 259–274.
[24] M. Lepech, V.C. Li, Size effect in ECC structural members in flexure. Vail, CO,
USA, in: Proceedings of FRAMCOS-5, 2004, pp. 1059–1066.
[25] D.J. Kim, A.E. Naaman, S. El-Tawil, Correlation between tensile and bending
behavior of FRC composite with scale effect, in: Fracture Mechanics of
Concrete and Concrete Structures – High Performance, Fiber Reinforced
Concrete, Special Loadings and Structural Applications, Korea Concrete
Institute, 2010, pp. 1379–1385.
[26] D.L. Nguyen, G.S. Ryu, K.T. Koh, D.J. Kim, Size and geometry dependent tensile
behavior of ultra-high-performance fiber-reinforced concrete, Composites:
Part B 58 (2014) 279–292.
[27] D.L. Nguyen, D.J. Kim, G.S. Ryu, K.T. Koh, Size effect on flexural behavior of
ultra-high-performance hybrid fiber-reinforced concrete, Composites: Part B
45 (2013) 1104–1116.
[28] Luaay Hussein, Lamya Amleh, Size effect of ultra-high performance fiber
reinforced concrete composite beams in shear, Struct. Concrete. 19 (2018)
141–151, https://doi.org/10.1002/suco.201700078.
[29] A. Spasojavic, D. ReDaelli, M. Fernandez Ruiz, A. Muttoni, Influence of Tensile
Properties of UHPFRC on Size Effect in Bending. Kassel, Germany No. 10, in: E.
Fehling, M. Schmidt, S. Stuerwald (Eds.), Proceedings of the International
Symposium on Ultra-High Performance Concrete, Structural Materials and
Engineering Series, 2008, pp. 303–310.
[30] K. Wille, J.P.M. Gustavo, Effect of beam size, casting method, and support
conditions on flexural behavior of ultra-high-performance fiber-reinforced
concrete, ACI Mater. J. 109 (2012) 379–388.
[31] K.H. Reineck, B. Frettlohr, Tests on Scale Effect of UHPFRC under Combined
Bending and Axial Forces. Washington DC, in: The 3rd fib International
Congress, Paper 54, 14pp, 2010.
[32] G.D. Quinn, Weibull strength scaling for standardized rectangular flexure
specimens, J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 86 (2003) 508–510.
[33] W. Weibull, A statistical distribution function of wide applicability, J. Appl.
Mech. 18 (1951) 293–297.
[34] D.L. Nguyen, A.T. Le, Weibull modulus of post-cracking properties of Ultra-
High-Performance Fiber-Reinforced Concretes. Proceedings of the Canada-
Japan-Vietnam Workshop on Composites, Ho Chi Minh City, Viet Nam, August
8-10, 2016, NGU8037-pp37.
[35] Z.P. Bažant, S.D. Pang, M. Vorechovsky, D. Novak, R. Pukl, Statistical size effect
in quasibrittle materials: Computation and extreme value theory. Fracture
mechanics of concrete structures, 2014, Vol. 1, V.C. Li, K.Y. Leung, William, K.J,
and Billington S.L., eds., IA-FraMCoS, 189-196.
[36] ACI 318-14, Building code requirements for structural concrete.
[37] Nguyen, Tri-Thong, Study on manufacture and mechanical behaviors of high
performance fiber reinforced concretes under normal curing condition with
various sizes and shapes of specimens. Master thesis, May 2018, Ho Chi Minh
City University of Technology and Education, Vietnam, 56 pages.
[38] D.J. Kim, S.H. Park, G.S. Ryu, K.T. Koh, Comparative flexural behavior of hybrid
ultra high performance fiber reinforced concrete with different macro fibers,
Constr. Build. Mater. 25 (2011) 4144–4155.
[39] S.H. Park, D.J. Kim, G.S. Ryu, K.T. Koh, Tensile behavior of ultra high
performance hybrid fiber reinforced concrete, Cem. Concr. Compos. 34
(2012) 172–184.
[40] R. Hemraj, Kumavat, Vikram J. Patel, Factors influencing the strength
relationship of concrete cube and standard cylinder, Int. J. Innovat. Technol.
Explor. Eng. 3 (8) (2014) 76–79. January.
[41] D.L. Nguyen, D.J. Kim, Sensitivity of various steel-fiber types to compressive
behavior of ultra–high–performance fiber–reinforced concretes. Proceedings
of AFGC-ACI-fib-RILEM International Symposium on Ultra-High Performance
Fibre-Reinforced Concrete, UHPFRC 2017; Eds. François Toutlemonde and
Jacques Resplendino), PRO 106 - RILEM Pubications, October 2-4, 2017,
Montpellier, France, pp 45-52.
[42] B.V. Lingesh, B.N. Ravikumar, B.M. Rudresh, Mechanical characterization of
hybrid thermoplastic composites of short carbon fibers and PA66/PP, Indian J.
Adv. Chem. Sci. 4 (4) (2016) 425–434.
[43] K. Zhang, F. Wang, W. Liang, Z. Wang, Z. Duan, B. Yang, Thermal and
mechanical properties of bamboo fiber reinforced epoxy composites, Polymers
(2018). 10 2018 608 10.3390/polym10060608.
[44] J. Thomas, A. Ramasamy, Mechanical properties of steel fiber-reinforced
concrete, J. Mater. Civ. Eng., (2007) 385–392, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
0899-1561(2007)19:5(385).
[45] F.F. Wafa, S.A. Ashour, Mechanical properties of highstrength fiber reinforced
concrete, ACI Mater. J. 89 (5) (1992) 449–455.
[46] P. Ramadoss Studies on high-performance steel fiber reinforced concrete
under static and impact loads. Ph.D. thesis, Structural Engineering Div., Anna
Univ 2008 Chennai, India
[47] B.W. Xu, H.S. Shi, Correlation among mechanical properties of steel fiber
reinforced concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 23 (12) (2009) 3468–3474.
[48] N. Zabihi, Ö. Eren, Compressive strength conversion factors of concrete as
affected by specimen shape and size, Res. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol. 7 (20)
(2014) 4251–4257.
[49] TCVN 8218:2009, Hydraulic concrete - Technical requirements. Vietnamese
code.