Engineering Structures 219 (2020) 110722

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Flexural performance of highly reinforced composite beams with ultra-high T

performance fiber reinforced concrete layer
Kaan Turkera, , Ismail Baha Torunb,1
⁎

a
Department of Civil Engineering, Engineering Faculty, Balikesir University, Turkey
b
Armada Bearing System Office, Balikesir, Turkey

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: The study aimed to obtain the composite beams with high flexural capacity by using the high compressive
Ultra-high performance fiber reinforced strength and deformation capacity of Ultra-High Performance Fiber Reinforced Concrete (UHPFRC). For this
concrete purpose, the composite RC beams consisting of UHPFRC layer in the compressive side and Normal Strength
Normal strength concrete Concrete (NSC) in the tensile side were produced and the four-point bending tests were carried out on the beams.
RC composite beam
By making parametric study for the ratio of tensile reinforcements (ranging from 1.8% to 5.0%), highest ratio
Flexural behavior
Experimental study
where sufficient ductility can be acquired in the beams were determined. Two different thicknesses (one-fifth of
the beam height/one-third of the beam height) of UHPFRC layer were applied in the compressive side of the
composite beams in order to determine the appropriate thickness. The flexural behavior characteristics (ducti-
lity, capacity, stiffness) of the composite beams were evaluated by comparing the pure NSC beams (reference
beams) with the same properties. With the use of UHPFRC in the compressive side of the beams, significant
advantages have been acquired in ductility, flexural capacity and stiffness compared to the NSC beams.
However, the main advantage of the composite application was that it allows the use of very high amount of
tensile reinforcement in the beam. The study indicated that it was possible to increase tensile reinforcement ratio
of the composite beams up to 5% without using compressive reinforcement. Thus, the ductile composite beams
with high flexural capacity were produced with the use of economical amount of UHPFRC. The UHPFRC layer
thickness of one-third of the beam height was appropriate for the overall flexural performance at this type of
composite beam.

1. Introduction strength provided by the fibers in UHPFRC increases the flexural

The need of higher strength structural materials still continues be-
cause of the increasing demands for high-rise buildings and large-span
structures. In this context, one of the most prominent structural mate-
rials is Ultra-High Performance Fiber Reinforced Concrete (UHPFRC).
This type of concrete has superior performance in durability, ductility,
compressive and tensile strength compared to Normal Strength
Concrete (NSC) or high strength concrete [1–3]. Therefore, UHPFRC
has a potential to provide more economic, aesthetic and long-life
structures than the conventional concrete. One of the most common
structural use of UHPFRC is RC beams. The deflections and cracks
under service loads are limited by the use of UHPFRC in beams [4–9].
Thus, the durability of the concrete is significantly increased. In many
studies [9–16], it is reported that fibers in UHPFRC have the potential
to reduce or remove the shear reinforcement in the beams. The tensile
strength, especially in the beams with low reinforcement [4–8]. An-
other important advantage of UHPFRC is its high compressive strength
and deformation capacity. In particular, the plastic deformation capa-
city of UHPFRC distinguishes this concrete from the high strength
concrete. The compression behavior of high-strength concrete would
result in a very brittle, dramatic failure. However, UHPFRC exhibits a
ductile fracture behavior thanks to the confinement effect of fibers
[17,18]. This feature of UHPFRC provides large ductility even in beams
with high tensile reinforcement [7,8,19]. Nevertheless, UHPFRC under
tensile stress has the disadvantage of macro crack localization. This
effect can lead to premature rupture of the tensile reinforcement and
the reduced ductility, especially in UHPFRC beams with low re-
inforcement ratios [4,5,7,19–22]. In addition, the fiber debonding/pull-
out behavior in the tensile zone of the beam leads to the abrupt strength
degradation after peak load. These problems decrease in the UHPFRC

⁎
Corresponding author at: Department of Civil Engineering, Engineering Faculty, Balikesir University, Cagis, Altıeylul, Balikesir 10145, Turkey.
E-mail address: kturker@balikesir.edu.tr (K. Turker).
1
Postal address: Eski Kuyumcular District, Atalar Street, Ugur apt./5, Karesi, Balikesir 10010, Turkey.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.110722
Received 25 August 2019; Received in revised form 22 March 2020; Accepted 27 April 2020
Available online 17 June 2020
0141-0296/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
K. Turker and I.B. Torun Engineering Structures 219 (2020) 110722

web reinforcement (φ8) a mounting reinforcement (2φ8)

Section a-a
Reference beams (R)

75 75 75 150 NSC

1500mm a 100

UHPFRC layer (30mm) NSC

Composite beams 1 (C1)
30 UHPFRC

75 75 75 NSC
120

100

UHPFRC layer (50 mm) NSC

Composite beams 2 (C2)
UHPFRC
50
75 75 75 NSC
100

100

Fig. 1. Reinforcement and cross-section details of the test beams.

Table 1
Tensile reinforcement properties and concrete strengths of beams.
Explanation of beam code Beam code Tension reinforcement ρ (%) ρ/ρb fy (MPa) fu (MPa) fc (MPa)

R-1 2ϕ12 1.77 0.35 475 631 50

First term (R, C1, C2) : Beam type C1-1 0.18 137
Second term (1-5) : Beam no C2-1
R-2 2ϕ14 2.42 0.48 481 651 48
R: Reference beam C1-2 0.25 132
C2-2
C1: Composite beam R-3 2ϕ16 3.19 0.63 487 688 52
(with 30 mm UHPFRC layer) C1-3 0.32 134
C2-3
C2: Composite beam R-4 2ϕ18 4.07 0.81 472 683 50
(with 50 mm UHPFRC layer) C1-4 0.41 136
C2-4
R-5 2ϕ20 5.07 1.00 480 661 49
C1-5 0.52 137
C2-5

ρ: reinforcement ratio; ρb: balanced reinforcement ratio; fy: yield strength of reinforcement; fu: ultimate strength of reinforcement, fc: compressive strength of concrete
(test day).

beams with high reinforcement ratios. However, in this case, the con-
tribution of UHPFRC to the beam capacity decreases considerably [7,8].
Therefore, although the use of pure UHPFRC in RC beams offers ad-
vantages in durability, it is not efficient for flexural strength and duc-
tility. In this regard, the composite use of UHPFRC and NSC has the
potential to cope with the above-mentioned deficiencies of the pure
(non-composite) UHPFRC beams and has the potential to provide the
beams with high flexural capacity. Accordingly, very high ratio of
tensile reinforcement can be used in beams by utilizing the certain
thickness of UHPFRC layer in the compressive side of beam. On the
other hand, the brittle behavior caused by the crack localization and
fiber debonding can be prevented by using NSC in the tensile side of
beam. Thus, the high cost of UHPFRC can be used economically and the
high compressive capacity (strength and deformation) of UHPFRC can
be used effectively. Although there were various studies including the
composite use of UHPFRC and NSC in beams, in almost all of them, the
UHPFRC layers were applied to tensile side of beams because of pro-
tection or strengthening [2,23–31]. In these studies, it is generally
stated that UHPFRC and NSC are suitable for the composite use.
However, it has been reported that the additional reinforcement should
be added to the UHPFRC layer in order to make a significant con-
tribution to the beam flexural capacity, except for the use of protection
[2,24,26,28–30]. The above-mentioned ductility problems have been
observed in the applications with UHPFRC layer in the tensile side of
beam [24,26,27,29]. The composite applications with UHPFRC layer in
the compressive side are very limited [26,27,29]. In these applications,
the high strength and deformation capacity of UHPFRC cannot be used
effectively because low reinforcement ratios are used in the beams.
The aim of this study was to obtain the composite beams with high
flexural capacity by using the high compressive strength and de-
formation capacity of UHPFRC. For this purpose, the composite RC
beams consisting of UHPFRC layer in the compressive side and NSC in
the tensile side were produced and the four-point bending tests were
carried out on the beams. By making parametric study for the ratio of
tensile reinforcements, highest reinforcement ratios where sufficient
ductility can be acquired in beams were determined. Two different

2
K. Turker and I.B. Torun Engineering Structures 219 (2020) 110722

Fig. 2. Details of test set-up.

Table 2
UHPFRC composition (kg/m3).
Cement Silica Blast- Superplasticizer Quartz sand
fume furnace
0–0.8 mm 1–3 mm
690 138 276 17.25 525 525
thicknesses of UHPFRC layer were applied in the compressive side of
composite beams in order to determine the appropriate thickness. The
flexural behavior characteristics (ductility, capacity, stiffness) of com-
posite beams were evaluated by comparing the pure NSC beams (re-
ference beams) with the same properties. Thereafter, based on the ex-
perimental results, validity of the conventional flexural design
approach and the common used compressive model for UHPFRC were
evaluated for the composite beams.
2. Experimental program
The four-point bending tests were carried out to investigate flexural
characteristics of the beams. Load-deflection behaviors, failure modes,
deflection/curvature ductilities, flexural (moment) capacities, flexural
stiffness, crack patterns, maximum crack widths and concrete strains
were investigated for the test beams.
2.1. Test specimens
In the experimental program, fifteen beams with five different
tensile reinforcement ratios in the range of 1.77–5.07% were tested.
The test beams have a total length of 1500 mm, a cross section of
100 mm width and 150 mm height. The beams were classified into
three series according to their concrete material as depicted in Fig. 1.
The beams in the first series were produced by conventional Normal
Strength Concrete (NSC) and these were used as reference beams (R) to
compare with the composite beams. In the other two series, the upper
part (compressive side) of the beams was reinforced with an UHPFRC
layer at a certain thickness and the composite beams were created. The
thickness of UHPFRC layer is one-fifth of the beam height in the first
composite beam series (C1) and one-third of the beam height in the
second composite beams series (C2). Thus, the appropriate layer
Steel fiber
thickness was investigated for the beams with different reinforcement
ratios. The reinforcement details of the test beams are given in Fig. 1.
All the beams were mainly reinforced with the longitudinal tensile re-
inforcement and the web (transverse) reinforcement. Since the beam
156
specimen sizes were small, U-shaped stirrups were used to facilitate the
placement of fibrous concrete in the compressive zone. In addition, the
top reinforcements (2ϕ8) were used to mount the web reinforcements.
The web reinforcements were also used in the pure bending zone of the
beam in order to provide the bond between two different concrete
layers (Fig. 1).
The properties of the tensile reinforcements and the concrete com-
pressive strengths are summarized in Table 1. Each series have five
beams with different tensile reinforcement. While the reinforcement
ratio of beam 1 is in the design limits used NSC beams, the conventional
limits (such as 2% in Turkish Design Code [32]) were exceeded in the
other beams in order to obtain highly reinforced beams. Thus, it was
intended to reveal the high compressive strength and deformation ca-
pacity of UHPFRC. Although the reinforcement ratios in the composite
beams were increased up to 5%, they were still very below the balanced
reinforcement ratio (ρb), thanks to the high strength of UHPFRC
(Table 1). On the other hand, the balanced reinforcement ratio was
reached in the reference beam 5.
2.2. Test set-up
The beams were tested according to the test set-up outlined in
Fig. 2. The loading of the beams was carried out to provide about shear
span to effective depth ratio of 4. Two equal concentrated loads were
applied to the beam by a spreader element. A load cell and a po-
tentiometric transducer were placed to obtain load-deflection behavior
of the beam, as depicted in Fig. 2. Also, a curvature assembly consisting
of two potentiometric transducers and steel frames were placed at the
pure bending zone of the beam. A hydraulic servo testing machine with
displacement controlled was used for loading. In order to measure
strains in the concrete, two strain gauges were attached to UHPFRC and
NSC surface in mid of the beam, as shown in Fig. 2. At certain loading
steps, the cracks were marked and maximum crack widths of beams

3
K. Turker and I.B. Torun
C1
C2
Fig. 3. Production of the test beams.
were measured by microscope.
2.3. Production of test beams
The portland cement CEM I 42.5 R, silica fume and ground granu-
lated blast-furnace slag were used for UHPFRC. Two-fractional quartz
sands (0–0.8 mm and 0–3 mm) and polycarboxylate ether based su-
perplasticizer were used in the mixture. The water/binder ratio of the
mixture was 0.18. Straight micro steel fibers with a diameter of
0.16 mm and 13 mm long were used for UHPFRC. The fibers had a
tensile strength of 2500 MPa. 2.0% (by volume) steel fiber was used in
order to obtain high performance in mechanical properties as well as
workability in concrete [33–36]. The mixture components of UHPFRC
are presented in Table 2. For NSC, the conventional concrete compo-
nents were used and a mixture having 40–50 MPa compressive strength
was prepared.
A pan mixer with 125-liter capacity was used for mixing of UHPFRC
(Fig. 3). The cement, silica fume, ground granulated blast-furnace slag
and quartz sands were mixed for about 3 min. Water and super-
plasticizer were added into the mixture and mixed for another 3 min.
Finally, the fibers were added and mixed for another 3 min. Casting of
the composite beams carried out in two stages. In the first stage, NSC
parts of the beams were casted and UHPFRC layers of the beams were
casted after waiting for about one hour (Fig. 3). After casting, the beams
were cured by covering with a plastic sheet on the first day and then
cured at room temperature until the test day. Additionally, 3 cube
specimens were prepared for the compressive strength of UHPFRC
(100 × 100 × 100mm) and NSC (150 × 150 × 150mm).
4
Engineering Structures 219 (2020) 110722
2.4. Test results and discussion
2.4.1. Load deflection behaviors and failure modes of beams
The test beams were loaded to failure and their load–deflection
behaviors were obtained (Fig. 4). Since the tensile reinforcement ratios
of the NSC (reference) beams except the R-5 beam are under-reinforced,
the tension-controlled failure mode was observed in these beams, as
expected. Therefore, the failure of these beams was due to crushing of
the concrete at the constant moment zone after yielding of the tensile
reinforcement. Since the R-5 beam has the balanced reinforcement, the
concrete crushing occurred before yielding of the tension reinforce-
ment. Therefore, the R-5 beam failed in more brittle manner than the
other NSC beams. On the other hand, the failure of the composite beams
resulted in crushing of the concrete after considerable deflection com-
pared to the NSC beams. Consequently, all of the composite beams
exhibited more ductile load-deflection behavior than the NSC beams.
While the softening or slight hardening behavior was observed in the
NSC beams after yielding, the strong hardening behavior was observed
in the composite beams (Fig. 4). The UHPFRC layer of composite beams
prominently increased the load-carrying capacity and the deflection of
failure compared to the NSC beams (Fig. 4). While the concrete
crushing occurred over a wide zone between the loading points for the
NSC beams, the localized concrete crushing was observed in the com-
posite beams. There was no separation between the two concrete layers
in the composite beams due to shear stresses. The cracking patterns and
the crack widths were generally similar for the composite and the NSC
beams. The cracking patterns and the measured maximum crack widths
at the deflection values of L/70 (the L refers to the beam span) are
shown in Fig. 5 for the beam series 1 and 5. The flexural and shear
K. Turker and I.B. Torun Engineering Structures 219 (2020) 110722

Fig. 4. Experimental load-deflection relationships and failure patterns of the beams.

5
K. Turker and I.B. Torun Engineering Structures 219 (2020) 110722

R-1 Max. crack with=2.5mm R-5 Max. crack with=0.6mm

C1-1 Max. crack with=1.1mm C1-5 Max. crack with=1.2mm

C2-1 Max. crack with=1.2mm C2-5 Max. crack with=0.6mm

Fig. 5. The cracking patterns and the measured maximum crack widths for the beam series 1 and 5.

Fig. 6. (a) Schematic representation of load-deflection characteristics, (b) Idealization for C1-2 beam.

Table 3 cracks in the composite beams were limited in the NSC zone and no
Characteristic values of load–deflection behavior and deflection ductilities. visible cracks occurred in the UHPFRC layer (Figs. 4 and 5). The more
Beam code Py (kN) Δy (mm) Pmax (kN) Pu (kN) Δu (mm) Def. ductility
detailed information regarding the cracking pattern and the crack
Δu/Δy widths of the beams can be found in Torun, 2019 [37].

R-1 44.7 9.4 48.8 39.0 88.8 9.5

C1-1 51.3 10.3 65.3 52.3 102.2 9.9
2.4.2. Deflection ductility
C2-1 51.3 9.6 65.9 52.7 135.0 14.0 The deflection ductilities of the composite and NSC beams were
R-2 64.8 9.3 69.4 55.5 48.9 5.3 compared to indicate the effect of UHPFRC layers and their thicknesses.
C1-2 66.6 10.0 78.1 62.5 77.9 7.8 For this purpose, peak load (Pmax), yield load (Py), ultimate load (Pu),
C2-2 72.3 11.2 84.9 67.9 86.1 7.7
yield deflection (Δy) and ultimate deflection (Δu) values were obtained
R-3 80.9 9.5 85.6 68.5 41.0 4.3
C1-3 91.0 11.4 99.5 79.6 52.7 4.6 by using the experimental load–deflection curves of beams. An ideali-
C2-3 91.6 11.5 99.0 79.2 83.6 7.3 zation based on the ideal elasto-plastic behavior and the reduced
R-4 91.9 12.3 98.4 78.7 24.4 2.0 stiffness was used for load-deflection characteristics [38]. The sche-
C1-4 107.5 12.1 115.9 92.7 28.2 2.3 matic representation of characteristic points and an example of the
C2-4 111.8 12.0 124.3 99.4 43.5 3.6
R-5 108.3 12.4 110.6 88.5 16.4 1.3
idealization were depicted in Fig. 6. The different assumptions can be
C1-5 128.0 12.2 137.5 110.0 33.2 2.7 used for determination of the ultimate deflection such as compressive
C2-5 121.4 14.8 133.0 106.4 53.9 3.6 strain limiting, fracture/buckling of reinforcement, peak load or a
certain load-decrement after the peak load [38]. Although the load
decrements after the peak load were observed in the composite beams,
a significant portion of the bearing capacity could be maintained thanks
to the high compressive strain capacity of UHPFRC. Therefore, in this
study, the load decrement of 20%, which is commonly assumed in the
experimental RC beam studies [5,39,40], was used to define the ulti-
mate deflection. The obtained deflection ductilities and the related
characteristic values are given in Table 3.
The ductilities of composite beams were proportioned to those of
the NSC beams in order to reveal effect of the UHPFRC layer (Fig. 7).
The use of UHPFRC layer in the compressive side of beams provided an
increase in the deflection ductility (Fig. 7). The ductility increment was
more in the beams with high reinforcement ratio. The UHPFRC layer of
50 mm generally showed better performance than the UHPFRC layer of
30 mm for the deflection ductility.

2.4.3. Curvature ductility, effective flexural stiffness and flexural capacity

Fig. 7. Effect of UHPFRC layer on the deflection ductility.
The moment–curvature relationships were obtained during the test
by using the measurements at the pure bending zone of the beams
(Figs. 8 and 9). The curvature ductility and the flexural stiffness of

6
K. Turker and I.B. Torun
Measurement length
(300 mm)
P/2
Beam
tensile reinforcement
Shortening of
top fiber
Elongation of
bottom fiber
Fig. 8. Determination of curvature by using top and bottom deformation measurements at the test beams.
beams were determined by means of the experimental mo-
ment–curvature curves. Peak moment (Mmax), yield moment (My), ul-
timate moment (Mu), yield curvature (ϕy) and ultimate curvature (ϕu)
of the beams were obtained by the same procedure [38] used in the
deflection ductility (Fig. 5a). In the idealized moment-curvature re-
lationship, the ratio of the peak moment (Mmax) to the yield curvature
(ϕy) was accepted as the effective flexural stiffness (EIe) of beams. The
obtained curvature ductilities and the flexural stiffnesses are given in
Table 4.
The proportional (composite value/reference value) values of duc-
tility, stiffness and flexural capacity are given in Fig. 10a, b and c, re-
spectively. The use of UHPFRC layer in the compressive side of the
beams provided an increase in the curvature ductility in general. The
ductility of the composite beams with 50 mm layer increased by
1.64–5.30 times compared to the NSC beams. The ductilities of 30 mm
layered beams were lower than those of the other composite beams,
since the concrete crushing leaded to more strength degradation in
these beams. Therefore, the UHPFRC layer of 50 mm generally showed
better performance for the curvature ductility. Especially in the highly
reinforced R-4 and R-5 beams, the curvature ductility decreased to 3.8
and 2.3 and these ductility ratios were acquired with completely soft-
ening behavior (Fig. 9). The ductility of the UHPFRC beams was largely
acquired with hardening behavior (Fig. 9). The use of UHPFRC layer in
the compressive side of beam also increased the flexural stiffness due to
high modulus of elasticity of UHPFRC (Fig. 10b). The average stiffness
increment was 40% for the layer of 30 mm and 67% for the layer of
50 mm, respectively. With the use of UHPFRC layer, the flexural ca-
pacities increased by average of 22% compared to the NSC beams. A
similar increment trend was observed for all the composite beams. The
change of UHPFRC layer thickness did not have a significant effect on
the capacities of beams (Fig. 10c). The main advantage of the composite
beams compared to the NSC beams was that the flexural capacity could
be greatly increased by using the high ratio of tensile reinforcement (up
to 5%) in the same cross section.
2.4.4. Strain response of test beams
The strain responses of concrete and tensile reinforcements in the
beams are required for the flexural design and the ductility control of
members. Therefore, the concrete and tensile reinforcement strains
were determined at the mid zone of beams subjected to pure bending.
While the concrete strains were determined by the strain gauge mea-
surements on the outermost concrete compression fibers, the tensile
reinforcement strains were determined by the curvature assembly
placed on the mid zone of beams (Fig. 2). Thus, the average strain of
reinforcement was determined for the pure bending zone of 300 mm
7
Engineering Structures 219 (2020) 110722
P/2
Compression deformation
Curvature (φ)
Tensile deformation
(Fig. 8). The maximum concrete compressive strains at the peak loads
ranged between 0.0022 and 0.0035 for the composite beams (Fig. 11).
Accordingly, it is concluded that the average concrete strain of 0.003
can be accepted at the peak load for the UHPFRC layer of composite
beams. While the compressive zone depth at the peak load was much
smaller than the UHPFRC layer thickness in the beams C1-1, C1-2, C2-1,
C2-2, C2-3 and C2-4, the compressive zone depth in the beams C1-3,
C1-4, C1-5 and C2-5 slightly exceeded the UHPFRC layer thickness
(Fig. 11). This indicated that the UHPFRC layer thickness of 30 mm was
sufficient to balance the existing tensile reinforcement in the composite
beam series 1, 2 and 3. However, the thickness of 50 mm was required
for the composite beam series 4 and 5 due to high reinforcement ratios.
When the peak load was reached, the average reinforcement strains
ranged between 0.0070 and 0.0197 for the composite beams and
ranged between 0.0014 and 0.0070 for the NSC beams (Fig. 12). The
reinforcement strains of the composite beam series 1 and 2 entered into
the strain hardening zone. In contrast, the tensile strains in the NSC
beams were on the yield plateau of the stress-strain curve, and even the
yield strain was not reached in the reference beam 5 (R-5). These results
confirmed that the composite beams exhibited more ductile behavior
compared to the NSC beams. In addition, while the ductility in the NSC
beams was mainly acquired by concrete crushing, the ductility of
composite beams was provided by the elongation of tensile reinforce-
ment.
The strain-based approach is used in ACI 318 standard [41] to en-
sure the tension-controlled ductile failure for flexural members. In this
approach, the net tensile strain in the tension steel is to be at least 0.005
when the concrete compressive strain of 0.003 is reached. ACI 318
remarks that unless unusual amounts of ductility are required, the
0.005 limit will provide ductile behavior for most designs [41]. With
this approach, the effects of compression reinforcement or different
section shapes are also automatically accounted for in design. The
composite beams were evaluated according to this approach and ade-
quacy of the beam ductilities was checked. Considering that the con-
crete strain of 0.003 occurred approximately at the peak load for all the
beams, the reinforcement tensile strains given in Fig. 12 were used for
ductility control. Accordingly, while the sufficient ductility was not
acquired in the NSC beams 4, 5 and 6, the ductility requirement of ACI
318 was easily acquired in all the composite beams.
3. Numerical prediction of flexural capacity of beams
The flexural design of the pure (non-composite) UHPFRC beams or
the NSC beams with UHPFRC layer in the tensile side requires the new
numerical approaches due to the macro crack localization effect and the
K. Turker and I.B. Torun Engineering Structures 219 (2020) 110722

35 35
ρ=0.0177 ρ=0.0242
30 30
R-1 R-2
C1-1 C1-2
25 25
C2-1 C2-2 C2-2
C1-2
20 20

Moment (kNm)
Moment (kNm)

C2-1 C1-1
15 15

10 10 R-2
R-1
5 5

0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Curvature (1/m) Curvature (1/m)

35 35
ρ=0.0319 ρ=0.0407
30 R-3 30
R-4
C2-3 C1-3 C2-1 C1-4
25 25
C2-3 C2-4
20 Moment (kNm) 20 C1-1
Moment (kNm)

C1-3
15 R-3 15 30

20
10 10
R-1
10
5 5
0
0 0.1 0.2
0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Curvature (1/m) Curvature (1/m)

35
ρ=0.057
30 C2-1 R-5
C1-5
25
C2-5
C1-1
20
Moment (kNm)

30
15
R-1 20
10
10

5
0
0 0.1 0.2
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Curvature (1/m)
Fig. 9. Experimental moment-curvature relationships of the beams.

tensile strength of UHPFRC [36,42,43]. However, in the composite
beams examined in the study, only the upper (compressive) side has an
UHPFRC layer and the other part of section consists of NSC. Therefore,
the compressive stresses are almost resisted by the UHPFRC layer and
the tensile stresses are only resisted by the tensile reinforcement, as in
the conventional RC member design. Based on this, the validity of the
conventional design principles to determine flexural capacity [32,41]
was evaluated for the composite beams with UHPFRC layer. In this
regard, it was assumed that the compression zone of the beams was
completely consisted of UHPFRC and the equivalent rectangular con-
crete stress block approach was used in the compressive sides (UHPFRC
layer) of the composite beams (Fig. 13). In addition to the conventional
approach, the triangular stress block approach, which was more com-
patible with the stress-strain response of UHPFRC, was also evaluated
for the composite beams. This approach was used to model the com-
pression side of the pure UHPFRC beams in the some flexural design
procedures [44–46]. The concrete compressive strain at ultimate limit
state was taken as 0.003 in accordance with the experimental strains in

8
K. Turker and I.B. Torun Engineering Structures 219 (2020) 110722

Table 4
Characteristic values for moment-curvature behavior of the beams.
Beam Code My (kNm) ϕy (1/m) Mmax (kNm) Mu (kNm) ϕu (1/m) Curv. ductility ϕu/ϕy EIe = Mmax/ϕy (kNm2)

R-1 11.2 0.0407 12.2 9.8 0.8300 20.4 300

C1-1 12.7 0.0361 16.3 13.1 0.5016 13.9 452
C2-1 12.78 0.0267 16.5 13.2 0.9100 34.1 617
R-2 16.16 0.0397 17.4 13.9 0.1977 5.0 437
C1-2 16.74 0.0359 19.5 15.6 0.6874 19.1 544
C2-2 17.9 0.0321 21.2 17.0 0.6102 19.0 661
R-3 20.48 0.0373 21.4 17.1 0.3859 10.3 574
C1-3 22.72 0.0332 24.9 19.9 0.3783 11.4 749
C2-3 22.33 0.0305 24.7 19.8 0.6945 22.8 811
R-4 22.21 0.0464 24.6 19.7 0.1779 3.8 530
C1-4 26.23 0.0378 29.0 23.2 0.1451 3.8 767
C2-4 27.65 0.0373 31.1 24.9 0.3215 8.6 833
R-5 25.89 0.0469 27.7 22.1 0.1096 2.3 590
C1-5 31.34 0.0377 34.4 27.5 0.2726 7.2 912
C2-5 30.79 0.0302 33.3 26.6 0.3678 12.2 1101

Fig. 10. Effect of UHPFRC layer; (a) on curvature ductilities, (b) on stiffness, (c) on flexural capacities.

Fig. 11. Concrete strain response of the composite beams: (a) C1 beams (b) C2 beams.

9
K. Turker and I.B. Torun
Fig. 12. Average reinforcement strains of the beams at peak loads.
both approaches (Fig. 13). The effect of steel strain hardening, which
was significant especially in the beams with low reinforcement ratio,
was taken into consideration in the calculations in order to conform
with the experimental results.
In the Fig. 13; εcu is concrete compressive strain in extreme com-
pression fiber; εs is tensile or compression strain in top steel; εt is tensile
strain in tension steel; c is distance from extreme compression fiber to
neutral axis; σc is concrete compressive stress; β1 is factor relating depth
of equivalent rectangular compressive stress block to neutral axis depth.
β1 was taken as 0.70 for NSC and 0.65 for UHPFRC [41,47]. The nu-
merical capacities (Mn), the related parameters (c, εt) and ratios of the
experimental capacities (Me) to the numerical capacities are given
Table 5. The results are also compared graphically in the Fig. 14.
The numerical results were obtained slightly lower than the ex-
perimental results in both numerical approaches (Fig. 14). The max-
imum difference of 8% for the rectangular block approach and 14% for
the triangular block approach occurred between the experimental and
numerical results of the composite beams. The numerical results (the
flexural capacities and the tensile strains) based on the rectangular
block approach were generally more consistent with the experimental
results. The consistency of this approach with the experimental results
has been at the level of those of the NSC beams. Accordingly, it is
concluded that the conventional design approach can be used for the
flexural capacity of composite beams examined in the study. The
compressive zone depth (c) in the composite beam series 3,4 and 5
exceeded the minimum layer thickness of 30 mm in both numerical
approaches (Table 5). In parallel with the experimental results
(Fig. 11a), this indicated that the UHPFRC layer of C1 beam series was
insufficient for the tensile reinforcement ratios of 3.19% and higher
ratios (for C1-3, C1-4 and C1-5 beams).
4. Conclusions
The flexural behaviors of highly reinforced composite beams with
C1 C2 εcu= 0.003
UHPFRC UHPFRC
εs
NSC
NSC
εt
Cross sections Strain
Fig. 13. Strain and stress assumptions used in the numerical calculations.
Engineering Structures 219 (2020) 110722
UHPFRC layer in the compressive side were experimentally in-
vestigated in the study. By exceeding the conventional design limits of
tensile reinforcement ratio, it was aimed to obtain beams with high
flexural capacity and ductility, thanks to the compressive strength and
deformation capacity of UHPFRC. For this, four-point bending tests
were carried out on the composite RC beams and the flexural behavior
characteristics (ductility, capacity, stiffness, strain response) of the
beams were investigated.
• With the use of UHPFRC in the compressive side of the beams,
significant advantages have been acquired in ductility, flexural ca-
pacity and stiffness compared to the NSC beams. However, the main
advantage of the composite application was that it allows the use of
very high amount of tensile reinforcement in the beam. The study
indicated that it was possible to increase tensile reinforcement ratio
up to 5% without using compressive reinforcement. Thus, the beams
with high flexural capacity and sufficient ductility could be pro-
duced. In addition, it can be stated that much higher flexural ca-
pacities can be acquired by using compressive reinforcement along
with UHPFRC layer. With the use of an UHPFRC layer in the com-
pressive side, ductile concrete behavior, which can be acquired with
the compression and confinement reinforcement in the conventional
NSC beams, have been observed in the composite beams. This in-
dicates the potential of using UHPFRC layer in place of compression
and/or confinement reinforcement. The cracking patterns and the
crack widths of the composite beams were obtained similar to those
of the NSC beams. Thus, the macro crack localization and premature
reinforcement rapture encountered at the pure UHPFRC beams or
the composite beams with UHPFRC layer in the tensile side were
prevented by this type of composite application.
• In the composite beams, the bond between NSC and UHPFRC layer
was resisted by the web reinforcement and the friction between the
concrete surfaces. In this way, the plane section assumption was
provided without any separation up to failure load in all composite
beams. This indicates that the transverse reinforcement already re-
quired for shear force is also sufficient to provide the bond in the
composite beams. Two different thicknesses of UHPFRC layer (one-
fifth of the beam height/one-third of the beams height) were applied
to the compressive sides of the beams. While the UHPFRC layer
thickness did not have a significant effect on the flexural capacity
and crack behavior, the 50 mm thickness yielded better performance
for the flexural stiffness and particularly for the ductility.
Accordingly, it may be stated that a thickness of one-third of the
beam height is required for overall flexural performance at this type
of composite beam, especially for high reinforcement ratios.
• Since the compressive strength of UHPFRC is only efficient in the
composite beam application, the flexural capacity can be de-
termined by the conventional design approach without the need for
complex approaches involving the tensile strength of UHPFRC.
As a result, it can be stated that the compressive strength and de-
formation capacity of UHPFRC has a potential to enable very
Rectangular stress-block Triangular stress-block
approach approach
0.85fc fc σc
fc β1c
c
fc
εc
εcu= 0.003
Stress Stress
Assumed stress-strain
relationship of UHPFRC
10
K. Turker and I.B. Torun Engineering Structures 219 (2020) 110722

Table 5
The numerical results and the experimental capacities.
Beam code Rectangular stress block Me/Mn Triangular stress block Me/Mn

c (cm) εt Mn (kNm) c (cm) εt Mn (kNm)

R-1 3.44 0.0082 12.00 1.02 – – – –

C1-1 2.12 0.0151 15.45 1.06 2.32 0.0136 15.13 1.08
C2-1 1.07 1.09
R-2 5.14 0.0044 16.05 1.08 – – – –
C1-2 2.65 0.0114 19.70 0.99 2.91 0.0101 19.34 1.01
C2-2 1.08 1.10
R-3 6.18 0.0031 20.26 1.06 – – – –
C1-3 3.10 0.0092 24.01 1.04 3.32 0.0084 23.46 1.06
C2-3 1.03 1.05
R-4 7.90 0.0017 23.34 1.05 – – – –
C1-4 3.60 0.0074 28.67 1.01 3.78 0.0069 27.18 1.07
C2-4 1.08 1.14
R-5 10.10 0.0007 26.53 1.04 – – – –
C1-5 4.07 0.0061 32.61 1.05 4.39 0.0055 31.75 1.08
C2-5 1.02 1.05

40 40
C1 C2
UHPFRC UHPFRC

NSC NSC
30 30
Me (kNm)
Me (kNm)

20 20

Rectangular stress block Rectangular stress block

Triangular stress block Triangular stress block
10 10
10 20 30 40 10 20 30 40
Mn (kNm) Mn (kNm)
40

NSC
30
Me (kNm)

20

Rectangular stress block

10
10 20 30 40
Mn (kNm)

Fig. 14. Comparison of the numerical and experimental flexural capacities of the test beams.

11
K. Turker and I.B. Torun
economical and ductile beam members. However, it is noted that si-
milar experimental studies should be carried out for parameters such as
beam dimensions, cross section types, reinforcement details, UHPFRC
layer thickness/content in order to generalize the findings of the study.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
References
[1] Naaman AE, Reinhardt HW. Proposed classification of HPFRC composites based on
their tensile response. Mater and Struct 2006;39:547–55.
[2] Habel K, Viviani M, Denarié E, Brühwiler E. Development of the mechanical
properties of an ultra-high performance fiber reinforced concrete (UHPFRC). Cem
Concr Res 2006;36(7):1362–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2006.03.
009.
[3] Yoo DY, Lee JH, Yoon YS. Effect of fiber content on mechanical and fracture
properties of ultra high performance fiber reinforced cementitious composites.
Compos Struct 2013;106:742–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2013.07.
033.
[4] Yoo DY, Yoon YS. Structural performance of ultra-high-performance concrete beams
with different steel fibers. Eng Struct 2015;102:409–23.
[5] Yoo DY, Banthia N, Yoon YS. Flexural behavior of ultra-high-performance fiber-
reinforced concrete beams reinforced with GFRP and steel rebars. Eng Struct
2016;111:246–62.
[6] Turker K, Birol T, Yavas A, Hasgul U. Effective steel fiber type investigation on ultra
high performance fiber reinforced concrete beams. Afyon Kocatepe Univ J Sci Eng
2016;16(3):776–85. https://doi.org/10.5578/fmbd.39342. [in Turkish].
[7] Hasgül U, Turker K, Birol T, Yavas A. Flexural behavior of ultra-high-performance
fiber reinforced concrete beams with low and high reinforcement ratios. Struc Conc
2018;19(6):1577–90. https://doi.org/10.1002/suco.201700089.
[8] Turker K, Yavas A, Hasgul U, Birol T, Yazici H. Flexural behavior of beams with
ultra high performance fiber reinforced concrete. Teknik Dergi
2019;30(1):8777–801. https://doi.org/10.18400/tekderg.287116. [in Turkish].
[9] Kodur V, Solhmirzaei R, Agrawal A, Aziz EM, Soroushian P. Analysis of flexural and
shear resistance of ultra high performance fiber reinforced concrete beams without
stirrups. Eng Struct 2018;174:873–84.
[10] Voo YL, Poon WK, Foster SJ. Shear strength of steel fiber-reinforced ultrahigh
performance concrete beams without stirrups. J Struc Eng 2010;136:1393–400.
[11] Yang IH, Joh C, Kim BS. Shear behaviour of ultra-high performance fibre-reinforced
concrete beams without stirrups. Mag of Conc Res 2012;64(11):979–93.
[12] Baby F, Marchand P, Toutlemonde F. Shear behavior of ultrahigh performance
fiber-reinforced concrete beams. I: Experimental investigation. J Struct Eng
2014;140(5). 04013111 1–10.
[13] Zagon R, Matthys S, Kiss Z. Shear behaviour of SFR-UHPC I-shaped beams. Constr
Build Mater 2016;124:258–68.
[14] Lim YW, Hong SG. Shear tests for UHPFRC beams with shear reinforcement. Int J
Conc Struct Mater 2016;10(2):177–88.
[15] Mészöly T, Randl N. Shear behavior of fiber-reinforced ultra-high performance
concrete beams. Eng Struct 2018;168:119–27.
[16] Yavas A, Hasgul U, Turker K, Birol T. Effective fiber type investigation on the shear
behavior of ultra-high performance fiber-reinforced concrete beams. Advan in
Struct Eng 2019. https://doi.org/10.1177/1369433218820788.
[17] Liew J, Richard Y, Xiong DX. Ultra-high strength concrete filled composite columns
for multi-storey building construction. Adv Struct Eng 2012;15(9):1487–503.
https://doi.org/10.1260/1369-4332.15.9.1487.
[18] Graybeal B. Material property characterization of ultra-high performance concrete”,
FHWA-HRT-06-103, McLean, Va, USA; 2006.
[19] Chen S, Zhang R, Jia LJ, Wang JY. Flexural behaviour of rebar-reinforced ultra-
high-performance concrete beams. Mag Conc Res 2018;70(19):997–1015.
[20] Dancygier AN, Berkover E. Cracking localization and reduced ductility in fiber-re-
inforced concrete beams with low reinforcement ratios. Eng Struct
2016;111:411–24.
12
Engineering Structures 219 (2020) 110722
[21] Deluce JR. Vecchio FJ Cracking behavior of steel fiber-reinforced concrete members
containing conventional reinforcement. ACI Struct J 2013;110(3):481–90.
[22] Dancygier AN, Savir Z. Flexural behavior of HSFRC with low reinforcement ratios.
Eng Struct 2006;28:1503–12.
[23] Alaee FJ, Karihaloo BL. Retrofitting of reinforced concrete beams with CARDIFRC. J
Compos Construct 2003;3:174–86.
[24] Noshiravani T, Bruhwiler E. Experimental investigation on reinforced ultra-high-
performance fiber-reinforced concrete composite beams subjected to combined
bending and shear. ACI Struct J 2013;110(2):251–62.
[25] Hussein L, Amleh L. Structural behavior of ultra-high performance fiber reinforced
concrete-normal strength concrete or high strength concrete composite members.
Constr Build Mater 2015;93:1105–16.
[26] Safdar M, Matsumoto T, Kakuma K. Flexural behavior of reinforced concrete beams
repaired with ultra-high performance fiber reinforced concrete (UHPFRC). Compos
Struct 2016;157:448–60.
[27] Lampropoulos AP, Paschalis SA, Tsioulou O, Dritsos SE. Strengthening of reinforced
concrete beams using ultra high performance fibre reinforced concrete (UHPFRC).
Eng Struct 2016;106:370–84.
[28] Al-Osta MA, Isa MN, Baluch MH, Rahman MK. Flexural behavior of reinforced
concrete beams strengthened with ultra-high performance fiber reinforced concrete.
Constr Build Mater 2017;134:279–96.
[29] Tanarslan HM. Flexural strengthening of RC beams with prefabricated ultra high
performance fibre reinforced concrete laminates. Eng Struct 2017;151:337–48.
[30] Tanarslan HM, Alver N, Jahangiri R, Yalçınkaya Ç, Yazıcı H. Flexural strengthening
of RC beams using UHPFRC laminates: bonding techniques and rebar addition.
Constr Build Mater 2017;155:45–55.
[31] Paschalis SA, Lampropoulos AP, Tsioulou O. Experimental and numerical study of
the performance of ultra high performance fiber reinforced concrete for the flexural
strengthening of full scale reinforced concrete members. Constr Build Mater
2018;186:351–66.
[32] TS 500. Requirements for design and construction of reinforced concrete structures.
Ankara Turkish Standards Institution; 2000 [in Turkish].
[33] Richard P, Cheyrezy M. Composition of reactive powder concretes. Cem Concr Res
1995;25(7):1501–11.
[34] Barnett SJ, Millard SG, Soutsos MN, Schleyer G, Tyas A, Le TT. Ultra high perfor-
mance fibre reinforced concrete for explosion resistant structures. In: International
conference entitled concrete platform, Belfast; 2007. p. 565–75.
[35] Graybeal BA. Flexural behavior of an ultra high-performance concrete I-girder. J
Bridge Eng 2008;13(6):602–10.
[36] AFGC, Interim recommendations ultra high performance fibre reinforced concretes,
France; 2013.
[37] Torun IB, Experimental investigation of flexural behavior of composite reinforced
concrete beams with conventional concrete and ultra-high performance fiber re-
inforced concrete. M.Sc. Dissertation. Institute of Science, Balikesir University,
Turkey; 2019 [in Turkish].
[38] Park R. Evaluation of ductility of structures and structural assemblages from la-
boratory testing. Bullet New Zealand Natl Soc Earthquake Eng 1989;22(3):155–66.
[39] Hadi MNS, Elbasha N. Effects of tensile reinforcement ratio and compressive
strength on the behaviour of over-reinforced helically confined HSC beams. Constr
Build Mater 2007;21:269–76.
[40] Jang Y, Park HG, Kim SS, Kim JH, Kim YG. On the ductility of high-strength con-
crete beams. Int J Concr Struct Mater. 2008;2(2):115–22.
[41] ACI Committee 318. Building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI 318-
19) and commentary. Farmington Hills, MI: American Concrete Institute; 2019.
[42] JSCE. Recommendations for design and construction of high performance fiber
reinforced cement composites with multiple fine cracks. Concrete engineering series
82. Japan Society of Civil Engineers; 2008.
[43] Gowripalan N, Gilbert I. Design guidelines for ductal prestressed concrete beams.
VSL Australia; 2000.
[44] Wang QJ, Ma ZJ. Flexural response of high-strength steel-ultra-high performance
fiber reinforced concrete beams based on a mesoscale constitutive model: experi-
ment and theory. Struct. Conc 2018;19(3):719–34.
[45] Chen SH, Zhang R, Jia LJ, Wang JY. Flexural behaviour of rebar-reinforced ultra-
high- performance concrete beams. Mag Conc Res 2018;70(19):1–54.
[46] Liu C, Zhang Y, Yao Y, Huang Y. Calculation method for flexural capacity of high
strain-hardening ultra-high performance concrete T beams. Struc Conc
2019;20:405–19.
[47] Ozbakkaloglu T, Saatcioglu M. Rectangular stress block for high-strength concrete.
ACI Struct J 2004;101(4):475–83.