Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
ScienceDirect
Procedia Engineering 210 (2017) 211–219

6th International Workshop on Performance, Protection & Strengthening of Structures under

Extreme Loading, PROTECT2017, 11-12 December 2017, Guangzhou (Canton), China

Modeling the response of ultra high performance fiber reinforced

concrete beams
Solhmirzaei R.a, Kodur V.K.R.b
一

a
PhD student, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA.
University Distinguished Professor and Chairperson, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Michigan State University, East
b

Lansing, MI, USA.

Abstract

A finite element based numerical model is applied for tracing the response of Ultra High Performance Fiber Reinforced Concrete
(UHPFRC) beams under the effects of flexural and shear dominant loading. The numerical model, developed in ABAQUS,
accounts for superior strength properties of UHPFRC, including high compressive and tensile strength, and stain hardening effect
in tension. The developed model can generate various response parameters including flexural and shear capacity, as well as load
deflection response and propagation of cracks. Predictions from the model are compared with measured test data on UHPFRC
beams, tested under dominant shear and flexure loading. The comparisons indicate that the model is capable of capturing the
response of UHPFRC beams in the entire range of loading from preloading stage to failure through crushing of concrete or
rupture of rebars.
© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
© 2017 The under
Peer-review Authors. Published by
responsibility of Elsevier Ltd. committee of the 6th International Workshop on Performance, Protection &
the scientific
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 6th International Workshop on Performance, Protection &
Strengthening of Structures under Extreme Loading.
Strengthening of Structures under Extreme Loading
Keywords: Ultra High Performance Concrete; Finite Element Analysis; Concrete Damage Plasticity Model; Flexure, Shear.

1. Introduction

Extensive research and development efforts, over the past three decades, to improve properties of concrete have
led to the emergence of ultra high performance concrete (UHPC). UHPC possesses very high compressive strength,
good tensile strength, enhanced toughness, and durability properties [1]. However one of the main drawbacks of

一
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-517-353-9813.
E-mail address: kodur@egr.msu.edu

1877-7058 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 6th International Workshop on Performance, Protection & Strengthening of
Structures under Extreme Loading.

1877-7058 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 6th International Workshop on Performance, Protection &
Strengthening of Structures under Extreme Loading.
10.1016/j.proeng.2017.11.068
212 Solhmirzaei R et al. / Procedia Engineering 210 (2017) 211–219
2 Solhmirzaei R., Kodur V.K.R./ Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000

UHPC is its brittleness property. To overcome brittleness of UHPC, fibers are often added to UHPC and this type of
concrete is referred to as ultrahigh performance fiber reinforced concrete (UHPFRC). Addition of fibers to UHPC
can significantly improve its ductility, fracture toughness, and energy absorption capacity [1–3].
A number of experimental studies has been reported in literature on the response of UHPFRC beams [4–10].
Results from these studies indicate that increasing steel fiber content in UHPFRC enhance post cracking stiffness
and thus improve load flexural capacity of UHPFRC beams. The reported test results also indicate that a higher
shear capacity can be obtained by using a higher fiber volume content in UHPFRC and a lower shear span to depth
ratio.
However only limited numerical studies are reported on the structural behavior of UHPFRC beams. Much of the
reported numerical studies focused on applying sectional analysis approach to trace moment curvature response of
UHPFRC beams under flexural loading [4,5]. There are limited finite element based numerical studies that
simulated UHPFRC members. Mahmud et al [11] conducted two dimensional plane stress finite element analysis of
unreinforced notched UHPFRC beams to study size effects on flexural capacity. Tysmans et al. [12] simulated the
behavior of high performance fiber reinforced concrete under biaxial tension. Chen et al [13] focused on predicting
load deflection (strain) response of UHPFRC girders subjected to shear and flexure. The authors showed that finite
element model adopting concrete damage plasticity can accurately predict the load carrying capacity of the
UHPFRC members. However, majority of these studies relied upon small-scale experiments for validation and
focused on global response of UHPFRC structural members with no attention to local response (crack propagation).
To address lack of numerical studies on UHPFRC at member level, a finite element based numerical model is
developed. This paper presents the details of the numerical model to trace the structural response of UHPFRC beams.
The model is validated against measured response parameters from full scale tests on UHPFRC beams under
flexural and shear loading.

2. Numerical model

A numerical model for tracing structural behavior of UHPFRC beams under shear and flexural loading is
developed in ABAQUS. The analysis carried out through load control technique by incrementing load on the beam
in steps till failure occurs. Details of the numerical model including discretization details and material models are
presented below.

2.1. Discretization of the beams

UHPFRC beams are discretized using eight-noded reduced integration brick elements (C3D8R) and two-noded
link elements (T3D2) for concrete and reinforcing steel, respectively. C3D8 element has eight nodes with three
degrees of freedom. This element can be used for 3D modeling of solids with or without reinforcement and it is
capable of accounting for cracking of concrete in tension, crushing of concrete in compression, creep effects and
large strains [14,15]. T3D2 elements are used to model one-dimensional reinforcing bars that are assumed to deform
by axial stretching only. Discretization of a typical UHPFRC beam is shown in Fig. 1. The interaction between
concrete and reinforcement is achieved by using the embedded region constraint, i.e. defining reinforcement to be
embedded in concrete [14,15].

(a) Typical beam (b) Discretized beam

 Solhmirzaei R et al. / Procedia Engineering 210 (2017) 211–219 213
Solhmirzaei R., Kodur V.K.R. / Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000 3

Fig. 1. Discretization of a beam for developed FE model.

Since UHPFRC beams experience large deflections owing to high ductility, the effect of geometric non-linearity
is to be given consideration. This is accounted for in the numerical model through updated Lagrangian method [14].
The Newton–Raphson method is utilized as the solution technique and a tolerance limit of 0.02 on the displacement
norm is applied [15,16].

2.2. Material models

A damage based concrete plasticity model, available in ABAQUS, is utilized to capture the nonlinear material
behavior of UHPFRC. The Concrete Damage Plasticity model (CDP) is based on the theory of plastic flow [12]. The
yield surface in CDP model is based on the yield surface proposed by Lubliner et al [17] along with modifications
proposed by Lee and Fenves [18] to account for different evolution laws of the strength under tension and
compression. CDP model assumes isotropic damage evolution combined with isotropic tensile and compressive
plasticity to simulate inelastic behavior of concrete. It allows to incorporate strain hardening in compression, strain
stiffening in tension, and uncoupled damage initiation and accumulation in tension and compression. CDP uses a
non-associated flow rule with the help of a plastic potential. The evolution of the yield (or failure) surface is
controlled by two hardening parameters (equivalent plastic strains), which are linked to failure mechanisms under
tension and compression loading, respectively. In order to define CDP model, a set of material properties including
compression hardening, tension stiffening, elastic modulus, poison’s ratio, and density needs to be input for analysis
[11,12,19].
The uniaxial stress strain data in compression and tension data is required to evaluate the hardening/softening
behavior of the concrete. UHPFRC exhibits a linear compressive stress-strain relationship up to peak stress as
illustrated in Fig. 2 [5]. Therefore, the compressive behavior is modelled by a linear stress-strain curve up to elastic
limit (zone OA). This is followed by stress hardening (zone AB) until achieving peak compressive strength, further
followed by strain softening (Zone BC). Tensile behavior of UHPFRC needs to be modelled before and after
cracking. Tensile micro cracks in concrete is captured through softening stress-strain relationship. A metal plasticity
model that utilizes Mises yield surface with associated plastic flow and isotropic hardening available in ABAQUS
[14] is adopted for the constitutive modelling (stress strain response) of reinforcing steel, as shown in Fig. 3.

Fig. 2. Stress-strain response for UHPFRC (a) compressive, (b) tensile.

214 Solhmirzaei R et al. / Procedia Engineering 210 (2017) 211–219
4 Solhmirzaei R., Kodur V.K.R./ Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000

Fig. 3. Stress-strain response of steel reinforcement.

CDP model adopted for UHPFRC accounts for tension and compression stiffness degradation which is given in
terms of scalar degradation variables. The degradation variables are increasing functions of the plastic strains which
get more pronounced with increase in plastic strain. These variables capture degradation in material stiffness with
increased loading, which are zero for an undamaged state and one for a complete damage state.
The damage parameter in tension is assumed to get activated after reaching peak tensile strength. Therefore,
damage contours replicate tensile cracking and the extent of damage increases with increase in strain at higher load
levels (crack widening). In order to account for reduction in stiffness due to cracking, a nonlinear tension damage
parameter recommended by Chen and Graybeal [20] is incorporated in the finite element model. This assumes that
the tension damage variable is a nonlinear function of the plastic strain which is zero (no damage) at zero plastic
strain and 90% damage at strain of 0.01. Owing to high compressive strength and linear response till peak strength
in UHPFRC, no stiffness degradation in compression is included in the CDP model [11,13].
In addition to compressive and tensile stress strain behavior, there are other parameters ( b 0  c 0 , k c ,  ,  ,  )
to define CDP model. Two parameters of  b 0  c 0 and kc modify the yield surface.  b 0  c 0 is the ratio of biaxial
compressive strength to uniaxial compressive strength which influences the yield surface in a plane stress state. The
parameter k c is used to define the shape of the failure surface in deviatoric plane which is the ratio between
distances measured from the hydrostatic axis to tensile and compressive meridians. The other two
parameters ( ,  ) modify the non-associated potential flow.  is the dilation angle which describes the angle of
inclination of the failure surface towards the hydrostatic axis measured in the meridional plane .  is an eccentricity
parameter which controls the deviation of the hyperbolic plastic potential from its asymptote.  is the viscosity
parameter which is used for the visco-plastic regularization of the concrete constitutive equations [11–14].
UHPFRC beams are loaded incrementally till failure occurs. Failure in beams occurs when the load exceeds the
sectional capacity. In the present study, rupture in rebar and concrete crushing are considered as governing failure of
the beams under dominant shear and flexure loading.

3. Model validation

The developed finite element model is validated against data from tests on UHPFRC beams. In order to gauge
efficacy of the model in predicting structural behavior of UHPFRC beams, predictions from the model, including
load deflection response, load strain response, load capacity, and tensile damage (cracking), are compared with
experimental results.

3.1. Selection of beams for validation

Four UHPFRC beams, designated as U-B3, U-B4, U-B5, and U-B6 tested under predominant shear and flexural
loading are utilized for validating the model. The beams are of rectangular cross section, 180 mm in width, 270 mm
in depth, and had a length of 4000 mm. These beams have only longitudinal tensile reinforcement, but no
compression and shear reinforcemnet (stirrups). This is to take full advantage of high compressive and high tensile
 Solhmirzaei R et al. / Procedia Engineering 210 (2017) 211–219 215
Solhmirzaei R., Kodur V.K.R. / Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000 5

strength offered by UHPFRC. Cross sectional details of UHPFRC beams are illustrated in Fig. 4.
Beams U-B3 and U-B5 were tested under two point loads applying on the top face of the beams at a distance of
432 mm on either side of mid-span as shown in Fig. 4. This test set up is designed to simulate pure bending between
points of load application. Beams U-B4 and U-B6 were subjected to a single point load applying on the top face of
the beams at the distance of 610 mm from support (shear span) to create high shear capacity as compared to bending
moment (see Fig. 4).
Material properties of UHPFRC and steel rebars required to be identifed in CPD model are listed in Table 1. The
compressive strength and corresponding strain, and elastic modulus of UHPFRC, derived through material tests on
cylinders, are 193 kN, 0.0044, and 43970 MPa, respectively. However, UHPFRC compressive elastic limit is
considered to be 97 MPa [13]. Strain softening behavior of UHPFRC after peak compressive strength is modelled by
empirical equation proposed by Singh et al [19] as illustrated in Fig. 2(a).
Tensile behavior of UHPFRC before cracking is modelled by a linear elastic stress strain response. For the stage
of after cracking, a bi-linear tension-softening curve (TSC) suggested by Yoo et al [21] based on the results of three-
point bending test on notched prism specimens and inverse analysis was adopted. The adopted tension-softening
curve was converted into stress-strain curve utilizing recommendations in AFGC/SETRA [22] as shown in Fig. 2(b).
The additional five parameters ( b 0  c 0 , k c ,  ,  ,  ) , described in section 2.2, are set to be 1.16, 2/3, 39°, 0.1,
and 0.0001 according to the literature and sensitivity analysis conducted in this study [12,13,23,24].

Fig. 4. Loading conditions, layout and cross section of tested UHPFRC beams (All dimensions are in mm).

Table 1. Material properties of UHPFRC and steel used in the tests.

Material Properties
E= 43970 MPa; f'c= 193 MPa; εp= 0.0044; εuc=0.008;
ft= 7.11 MPa; εcr= 0.00016; εut= 0.0181;
UHPFRC Density= 2565 kg/m3; Poison ratio=0.2;
Dilation angle= 39°; Eccentricity= 0.1; kc= 2/3;
 b 0  c 0  1.16 ; Viscosity parameter=0.0001
E= 207 GPa; fy= 435 MPa; εy= 0.0021; fu= 700 MPa; εu= 0.12;
Steel Reinforcement
Density= 7850 kg/m3; Poison ratio=0.3

3.2. Load-deflection response

To illustrate validity of the model, load-deflection response of UHPFRC beams (U-B6 and U-B5) are compared
with experimental data as shown in Figs. 5 and 6. It can be seen that UHPFRC beams exhibit different stages in
response i.e., linear elastic stage until initiation of tensile cracking, post-cracking stage with enhanced cracking and
their progression, onset of yielding in steel reinforcement, and plastic deformation stage till peak load followed by
216 Solhmirzaei R et al. / Procedia Engineering 210 (2017) 211–219
6 Solhmirzaei R., Kodur V.K.R./ Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000

attainment of failure. Predicted load deflection response exhibit these distinct stages as observed in the experiments.
These figures show that overall trend of load-deflection response of UHPFRC beams obtained by FEA is in a good
agreement with measured experimental data. However, post cracking response predicted by FEA is slightly stiffer
than experimental results. This difference can be attributed to idealization in numerical model with respect to
mechanical properties of UHPFRC and steel rebars, as well as geometry, loading configuration and support
conditions. Maximum load capacity predicted by the numerical model and test results are summarized in Table 2.
Ratio of load capacity predicted by FEA to that of experimental results ranges from 0.98 to 1.11. This shows that
load capacity of UHPFRC beams can be well predicted using FEA and adopted concrete damage plasticity model.

Fig. 5. Comparison of load deflection response of beam U-B6, subjected to shear loading, obtained by FEA and test.

Fig. 6. Comparison of load deflection response of beam U-B5, subjected to flexural loading, obtained by FEA and test.

Table 2. Comparison of load capacity of UHPFRC beams from test and finite element analysis.
Load Capacity (kN)
Ratio
Beam Finite Element Analysis Test Results (1)/(2)
(1) (2)
Predominant Flexural Loading
U-B3 107.7 97.1 1.11
U-B5 124.6 126.6 0.98
Predominant Shear Loading
U-B4 151.8 142.1 1.07
U-B6 176.5 177.1 0.99
 Solhmirzaei R et al. / Procedia Engineering 210 (2017) 211–219 217
Solhmirzaei R., Kodur V.K.R. / Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000 7

3.3. Load-strain response

The model is capable of tracing local behavior of UHPFRC beams, including progression of strains at a cross
section. Predicted load-longitudinal strains on rebars at midspan in beams U-B3 and U-B5 along with measured
strains in tests are plotted Fig. 7. The results show that strain predictions are in good agreement with measured
strains from tests. However, predicted load-strain response is stiffer than experimental results similar to predicted
load-deflection response. This difference between numerical predictions and measured test data can be attributed to
variations arising from material models, which might be different from actual material models as well as level of
bonding between strain gauges and UHPFRC.

Fig. 7. Comparison of load strain response at mid-span of rebars obtained by FEA and tests, (a) beam U-B3, (b) beam U-B5.

3.4. Crack progression

The model is also capable of tracing crack propagation with increased load by plotting tensile damage parameter.
Tensile damage contours obtained by FEA at different load levels for beams U-B6 and U-B5 along with
experimental results are illustrated in Figs. 8 and 9. In the case of beam U-B6, under dominant shear loading, tensile
damage initiated at extreme tension fibers due to high levels of tensile stress. This initial tensile damage (cracks)
was confined between points of load application and mid-span. As the load increased further, shear stresses
significantly increase causing maximum principle stresses to exceed tensile capacity of UHPFRC. This results in
significant tensile damage in the shear span (between left support and point of load application). It should be noted
that a higher value of the damage parameter indicates a greater level of tensile damage (cracking). As the beam
approaches failure, tensile damage further propagated towards compression zone and more cracks initiated and
propagated further in the shear span. These closely spaced zones of tensile damage in the shear span when connected
to each other, make an angle of 49° with horizontal line (see Fig. 8). This region of maximum tension damage
coincides with diagonal tension crack propagating at an angle of 52˚ as seen in the experiment.
218
8 SolhmirzaeiSolhmirzaei R et al.Procedia
R., Kodur V.K.R./ / Procedia Engineering
Engineering 00210 (2017)
(2017) 211–219
000–000

Fig. 8. Tensile damage obtained by FEA representing cracks in beam U-B6 along with test results.

In beam U-B5, under flexural loading, tensile damage initiated at extreme tension fibers of the beam in the zone
between load points which is subjected to pure bending. This cracking behavior was observed in the experiment as
shown in Fig. 9. Upon increasing load (flexural stresses) further, greater depth of the beam is subjected to tensile
damage. This shows propagation of cracks toward compression zone at increased load levels. The tension damage
contour obtained by FEA indicate that maximum tension damage at failure is concentrated at critical section of the
beam (mid-span) which coincides with the macro crack seen in the experiment (see Fig. 9). Tensile damage in beam
U-B5 is more spread along the length of the beam between loading points. However tensile damage in beam U-B6 is
concentrated under the point of load application. In addition, after rebar yielding in beam U-B5, density of tensile
damage (crack) highly increased as compared to beam U-B6.

Fig. 9. Tensile damage obtained by FEA representing cracks in beam U-B5 along with test results.
 Solhmirzaei R et al. / Procedia Engineering 210 (2017) 211–219 219
Solhmirzaei R., Kodur V.K.R. / Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000 9

4. Summary

A numerical model is developed for tracing structural response of UHPFRC beams. The developed model can
capture the behavior of UHPFRC beams in the entire range of loading till failure. The model predictions at global
level (load-deflection response) and local level (load-strain response) of UHPFRC beams agree well with
experimental data. Further, the model predictions of tensile damage (crack progression) in UHPFRC using scalar
damage parameter is an effective way of capturing failure modes of the beams as observed in the experiments.

Acknowledgements

This material is based upon work supported by Metna Company, and Michigan State University and the authors
wish to acknowledge sponsors support. Any opinions, findings, and recommendations expressed in this study are
those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the view of the sponsors.

References

[1] L. Ahmed Sbia, A. Peyvandi, P. Soroushian, J. Lu, A.M. Balachandra, Enhancement of ultrahigh performance concrete material
properties with carbon nanofiber, Adv. Civ. Eng. 2014 (2014) e854729.
[2] S.-T. Kang, Y. Lee, Y.-D. Park, J.-K. Kim, Tensile fracture properties of an Ultra High Performance Fiber Reinforced Concrete
(UHPFRC) with steel fiber, Compos. Struct. 92 (2010) 61–71.
[3] M. Xu, K. Wille, Fracture energy of UHP-FRC under direct tensile loading applied at low strain rates, Compos. Part B Eng. 80 (2015)
116–125.
[4] D.-Y. Yoo, Y.-S. Yoon, Structural performance of ultra-high-performance concrete beams with different steel fibers, Eng. Struct. 102
(2015) 409–423.
[5] I.-H. Yang, C. Joh, B.-S. Kim, Flexural response predictions for ultra-high-performance fibre-reinforced concrete beams, Mag. Concr.
Res. 64 (2011) 113–127.
[6] D.-Y. Yoo, N. Banthia, Y.-S. Yoon, Experimental and numerical study on flexural behavior of ultra-high-performance fiber-reinforced
concrete beams with low reinforcement ratios, Can. J. Civ. Eng. 44 (2016) 18–28.
[7] I.H. Yang, C. Joh, B.-S. Kim, Structural behavior of ultra high performance concrete beams subjected to bending, Eng. Struct. 32 (2010)
3478–3487.
[8] I.-H. Yang, C. Joh, B.-S. Kim, Shear behaviour of ultra-high-performance fibre-reinforced concrete beams without stirrups, Mag. Concr.
Res. 64 (2012) 979–993.
[9] Y.L. Voo, W.K. Poon, S.J. Foster, Shear strength of steel fiber-reinforced ultrahigh- performance concrete beams without stirrups, J.
Struct. Eng. 136 (2010) 1393–1400.
[10] P. Marchand, F. Toutlemonde, F. Baby, Shear behavior of ultrahigh performance fiber-reinforced concrete beams. I: experimental
investigation, J. Struct. Eng. 140 (2014) 4013111.
[11] G.H. Mahmud, Z. Yang, A.M. Hassan, Experimental and numerical studies of size effects of Ultra High Performance Steel Fibre
Reinforced Concrete (UHPFRC) beams, Constr. Build. Mater. 48 (2013) 1027–1034.
[12] T. Tysmans, M. Wozniak, O. Remy, J. Vantomme, Finite element modelling of the biaxial behaviour of high-performance fibre-
reinforced cement composites (HPFRCC) using Concrete Damaged Plasticity, Finite Elem. Anal. Des. 100 (2015) 47–53.
[13] L. Chen, B.A. Graybeal, Modeling structural performance of second-generation ultrahigh-performance concrete pi-girders, J. Bridge Eng.
17 (2011) 634–643.
[14] ABAQUS, Version 6.14 documentation, Providence (RI): Dassault systems simulia crop, 2014.
[15] V.K.R. Kodur, A. Agrawal, An approach for evaluating residual capacity of reinforced concrete beams exposed to fire, Eng. Struct. 110
(2016) 293–306.
[16] M. Crisfield, Accelerated solution techniques and concrete cracking, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 33 (1982) 585–607.
[17] J. Lubliner, J. Oliver, S. Oller, E. Onate, A plastic-damage model for concrete, Int. J. Solids Struct. 25 (1989) 299–326.
[18] J. Lee, G.L. Fenves, Plastic-damage model for cyclic loading of concrete structures, J. Eng. Mech. 124 (1998) 892–900.
[19] M. Singh, A. Sheikh, M.M. Ali, P. Visintin, M. Griffith, Experimental and numerical study of the flexural behaviour of ultra-high
performance fibre reinforced concrete beams, Constr. Build. Mater. 138 (2017) 12–25.
[20] L. Chen, B.A. Graybeal, Finite element analysis of ultra-high performance concrete: Modeling structural performance of an AASHTO
type II girder and a 2nd generation pi-girder, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, 2010.
[21] D.-Y. Yoo, J.-H. Lee, Y.-S. Yoon, Effect of fiber content on mechanical and fracture properties of ultra high performance fiber reinforced
cementitious composites, Compos. Struct. 106 (2013) 742–753.
[22] AFGC/SETRA, Ultra high performance fibre-reinforced concretes, French Civil Engineering Association, Bagneux, France, 2002.
[23] K. Speck, Concrete under multiaxial loading conditions—a constitutive model for short-time loading of high performance concretes,
(2007).
[24] Luaay Hussein, Structural behavior of ultra high performance fiber reinforced concrete composite members, Ph.D., Ryerson University,
2015.