Case Studies in Construction Materials 16 (2022) e01066

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Case Studies in Construction Materials

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

Experimental and numerical investigation of minimum required

fiber content in bending characteristics of 100 MPa
UHPC-formulated concrete
Amir Shayan Kamjou a, Alireza Khaloo b, *, Sina Hassanpour b
a
Department of Civil Engineering, Sharif University of Technology International Campus, Kish Island, Iran
b
Department of Civil Engineering, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The present study investigates the lowest possible amount of steel and polypropylene fibers in
Ultra-high performance concrete improving the compressive and flexural strength, stiffness, and energy capacity of high strength
Fiber reinforced concrete 100 MPa concrete with a mix design similar to that of Ultra-High Performance Concrete (UHPC).
Composite materials
Twenty-eight 100 × 200 mm cylindrical specimens with 0%, 0.2%, 0.4%, and 0.6% volumetric
Flexural panels
Stiffness
percentage of short steel fibers and polypropylene fibers were fabricated, which were at the
Finite element analysis lowest predicted percentages with respect to fiber content recommended in the literature. To
assess the flexural performance of fiber-reinforced concrete panels, specimens with dimensions of
200 × 600 × 20 mm were made with the same steel and polypropylene fiber contents as cylin­
drical specimens. For each fiber percentage in flexural panels, two steel fiber and two poly­
propylene fiber specimens were tested under a three-point bending procedure. Results
demonstrated the lowest fiber amount for compressive specimens and flexural panels. Fiber
content as low as 0.2% for steel and 0.4% for PP can enhance both the strength and energy
absorption capacity of the flexural panels. In addition, a formulation was proposed for estimating
the concrete modulus of rupture based on experimental data. In the end, panels were modeled
using ABAQUS software, and results were compared with test results. In the end, panels were
modeled using ABAQUS software and results were compared with test results. The numerical
predictions were in compliance with experimental observations and showed the stress distribu­
tion variations with respect to change in fiber type and percentage.

1. Introduction

Ultra-High Performance Concrete (UHPC) is concrete without any coarse aggregate while possessing superior mechanical prop­
erties compared to conventional concrete. Usually, UHPC makes use of the high amount of steel fibers in the concrete mortar, which
can reach up to 2% [1]. According to American Concrete Institute (ACI), concrete meeting specific mix design, performance, and
uniformity requirements cannot always be achieved by using conventional constituents, normal mixing, and curing practices [2].
UHPC exhibits excellent mechanical and durability properties such as very high compressive strength and relatively high tensile and
flexural strengths, modulus of elasticity, and ductility while having high durability against chloride penetration. UHPC contains high

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: khaloo@sharif.edu (A. Khaloo).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2022.e01066
Received 1 December 2021; Received in revised form 5 April 2022; Accepted 9 April 2022
Available online 11 April 2022
2214-5095/© 2022 Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
A.S. Kamjou et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 16 (2022) e01066

cement content and internal fiber reinforcement to provide ductility. It has no coarse aggregates, which results in low porosity and
consequently high durability. In UHPC low water to cement ratio and high range water reducing agents, lead to better workability
[3–6]. The basic principle in UHPC is to achieve a dense matrix as much as possible by reducing the micro-cracks and capillary pores in
the cement matrix. The removal of coarse aggregate enhances the homogeneity of concrete and the use of super pozzolans such as silica
fume increases the concrete strength. The pozzolanic reaction generally depends on the temperature of curing; while the heat curing
has the potential to accelerate the pozzolanic reaction [7–10]. Also, the increment of pozzolanic reaction of silica fume reduces the
porosity. Overall porosity is not affected by heat treatment, but the diameter of pores will be reduced. The hydration rate of untreated
UHPC accelerates very quickly at the initial stage and drops down as all the water is depleted by reaction or vaporization [11]. UHPC
usually contains cement, water, quartz powder, sand, silica fume, high-range water reducer agents, typically steel fibers with di­
mensions of 0.2 × 12.7 mm2, and fine sand. The combination of these materials makes a dense packing matrix, which has great
mechanical and rheological properties [12–15]. The most permeable section of concrete is Interfacial Transition Zone (ITZ) between
coarse aggregate and cement matrix; therefore, elimination of coarse aggregates tends to improve the durability of UHPC, and
reduction of ITZ increases the tensile strength and reduces porosity [16,17]. Steel fiber is added to concrete to avoid shrinkage and to
enhance tensile strength. Traditional steel reinforcement is able to distribute the tensile strain forces that cause concrete to crack.
However, employing steel fibers in concrete over time leads to corrosion due to the penetration of chloride ions [18–20], and in some
cases, the utilization of FRP fibers is suggested [21]. The characteristics and high control requirements in UHPC make this material
suitable for the design of precast and prestressed structural elements, which makes it to possible to design a more elegant and efficient
structure. Since UHPC can be used to create structures with longer spans and with smaller member sizes compared to normal or
high-strength concrete, a significant reduction in volume and self-weight would be expected with UHPC members [22–24]. Concrete
panels have several applications as slabs, walls, and roofs in structures. Using UHPC concrete panels reinforced with fibers benefit
engineers in terms of design specifications, such as reduction of cross-sectional dimensions and increasing the span length between
beam and columns. In addition, it produces more space for architectural advantages due to the smaller thickness with respect to
non-fiber panels. Several research has been conducted on the flexural performance of conventional and UHPC concrete members, and
any high capacity concrete with compressive strength over 100 MPa [25–29]. However, there are limited data available on the subject
of appropriate fiber percentage to achieve desired compressive and tensile capacity, as most of the previous studies have focused on
using 2% volumetric steel fiber to improve its mechanical properties and durability.
This paper presents the results of experimental investigation to obtain the lowest possible fiber percentages, which can improve the
mechanical properties and behavior of 100 MPa concrete panels with the similar mix design of a conventional UHPC. According to
several references such as PCA and CSA, UHPC concrete possesses a compressive strength of at least 120 MPa. On the other hand, the
mix design of UHPC contains fine aggregates (such as sand and quartz powder), cementitious materials, high-range water reducers, and
water. The mix design utilized is similar to UHPC formulation, and therefore, it is expected to represent UHPC mechanical behavior.
There were also literatures that investigated UHPC with compressive strength of at least 80 MPa [30]. The significance of this research
is to propose a fiber percentage to achieve desired mechanical properties while using the lowest possible amount of fibers and
consequently helping engineers to optimize construction costs. For instance, with a designated 2% steel fiber content, 156 kg of fiber is
required for construction in one cubic meter of concrete. However, this study investigates the considerable reduction in fiber content to
as low as 0.2%, which significantly reduces costs. Concrete specimens with different fiber types and fiber content considering low fiber
volume were evaluated for compressive and flexural behavior. For this purpose, 100 × 200 mm cylindrical specimens were fabricated
for compressive strength tests and 200 × 600 × 20 mm panel specimens constructed for 3-point bending (flexural) tests. Finite element
analysis was utilized on the panels using ABAQUS software, and numerical and experimental results were compared.

Fig. 1. Materials used in UHPC mix design.

2
A.S. Kamjou et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 16 (2022) e01066

2. Experimental program

2.1. Materials

Fig. 1 demonstrates the materials used in the experimental program. The conventional Portland cement type II was utilized in the
study [31]. Silica fume is another specific material used in concretes with UHPC characterisitcs, which reduces the hydration time
while filling the spaces between fine aggregates. Due to high viscosity, utilizing a high amount of silica fume in the mix should be
avoided to prevent slump flow reduction and workability. The recommended amount of silica fume is from 15% to 25% of cement
weight or five to seven volumetric percent of fresh mixture [32–36]. Ground quartz powder in this concrete is the sand of natural origin
extracted mechanically from quarries with a particle size of 0.2–0.8 mm. Quartz sand is widely used in the production of many brands
of cement and asphalt coating, plasters and mortar solutions, polymer products, and decorative and finishing materials. The clean sand
with a size ranging from 0.15 mm to 2.36 mm was used. The Polycarboxylate superplasticizer was used to reduce the water amount in
concrete, increase the workability of, and concrete strength. The water to cement ratio of the mix design used for this specific study was
0.22. The hooked-end short steel fiber and KRENIT Polypropylene fiber were used in this study. Table 1 provides fiber specifications,
tensile strength, length to diameter ratio, and modulus of elasticity of the aforementioned fibers.

2.2. Mix design and proportion

Due to the very low water content, This concrete needs more effort in comparison with normal concrete to mix and achieve a
uniform mixture. Therefore, a horizontal Pan concrete mixer was used for the mixing process. Various trials were conducted to obtain
the optimum mix design. Seven different concrete mixtures with zero, 0.2, 0.4, and 0.6 volumetric percent dosage constructed
separately (for short steel fiber and polypropylene fiber) were cast. Several concrete mix designs were selected using different amounts
of aggregates, cementitious materials, and water to reach the target strength of 100 MPa. The details of the mix proportion is given in
Table 2.

3. Experimental procedure

3.1. Casting and curing

Before the casting process, release oil is applied to cylinders and panel molds to reduce friction and sharpen the sides of specimens.
All the dry materials in the mixer and mixed for five minutes to obtain a homogenous mixture, then, water and 40% of superplasticizer
were slowly added to the dry mix in two minutes duration. The remaining superplasticizer and fibers were added to the mix afterward.
In the end, the remaining water was slowly added to the mixture.
In the construction process of flexural panels, two methods were followed for adding fibers to mortar. First, the polypropylene
fibers with random orientation (due to their shape, size, workability, and usage instructions) were added slowly during the mixing
procedure. However, in steel fiber reinforced panels, it was possible to attempt placing fiber in the direction of the panels’ span length
to provide efficient use of fibers. The amounts of 0.2, 0.4, and 0.6 volumetric percent of steel fibers were placed in the mid-depth of
panel thickness during the casting procedure. Some of the steel fibers were orientated with slight deviations with respect to the di­
rection of panel span, to provide realistic test specimens. For each configuration, two panels were manufactured. Fig. 2 shows the steel
fiber direction in the steel fiber flexural panels.
The cylinders and panels were placed in water 24 h after casting for curing until reaching the test age. The primary purpose of
curing is to ensure that all samples are similar in terms of quality and strength.

3.2. Slump test

For the slump test, a standard 300 mm height slump cone was used. According to ASTM C1611 [37], three 0% fiber trials were
performed and the average slump and spread time was noted. The requirements of spread and time for the concrete are shown in
Table 3.

3.3. Capping procedure for cylindrical specimens

The uneven surface of specimens causes errors in the test procedure and results. According to ASTM C1231 [38], capping off the top
and bottom of cylinders is required to prepare cylindrical specimens for the compressive strength test. ASTM C167 and ASTM C39 were
followed to conduct tests [39,40]. The capping process was performed with the mixture of Sulphur Powder and Silica Powder with a

Table 1
Specifications of fibers used in UHPC.
Fiber Type Tensile Strength (MPa) Diameter (mm) Length (mm) Modulus of Elasticity (GPa)

Hooked-end Steel Fiber 1100 0.2 20 200

Polypropylene Fiber 500–700 0.034 20 28

3
A.S. Kamjou et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 16 (2022) e01066

Table 2
UHPC mix design.
Type of material Quantity (in 1 m3)

Fine Sand (kg/m3) 836

Quartz Ground Powder (kg/m3) 363
Cement (kg/m3) 833
Silica Fume (kg/m3) 167
Drinking Water (kg/m3) 184
Superplasticizer (kg/m3) 24
Water to Cement ratio (W/C) 0.22

Fig. 2. Steel fiber distribution along the length of flexural panel specimens.

Table 3
Minimum and maximum requirements of slump flow and T500 time.
Test Unit Minimum Maximum

Slump flow( mm) 550 850

T500 Slump flow (Sec) 2 9

ratio of 3/1 (3-part Sulphur and 1-part Silica) melted at 115.21 ◦ C by a capping device in the capping mold, as shown in Fig. 3.

3.4. Compressive strength test

Ultra-high performance concrete and any concrete with similar mix design to UHPC reaches high compressive strength in a shorter
time than conventional concrete, due to the presence of more cementitious materials and considerably low water to cement ratio,
which increases the hydration rate. This affects the mechanical properties of the concrete such as split tension, flexural tensile strength,
and bond strength. Cylinders with 100 mm diameter and 200 mm in height were used for measuring the compressive strength of the
concrete as shown in Fig. 4. For each designation and fiber content, four identical specimens were cast. Samples were tested according

Fig. 3. Capping procedure with Sulphur and Silica powder mixture.

4
A.S. Kamjou et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 16 (2022) e01066

Fig. 4. Compressive strength test cylinders of the UHPC concrete.

to ASTM standards with a loading rate of 1 mm/min.

3.5. Flexural strength test

For the flexural three-point bending test, specimens were placed on two supports and a concentrated force was applied at the mid-
span until failure. The bending strength is calculated from the ultimate force, the distance between the supports, and the width and
thickness of the test [40]. The schematic flexural Testing apparatus of 600 × 200 × 20 mm panel specimens is shown in Fig. 5.
The casting and testing were conducted according to the ASTM C78 standard [41]. The specimen’s corners were grounded and the
top surface was smoothened to provide an even surface to apply a load (Fig. 6). The panel was placed on the supports with a clear span
of 80 mm. The testing was performed on a universal testing machine with a loading rate of 0.25 mm/sec [42,43]. Fig. 7 demonstrates
the test setup for flexural panel specimens. As also represented in Fig. 5, the panels were placed on two roller supports, while
concentrated loading was applied to the mid-span.

3.6. Stiffness

Several interpretations are available with respect to the calculation of stiffness in reinforced concrete elements. The most common
approach for the assessment of flexural performance in structures is to calculate the secant stiffness, which is the slope of the load-
deflection curve between first and second slope drop points and is obtained as follows [44]:
P1− 2
k= (1)
Δ1− 2
Where P1− 2 and Δ1− 2 are the variations of load and deflection between 1 and 2, demonstrated in Fig. 8.

3.7. Energy absorption capacity

Energy Absorption capacity defines the ability of a structure to sustain significant displacements before reaching the failure state.
One way of measuring the energy absorption of tested specimens is to calculate the area under the curve. (Energy Absorption value
calculated for (0.85 f´C) in the descending part of the Stress-Strain Curve or (0.85 of Peak Load) in the descending part of the Load-

Fig. 5. Testing apparatus for flexural strength test.

5
A.S. Kamjou et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 16 (2022) e01066

Fig. 6. Non-fiber concrete panel.

Fig. 7. Flexural test set-up for panel specimens.

Displacement Curve.). Fig. 9 shows the stress-strain and load-deflection diagrams and the area under the curve indicating the energy
absorption capacity for compressive and flexural specimens, respectively.

4. Experimental results and discussion

4.1. Fresh concrete properties

For the slump test, three trials with non-fiber concrete were performed according to the specifications in Table 3. Table 4 provides
the recorded values for the slump test of 0% fiber concrete.

4.2. Compressive strength

Compressive strength specimens were tested 90 days after casting, according to ASTM C39, to investigate the effect of fiber type
and percentage on the compressive capacity of concrete. Fig. 10 Shows concrete after failure. Table 5 provides the ultimate
compressive strength of 90 days specimens. The more steel fiber added to the mix, the higher compressive strength was achieved.

6
A.S. Kamjou et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 16 (2022) e01066

Fig. 8. Load-deflection diagram.

Fig. 9. Schematic diagram for the definition of energy absorption capacity in terms of (a) Strain-stress and (b) Load-deflection diagrams.

Table 4
The Slump values recorded for 0% fiber UHPC.
Mortar No Slump flow (mm) T500 Slump flow (Sec)

1 635 4
2 660 4.5
3 635 4

However, by increasing PP fiber content compressive strength decreased. On the other hand, increasing compressive strength in steel
fiber reinforced specimens reduced the energy absorption capacity, while a decrease in the strength of PP fiber-reinforced specimens
improved the ductility of cylinders, as the highest energy absorption capacity observed was 0.6% in PP fiber-reinforced cylinders.
Stress-strain diagrams for cylinders are shown in Figs. 11 and 12 for steel fiber and PP fiber reinforced samples, respectively.

4.3. Flexural strength

Flexural strength test was performed on reinforced panels according to ASTM C 78. Three-point bending (flexural) tests have been
performed after 90 days at Universal Lab of Sharif University of Technology-Tehran with a displacement rate of 0.25 mm/min.
Flexural test results of Peak Load, Ultimate Strength, and Energy Absorption value are provided in Table 5.
Fig. 13 shows a flexural panel under three-point loading after failure and Fig. 14 demonstrates panels after failure. Due to the high
stiffness and sudden failure of the concrete, crack propagation was not observed, and only the main failure crack was visible on the
specimens.

7
A.S. Kamjou et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 16 (2022) e01066

Fig. 10. UHPC cylinder after failure.

Table 5
The values of cylinder specimens peak Load (KN), ultimate strength and energy absorption.
Specimen Designation (Fibers Volumetric) Load (KN) Ultimate Compressive Strength (MPa) Energy Absorption (J)

0% Fiber 1 851.13 108.37 Average 1437 Average

2 795.29 101.26 100 MPa 1101 1270 J
3 748.17 95.26 1272
4 727.90 92.68 1271
0.2% Steel fiber 1 834.17 106.21 Average 1140 Average
2 801.10 102.01 98 MPa 1102 1070 J
3 747.38 95.16 971
4 699 89.01 1068
0.2% PP fiber 1 1044.23 132.96 Average 1178 Average
2 1043.37 132.85 125 MPa 1498 1177 J
3 913.45 116.30 986
4 905.09 115.24 1046
0.4% Steel fiber 1 911.64 116.01 Average 1100 Average
2 835.66 106.40 106 MPa 1147 1020 J
3 788.21 100.35 816
4 784.82 99.92 1019
0.4% PP fiber 1 913.34 116.29 Average 1186 Average
2 833.10 112.44 105 MPa 1229 1194 J
3 795.53 101.29 1191
4 706.86 90.03 1168
0.6% Steel fiber 1 1021.02 130.05 Average 1499 Average
2 1005.31 128.01 121 MPa 1115 1199 J
3 960.54 122.30 1161
4 832.67 102.60 1021
0.6% PP fiber 1 863.94 110.02 Average 1381 Average
2 845.95 107.71 104 MPa 1372 1359 J
3 785.4 100.02 1352
4 777.54 99.04 1331

Table 6 presents the flexural test results of panels. According to test results, panels with 0.2% steel fiber exhibit the highest flexural
strength and energy absorption capacity values among all specimens. Test results also demonstrate that with an increase in steel fiber
content, the flexural strength and energy absorption capacity decreases. Nevertheless, these variables in PP reinforced panels have a
direct relation with fiber content in the specimen, since an increment of fiber, enhances both flexural and energy absorption capacity.
The results demonstrate a slight increase in strength of the PP reinforced specimen from 0.4% to 0.6%, indicating that the lowest
possible PP fiber percentage can be selected as 0.4%. In addition, stiffness values in steel and PP fiber-reinforced panels generally

8
A.S. Kamjou et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 16 (2022) e01066

140
120
100
Stress

80
60
40
20
0
0 0.004 0.008 0.012 0.016 0 0.004 0.008 0.012 0.016 0 0.004 0.008 0.012 0.016 0 0.004 0.008 0.012 0.016

Strain
Fig. 11. Compressive Strength Test result of Steel Fiber cylindrical specimens.

0 % Fiber Cylinders 0.2% PP Fiber Cylinders 0.4% PP Fiber Cylinders 0.6% PP Fiber Cylinders

140
120
100
Stress

80
60
40
20
0
0 0.004 0.008 0.012 0.016 0 0.004 0.008 0.012 0.016 0 0.004 0.008 0.012 0.016 0 0.004 0.008 0.012 0.016

Strain
Fig. 12. Compressive Strength Test result of PP Fiber cylindrical specimens.

Fig. 13. Flexural panel under three-point loading after failure.

decrease and increase by adding fiber content, respectively. Load-displacement diagrams of the specimen are presented in Figs. 15 and
16 exclusively for each fiber type. Decreasing the effect of steel fibers and enhancing the influence of PP fibers on flexural strength can
also be deduced from diagrams.
Load- displacement diagrams for panels reinforced with steel and PP fibers are presented in Figs. 16 and 17, respectively. The
comparison between data demonstrates that 0.2% steel fiber provides the highest load-bearing capacity between all specimens in this
group. By increase in steel fiber percentage, flexural load capacity decreases. This indicates that high levels of load-bearing capacity
can be achieved at lower steel fiber content than conventional 2% steel fiber used in the concrete. For PP fiber reinforced panels, the
trend is different, and with an increase in fiber percentage, flexural strength increases. Nevertheless, there is a rather slight increment
from 0.4% to 0.6% fiber content and in this regard, 0.4% PP fiber can be indicated as the lowest possible fiber percentage to achieve

9
A.S. Kamjou et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 16 (2022) e01066

Fig. 14. Flexural panels after failure.

Table 6
Flexural test results of peak load, ultimate Strength, energy absorption, and stiffness values.
Specimen Designation (Fibers Volumetric/m3) Load (KN) Ultimate Flexural Strength (MPa) Energy Absorption (J) Stiffness (N/mm)

0% fiber Panels 1 1.85 13.87 Average 547 Average 2808 Average

2 1.57 11.80 12.83 MPa 437 492 J 2464 2636
0.2% Steel fiber Panels 1 2.86 21.43 Average 1090 Average 4109 4103
2 2.77 20.75 21.08 MPa 868 979 J 4096
0.2% PP fiber Panels 1 2.03 15.24 Average 819 Average 2943 2790
2 1.67 12.56 13.9 MPa 522 670 J 2636
0.4% Steel fiber Panels 1 2.71 20.35 Average 879 Average 4558 4294
2 2.70 20.26 20.30 MPa 770 824 J 4030
0.4% PP fiber Panels 1 2.33 17.51 Average 699 Average 3563 3476
2 2.05 15.39 16.44 MPa 659 679 J 3388
0.6% Steel fiber Panels 1 2.31 17.33 Average 683 Average 3372 3498
2 2.28 17.13 17.23 MPa 695 689 J 3624
0.6% PP fiber Panels 1 2.38 17.83 Average 790 Average 4205 3847
2 2.08 15.58 16.70 MPa 643 716 J 3489

Load-Displacement (0% Fiber and Steel Fiber - Flexural Panels)

3.5

3
0% Fiber Panel 1

2.5 0% Fiber Panel 2

0.2% steel Fiber Panel 1
Load (KN)

2 0.2% Steel Fiber Panel 2

0.4% Steel Fiber Panel 1
1.5
0.4% Steel Fiber Panel 2

1 0.6% Steel Fiber Panel 1

0.6% Steel Fiber Panel 2
0.5

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Displacement (mm)

Fig. 15. Load -Displacement diagram comparison between steel fiber reinforced and non-fiber specimens.

10
A.S. Kamjou et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 16 (2022) e01066

Load-Displacement (0% Fiber and PP Fiber - Flexural Panels)

3

2.5

0% Fiber Panel 1
2
0% Fiber Panel 2
Load (KN)

0.2% PP Fiber Panel 1

1.5
0.2% PP Fiber Panel 2
0.4% PP Fiber Panel 1
1 0.4% PP Fiber Panel 2
0.6% PP Fiber Panel 1
0.5 0.6% PP Fiber Panel 2

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Displacement (mm)

Fig. 16. Load -Displacement diagram comparison between PP fiber reinforced and non-fiber specimens.

0.35 Steel fibers 0.35 PP fiber

0.30 0.30
0.25 0.25
0.20 0.20
α

0.15 0.15
0.10 0.10
y = 0.33x + 0.13 y = 0.32x + 0.13
0.05 0.05 R² = 0.86
R² = 0.92
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80
Fiber content (×100) Fiber content (×100)

(a) (b)
Fig. 17. Mean α factor vs. fiber content diagram for (a) steel fiber, and (b) PP fiber reinforced specimens.

desirable flexural strength.

5. Proposed model for modulus of rupture in flexural panels

ACI-318 [2] suggests that the modulus of rupture in concrete is related to the square root of its compressive strength through a
coefficient. Relying on this and according to the experimental results of this research, the following equation is proposed to calculate
the modulus of rupture for concrete panels:
√̅̅̅̅
(2)
′
fr = α f c

Where f c is the compressive strength of concrete and α is a coefficient relating compressive strength to modulus of rupture of UHPC
′

concrete. The variable α can be presented as:

f
α = √r̅̅̅̅ (3)
′
fc

In order to calculate α, the values of cracking loads were captured during the test procedure of flexural panels and therefore, the
modulus of rupture was calculated as follows:
Mcr y
fr = (4)
I
Where y is the distance of extreme tensile fiber to the neutral axis. Mcr is the tensile cracking moment and is obtained as below:

11
A.S. Kamjou et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 16 (2022) e01066

Pcr l
Mcr = (5)
4
Eq. (5) calculates the mid-span moment for specimens with a single simple span subjected to concentrated loading at the center. In
this equation, Pcr is the tensile cracking load of the flexural specimen. The calculated variables are presented in Table 7 for both steel
and PP fiber reinforced panels. To demonstrate the panels, a designation is assigned to them as P-xy-z; Where P is the initial for Panel, x
and y demonstrate the type of fiber (ST for steel, PP for Polypropylene, F for non-fiber specimens) and fiber percentage, respectively.
The variable z indicates the number of specimen in each similar designation.
As it can be observed, the values of α vary with an increase in fiber content and the change of fiber type. Therefore, a relationship
was developed between the fiber content percentage and mean modification factor using trend lines between two variables as Fig. 17a
and b. The trend lines demonstrated a satisfactory pattern with R2 values of 0.92 and 0.86 for steel and PP fiber reinforced panels,
respectively.
Although second-order polynomial provided a better fit with a higher R2 value, the simplicity and acceptable precision of the linear
trend line made it a reliable estimation for α values. As shown in Fig. 19 a and b, the coefficients of linear trend lines are almost similar.
Therefore, α coefficient for fiber reinforced concrete was estimated as follows:
α = 0.33nf + 0.13 (6)

Where nf is the fiber content percentage in the concrete multiplied by 100. The coefficient of 0.13 is equal to the α coefficient for the
concrete without fiber. Therefore, for fiber reinforced concrete, equation can be written as:
α = 0.33nf + α0 (7)

Where α0 represents the modification factor of concrete without fiber and may vary with the compressive strength of the concrete,
which requires further investigations; however, in this study, the value of 0.13 is considered for α0 . The proposed method provides
acceptable compliance with experimental data in terms of estimating tensile crack occurrence in specimens, as shown in Table 8. As it
can be observed, the proposed model provides an acceptable estimation of tensile cracks with overall fr , (proposed) /fr , ( exp.) equal to
0.95, indicating a 5% error from experimental data.

6. Finite element modeling

All panels including non-fiber control specimens were modeled using ABAQUS software. The concrete damaged plasticity (CDP)
model was considered for modeling concrete. Parameters for this model are different from ones that were utilized to simulate con­
ventional concrete.
Fibers’ material properties were introduced to the program based on their characteristics, as for steel fibers the elasto-plastic and
for PP fibers, the fully elastic model was defined. Fibers were modeled as truss element module, which is defined in the ABAQUS
software. Fiber percentage of models corresponded to their experimental counterparts, with percentages of 0.2, 0.4, and 0.6. The
number of fibers in each panel was approximately calculated by dividing the total volume of fibers by the volume of each individual
fiber in every specimen. To achieve the desired accuracy in models with respect to experimental results, the mixing procedure and fiber
dispersion in each mix were implemented into the models. So as for PP fiber-reinforced panels, a randomized direction for fibers is
considered, with most of the fibers making less than 15 degree angle with the longitudinal axis of the panel, while a few fibers were
perpendicular to the length of the specimen. PP fibers were also located randomly within the panel perimeter. However, for steel fiber
reinforced panels, the model was generated by placing unidirectional fibers on the longitudinal axis, located in the middle of each
specimen.
In the process of modeling, mesh elements were defined as 3D rectangular elements for concrete and 2D Truss elements for fibers.
The interface between fibers and concrete matrix were defined using the software module. To determine the location of loading points

Table 7
Mechanical properties calculated for UHPC specimens.
Specimen Designation Pcr (kN) Mcr (N.mm) fr (MPa) α Mean α

P-F0–1 0.16 14,762 1.11 0.13 0.13

P-F0–2 0.15 14,278 1.07 0.14
P-ST0.2–1 0.29 31,755 2.38 0.24 0.23
P-ST0.2–2 0.25 28,027 2.10 0.21
P-ST0.4–1 0.36 39,767 2.98 0.29 0.28
P-ST0.4–2 0.33 36,800 2.76 0.27
P-ST0.6–1 0.42 46,522 3.49 0.32 0.31
P-ST0.6–2 0.41 44,564 3.34 0.30
P-PP0.2–1 0.32 35,798 2.68 0.24 0.24
P-PP0.2–2 0.32 35,161 2.64 0.24
P-PP0.4–1 0.36 39,695 2.97 0.29 0.29
P-PP0.4–2 0.35 38,663 2.89 0.29
P-PP0.6–1 0.38 42,281 3.17 0.31 0.30
P-PP0.6–2 0.37 40,832 3.06 0.30

12
A.S. Kamjou et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 16 (2022) e01066

Table 8
Comparison between proposed modulus of rupture with experimental results.
Specimen Designation α fr , (exp.) (MPa) fr , (proposed) (MPa) fr , proposed /fr , exp.

P-F0–1 0.13 1.11 1.3 1.17

P-F0–2 0.13 1.07 1.3 1.21
P-ST0.2–1 0.20 2.38 1.96 0.82
P-ST0.2–2 0.20 2.10 1.96 0.93
P-ST0.4–1 0.26 2.98 2.62 0.88
P-ST0.4–2 0.26 2.76 2.62 0.95
P-ST0.6–1 0.33 3.49 3.28 0.94
P-ST0.6–2 0.33 3.34 3.28 0.98
P-PP0.2–1 0.20 2.68 1.96 0.73
P-PP0.2–2 0.20 2.64 1.96 0.74
P-PP0.4–1 0.26 2.98 2.62 0.88
P-PP0.4–2 0.26 2.90 2.62 0.90
P-PP0.6–1 0.33 3.17 3.28 1.03
P-PP0.6–2 0.33 3.06 3.28 1.07

Fig. 18. Stress contours of (a) steel and (b) PP fiber reinforced flexural panels.

13
A.S. Kamjou et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 16 (2022) e01066

and supports, modeled panel was divided into sections, while the boundary of sections defined locations of supports and the load cell.
Number of fibers aligned in the length direction in each panel was defined by following equation:
[total volume of fiber in the concrete mix] pf Vc
nf 1 = = π d2f
(8)
[volume of a single fiber]
4

Where nf1 is the number of aligned fibers that fully contributes in bending, pf is the fiber volume percentage, Vc is the volume of
concrete panel, and df is the fiber diameter. However, in PP reinforced panels, to consider fiber dispersion in concrete, a coefficient β is
assumed as an orientation factor to determine the number of aligned fibers as follows:
[total volume of aligned fiber in the concrete mix] βpf Vc
nf 2 = = πd2 (9)
[volume of a single fiber] f
4

The value of β varies between 0 and 1, where 0 is fully dispersed, and 1 is fully oriented conditions. The value of β is considered as
0.6, according to the results of available literatures [45]. Therefore, number of dispersed fibers can be calculated as follows:
nfd = nf 1 − nf 2 (10)

The variable nfd determines the number of fibers in each panel that are not aligned parallel to the tensile load direction. Therefore,
the number of dispersed fibers were calculated and utilized in the model.
Fig. 18 demonstrates the stress contours and deformed shapes of panel specimens after reaching their ultimate state. Figures on the
left hand present the stress contours of steel panels, while the Figures on the right hand depict the stress distribution of PP panels. As
expected, the maximum deflection and stress occurred at the middle of each specimen. In steel fiber reinforced panels, the maximum
stress zone expands with an increase in fiber percentage, indicating that steel fibers contribute to the stress distribution in panels. This
can be attributed to the fact that steel fibers are placed in the direction of the panel’s length, showing a better performance of stress
distribution by an increase in fiber content. However, for PP fiber reinforced panels, increasing fiber percentage reduces the maximum
stress area, which can be justified by the multidirectional orientation of fibers and their congestion, creating stress concentration at the
center. Compared to their steel fiber reinforced counterparts, PP reinforced panels demonstrate a more uniform stress distribution at
mid-span.
The analytical load-deflection diagrams for panels with steel and PP fibers are shown in Fig. 19 (a) and (b), respectively. The same
trend for analytical results can be seen as the experimental data. While the increase of PP content in panels, improves the strength and
ductility of panels, in steel fiber reinforced specimens, the trend is inverse, as the load-bearing capacity reduces with an increase in
fiber content. The experimental and analytical comparisons for specimens containing 0.4% and 0.6% PP and steel fibers are presented
in Figs. 20 and 21. The experimental and analytical results for ultimate load values are presented in Table 9. The models were able to
predict the actual behavior of panels under concentrated loading. This can be attributed to the stiffness increase of fiber-concrete
composite by increment in the steel fiber content, which results in higher stiffness and lower deformability. Therefore, experi­
encing failure at lower deformation. The finite element model is in better agreement with hooked steel reinforced panels rather than PP
reinforced specimens. This could be due to the determined unidirectional arrangement of steel fibers, which were easier to apply in
models, however, randomized fiber dispersion was considered for PP reinforced panels, which justify the higher variance of analytical
results to experimental findings.

4 3
no Steel Fiber no PP fiber
0.2 percent Steel fiber 0.2 percent PP fiber
3
0.4 percent Steel fiber 0.4 percent PP fiber
2
Load (KN)

Load (KN)

0.6 percent Steel fiber 0.6 percent PP fiber

2

1
1

0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Deflection (mm) Deflection (mm)

(a) (b)
Fig. 19. Analytical load-deflection diagrams of (a) steel and (b) PP fiber reinforced flexural panels.

14
A.S. Kamjou et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 16 (2022) e01066

Load-Displacement (0% Fiber and Steel Fiber - Load-Displacement (0% Fiber and Steel Fiber -
Flexural Panels) Flexural Panels)
3.5 3
0.4% Steel Fiber Panel 1 0.6% Steel Fiber Panel 1
3 0.4% Steel Fiber Panel 2 2.5 0.6% Steel Fiber Panel 2
2.5 0.4% Steel Fiber Analytical 0.6% Steel Fiber Analytical
2
Load (KN)

Load (KN)
2
1.5
1.5
1 1
0.5 0.5
0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)
(a) (b)

Fig. 20. Experimental and analytical comparison for (a) 0.4% and (b) 0.6% steel fiber reinforced UHPC panels.

Load-Displacement (0% Fiber and PP Fiber - Load-Displacement (0 .6% PP Fiber - Flexural

3
Flexural Panels) Panels)
2.5 2.5 0.6% PP Fiber Panel 1
0.4% PP Fiber Panel 1
2 0.4% PP Fiber Panel 2 0.6% PP Fiber Panel 2
2
Load (KN)

0.6 % PP Fiber Analytical 0.6% PP Fiber Analytical

Load (KN)

1.5 1.5
1 1
0.5 0.5
0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)

(a) (b)
Fig. 21. Experimental and analytical comparison for (a) 0.4% and (b) 0.6% PP fiber reinforced UHPC panels.

Table 9
Flexural strength test results for Steel and PP fiber reinforced UHPC panels.
Fiber content (% Steel fibers PP fibers
Volumetric)
Average Ultimate Strength, Ultimate Strength, Analytical Average Ultimate Strength, Ultimate Strength, Analytical
exp. (MPa) (MPa) exp. (MPa) (MPa)

0 12.83 12.45 12.83 12.45

0.2 21.08 22.32 13.9 13.43
0.4 20.3 19.45 16.44 13.81
0.6 17.23 17.98 16.70 14.69

7. Conclusions

A total of 42 specimens, including 28 cylindrical specimens and 14 flexural panels for compressive and flexural tests fabricated to
pursue this research, respectively. The variables such as load-bearing capacity, stiffness, and energy absorption capacity were obtained
from experimental results. In the end, a finite element analysis was performed on flexural specimens to provide a better assessment of
the optimum fiber content in UHPC concrete. The following results were drawn from the research:

1. Increasing steel fibers volume in the concrete increased the compressive strength of specimens. The effect in Polypropylene
reinforced cylinders is inverse, as the increment in fiber volume content reduced the compressive strength.
2. Generally, energy absorption capacity in steel reinforced cylinders is reduced by increasing the fiber volume, and in Polypropylene
reinforced cylinders, the trend is increasing.
3. For the steel fiber reinforced flexural panels, the specimen with 0.2% volumetric of fiber demonstrated a better performance in
terms of flexural strength, although an increase in steel fiber volume reduced the energy absorption capacity and increased the

15
A.S. Kamjou et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 16 (2022) e01066

stiffness, which decreased the ability of panels to endure higher deformations, and failed under lower loads compared to the 0.2%
volumetric specimen. Therefore, steel fiber content as low as 0.2% can be introduced as the lowest fiber content to enhance the
behavior of flexural panels.
4. In the Polypropylene reinforced panels, an increase in fiber volume improved both load bearing and energy absorption capacities,
subsequently decreasing the stiffness, which enhance the capability of flexural panels to endure larger deformations compared to
0.2% volumetric specimen. Therefore, PP fiber content as low as 0.4% can be introduced as the lowest fiber content to enhance the
behavior of flexural panels.
5. Numerical analysis of panels demonstrated that PP fiber reinforced panels have a better maximum stress distribution in mid-span,
compared to their steel fiber reinforced counterparts. However, in the latter, by an increase in steel fiber content, the maximum
stress distribution region increases, while results in the former are contrary.
6. Numerical verification and analysis demonstrated an acceptable convergence with experimental data, and were capable of esti­
mating flexural performance with respect to characteristics and volume content of fibers.

The investigated method of finding minimum fiber content is also applicable for conventional UHPC with compressive strength
more than 120 MPa, which can be investigated in the future work. considering that the results of this experiment is also applicable for
UHPC concrete with 120 MPa or higher strength, the concentration of research on the minimum fiber content and not the classification
of initial compressive strength, and due to the similarity of mix design with UHPC, the references provided in the manuscript is
applicable for this study.

Funding

The authors have not received funding for conducting this research.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgements

Supports of the Center of Excellence in Composite Structures and Seismic Strengthening in conducting this research study are
greatly appreciated.

References

[1] M. Schmidt, E. Fehling, Ultra-high-performance concrete: research, development and application in Europe, Acids Spec. Publ. 228 (1) (2005) 51–78.
[2] ACI Committee. (2019). Building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI 318–19) and commentary. American Concrete Institute.
[3] N.M. Azmee, N. Shafiq, Ultra-high performance concrete: from fundamental to applications. Case Studies in Construction, Materials 9 (2018), e00197.
[4] Russell, H.G., Graybeal, B.A., & Russell, H.G. (2013). Ultra-high performance concrete: A state-of-the-art report for the bridge community (No. FHWA-HRT-
13–060). United States. Federal Highway Administration. Office of Infrastructure Research and Development.
[5] S. Ahmad, I. Hakeem, M. Maslehuddin, Development of UHPC mixtures utilizing natural and industrial waste materials as partial replacements of silica fume
and sand, Sci. World J. (2014) 2014.
[6] S. Collepardi, L. Coppola, R. Troli, M. Collepardi, Mechanical properties of modified reactive powder concrete, Acids Spec. Publ. 173 (1997) 1–22.
[7] Vande Voort, T.L., Suleiman, M.T., Sritharan, S. (2008). Design and performance verification of ultra-high performance concrete piles for deep foundations (No.
IHRB Project TR-558).
[8] Y.S. Tai, H.H. Pan, Y.N. Kung, Mechanical properties of steel fiber reinforced reactive powder concrete following exposure to high temperature reaching 800C,
Nucl. Eng. Des. 241 (7) (2011) 2416–2424.
[9] E. Ghafari, M. Arezoumandi, H. Costa, E. Julio, Influence of nano-silica addition on durability of UHPC, Constr. Build. Mater. 94 (2015) 181–188.
[10] H. Zanni, M. Cheyrezy, V. Maret, S. Philippot, P. Nieto, Investigation of hydration and pozzolanic reaction in reactive powder concrete (RPC) using 29Si NMR,
Cem. Concr. Res. 26 (1) (1996) 93–100.
[11] Y. Ju, T. Shen, D. Wang, Bonding behavior between reactive powder concrete and normal strength concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 242 (2020), 118024.
[12] Y. Su, J. Li, C. Wu, P. Wu, Z.X. Li, Effects of steel fibres on dynamic strength of UHPC, Constr. Build. Mater. 114 (2016) 708–718.
[13] S. Khaksefidi, M. Ghalehnovi, J. De Brito, Bond behaviour of high-strength steel rebars in normal (NSC) and ultra-high performance concrete (UHPC), J. Build.
Eng. 33 (2021), 101592.
[14] A. Alsalman, C.N. Dang, J.R. Martí-Vargas, W.M. Hale, Mixture-proportioning of economical UHPC mixtures, J. Build. Eng. 27 (2020), 100970.
[15] Bajaber, M.A., Hakeem, I.Y. (2020). UHPC evolution, development, and utilization in construction: A review. Journal of Materials Research and Technology.
[16] G. Prokopski, J. Halbiniak, Interfacial transition zone in cementitious materials, Cem. Concr. Res. 30 (4) (2000) 579–583.
[17] Ahlborn, T.M., Misson, D.L., Peuse, E.J., Gilbertson, C.G. (2008, March). Durability and strength characterization of ultra-high performance concrete under
variable curing regimes. In Proc. 2nd Int. Symp. on Ultra High Performance Concrete, Fehling, E., Schmidt, M., & Stürwald, S.(Eds.) Kassel, Germany (pp.
197–204).
[18] S. Pietruszczak, J. Jiang, F.A. Mirza, An elastoplastic constitutive model for concrete, Int. J. Solids Struct. 24 (7) (1988) 705–722.
[19] Brown, R., Shukla, A., & Natarajan, K.R. (2002). Fiber reinforcement of concrete structures.
[20] J.I. Daniel, J.J. Roller, E.D. Anderson, Polymeric fiber reinforced concrete, Fiber Reinf. Concr. Portland Cem. Assoc. (1998) 22–33.
[21] P.K. Mehta, P.J. Monteiro, Concrete: microstructure, properties, and materials, McGraw Hill Educ. (2014).
[22] C. Ţibea, D.V. Bompa, Ultimate shear response of ultra-high-performance steel fibre-reinforced concrete elements, Arch. Civ. Mech. Eng. 20 (2) (2020) 1–16.
[23] Ozyildirim, C. (2011). Evaluation of ultra-high-performance fiber-reinforced concrete (No. FHWA/VCTIR 12-R1). Virginia Center for Transportation Innovation
and Research.Effect of different fiber combinations and optimisation of an ultra-high performance concrete (UHPC) mix applicable in structural elements,
Construction and Building Materials,2021,

16
A.S. Kamjou et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 16 (2022) e01066

[24] S. Ahmad, M. Rasul, S.K. Adekunle, S.U. Al-Dulaijan, M. Maslehuddin, S.I. Ali, Mechanical properties of steel fiber-reinforced UHPC mixtures exposed to
elevated temperature: effects of exposure duration and fiber content, Compos. Part B Eng. 168 (2019) 291–301.
[25] M. Abokifa, M.A. Moustafa, Mechanical characterization and material variability effects of emerging non-proprietary UHPC mixes for accelerated bridge
construction field joints, Constr. Build. Mater. 308 (2021), 125064.
[26] E. Denarié, E. Brühwiler, Strain-hardening ultra-high performance fiber reinforced concrete: deformability versus strength optimization, Restor. Build. Monum.
17 (6) (2011) 397–410.
[27] A.R. Khaloo, M. Afshari, Flexural behaviour of small steel fibre reinforced concrete slabs, Cem. Concr. Compos. 27 (1) (2005) 141–149.
[28] F. Dingqiang, R. Yu, L. Kangning, T. Junhui, S. Zhonghe, W. Chunfeng, W. Shuo, G. Zhenfeng, H. Zhengdong, S. Qiqi, Optimized design of steel fibres reinforced
ultra-high performance concrete (UHPC) composites: towards to dense structure and efficient fibre application, Constr. Build. Mater. 273 (2021), 121698.
[29] N. Naeimi, M.A. Moustafa, Compressive behavior and stress–strain relationships of confined and unconfined UHPC, Constr. Build. Mater. 272 (2021), 121844.
[30] B. Graybeal, M. Davis, Cylinder or cube: strength testing of 80 to 200 MPa (11.6 to 29 ksi) ultra-high-performance fiber-reinforced concrete, Acids Mater. J. 105
(6) (2008) 603.
[31] Mindess, S., Young, J.F. (2002). Concrete. Prentice Hall.
[32] V. Vaitkevičius, E. Šerelis, Influence of silica fume on ultrahigh performance concrete, Int. J. Bioeng. Life Sci. 8 (1) (2014) 37–42.
[33] L.G. Li, Z.H. Huang, J. Zhu, A.K.H. Kwan, H.Y. Chen, Synergistic effects of micro-silica and nano-silica on strength and microstructure of mortar, Constr. Build.
Mater. 140 (2017) 229–238.
[34] M. Panjehpour, A.A.A. Ali, R. Demirboga, A review for characterization of silica fume and its effects on concrete properties, Int. J. Sustain. Constr. Eng. Technol.
2 (2) (2011).
[35] M.D. Cohen, J. Olek, W.L. Dolch, Mechanism of plastic shrinkage cracking in portland cement and portland cement-silica fume paste and mortar, Cem. Concr.
Res. 20 (1) (1990) 103–119.
[36] T.C. Holland R. Detwiler P.C. Aïtcin A.J. Hulshizer H.C. Ozyildirim D.O. Arney R.D.Guide for the use of silica fume in concrete. ACI Committee Report:
Farmington Hills, MI, USA, 63.
[37] ASTM C1611 / C1611M, 14, Standard Test Method for Slump Flow of Self-Consolidating Concrete.
[38] ASTM C1231 / C1231M, 14, Standard Practice for the Use of Unbonded Caps in Determination of Compressive Strength of Hardened Concrete Cylinders.
[39] ASTM C-167, Sulfur Based Capping Compound.
[40] M C39 / C39M - 14a, Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens.
[41] ASTM, C. (2010). Standard test method for flexural strength of concrete (using simple beam with third-point loading). In American society for testing and
materials (Vol. 100, pp. 19428–2959).
[42] ASTM. (2005). Standard test methods of conducting strength tests of panels for building construction. E72–05.
[43] W. Meng, K.H. Khayat, Experimental and numerical studies on flexural behavior of ultrahigh-performance concrete panels reinforced with embedded glass fiber-
reinforced polymer grids, Transp. Res. Rec. 2592 (1) (2016) 38–44.
[44] M. Aliasghar-Mamaghani, A. Khaloo, Effective flexural stiffness of beams reinforced with FRP bars in reinforced concrete moment frames, J. Compos. Constr. 25
(1) (2021) 04020083.
[45] D.Y. Yoo, N. Banthia, S.T. Kang, Y.S. Yoon, Effect of fiber orientation on the rate-dependent flexural behavior of ultra-high-performance fiber-reinforced
concrete, Compos. Struct. 157 (2016) 62–70.

17