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

net/publication/358242651

Flexural Behavior and Design of Ultrahigh-Performance Concrete Beams

Article in Journal of Structural Engineering · April 2022

DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0003246

CITATIONS READS
13 708

2 authors:

Rafic El Helou Benjamin Allen Graybeal

National Research Council Associate at FHWA Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Ce… U.S. Department of Transportation
17 PUBLICATIONS 129 CITATIONS 153 PUBLICATIONS 5,626 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Dimensional Stability and Bond Performance of Grouted Connections View project

UHPC Material Characterization View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Benjamin Allen Graybeal on 31 January 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Flexural Behavior and Design of
Ultrahigh-Performance Concrete Beams
Rafic G. El-Helou, Ph.D., M.ASCE 1; and Benjamin A. Graybeal, Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE 2

Abstract: Beams made of ultrahigh-performance concrete (UHPC), a fiber-reinforced concrete with high compressive strength and tensile
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Federal Highway Administration on 01/31/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

strain-hardening characteristics, exhibit flexural behaviors that are different than those traditionally associated with steel-reinforced conven-
tional concrete beams. These behaviors necessitate the development of new predictive design tools that reflect the effect of the material-level
properties on the flexural behavior. The research presented in this paper assessed the flexural behavior of UHPC beams through the
displacement-controlled testing of a prestressed UHPC bridge girder to failure. The girder was 18.90 m (62 ft) long and contained a total
of 26 17.8-mm- (0.7-in.)-diameter steel strands and no mild steel reinforcement. The testing focused on capturing the intermediate and final
behaviors, including first cracking, yielding of strands, moment capacity at the development of a single dominant crack, and rupture of
strands. Building on observations from this study and prior research by the authors and others, a flexural design framework, founded
on the concepts of equilibrium and strain compatibility, is proposed for beams made with UHPC and reinforced with conventional steel
reinforcing bars, prestressing strands, or both. The proposed framework includes considerations to avoid the local straining and subsequent
hinging of UHPC beams and to address the ductility of flexural members. The framework is verified by comparing the experimental results of
flexural tests performed by the authors and others to the analytical predictions, which predominantly relied on input material parameters
obtained from independent material tests. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0003246. This work is made available under the terms of
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Author keywords: Ultrahigh-performance concrete; Ultrahigh-performance concrete (UHPC) beam; Flexural design model; Prestressed
girders; Strain-hardening fiber-reinforced concrete.

Introduction
Ultrahigh-performance concrete (UHPC) is an emerging class of
cementitious composites, commonly proportioned using particle
packing theory and reinforced with discontinuous steel fibers, that
offers superior mechanical and durability characteristics compared
to conventional and other fiber-reinforced concretes (De Larrard
and Sedran 2002; Graybeal 2006a; Habel et al. 2006; Lepech and
Li 2009; Bencardino et al. 2010; Magureanu et al. 2012; Wille and
Naaman 2013; El-Helou 2016). A typical UHPC-class material
exhibits a compressive strength exceeding 124 MPa (18.0 ksi)
and a ductile strain-hardening tensile behavior with a cracking
strength above 5.0 MPa (0.73 ksi), sustained to a postcracking ten-
sile strain greater than 0.0025 (Russel and Graybeal 2013; Haber
et al. 2018; El-Helou et al. 2022). When used in beams, UHPC can
offer substantial tensile resistance, reducing the beam’s cross-
sectional dimensions, the weight of the superstructure, and the need
for traditional steel reinforcement or prestressing strands as com-
pared to conventional concrete (Graybeal 2006b; El-Helou and
Graybeal 2019). These features can lower costs by reducing
1
Research Structural Engineer, Genex Systems/Turner-Fairbank High-
way Research Center, 6300 Georgetown Pike, McLean, VA 22101 (corre-
sponding author). ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0061-9439. Email:
rafic.elhelou.ctr@dot.gov
2
Team Leader, Bridge Engineering Research, FHWA Turner-Fairbank
Highway Research Center, McLean, VA 22101. ORCID: https://orcid.org
/0000-0002-3694-1369. Email: benjamin.graybeal@dot.gov
Note. This manuscript was submitted on April 13, 2021; approved on
September 21, 2021; published online on January 28, 2022. Discussion
period open until June 28, 2022; separate discussions must be submitted
for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural En-
gineering, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445.
material volumes, load demands, girder depth, labor and construc-
tion time, equipment needs, and shipping and handling needs,
along with the potential elimination of girder lines or intermediate
piers. However, the use of UHPC in primary structural components
in the United States has been generally limited due to its increased
initial cost and the lack of formal design guidelines that allow for
incorporating UHPC’s tensile ductility in design.
Flexural design of concrete members in the United States is
founded on mechanical models and sectional design methods speci-
fied in the AASHTO Load and Resistance Factor (LRFD) Bridge
Design Specifications, henceforth referred to as AASHTO LRFD
BDS (AASHTO 2020), and the American Concrete Institute (ACI)
318-19 Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete, hence-
forth referred to as ACI 318-19 (ACI 2019). In these documents, the
minimal tensile resistance of concrete is ignored, the discrete longi-
tudinal steel reinforcements must be added and proportioned to carry
all tensile stresses, and flexural failure is defined at concrete crushing
when the compression strain in the concrete reaches 0.003. More-
over, the guidance for flexural effects in AASHTO LRFD BDS
(AASHTO 2020) is limited to concretes having a design compres-
sive strength less than or equal to 103 MPa (15 ksi). More informa-
tion on the flexural design of concrete members according to
AASHTO LRFD BDS (AASHTO 2020) and ACI 318-19 (ACI
2019) can be found in the Appendix.
The mechanical behavior of UHPC is significantly different
from conventional concrete, necessitating substantive changes in
the common understanding of the flexural behavior. Due to the in-
creased UHPC compressive strength, the sustained UHPC post-
cracking tensile resistance, and the reduced development length
of discrete reinforcements embedded in UHPC, beams made with
UHPC and reinforced with steel bars or prestressing strands often
fail after the formation of a single localized crack, initiated by

© ASCE 04022013-1 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2022, 148(4): 04022013

 the pullout of the crack-bridging fibers and followed by the subsequent
rupture of the tensile reinforcement (Graybeal 2008; Meade and
Graybeal 2010; Yang et al. 2010; Yoo and Yoon 2015; Stürwald
2017; Yoo et al. 2017; Chen et al. 2018; Hasgul et al. 2018; Shao
and Billington 2019). In this mode of failure, the peak flexural mo-
ment is attained at the initiation of the localized crack, at which point
the strain in the extreme tension fiber is equal to the crack localization
strain of UHPC (tensile strain limit) and the compressive strains are
well below the crushing strain limit. After localization, the loss of the
UHPC fiber-bridging resistance mechanism leads to a decrease in
the flexural resistance of the member at the localized section, and
in many cases, the load and deformation sustained by the member
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Federal Highway Administration on 01/31/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
prior to localization will generate a significant increase in curvature
at the localized section, leading to the local straining of the tensile
reinforcement and the hinging of the beam around the localized crack.
These observations accentuate the need for a novel design and analy-
sis framework that accounts for the enhanced mechanical properties
of UHPC and captures the new flexural failure modes expected with
this class of materials. Using existing conventional concrete specifi-
cations to design UHPC beams, in which the concrete tensile resis-
tance is ignored in beam capacity calculations and the flexural
strength is governed by reinforcement yielding and concrete compres-
sion failure, can result in formulaic simplifications and assumptions
that are not consistent with the behaviors of a UHPC member.
Within the international community, a few recommendation or
specification documents for the design of UHPC structural mem-
bers have been published. Of note are the French, Swiss, and Cana-
dian UHPC documents [NF P18-710 (AFNOR 2016a); SIA 2052
(SIA 2016); CSA S6:19 (CSA 2019)]. In each of these documents,
the flexural methodology is based on sectional analysis utilizing the
concepts of equilibrium and strain compatibility while using new
UHPC mechanical models to determine the stresses on strained
cross sections. These new mechanical models for UHPC replace
or modify existing models for flexural design of conventional con-
crete members in their respective jurisdictions and account for the
UHPC postcracking tensile resistance afforded by the discontinu-
ous fiber reinforcement.
In the French and Canadian design standards, the flexural mo-
ment capacity of a steel-reinforced UHPC beam is calculated from
the sectional forces at equilibrium corresponding to a linear strain
diagram included in a domain bounded by a compression strain
limit, corresponding to UHPC crushing, and a reinforcing steel
limit, corresponding to the rupture of reinforcing steel. In contrast,
the ultimate flexural moment in the Swiss design recommendation
is calculated when the tensile strain in the section reaches the
UHPC tensile strain limit εt;lim , taken equal to double the value
of the crack localization strain εt;loc , as obtained from a material
Beam Strains
c fc
compression X
M
neutral
d axis
h ftcr,F
tension t,cr
s fs,d
t,lim ftd,F
(a)
Fig. 1. Cross-sectional stress conditions for UHPC members in flexure computed according to the (a) French; (b) Swiss; and (c) Canadian design
documents when the strain at extreme tension layer is equal to the UHPC tensile strain limit and with elastic stresses in compression.
© ASCE 04022013-2
J. Struct. Eng., 2022, 148(4): 04022013
test (i.e., εt;lim ¼ 2εt;loc ). Fig. 1 presents a comparison of the
cross-sectional stress conditions of UHPC members computed fol-
lowing the recommendations of the French, Swiss, and Canadian
documents when the strain at the extreme tension layer is equal to
the UHPC tensile strain limit εt;lim and with elastic stresses in com-
pression. Note that εt;lim is equal to εt;loc in the French and Canadian
models and 2εt;loc in the Swiss model. In Fig. 1, ftcr;F and ftd;F are
the design cracking and tensile strength as specified by the French
document (Fig. 3.206 of NF P18-710). Similarly, ftd;S and f td;C
are the design tensile stresses computed according to the Swiss
(Section 2.4.2.3 of SIA 2052) and Canadian (Fig. CA8.1.8a of
CSA S6:19) documents, respectively. The French and Canadian
standards allow for tensile strains beyond the UHPC tensile strain
limit εt;lim , shown in Fig. 1, in which case the bending moment can
be computed when the extreme compression strain is equal to the
UHPC crushing limit. In this instance, the contribution of UHPC
beyond the tensile strain limit is neglected and the compression
stress-strain model is represented by an elastic-perfectly plastic
model according to the French standard or a rectangular stress
block according to the Canadian recommendation. More informa-
tion on the UHPC mechanical models and flexural design method-
ologies in each of the French, Swiss, and Canadian documents
can be found in the Appendix. Although these models can predict
aspects of the flexural behavior of a UHPC beam, they do not
highlight the differences in the behavior before and after crack
localization. Because these models allow postlocalization tensile
straining of the UHPC, excessive local straining of the tensile
reinforcement and hinging of the beam at the localized crack
can occur in some instances; these behaviors are not recognized
in the design methodologies.
A few additional flexural design models for UHPC members
can be found in the literature. A number of these models focus on
either developing phenomenological constitutive models utilizing
smeared crack finite-element model (FEM) approaches (e.g., Peng
and Meyer 2000; Radtke et al. 2010; Cunha et al. 2011; Pros et al.
2012; Li et al. 2019; El-Helou et al. 2020), applying existing dam-
age plasticity models within commercially available FEM software
(e.g., Chen and Graybeal 2012; Yin et al. 2019), or formulating
lattice or lattice discrete particle model approaches (Bolander et al.
2008; Schauffert and Cusatis 2012; Smith et al. 2014; El-Helou
2016). Although some of these models were validated to capture
the behavior of UHPC flexural components accounting for the ef-
fect of fiber orientation and tensile ductility, they are not suitable for
direct implementation into design guidelines or common design
calculation processes.
Realizing the need for simplified analytical procedures, some
researchers focused on sectional analysis approaches, applying
Stresses Stresses Stresses
fc fc
0.9(h-X)
fs,d fs,d
ftd,S ftd,C
(b) (c)
J. Struct. Eng.
 the concepts of strain compatibility and force equilibrium and pro-
posing new uniaxial stress-strain relationships for UHPC. For in-
stance, authors have suggested that the compression stress-strain
curve might be idealized with a linear relationship (e.g., Graybeal
2008; Aaleti et al. 2013), elastic-perfectly plastic relationship
(e.g., Soranakom and Mobasher 2009; Yao et al. 2017), or trilinear
relationship including an elastic-perfectly plastic and descending
branch to failure (e.g., Gowripalan and Gilbert 2000). In tension,
the stress-strain curve has been idealized with an elastic-perfectly
plastic relationship (e.g., Graybeal 2008; Aaleti et al. 2013), a tri-
linear relationship with an elastic- perfectly plastic and descending
branch to failure (e.g., Gowripalan and Gilbert 2000), or a trilinear
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Federal Highway Administration on 01/31/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
relationship with biaxial and plastic branches (e.g., Soranakom and
Mobasher 2008). In many of the existing studies, the uniaxial mod-
els, particularly the tension models, were obtained from inverse
analysis of material testing of small-scale beams subjected to flex-
ure, and the recommendations were limited to the tested specimens
and the behaviors of the materials investigated.
The presented considerations indicate the need for unified
mechanical models that are inferred from independent uniaxial
material testing methods and utilized in a flexural design method-
ology that is validated with large-scale experimental tests. Such a
process is essential to determine whether material-level perfor-
mance metrics, which are typically available during the design
phase, can be relied upon to accurately determine the flexural
capacity and failure mechanisms of steel-reinforced beams made
with UHPC-class materials. This manuscript addresses this need
through the displacement-controlled testing of a full-scale pre-
stressed UHPC bridge girder to failure and the validation of a
mechanics-based flexural design methodology that can capture
the failure modes of steel-reinforced UHPC beams while relying
on material parameters that are available during the design phase.
The experimental work focused on capturing specific flexural
behaviors at first cracking, yielding of prestressing strands, moment
capacity at the development of a localized crack, and rupture of the
strands. The flexural design framework is founded on the concepts
of equilibrium and strain compatibility and is proposed for beams
made with UHPC and reinforced with conventional steel reinforc-
ing bars and/or prestressing strands. The method utilizes existing
UHPC mechanical behavior models obtained from uniaxial
material tests, accounts for the flexural behaviors and expected fail-
ure modes associated with UHPC members, and limits the tensile
strain in beam sections to the UHPC strain at crack localization to
avoid hinging of the beam around the localized crack. The ductility
of UHPC beams is also addressed through a sectional-curvature
approach that derives a resistance factor based on a threshold cur-
vature ductility ratio. The flexural design methodology is tailored to
generally align with existing bridge design specifications in the
United States (AASHTO 2020) in support of ongoing efforts to
develop UHPC structural design guidance. The capability of the
proposed method to predict the flexural behavior is verified by
comparing the experimental data, obtained from the flexural test
described in this paper and other tests from the literature, to the
analytical predictions, relying on input material parameters ob-
tained from independent material tests whenever available.
Experimental Program
Test Specimen
To conduct the experimental program described in this paper, one
pretensioned bulb-tee bridge girder made with UHPC was tested
under displacement-controlled loading in flexure to failure. The
© ASCE 04022013-3
J. Struct. Eng., 2022, 148(4): 04022013
813 mm (32 in.)
117.5 mm (4 85 in.)
267 mm 50.8 mm (2 in.)
22.2 mm
(10 21 in.)
50.8 mm (2 in.)
( 87 in.)
889 mm 178 mm 406 mm
(35 in.) (7 in.) (16 in.)
88.9 mm (3 21 in.)
229 mm
88.9 mm (3 21 in.)
(9 in.) 76.2 mm (3 in.)
127 mm (5 in.)
813 mm (32 in.)
indicates a 17.8 mm (0.7 in.) diameter steel strand, prestressed to a force of
265 kN (59.5 kips); strands are placed at 50.8 mm (2 in.) center-to-center and in
three layers located at 50.8 mm (2 in.), 101.6 mm (4 in.), and 838 mm (33 in.)
from bottom of section.
Fig. 2. Cross-sectional dimensions and reinforcement details of the
tested girder.
girder’s cross-sectional shape was based on the Precast Concrete
Economical Fabrication (PCEF) Committee recommended sec-
tions, with geometrical modifications to reduce the thickness of the
bottom flange and the width of the top flange. The standard draw-
ings for the original PCEF sections can be found in the New Jersey
DOT Design Manual for Bridges and Structures (NJDOT 2016).
The cross-sectional dimensions and reinforcement details of the
tested girder are shown in Fig. 2. The girder had a top and bottom
flange width of 813 mm (32 in.), a web width of 178 mm (7 in.),
and a height of 889 mm (35 in.); it was 18.90 m (62 ft) long and
contained a total of 26 17.8-mm- (0.7-in.)-diameter straight steel
strands, with 24 strands located in the bottom bulb and two strands
in the top bulb, as indicated in Fig. 2. No mild steel reinforcement
bars in the longitudinal or transverse directions were included in the
girder. The 17.8-mm- (0.7-in.)-diameter strands were Grade 1860-
MPa (270-ksi) low-relaxation, seven-wire strands [ASTM A416/
A416M (ASTM 2018a)] with a cross-sectional area of 189.7 mm2
(0.294 in:2 ) and a minimum ultimate strength of 1,860 MPa (270
ksi); they were pretensioned to 75% of their ultimate strength and
placed at a minimum spacing of 50.8 mm (2 in.) center-to-center.
The first, second, and third layers of strands were located at
50.8 mm (2 in.), 101.6 mm (4 in.), and 838 mm (33 in.) from the
bottom of the section, respectively. The gross cross-sectional prop-
erties of the girder are an area of 3.72 × 105 mm2 (577 in:2 ), a
moment of inertia about the centroid of 3.92 × 1010 mm4 (9.42 ×
104 in:4 ), and a centroid located at 432 mm (17 in.) from the bottom
of the section.
Mix Design and Girder Fabrication
The UHPC product used in the girder was proprietary and was sup-
plied in three primary constituents, namely, the preblended powder
containing the granular constituents (e.g., cement, silica fume,
ground quartz, and fine sand), liquid admixtures, and fibers. The
mix design consisted of 2,182 kg=m3 (3,678 lb=yd3 ) of preblended
powder, 166 kg=m3 (280 lb=yd3 ) of water, 73.4 kg=m3 (124 lb=yd3 )
of liquid admixtures, and 157 kg=m3 (265 lb=yd3 ) of brass-coated
straight steel fibers (2% dosage by volume). The fibers had a length
of 13 mm (0.51 in.), a diameter of 0.2 mm (0.0079 in.), and a supplier-
reported minimum tensile strength of 2,600 MPa (377 ksi).
The specimen was fabricated at a precast plant in Florida using
one of the plant’s central mixers. In the mixing process, all granular
constituents were blended first, then the water and superplasticizers
were added gradually. After the mixture turned from a powdered
state into a viscous fluid, the fibers were dispersed into the mix.
Before casting of each specimen, a flow table test was performed
J. Struct. Eng.
 per ASTM C1856 (ASTM 2017) to ensure a flowable consistency
corresponding to a spread equal to or greater than 203.2 mm (8 in.).
Two batches of UHPC of approximately 3.44 m3 (4.50 yd3 )
were mixed to obtain the total volume of fresh UHPC needed to
make the girder. The fresh UHPC of the first batch, Batch A, filled
the bottom half of the girder’s rigid steel form, while the fresh
UHPC of the second batch, Batch B, filled the top half of the form.
There was no delay in placement either during or between batches.
The placement of fresh UHPC was performed from one stationary
discharge point located in the middle of the girder form. The
material flowed to each end of the form as it filled the bottom bulb;
it then rose upward through the web height before starting to flow
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Federal Highway Administration on 01/31/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
compression tests on two cylindrical specimens (one specimen per
batch) having a diameter of 76.2 mm (3 in.) and height of 152.4 mm
(6 in.). The cylinders were tested by the precast plant quality control
crew according to ASTM C39 (ASTM 2018b) with modifications
listed in ASTM C1856 (ASTM 2017).
Test Setup and Instrumentation
The 18.90-m- (62-ft)-long girder was tested in flexure with a span
of 18.29 m (60 ft) at the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center (TFHRC) structural
testing facility. The age of the girder at the time of the test was

again laterally as it filled the top bulb. The discharge point was then
moved sequentially along the girder length to top off the filling of
the form. Minor external vibration was applied to the sides of the
form to facilitate the release of entrapped air. The girder was then
covered with a plastic sheet and cured at outdoor ambient temper-
atures. The placement occurred during the month of June 2019 in
which the average daily temperature ranged between 22°C (72°F)
and 32°C (89°F). Five days after casting, the forms were removed
and the strands were detensioned. The compressive strength
required for detensioning was 96.5 MPa (14 ksi); the fabricator
elected to wait until the average compressive strength was 130.4 MPa
(18.9 ksi). The compressive strength was determined by performing
155 days after casting. An overview of the test setup is shown in
Fig. 3. The girder was supported by a roller support at one end
(west side) and by a partial pin support assembly bearing on a load
cell and a hydraulic jack at the other end (east side); it was loaded in
a four-point bending configuration with the middle reaction points
each located at 0.46 m (1.5 ft) from the midspan, as shown in
Fig. 4. The roller and partial pin supports each consisted of a
152-mm-(6-in.)-diameter steel cylinder inserted between two steel
bearing plates having a thickness of 38.1 mm (1.5 in.), a width of
0.30 m (1 ft), and a length equal to the width of the bottom flange.
The bearing plates of the pin support were grooved to prevent
rolling, while the plates at the roller support were flat. To relieve

greased
reaction frame spreader beam spherical
bearing
spreader beam
spherical
west loadcells spherical bearings
bearing
west load cells
transfer plate east load
cell

top LVDTs

loading bottom LVDTs

jack
roller support

(a) (b)

Fig. 3. Overview of the experimental test setup showing (a) bridge girder and reaction frame; and (b) instrumentation at midspan.

0.46 m
(1.5 ft) centerline of reaction frame
east reaction
8.69 m west reaction 0.91 m spherical bearing
(28.5 ft) west load cells (3 ft) east load cell
transfer plate

top LVDTs: T1 T2 T3 T4 T5

west end east end

bearing plate bottom LVDTs: B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 bearing plate and PTFE sheet

roller support reaction pin support
7.01 m 1.83 m 0.61 m 1.37 m 1.22 m P
load cell
(23.0 ft) (6.0 ft) (2.0 ft) (4.5 ft) (4.0 ft)
loading jack
wire potentiometers: WP1 WP2 WP3 WP4 WP5 WP6
18.29 m
0.30 mm (1.0 ft) (60.0 ft) 0.30 m (1.0 ft)

Fig. 4. Test setup and instrumentation plan.

© ASCE 04022013-4 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2022, 148(4): 04022013

 frictional forces on the pin support generated by the loading jack
line of action relative to the inclination of the bearing location, an
additional steel bearing plate resting on a polytetrafluoroethylene
(PTFE) sheet was included within the partial pin support assembly,
as shown in Fig. 4. When the hydraulic jack applied load and de-
formation onto the east end of the girder, two reaction points near
the midspan resisted the loading. These reaction points consisted of
a pair of steel transfer plates reacting against the reaction frame
through a set of three load cells with spherical bearing plates (two
on the west side and one on the east side of the midspan), a spreader
beam, and a greased spherical bearing, as shown in Fig. 3(b). Each
of the middle transfer plates had a thickness of 102 mm (4 in.) and a
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Federal Highway Administration on 01/31/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
width of 0.30 m (1 ft). All transfer and bearing plates were grouted
to the girder’s top or bottom flanges and were long enough to fully
support the width of the girder.
In addition to the four load cells, the girder was instrumented
with six wire potentiometers (WPs) and 13 linear variable displace-
ment transducers (LVDTs). The WPs (WP1–WP6) measured the
vertical deflection at selected locations along the span, as shown
in Fig. 4. The strain profile throughout the test was captured by
mounting a pair of LVDTs, one at the top and one at the bottom
of the girder, in five regions (Regions 1–5) covering the middle
2.44 m (8 ft) of the span where monitoring of flexural cracking
was desired. Figs. 3(b) and 4 show the top (T1–T5) and bottom
(B1–B5) LVDTs mounted on the girder in each of the five regions,
with Region 3 being the constant moment region. These LVDTs
measured the average longitudinal displacement that can be trans-
formed into average strain by dividing the measured data by the
LVDT gauge length. The top LVDTs had a gauge length of
610 mm (24 in.) and were mounted on one side of the top flange
at a vertical distance below the top extreme fiber of 25.4 mm (1 in.)
for LVDTs T1, T3, and T5, and of 76.2 mm (3 in.) for LVDTs T2
and T4. The bottom LVDTs (B1–B5) had a gauge length of
584 mm (23 in.) and were mounted on the bottom surface of
the girder at a vertical distance of 50.8 mm (2 in.) below the girder.
Finally, the slippage of the strands during the test was monitored
through a set of three LVDTs mounted on three bottom-layer
strands on the west end of the girder.
The load was applied by a hydraulic jack in 44.5-kN (10-kip)
increments until the girder began to sustain inelastic damage and
exhibit a reduced flexural stiffness. The loading was then switched
to displacement control at a jack displacement rate of between
1.27 mm=min (0.05 in:=min) and 7.62 mm=min (0.3 in:=min).
Periodically throughout the test, unloading/reloading cycles of
89 kN (20 kip) were performed to measure the residual stiffness
of the girder. The loading continued until girder failure, which
was defined as the formation of a dominant crack triggered by the
pullout of the fiber reinforcement and the subsequent rupturing of
the prestressing strands. Given that the girder deformation ex-
ceeded the stroke of the loading jack, the test was conducted by
loading the girder in three separate test stages. At the end of each
stage, the girder was completely unloaded to allow for the neces-
sary preparations to reset the loading apparatus. The first test stage
was halted when the load at the jack was 547 kN (123 kips) with a
Table 1. Average density and uniaxial compressive and tensile parameters for each UHPC batch at the time of the flexural test
Density Compression parameters
Batch
3 3
ID ω̄c [kg=m (lb=ft )] Ēc [GPa (ksi)] f̄c0 [MPa (ksi)]
A 2,336 [0.4%] (145.8) 43.4 [0.9%] (6,294) 173 [2.6%] (25.1)
B 2,323 [0.8%] (145.0) 43.7 [2.3%] (6,339) 161 [3.1%] (23.3)
Note: Values in brackets represent the COV, taken as the ratio of the standard deviation to the mean value.
© ASCE
J. Struct. Eng., 2022, 148(4): 04022013
girder vertical displacement (WP6) of 216 mm (8.5 in.). The second
stage was halted when the jack load was 812 kN (182.1 kips) with a
girder vertical displacement (WP6) of 461 mm (18.1 in.). The third
and last stage subjected the girder to a maximum jack load of
854 kN (192 kips), which occurred at a vertical displacement
(WP6) of 517 mm (20.4 in.), on its way to complete failure (strand
rupture) at a jack load of 761 kN (171 kips) and girder vertical
displacement (WP6) of 610 mm (24.0 in.). Note that the stroke
of the loading jack was reset once during the second test stage
and twice during the third test stage. The reset was performed using
additional hydraulic jacks to hold the applied load while the stroke
of the loading jack was being retracted and spacer plates inserted
between the jack and the girder.
Material Characterization
A key objective of this study was to evaluate the predicted flexural
response of the tested girder utilizing a proposed design method-
ology in which the mechanical properties had been obtained from
independent material tests. For this reason, companion specimens
were cast from each of the two batches used to make the girder to
assess the UHPC’s density, compression, and tension properties at
the time of the test. The material specimens were demolded at the
time of detensioning of strands and stored in an ambient environ-
ment, generally alongside the girder, until the time of the test.
The average results of the material property tests are summarized
in Table 1. The average density ω̄c, modulus of elasticity Ēc, com-
pressive strength f̄c0 , and strain at compressive strength ε̄cu of each
UHPC batch were obtained from three cylindrical specimens tested
according to ASTM C1856 (ASTM 2017). The cylindrical speci-
mens had a diameter of 76.2 mm (3 in.) and a height of 152.4 mm
(6 in.). The average tensile parameters, namely, the effective cracking
stress f̄t;cr , the localization stress f̄ t;loc , and the localization strain
ε̄t;loc , were obtained from prismatic specimens tested in uniaxial ten-
sion according to AASHTO T 397 (AASHTO 2022), which is based
on the test method by Graybeal and Baby (2013). The tensile test
captures the tensile load and associated strain over a 101.6-mm
(4-in.) gauge length during a fixed-end, uniaxial displacement-
controlled test. The prismatic specimens had a length of 432 mm
(17 in.) and a square 50.8 mm × 50.8 mm (2 in: × 2 in:) cross sec-
tion. The tensile parameters reported in Table 1 were obtained from
the individual stress-strain curves of three and four prisms cast from
Batches A and B, respectively. In determining the individual results,
the effective cracking stress ft;cr was taken as the stress at the in-
tercept of a line with a slope equal to the elastic modulus and a strain
offset of 0.02% (Haber et al. 2018; El-Helou et al. 2022). The locali-
zation stress f t;loc and strain, εt;loc , were visually determined as the
first point in the stress-strain plot where the stress decreases contin-
uously with increasing strain. This point indicates the onset of fiber
pullout and the accumulation of the deformation into a single dom-
inant crack. The average uniaxial stress-strain curves for each batch
are shown in Fig. 5(a).
The stress-strain relationships for the prestressing strands
were experimentally determined from six strand pullout tests
performed according to ASTM A370 (ASTM 2020) and are plotted
Tension parameters
ε̄cu f̄t;cr [MPa (ksi)] f̄ t;loc [MPa (ksi)] ε̄t;loc
0.00435 [5.0%] 9.3 [8.2%] (1.35) 10.4 [5.9%] (1.51) 0.00497 [13.1%]
0.00401 [2.2%] 10.2 [3.3%] (1.48) 11.6 [7.8%] (1.68) 0.00483 [10.0%]
04022013-5 J. Struct. Eng.
 14 2.0 2,000
275
1,800 Rupture
Batch B 1.8
12 Batch A points 250
1.6 1,600 Strands uniaxial
225
model
10

Tensile Stress (MPa)

Tensile Stress (MPa)

1,400

Tensile Stress (ksi)

1.4 200

Tensile Stress (ksi)

1.2 1,200 Experimental data 175
8 UHPC tensile
(6 strand tests)
model 1,000 150
1.0
6 125
0.8 800
100
4 0.6 600
Girder Cross Section 75
Batch B 0.4 400
50
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Federal Highway Administration on 01/31/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

2 Individual tests
Batch A 0.2 200
Average 25
0 0 0 0
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08
(a) Uniaxial Strain (b) Uniaxial Strain

Fig. 5. (a) Individual and average uniaxial stress-strain curves obtained from UHPC tensile tests along with the UHPC tensile response model; and
(b) individual uniaxial stress-strain curves obtained from strand tension testing and strands uniaxial response model.

in Fig. 5(b). The strain data were continuously collected until a portions at the transitions between the three test stages removed for
uniaxial strain of at least 0.03. The yield strength was measured clarity. The presented applied moment M is equal to the east and
at 1.0% extension under load and the total elongation value was west load cells readings multiplied by the flexural span of 8.69 m
determined by adding the 1.0% yield extension to the percent ex- (28.5 ft) and does not include the initial moment at the midspan
tension between the jaws gripping the strand at rupture, as specified M ini induced by the self-weight of the girder and the loading ap-
by ASTM A416 (ASTM 2018a). The strands had an average yield paratus (e.g., spreader beam, transfer plates, load cells). The initial
strength f̄ py of 1,690 MPa (246 ksi), an average ultimate tensile moment was equal to 467 kN-m (345 kip-ft) and was calculated
strength f̄pu of 1,932 MPa (281 ksi), and an average rupture strain based on the difference in the load cell readings before and after
ε̄pu of 0.0674. The coefficient of variation (COV) was 0.9% for f̄ py the girder and loading apparatus were installed. The east and west
and f̄ pu , and 5.1% for ε̄pu. The strands modulus of elasticity Ep reaction point deflections were calculated as the vertical displace-
was assumed to be 196.5 GPa (28,500 ksi). Based on these results, ment near the east and west load cells (WP2 and WP3) with respect
the strands conform to the mechanical property thresholds of to a reference line connecting the east and west supports. The data
ASTM A416 for Grade 1860 MPa (270 ksi) strands. from the east and west load cells correlated well, as is shown in
Fig. 6(a). The average curve in Fig. 6(a) represents the average ap-
plied moment versus the average deflection behavior of the con-
Test Results, Analysis, and Observations stant moment region and was obtained by averaging the load
The applied moment versus deflection curves at the east and west and displacement results at the east and west reaction points
point loads are shown in Fig. 6(a), with the unloading and reloading throughout the test.

Deflection (in.)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
8,000
Tension Compression 5,500
Applied Moment at Midspan (kN-m)

Applied Moment at Midspan (kip-ft)

7,000 5,000
East reaction
6,000 West reaction * * * 4,500
Average Test stage 3 Deformation localized into a single crack
(strain values reflect extension within 4,000
5,000 the gauge length of region 3) 3,500
Bottom of section Top
4,000 Test stage 2 3,000
of section
2,500
3,000
Linearity limit (first crack)
2,000
2,000 80% of yield stress in bottom layer of strands Region 1
1,500
Yielding of bottom layer of strands Region 2
Onset of strain localization (ultimate moment) Region 3 1,000
1,000 * Localized crack Region 4
Rupture of bottom strands 500
Test stage 1 Region 5
0 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 -0.03 -0.025 -0.02 -0.015 -0.01 -0.005 0 0.005
Deflection (mm) Change in Longitudinal Strain
(a) (b)

Fig. 6. Relationships between applied moment as a function of (a) the deflection of the constant moment region; and (b) the change in the longitudinal
strain at extreme compression and tension fibers in each of the five instrumented regions (full unloading and reloading cycles omitted for clarity).

© ASCE 04022013-6 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2022, 148(4): 04022013

 The average midspan moment-deflection response of the girder
was linearly elastic until softening started to occur at an applied
moment of approximately 3,655 kN-m (2,695 kip-ft) and a deflec-
tion of 65.9 mm (2.60 in.), indicating the initiation of flexural
cracking in the girder. As the load continued to increase, the girder
continued to sustain inelastic damage and exhibited a gradual
decrease in the flexural stiffness. This behavior was likely due
to the development of tight and closely spaced cracks within the
tensile zone at the bottom half of the section. These cracks were
periodically investigated by halting the loading protocol during
the first two test stages, up to an applied moment of 6,920 kN-m
(5,104 kip-ft), and by spraying the girder’s bottom flange and
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Federal Highway Administration on 01/31/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
web within the constant moment region with an evaporative liquid
(denatured alcohol). The liquid briefly penetrates the cracks while
evaporating from the girder’s surface, temporarily making the
cracks visible. However, none of the flexural cracks were visible to
the naked eye during the first two test stages, indicating extremely
tight cracks that were efficiently controlled by the fiber and strand
reinforcements. The detection of cracks was not investigated during
the third test stage due to safety concerns.
The flexural capacity of the girder was achieved at an applied
moment of 7,271 kN-m (5,362 kip-ft) and a midspan deflection of
234 mm (9.21 in.). As the capacity was reached, a localized crack
appeared at the midspan, initiating at the extreme bottom fiber and
propagating swiftly up through the bottom half of the web. The
localization of the crack resulted in an abrupt decrease of approx-
imately 13.2% in the applied moment as shown in Fig. 6(a). A
photo of the crack pattern at the midspan immediately after locali-
zation is shown in Fig. 7(a) (crack pattern shown for this reading is
indicated by a star in Fig. 6). After localization, the girder began
to hinge about the cross section at the localized crack. This behav-
ior is unique to strain-hardening fiber-reinforced concrete beams,
wherein: (1) the significant increase in curvature at the localized
crack will contribute to a major portion of the overall deflection
of the beam; and (2) the curvature at the nonlocalized cracks will
be controlled by the unloading and reloading stiffness of these sec-
tions where the UHPC is exhibiting prelocalization behavior. The
large deformations at the localized crack cross section locally
strained the bottom strands until they ruptured, separating the girder
into two pieces only connected by the top two strands. A photo of
the girder after strand rupture is shown in Fig. 7(b). After the
localization-induced applied moment reduction, the applied mo-
ment marginally increased with increasing displacement until the
strands ruptured at an applied moment of 6,467 kN-m (4,769 kip-ft)
and midspan deflection of 287 mm (11.3 in.).
east load point
west load point
localized crack
(a)
Fig. 7. Photos of the cracking pattern of the girder at midspan showing the localized crack (a) immediately after the drop in peak load; and (b) after the
rupture of the bottom strands.
© ASCE
J. Struct. Eng., 2022, 148(4): 04022013
The pair of top and bottom LVDTs that were installed in each of
the five instrumented regions of the girders (Fig. 4) were used to
create the average linear strain profiles in these regions throughout
the duration of the test (assuming plane sections before bending
remain plane after bending). Each strain profile was then utilized
to determine the change in concrete strains at extreme top (com-
pression) and bottom (tension) fibers within the respective region
as a function of the average applied moment at the midspan, as
shown in Fig. 6(b). The relationships in Fig. 6(b) confirm that, after
the localized crack initiated within the constant moment region
(Region 3) at the peak moment, the deformation of the cross section
at the localized crack increased, as evidenced by the strain measure-
ments at the top and bottom of the section, while the neighboring
cracks closed as the applied load decreased. Note that the longitu-
dinal deformation after the formation of a localized crack should be
discussed in terms of crack opening rather than strain; the postpeak
strain values of Region 3 in Fig. 6(b) reflect the observed longitu-
dinal extensions within the gauge length.
The stress in the prestressing strands at the beginning of the
flexural test, including all losses between strand release and time
of test, was estimated by utilizing the concrete strains measured
by four vibrating wire gauges (VWGs) cast into the midspan cross
section. Two gauges were embedded between the top strands and
two at the centroid of the bottom strands. The initial concrete strain
profile was then constructed by comparing the concrete strains
at the time of test to the reference strains taken prior to the deten-
sioning of the strands. The difference in concrete strains at the level
of each layer of strands was then determined assuming a perfect
bond between the strands and the surrounding concrete. When
these strains are multiplied by the modulus of elasticity of the
strands, Ep ¼ 196.5 GPa (28,500 ksi), the difference in the stresses
in the strands between jacking and the time of test can be estimated.
The effective prestress in the first (top), second, and third (bottom)
layers of strands at the midspan at the start of the test was calculated
to be −1,336 MPa (−193.7 ksi), −1,157 MPa (−167.8 ksi), and
−1,144 MPa (−166.0 ksi), corresponding to strains of εp1;ini ¼
−0.00680, εp2;ini ¼ −0.00589, and εp3;ini ¼ −0.00582, respec-
tively (tension taken as a negative value).
The initial stress profile in the girder at the beginning of the test
was obtained from an elastic analysis of the cross section at the
midspan and using a concrete modulus of elasticity of 43.6 GPa
(6,317 ksi), taken as the average of the two elastic modulus values
reported for each batch (Table 1). The initial stresses at the midspan
were σT;ini ¼ 0.94 MPa (0.136 ksi) at the extreme top fiber
(compression taken as a positive value) and σB;ini ¼ 29.7 MPa
east load point
west load point
localized crack
(b)
04022013-7 J. Struct. Eng.
 Table 2. Summary of test results at midspan considering the effect of the prestressing force and considering the self-weight of the girder and loading apparatus
Parameter First crack 80% of yieldb Yieldc Localization Strand rupture
M exp kN-m (kip-ft) 4,122 (3,040) 4,884 (3,602) 6,983 (5,150) 7,775 (5,734) 6,970 (5,141)
εT a 0.00099 0.00123 0.00238 0.00299 0.00482d,e
εB a −0.00036 −0.00072 −0.00376 −0.00618 −0.03143d,e
εpb3 a −0.00672 −0.00705 −0.01000 −0.01239 −0.03611d,e
X mm (in.) 660 (26.0) 568 (23.4) 349 (13.8) 293 (11.5) 120 (4.72)e
ψ 1=mm (1=in:) 1.50 × 10−6 2.16 × 10−6 6.82 × 10−6 1.02 × 10−5 4.02 × 10−5
(3.80 × 10−5 ) (5.49 × 10−5 ) (1.73 × 10−4 ) (2.58 × 10−4 ) (1.02 × 10−3 )e
a
Compression strains are taken as positive values and tension strains are taken as negative values.
b
Calculated when the stress in the bottom layer of strands is equal to the service stress limit of prestressing steel, i.e., f p3 ¼ 0.80f̄ py , as defined in Table
5.9.2.2-1 of AASHTO LRFD BDS (AASHTO 2020).
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Federal Highway Administration on 01/31/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

c
Calculated when the stress in the last layer of strands is equal to the yielding stress limit of prestressing steel, i.e., fp3 ¼ f̄ py .
d
Postpeak deformation accumulated in the localized crack; strain values reflect the longitudinal extensions within the gauge length of the LVDTs.
e
Calculations assume strain compatibility is maintained after localization.

(4.31 ksi) at the extreme bottom fiber, corresponding to strains of
εT;ini ¼ 0.000022 and εB;ini ¼ 0.000682, respectively.
A summary of the test results at the midspan, including the ef-
fect of the prestressing force and considering the self-weight of the
girder and loading apparatus, is calculated at the five points in
flexural behavior, namely, the initiation of cracks; service stress
limit of prestressing steel taken when the stress in the bottom layer
of strands is equal to 80% of the strand yield stress (AASHTO
2020), i.e., f p3 ¼ 0.80f̄py ; yielding of the bottom layer of strands,
i.e., fp3 ¼ f̄py ; crack localization; and strand rupture as presented
in Table 2. In Table 2, M exp is total moment corresponding to ap-
plied moment M plus the self-weight moment M ini , as described in
Eq. (1); εT and εB are the total concrete strains in the top and bottom
layers calculated according to Eqs. (2) and (3), in which ΔεT and
ΔεB are the change in strains captured in extreme top and bottom
fibers during the test within Region 3; εp3 is the strain in the bottom
layer of strands calculated according to Eq. (4), in which εp3;ini ¼
−0.00582 is the initial strain in the bottom layer of strands and
Δεcp3 is the change in strain in the concrete at the level of the bot-
tom layer of strands during the test within Region 3; X is the neutral
axis depth calculated from the strain profile formed by εT and εB ;
and ψ ¼ εT =X is the sectional curvature at the midspan. The 80%
of yield and yield moment values reported in Table 2 and Fig. 6
were determined when εp3 reached a strain equal to -0.00705 (cor-
responding to 0.80f py ) and the yielding strain of the strands,
εpy ¼ −0.01, respectively
Mexp ¼ M þ M ini
εT ¼ εT;ini þ ΔεT
εB ¼ εB;ini þ ΔεB
εp3 ¼ εp3;ini þ Δεcp3
Finally, the slippage of selected strands during the test was
monitored with three LVDTs mounted on three of the bottom-layer
strands located within one half of the section on the west end of the
girder. As expected with a beam of this length, these measurements
demonstrated that no strand slippage occurred during the test.
Description of Proposed Flexural Design Method for
UHPC Beams
The proposed flexural design framework described in this section is
relevant to the design of beams made with UHPC and reinforced
with conventional steel and/or prestressing strands. The framework
is founded on structural mechanics principles commonly used in
conventional reinforced concrete design where the nominal flexural
capacity at each cross section of the beam is calculated by satisfy-
ing the conditions of equilibrium and strain compatibility. Because
the mechanical behavior of UHPC is different from that of conven-
tional concrete, new constitutive relationships are proposed and
then utilized within the strain compatibility approach to predict the
complete nominal moment–sectional curvature (M n -ψ) diagram
and the flexural failure modes of UHPC beams. In this framework,
it is assumed that (1) sections plane before bending remain plane
after bending; (2) the member is reinforced with conventional steel
and/or prestressing strands within the flexural tension side; (3) a
perfect bond exists between the reinforcement and UHPC, i.e., the
change in strain in the bonded reinforcement and/or prestressing
strands is equal to the strain in the surrounding UHPC; (4) the
stresses in the reinforcing steel or prestressing strands are derived
from the uniaxial stress-strain response indicative of their tensile
behavior; (5) the composition of UHPC mixture and its mechanical
properties meet specified threshold values; and (6) the stresses
in the UHPC are inferred from appropriate uniaxial stress-strain
models. The specified threshold values and the uniaxial stress-
strain models for UHPC are discussed in the following section.
UHPC-Class Materials and Mechanical Models
A key starting point for the proposed flexural design framework is
ð1Þ the delineation of the scope of the considered UHPC-class materi-
als and the definition of the fundamental parameters. UHPC is gen-
ð2Þ erally defined as portland cement composite made of an optimized
gradation of granular constituents, a water-to-cementitious materi-
ð3Þ als ratio less than 0.25, and a high percentage of discontinuous in-
ternal steel fiber reinforcement. The specific mechanical properties
ð4Þ include a minimum compressive strength of 124 MPa (18.0 Ksi), a
minimum cracking strength of 5.0 MPa (0.73 Ksi), and the ability
to sustain the cracking strength through a minimum localization
strain of at least 0.0025.
The compressive properties, namely, the modulus of elasticity
Ec , the compressive strength fc0 , and the strain at compressive
strength εcu , are obtained from cylindrical specimens tested accord-
ing to ASTM C39 (ASTM 2018b) and ASTM C469 (ASTM 2014)
with provisions specific to UHPC described in ASTM C1856
(ASTM 2017). The uniaxial elastic-perfectly plastic model pro-
posed by El-Helou et al. (2022) is adopted in this framework to
determine the stress in the UHPC as a function of the compression
strain in the section, as shown in Fig. 8(a). This model mimics the
experimental uniaxial stress-strain response in the elastic region up

© ASCE 04022013-8 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2022, 148(4): 04022013

 Stress
Stress
fc’
ft,cr
Ec
Ec
cp cu Strain t,cr
(a) (b)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Federal Highway Administration on 01/31/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 8. Idealized stress-strain relationships for UHPC subjected to (a) uniaxial compression and uniaxial tension with (b) postcracking stress plateau;
and (c) strain hardening with continuous increase in postcracking stress.
to a reduced compressive stress of αf c0 , where α is a reduction fac-
tor on compressive strength reflecting the linearity limit of the com-
pressive stress-strain response. After this stress level, the model
sustains the reduced compressive resistance until the strain at
the material’s compressive strength εcu is reached. El-Helou et al.
(2022) suggested a reduction factor α value of 0.85, based on the
experimental results of five commercially available UHPC products
(Graybeal and Stone 2012; Haber et al. 2018).
The tension parameters, namely, the effective cracking strength
f t;cr , the localization stress ft;loc , and the localization strain εt;loc ,
are obtained from prismatic specimens tested in direct tension ac-
cording to the method developed by Graybeal and Baby (2013).
This method delivers the uniaxial stress-strain responses of the
tested specimens, facilitating the identification of critical tension
parameters. The effective cracking strength ft;cr , is taken as the
intercept of a line having a slope equal to the elastic modulus
and a strain offset of 0.02%. The localization stress ft;loc and strain
εt;loc are taken as the stress and strain of the data point where the
stress begins to continuously decrease with increasing strain. As
proposed by El-Helou et al. (2022), the constitutive law for UHPC
in tension idealizes the experimental curve into an elastic-perfectly
plastic relationship, as shown in Fig. 8(b), for material exhibiting a
stress plateau after cracking, or a bilinear relationship, as shown in
Fig. 8(c), for material exhibiting a continuous increase in stress
after cracking and when the localization stress f t;loc is at least
20% greater than the effective cracking stress f t;cr . El-Helou et al.
(2022) proposed that a reduction factor γ be applied on the tensile
stress parameters (ft;cr and f t;loc ) to account for variability in the
material behaviors; the value of the reduction factor γ is not to
exceed 0.85.
For the conventional steel reinforcement, an elastic-perfectly
plastic stress-strain relationship is adopted, as shown in Fig. 9(a),
in which Es is the modulus of elasticity of conventional steel; f sy
and εsy are the yielding stress and strain, respectively; and εsu is the
strain at rupture of the bars. The idealized stress-strain relationships
for prestressing strands can be obtained from existing nonlinear
models, such as the power formula based on the work of Skogman
et al. (1988) shown in Fig. 8(b). For instance, the stress in the pre-
stressing steel fps for 1,860 MPa (270 ksi) seven-wire low-
relaxation strands can be computed as a function of the steel strain
εps according to Eq. (5). To obtain fps in kilopounds per square inch
in Eq. (5), replace 6,116 MPa with 887 ksi, 190,385 MPa with
27,613 ksi, and 1,860 MPa with 270 ksi (PCI 2014)
 
190,385
fps ¼ εps 6,116 þ 1 ≤ 1,860 MPa ð5Þ
ð1 þ ð112.4εps Þ7.36 Þ7.36
© ASCE 04022013-9
J. Struct. Eng., 2022, 148(4): 04022013
Stress
ft,loc
ft,cr
Ec
t,loc Strain t,cr t,loc Strain
(c)
Flexural Behavior of UHPC Beams
The flexural behavior of UHPC beams can be obtained analytically
by employing a strain compatibility approach and utilizing the con-
stitutive models for UHPC and steel reinforcement depicted in
Figs. 8 and 9, respectively. For flexural members fully utilizing
the UHPC tensile resistance, the nominal moment–sectional curva-
ture (M n − ψ) diagram can be idealized in four key points, as illus-
trated in Fig. 10, for a UHPC member with conventional steel
reinforcement. The sectional curvature is defined as the ratio of
the strain in the extreme compression layer εc divided by the depth
of the neutral axis X: ψ ¼ εc =X. The first key point in the behavior
(ψcr , M cr ) represents the initiation of the first flexural tensile crack,
occurring when the strain in the extreme tension layer reaches the
cracking strain limit of UHPC, εt;cr ¼ f t;cr =Ec . At this point, the
compression and tensile stresses remain within the elastic region of
their respective constitutive models (Fig. 8). The second point in
the moment-curvature diagram (ψy , My ) coincides with the yield-
ing of the extreme tension layer of the reinforcing steel, occurring
when the steel strain is equal to the yielding strain of conventional
steel εsy or prestressing strands εpy . Note that in Fig. 10, an inter-
mediate point (ψsl , M sl ) in behavior is shown corresponding to the
chosen baseline sectional curvature and moment for ductility con-
siderations as discussed later in the manuscript. The third key point
(ψL , M L ) indicates the flexural nominal capacity of the section
(M n ¼ ML ) and coincides with the crack localization, where the
tensile capacity of UHPC is fully utilized and the strain in the ex-
treme tension layer is equal to the localization strain εt;loc . The
cross-sectional strain and stress diagrams at the flexural crack
Stress
Stress
fpu
fpy
fsy
Ep
Es
sy Strain su py Strain pu
(a) (b)
Fig. 9. Idealized uniaxial stress-strain relationships for (a) conventional
steel reinforcing bars; and (b) prestressing strands.
J. Struct. Eng.
 Mn
ML
My
Mc
Msl
Mcr
cr sl y L c Fig. 12. Cross-sectional strain and stresses conditions for UHPC mem-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Federal Highway Administration on 01/31/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 10. Idealized nominal moment versus sectional curvature (M n −
ψ) diagram of UHPC member with conventional steel reinforcement.
localization point for a UHPC material exhibiting a stress plateau
after cracking [Fig. 8(b)] are shown in Fig. 11, where the compres-
sion stresses remain elastic with the strain value in the extreme
compression layer εc, less than εcp ¼ αfc0 =Ec [Fig. 11(a)], or
become plastic when εcp < εc ≤ εcu [Fig. 10(b)]. In Fig. 10, it is
assumed that the localization strain of UHPC εt;loc is greater than
the yielding strain of the reinforcement εsy , and thus the yielding
point (ψy , M y ) occurs at a smaller curvature and moment values
than those defining the localization point (ψL , M L ). For prestressed
members, the yielding point occurs before the localization point if
the change in the prestressing steel strain between the effective pre-
stress and yield (εpy − εpe ) is greater than the UHPC localization
strain εt;loc . After crack localization (εt > εt;loc ), the UHPC can no
longer contribute to the tension resistance of the member, leading to
a reduction in the flexural capacity. The last point in the flexural
behavior shown in Fig. 10 (ψc , M c ) coincides with the compression
failure of UHPC, occurring when the strain in the extreme compres-
sion layer reaches the ultimate compressive strain of UHPC εcu .
The cross-sectional strain and stress diagrams at compression fail-
ure and after the localization of cracks (εt > εt;loc ) are depicted in
Fig. 12 for a UHPC material exhibiting a stress plateau after crack-
ing [Fig. 8(b)]. The shape of the postlocalization moment-curvature
relationship is nonlinear (dashed line in Fig. 10) and depends on the
UHPC material properties and the design parameters of the section.
Intermediate points between localization and compression failure
need to be computed if the exact shape of the postlocalization curve
is desired.
In the determination of the moment-curvature diagram in
Fig. 10, it is assumed that the strain in the steel reinforcement εs
Beam Strains
c cp
compression X X
M
neutral
d axis
h ft,cr
tension t,cr
s
fs
ft,cr
t = t,loc
(a)
Fig. 11. Cross-sectional strain and stress conditions for UHPC members in flexure at the onset of crack localization with (a) elastic stresses in
compression; and (b) plastic stresses in compression (shown for a UHPC exhibiting a stress plateau after cracking in tension).
© ASCE 04022013-10
J. Struct. Eng., 2022, 148(4): 04022013
Beam Strains Stresses
c = cu fc = f’c
compression
M X
neutral
axis ft,cr
d t,cr
h tension
t,loc ft,cr
s fs
t > t,loc
bers in flexure at compression failure and after the localization of
cracks (shown for a UHPC exhibiting a stress plateau after cracking
in tension).
remains less than the strain at rupture of the bars εsu when the com-
pressed UHPC crushes. However, due to the high compressive
strength of UHPC materials, the rupture of the steel reinforcement
(conventional steel or prestressing strands) can occur before con-
crete crushing (i.e., when the strain in the extreme compression
layer is less than εcu ). In an effort to engage the full compressive
strength of UHPC in a flexural design, Shao and Billington (2019)
demonstrated that the postlocalization moment capacity of UHPC
beams can be carried through high-tensile strains until compression
crushing (Mc ≥ ML ) when the beam is heavily reinforced with con-
ventional steel reinforcement and when the strain-hardening char-
acteristics of the steel are both engaged and substantial. While such
behavior is desirable because it significantly increases the ductility
of UHPC beams, to date the approach has only received limited
experimental investigation. When the tensile strain in the UHPC
exceeds the localization strain at a crack (εt > εt;loc ), the loss of
the UHPC fiber-bridging resistance mechanism results in a change
in the internal force-resisting mechanism (i.e., increased curvature,
increased strains, and movement of the neutral axis). If the in-
creased tensile strain results in increased tensile resistance due to
the engagement of additional discrete reinforcement force-resisting
mechanisms, such as the strain-hardening of steel or the further en-
gagement of unbonded reinforcements, then a new stable moment-
resisting state may be realized. For this reason, postlocalization
analysis should take into consideration the width of the localized
crack, the local straining of the reinforcement crossing the crack,
and the resistance provided by the reinforcement. In the current
proposal, the postlocalization flexural capacity is not recommended
Stresses Strains Stresses
fc f’c cp c cu fc = f’c
ft,cr
t,cr
s fs
ft,cr
t = t,loc
(b)
J. Struct. Eng.
 for use in design because more research is needed to quantify
the relationship between the rupture strain of the bars after UHPC
crack localization, the opening of the localized crack, and the de-
velopment length of the reinforcement in the vicinity of the local-
ized crack. The development length of the reinforcement is a
critical consideration as it significantly influences the length of
the bar or strand over which the increased tensile strain demand
will be resisted.
For flexural members not fully utilizing the UHPC tensile resis-
tance, the ultimate capacity occurs at compression crushing (M n ¼
M c ), when the UHPC in the extreme compression layer reaches its
ultimate compressive strain limit (εc ¼ εcu ) while the strain in the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Federal Highway Administration on 01/31/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
extreme tensile fiber is less than the localization strain (εt < εt;loc ).
In these situations, the beam design does not take full advantage of
the UHPC tensile performance characteristics, prompting a com-
pression failure at reduced tensile strain values, such as could occur
in sections having a very high reinforcement ratio and/or sections
subjected to high axial compressive loads. The nominal flexural
moment–sectional curvature (M n − ψ) for this failure mode can
be defined by straight lines, with either (1) three key points coincid-
ing with the initiation of first flexural tensile crack (ψcr , Mcr ),
yielding of the extreme tension layer of the reinforcing steel
(ψy , M y ), and the compression crushing of UHPC (ψc , Mc ) when
the steel strain at crushing is greater than the yield strain; or (2) two
key points coinciding with the initiation of cracks (ψcr , M cr ) and
compression crushing (ψc , Mc ) when the steel strain at crushing is
less than or equal to the yield strain.
Proposed Design Methodology
Based on the experimentally observed behaviors and analytical re-
sults, a flexural design framework for UHPC beams reinforced with
conventional steel or prestressing strands is proposed in this section.
The design framework is similar to portions of existing UHPC struc-
tural design guidance detailed in various international documents
[NF P18-710 (AFNOR 2016a); SIA 2052 (SIA 2016); CSA
S6:19 (CSA 2019)] and is tailored to generally parallel existing
bridge design specifications in the United States (AASHTO 2020)
while accounting for UHPC mechanical performance.
The first step in the structural design is the characterization of
the material-level properties and the establishment of constitutive
laws that describe the mechanical response when subjected to struc-
tural loads. For UHPC in compression, the parabolic stress-strain
relationship typically used for conventional concretes is replaced
with the idealized elastic-perfectly plastic model in Fig. 8(a).
The compression model requires the modulus of elasticity Ec, com-
pressive strength f c0 , and strain at compressive strength εcu as input
parameters, which can be experimentally obtained from compres-
sion tests performed according to ASTM C1856 (ASTM 2017).
In lieu of experimental testing, the elastic modulus can be approxi-
mated by Eq. (6) and εcu can be taken as the greater of εcp ¼
αf c0 =Ec and 0.0035, as proposed by El-Helou et al. (2022).
The reduction factor α can be taken as 0.85
Ec ¼ 9,100fc00.33 ðMPaÞ
Ec ¼ 2,500fc00.33 ðksiÞ ð6Þ
In tension, UHPC offers a postcracking resistance that is sus-
tained through large tensile strains (εt > 0.0025), delivering a ben-
eficial contribution to the flexural capacity of a beam. The tensile
constitutive models for UHPC can be idealized with the elastic-
perfectly plastic or bilinear (when f t;loc ≥ 1.20f t;cr ) relationships
shown in Figs. 8(b) and 7(c), respectively. The tensile parameters,
© ASCE 04022013-11
J. Struct. Eng., 2022, 148(4): 04022013
namely, the effective cracking stress f t;cr and the localization stress
ft;loc and strain εt;loc , can be obtained by executing direct tension
tests proposed by Graybeal and Baby (2013).
Service and Ultimate Limit States
The flexural analysis can be performed using a strain compatibility
approach where stresses over strained cross sections are calculated
and then summed to satisfy equilibrium requirements. In a situation
where the cracking of the girder is not allowed at service, the lin-
early elastic analysis procedures typically used with conventional
concrete design can be employed, with a tensile stress limit taken as
a fraction of the effective cracking stress, e.g., f t;lim ¼ 0.85ft;cr .
When a minimal amount of cracking is permissible at service, a
strain compatibility analysis can be performed in which the strains
in the tensile zone are limited to a fraction of the localization strain,
e.g., εt;lim ¼ 0.30εt;loc , and the stresses in the reinforcing steel are
lower than a fraction of the yielding stress, e.g., fs;lim < 0.80f sy and
fp;lim < 0.80fpy . In both service limit state cases, the compression
stress limits outlined in AASHTO LRFD BDS (AASHTO 2020)
for conventional concrete can also be used for UHPC. For the ul-
timate limit state, the stress-strain constitutive models in Fig. 8 are
used, allowing the construction of the full moment-curvature dia-
gram. In this case, the linear strain distribution along the height of
the section is bounded by the UHPC crushing strain limit εcu , the
localization strain εt;loc , and the rupture strain limit of conventional
steel εsu or prestressing strands εpu . The nominal moment capacity
is defined at either (1) crack localization (M n ¼ M L ), when the
strain in the extreme tensile layer εt is equal to εt;loc , which can
occur when the compression stress is elastic (εc ≤ εcp ) or plastic
(εcp < εc ≤ εcu ), as shown in Fig. 11; or (2) compression failure
(M n ¼ Mc ) when the strain in the extreme compression layer εc
is equal to εcu and the strain in the extreme tensile layer εt is less
than εt;loc .
Consideration of Curvature Ductility
In cases where the flexural failure is governed by the localization of
the cracks (M n ¼ M L ), it is important that members exhibit ad-
equate ductility to ensure that large deformations occur before fail-
ure of the member. An approach based on sectional curvature
ductility can be adopted in which a curvature ductility ratio μ is
defined and compared to a specified minimum curvature ductility
ratio, e.g., μmin ¼ 3.0. The curvature ductility ratio can be taken as
the ratio of the sectional curvature at localization ψL and a baseline
sectional curvature, ψsl : μ ¼ ψL =ψsl . It is proposed that the base-
line sectional curvature ψsl be calculated when the stress in the ex-
treme tension layer of reinforcement is equal to 80% of the yielding
stress of the steel reinforcement, i.e., 0.80f py or 0.80f sy. For
prestressed members, this limit corresponds to maximum stress that
can be attained in the prestressing steel at the service limit state
specified in AASHTO LRFD BDS (AASHTO 2020). When
members have a curvature ductility ratio less than μmin , a reduced
resistance factor on the nominal moment M n is recommended,
in recognition of the nonductile failure mechanism akin to
compression-controlled failure. The proposed resistance factors
are discussed later in the manuscript.
Limited research on reinforced UHPC members has shown that
the localization strain value is increased when the cracking resis-
tance provided by the fibers is supplemented by conventional steel
rebars or prestressing strands (Oesterlee 2010; Baby et al. 2014).
For instance, the Swiss recommendation allows the use of a
localization strain in the tensile mechanical model that is twice
the value obtained from material testing (SIA 2016). In the current
study, the measured strain at localization of the flexural crack
(Table 2) was approximately 24% greater than the localization
strain obtained from a direct tension test (Batch A in Table 1). The
J. Struct. Eng.
 implementation of a localization strain value higher than the one
obtained from tension testing in flexural design would allow for
the use of a larger tensile strain, thus increasing the likelihood of
satisfying the ductility requirement for many UHPC beams. How-
ever, more research is needed before broad implementation of
higher localization strains can be recommended because the percent
increase in the usable strain depends on the uniaxial localization
strain value obtained from material tests and on the amount of dis-
crete tensile reinforcement in the flexural element. Finally, as pre-
viously discussed, the true ductility of a member may be greater
than that analytically predicted using the aforementioned pro-
cedure if the opening of a localization crack generates sufficient
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Federal Highway Administration on 01/31/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
increased resistance from the tensile reinforcement (e.g., through
engagement of strain-hardening behaviors in mild steel reinforce-
ment) that the moment at compression crushing M c becomes
greater than M L . This topic is the subject of future research by
the authors.
Consideration of Fiber Orientation
The orientation of the fibers within the tensile zone of beams has a
significant effect on the tensile response of UHPC. Fibers tend to
preferentially align with the direction of flow of fresh UHPC during
casting, with dissimilar tensile stress and strain capacities being ex-
hibited between the flow and nonflow directions (Maya Duque
et al. 2016; Doyon-Barbant and Charron 2018; Huang et al. 2018;
Walsh et al. 2018; Qiu et al. 2020b). For this reason, it is recom-
mended that a casting method be specified by the designer to ensure
that the fiber orientation in the in-place material is similar to the one
achieved in the material control specimen. Unfavorable fiber ori-
entation with respect to the flexural tensile strains can reduce the
expected cracking stress and localization strain capacities of the
UHPC in the structure. In these cases, a reduction factor γ lower
than the maximum value of 0.85 is recommended to be applied to
the stress and strain parameters of the tensile constitutive law, as
shown in Figs. 8(b and c), to ensure a conservative representation
of the tensile response in the structure. Determining the value of γ
to address the fiber orientation effects may, in some instances, re-
quire prototype testing as recommended by the French design stan-
dard NF P18-710 (AFNOR 2016a).
Factored Flexural Resistance
At present, there is insufficient data to allow for the calibration of
the resistance factor for UHPC beams. However, the LRFD frame-
work requires that a factor be applied to the resistance calculation.
Thus, it is proposed that the factored flexural resistance M r of a
UHPC beam can be taken in accordance with the relationship
shown in Eq. (7), with ϕf being the resistance factor for flexural
moment
M r ¼ ϕf M n
For members dominated by compression crushing (i.e., M n ¼ M c
with εc ¼ εcu and εt < εt;loc ), the resistance factor can be taken
equal to 0.75. This value was chosen to correspond to the resis-
tance factor specified for compression-controlled sections in
AASHTO LRFD BDS (AASHTO 2020). For members dominated
by crack localization (i.e., M n ¼ M L with εc ≤ εcu and εt ¼ εt;loc ),
the resistance factor can be taken as 0.90 for sections satisfying
the ductility requirement (μ ≥ μmin ) and 0.75 for nonductile
sections with a sectional ductility ratio less than or equal to
1.0. For prestressed and non-prestressed members falling in be-
tween the two extremes, a linear variation of the resistance factor
is proposed in Eq. (8). This transition zone is proposed akin
of the transitional zone between compression-controlled and
© ASCE
J. Struct. Eng., 2022, 148(4): 04022013
tension-controlled sections for conventional concrete members
in AASHTO LRFD BDS (AASHTO 2020)
0.15ðμ − 1.0Þ
ϕf ¼ 0.75 þ ; 0.75 ≤ ϕf ≤ 0.90 ð8Þ
μmin − 1.0
Validation of the Proposed Flexural Model for
UHPC Beams
The capability of the model to predict the flexural behavior of pre-
stressed and non-prestressed UHPC beams was evaluated by com-
paring the model predictions to the experimental data from 45
flexural tests performed by the authors or found in the literature.
Prestressed Girder Test Presented in this Paper
The predicted moment-curvature behavior of the prestressed
girder tested by the authors, and previously discussed in this
paper, was obtained by discretizing its cross section into
2.5-mm-(0.1-in.)-thick horizontal layers through the height and
assuming constant strains within each layer. The initial strains in
each layer at the beginning of the test were determined from
the UHPC strain measured by the VWGs embedded at the midspan
and following the analytical considerations described previously.
That is, the initial strain in the first (top), second, and third (bottom)
layer of strands is equal to εp1;ini ¼ −0.00680, εp2;ini ¼ −0.00589,
and εp3;ini ¼ −0.00582, respectively (tension taken as a negative
value). The initial strain in each layer of UHPC was calculated from
the initial strain profile defined by the top strain, εT;ini ¼ 0.000022,
and bottom strain, εB;ini ¼ 0.000682 (compression taken as a pos-
itive value). The total strain in the UHPC section was obtained by
superposing the initial strain profile with an assumed strain profile,
i.e., εi ¼ εi;ini þ Δεi , in which εi , εi;ini , and Δεi are the total, initial,
and assumed strains in the UHPC layer i, as shown in Fig. 13. Sim-
ilarly, the total strains in the strand layers, εp1 , εp2 , and εp3 , were
calculated by superposing the initial steel strains, εp1;ini , εp2;ini , and
εp3;ini , with the change in strain in the UHPC at the level of each
steel layer, Δεcp1 , Δεcp2 , and Δεcp3 , respectively. The stresses in
each layer were calculated by employing the mechanical models
shown in Figs. 8(a and b) and 9(b). The stresses were then con-
verted into compression and tension forces, which were summed
to check force equilibrium in the section. This process was repeated
by assuming different strain profiles until equilibrium was satisfied,
after which the flexural moment was computed. The procedure was
repeated by increasing the values of assumed strains until the full
moment–sectional curvature diagram was derived.
In calculating the UHPC stresses, the compression and tension
parameters were informed from the average results of the material
ð7Þ tests performed on companion specimens presented in Table 1. The
UHPC modulus of elasticity was taken as the average of the results
obtained from the two UHPC batches with Ec ¼ 43.6 GPa (6,317
Ksi). The compressive strength and ultimate compression strain
were taken from the results of Batch B, which filled the top half
of the girder: fc0 ¼ 161 MPa (23.3 ksi) and εcu ¼ 0.00401. The
tensile parameters were taken from the results of Batch A, which
filled the bottom half of the girder, and without a reduction factor
(i.e., γ ¼ 1.00): γf t;cr ¼ γft;loc ¼ −9.3 MPa (−1.35 ksi) [elastic-
perfectly plastic model in Fig. 8(b)] and εt;loc ¼ −0.00497. The
tensile design model is compared to the uniaxial tensile test results
in Fig. 5(a). The steel stress-strain model relationship for the
1,860 MPa (270 ksi) low-relaxation strands was determined ac-
cording to Eq. (5) and depicted atop the experimental data from
the strand pullout tests in Fig. 5(b). For strand stress values greater
04022013-12 J. Struct. Eng.
 Girder Cross-Section Initial Strains Change in Strains Total Strains
T,ini T T
cp1,ini cp1 cp1
X
X

cp2,ini cp2 cp2

cp3,ini cp3 cp3
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Federal Highway Administration on 01/31/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

B,ini B B

Fig. 13. Determination of the total strains in the UHPC as a superposition of the initial strains (at the beginning of the test) and change in strains due to
the applied moment.

than 1,860 MPa (270 ksi) or strain values greater than 0.0272, a
linear interpolation was implemented up to a rupture stress fpu
of 1,932 MPa (281 ksi) occurring at a strain εpu of −0.0674, as
shown in Fig. 5(b). Table 3 presents a summary of the strain com-
patibility analysis results at the five points in flexural behavior,
namely, the initiation of cracks; strand service stress limit, i.
e., 0.80fpy , reached in the bottom layer of strands; yielding of
the bottom layer of strands; crack localization; and compression
crushing. These results represent the nominal design capacities
of the girder and can be directly compared to the experimental data
summarized in Table 2. The predicted-over-experimental flexural
moment ratio, Mn =M exp , is 0.97, 1.09, 0.99, and 0.92 at first crack,
80% of yield, yield, and localization, demonstrating the capability
of the proposed methodology to predict the flexural capacity of pre-
stressed UHPC beams. The predicted nominal design curve is com-
pared to the experimental results in Fig. 14, plotted as the
relationship between the applied moment and the change in curva-
ture during the test and simulation. The simulated design and
experimental moments in Fig. 14 are taken as M n − M ini and
M exp − M ini , respectively, where Mini ¼ 467 kN − m (345 kip-ft)
is the initial moment in the beam at the beginning of the test.
The change in curvature Δψ is taken as ΔεT =ΔX, where ΔX is
the depth of the neutral axis of the intermediate strain diagram
shown in Fig. 13, a value calculated in the strain compatibility
analysis and measured during the test. Note that the simulated
design curve was obtained from 110 calculation points, which is
greater than the minimum four key points proposed in the design
methodology.
The experimental and predicted design responses in Fig. 14(a)
are in good agreement, demonstrating the capability of the pro-
posed method to predict the full moment–sectional curvature re-
sponse of prestressed beams. The results also confirm that the
shape of the moment–sectional curvature diagram can be idealized
by four key points, as illustrated in Fig. 10. Because the compres-
sion strain limit observed during the test was approximately 20%
larger than the ultimate compression strain specified in the simu-
lations, the predicted failure mode of the girder was compression
crushing instead of strand rupture, as observed in the test [Table 3
and Fig. 14(a)]. This result suggests that the UHPC in a structural
element can undergo compression strains exceeding the strain at
peak stress, as obtained from a uniaxial compression test, likely
due to the confinement effects within the larger beam and strain
gradient effect within a beam cross section with large curvature.
Similarly, the localization strain of UHPC observed during the test
(εB ¼ −0.00618 in Table 2 at localization point) was approxi-
mately 24% greater than the localization strain obtained from direct
tension testing [εB ¼ ε̄t;loc ¼ −0.00497 in Table 1 (Batch A) and
Table 3 at localization point], indicating that the primary tensile
reinforcement and strain gradient effects may enhance the flexural
tensile strain capacity of the UHPC.
The design curvature ductility ratio of the girder, μsim ¼ 3.50,
can be calculated by dividing the sectional curvature at localization
over the sectional curvature at 80% of yield reported in Table 3.
Because the ductility ratio is greater than the specified ratio μmin
of 3.0, the flexural resistance factor for this girder is equal to 0.90.
Note that the experimental ductility ratio obtained from the results

Table 3. Summary of the predicted results at midspan computed according to the proposed flexural framework
Parameter First crack 80% of yieldb Yieldc Localization Crushingd
M n kN-m (kip-ft) 4,015 (2,961) 5,306 (3,913) 6,921 (5,105) 7,132 (5,260) 6,636 (4,894)
εT a 0.00099 0.00139 0.00226 0.00245 0.00401
εB a −0.00021 −0.00073 −0.00391 −0.00497 −0.02262
εpb3 a −0.00661 −0.00708 −0.01000 −0.01102 −0.02759
X mm (in.) 741 (29.2) 590 (23.2) 330 (13.0) 297 (11.7) 136 (5.3)
ψ1=mm (1=in:) 1.34 × 10−6 2.35 × 10−6 6.85 × 10−6 8.23 × 10−6 2.96 × 10−5
(3.40 × 10−5 ) (5.97 × 10−5 ) (1.74 × 10−4 ) (2.09 × 10−4 ) (7.51 × 10−4 )
M n =Mexp 0.97 1.09 0.99 0.92 0.95
a
Compression strains are taken as positive values and tension strains are taken as negative values.
b
Calculated when the stress in the bottom layer of strands is equal to the service stress limit of prestressing steel, i.e., f p3 ¼ 0.80f̄ py , as defined in Table
5.9.2.2-1 of AASHTO LRFD BDS (AASHTO 2020).
c
Calculated when the stress in the last layer of strands is equal to the yielding stress limit of prestressing steel, i.e., fp3 ¼ f̄ py .
d
Calculations assume strain compatibility is maintained after localization.

© ASCE 04022013-13 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2022, 148(4): 04022013

 Sectional Curvature (in-1) 10-3
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1
8,000
Applied Moment at Midspan (kN-m)
7,000 Nominal design curve
6,000
5,000 Factored design curve
Experimental curve
4,000 UHPC tensile
behavior ignored
3,000
First crack
80% of yield stress in bottom layer of strands
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Federal Highway Administration on 01/31/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
2,000
Yielding of bottom layer of strands
Localized crack (ultimate moment)
1,000 Rupture of bottom strands
Compression crushing
0 0
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5
Sectional Curvature (mm-1)
(a)
Fig. 14. Relationship between the experimental applied moment and the change in sectional curvature at midspan, comparing (a) experimental and
design responses; and (b) experimental and fitted experimental responses.
reported in Table 2 is greater than μsim with μexp ¼ 4.72 because
the cracks in the girder localized at a higher localization strain than
the one used in the simulations. The factored moment-curvature
design curve is compared to the nominal and experimental curves
in Fig. 14(a).
To illustrate the key differences between the behavior of pre-
stressed conventional concrete beams and similar UHPC beams,
a strain compatibility analysis of the same girder was performed
ignoring the tensile resistance of UHPC, i.e., ft;cr ¼ f t;loc ¼ 0,
with the results plotted in Fig. 14(a). While this analysis resulted
in a nominal moment capacity (M n ¼ Mc ) lower than the experi-
mental capacity, it both incorrectly predicted a concrete crushing
failure mode at the top of the section, rather than localization of
cracks at the bottom, and also significantly overestimated the cur-
vature ductility ratio μnt;sim compared to the experimental ductility
ratio, i.e., μnt;sim ¼ 2.67μexp . This comparison demonstrates that
conducting a capacity-based design that ignores the UHPC tensile
resistance may inadvertently result in a structure that does not dem-
onstrate the desired ductility.
Finally, if the localization strain measured during the girder test,
εt;loc ¼ −0.00636, is used in the model, the simulated nominal
design curve is identical to the prelocalization experimental
moment-curvature curve, as shown in Fig. 14(b), when the bilinear
constitutive law in Fig. 8(c) is employed with the following cali-
brated input values for the cracking and localization stresses:
f t;cr ¼ −6.21 MPa (0.90 ksi) and ft;loc ¼ −15.5 MPa (−2.25 ksi).
In this analysis, the estimated value of the cracking stress in the
girder was approximately 33% lower than the one obtained from
direct tension testing, while the localization stress was 49% higher
than the localization stress value obtained from tension testing
(Batch A in Table 1).
Prestressed and Non-Prestressed Beams Tested by
Other Researchers
This section explores the experimental results from tests of two ad-
ditional prestressed girders and 42 non-prestressed reinforced
beams found in the literature and compares them to model predic-
tions. The beams had varying cross-sectional shapes and geometries
© ASCE
J. Struct. Eng., 2022, 148(4): 04022013
Sectional Curvature (in-1) 10-3
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1
5,500
Applied Moment at Midspan (kip-ft)
5,000
4,500
Fitted curve
4,000
(pre-localization)
Experimental curve 3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5
10-5 Sectional Curvature (mm-1) 10-5
(b)
(rectangular shapes for non-prestressed, and I and pi shapes for
prestressed). The height of the non-prestressed rectangular beams
ranged between 220 mm (8.7 in.) and 381 mm (15 in.), while the
height of the prestressed I- and pi-shaped beams were 838 mm
(33 in.) and 914 mm (36 in.). The beams were made with different
types of UHPC products with varying amounts of fiber volume
content (1.0%, 1.5%, and 2%) and prestressing or conventional
steel reinforcement (reinforcement ratio ρ ranging between 0%
and 4.99%). The fibers varied in shape and geometries, including
smooth, twisted, straight, and hooked-end, with diameters and
lengths ranging between 0.12 and 0.30 mm (0.0047 and 0.012 in.)
and 10.0 and 30.0 mm (0.39 and 1.18 in.), respectively. The re-
ported flexural behaviors of the beams are in line with the flexural
behavior of UHPC members described previously in this paper: the
maximum flexural moment was reached immediately before a sin-
gle localized crack—initiated by the pullout of the crack-bridging
fibers—occurred, followed by the subsequent rupture of the tensile
reinforcement. Therefore, the analytical predictions presented in
this section focus on determining the capacity of the beams at
the onset of localization, as recommended in the proposed design
methodology that is developed in this paper. The predicted results
for the beams found in the literature are presented in Table 4. A
portion of the input material parameters for the UHPC and reinforc-
ing steel given in Table 4 were obtained from independent material
tests that accompanied each beam, i.e., simulations of beams tested
by Chen et al. (2018), Yoo et al. (2017), Qiu et al. (2020a), Yoo and
Yoon (2015), Graybeal (2006b), and Graybeal (2009). The uniaxial
tensile parameters (γf t;cr , γft;loc , and εt;loc with γ ¼ 1.00) for the
UHPC in these beams were obtained from uniaxial testing methods
or inverse analysis techniques performed on the results of flexural
beam tests. In cases where key material parameters were not re-
ported, they were obtained by fitting the model results to the exper-
imental data from one of the tested beams in a set, then comparing
the predicted flexural capacities of the remaining beams within the
same set to the experimental results without changing the estimated
input parameters, i.e., simulations of beams tested by Yang et al.
(2010), Meade and Graybeal (2010), and Hasgul et al. (2018), as
indicated in Table 4. The predicted flexural moment capacity M n
of the beams presented in Table 4 is in good agreement with an
04022013-14 J. Struct. Eng.
 Table 4. Comparison between experimental and predicted flexural capacities for prestressed and non-prestressed UHPC beams found in the literature
Original f c0 E f t;cr ft;loc ρ f sy Mn M exp
Reference name (MPa) (MPa) εcu (MPa) (MPa) εt;loc (%) (MPa) (kN-m) (kN-m) M n =M exp
f g h h h
Chen et al. B-1 126 45.6 0.0035 9.8 11.9 0.0043 1.09 461 54.0 43.3 1.25
(2018)a B-2 126 45.6f 0.0035g 9.8h 11.9h 0.0043h 2.75 417 78.5 71.4 1.10
B-3 126 45.6f 0.0035g 9.8h 11.9h 0.0043h 3.60 456 96.2 90.4 1.06
B-4 126 45.6f 0.0035g 9.8h 11.9h 0.0043h 4.99 445 111.2 105.9 1.05
Yoo et al. UH-N 197 47.8 0.0044 11.1i 12.2i 0.0032i 0.00 N=A 66.5 72.5 0.92
(2017)a UH-0.53% 197 47.8 0.0044 11.1i 12.2i 0.0032i 0.53 523 91.9 97.9 0.94
UH-1.06% 197 47.8 0.0044 11.1i 12.2i 0.0032i 1.06 523 117.0 118.8 0.99
UH-1.71% 197 47.8 0.0044 11.1i 12.2i 0.0032i 1.71 523 128.1 131.0 0.98
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Federal Highway Administration on 01/31/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Qiu et al. B-S65-16 132 44.0 0.0035g 8.0h 9.4h 0.0048h 0.73 412 83.8 65.5 1.28
(2020a)b B-S81-20 126 43.1 0.0035g 8.1h 9.7h 0.0062h 1.14 460 114.0 105.0 1.09
B-S83-20 130 45.3 0.0035g 8.0h 9.6h 0.0053h 1.14 460 113.0 101.9 1.11
B-H65-20 139 45.2 0.0035g 8.0h 10.4h 0.0067h 1.14 502 123.0 133.0 0.93
Yoo and Yoon S13-0.94% 212 46.7 0.0045 7.0i 7.0i 0.0023i 0.94 494 33.5 39.3 0.85
(2015)c S13-1.50% 212 46.7 0.0045 7.0i 7.0i 0.0023i 1.50 503 40.2 55.8 0.72
S19.5-0.94% 210 46.9 0.0048 10.6i 10.6i 0.0031i 0.94 494 44.8 42.0 1.07
S19.5-1.50% 210 46.9 0.0048 10.6i 10.6i 0.0031i 1.50 503 53.7 56.3 0.95
S30-0.94% 210 46.8 0.0046 9.8i 11.0i 0.0073i 0.94 494 47.0 43.2 1.09
S30-1.50% 210 46.8 0.0046 9.8i 11.0i 0.0073i 1.50 503 57.4 56.1 1.02
T30-0.94% 232 47.0 0.0053 9.5i 11.3i 0.0036i 0.94 494 47.9 43.5 1.10
T30-1.50% 232 47.0 0.0053 9.5i 11.3i 0.0036i 1.50 503 58.4 60.3 0.97
Yang et al. NR-1,2 197 46.8 0.0035g 10.7j 10.7j 0.0070j 0.00 N=A 59.3 71.0 0.84
(2010)a NR12-1,2 191 46.4 0.0035g 10.7j 10.7j 0.0070j 0.60 510j 85.1 85.1 1.00l
R13-1,2 192 46.7 0.0035g 10.7j 10.7j 0.0070j 0.09 510j 97.9 102.0 0.96
R13C-1,2 192 46.7 0.0035g 10.7j 10.7j 0.0070j 0.90 510j 97.9 92.2 1.06
R14-1,2 196 45.5 0.0035g 10.7j 10.7j 0.0070j 1.20 510j 110.6 116.7 0.95
R22-1,2 191 46.4 0.0035g 10.7j 10.7j 0.0070j 1.31 510j 105.5 106.4 0.99
R23-2 196 45.5 0.0035g 10.7j 10.7j 0.0070j 1.96 510j 128.2 131.6 0.97
Meade and S1-1 194 52.5 0.0035g 7.1j 7.1j 0.0045j 0.41 476 97.5 102.9 0.95
Graybeal S1-2 194 52.5 0.0035g 7.1j 7.1j 0.0045j 0.55 476 103.6 103.5 1.00l
(2010)d S1-3 194 52.5 0.0035g 7.1j 7.1j 0.0045j 0.64 463 113.7 121.0 0.94
S1-4 194 52.5 0.0035g 7.1j 7.1j 0.004j 0.83 476 122.4 123.5 0.99
S1-5 194 52.5 0.0035g 7.1j 7.1j 0.0045j 1.00 448 127.5 135.5 0.94
S2-0 203 53.3 0.0035g 10.7j 10.7j 0.0045j 0.00 N=A 101.5 90.0 1.13
S2-1 203 53.3 0.0035g 10.7j 10.7j 0.0045j 0.41 476 126.0 133.8 0.94l
S2-2 203 53.3 0.0035g 10.7j 10.7j 0.0045j 0.55 463 135.4 120.7 1.12
S2-3 203 53.3 0.0035g 10.7j 10.7j 0.0045j 0.64 476 141.2 163.4 0.86
S2-4 203 53.3 0.0035g 10.7j 10.7j 0.0045j 0.83 476 153.0 132.3 1.16
S2-5 203 53.3 0.0035g 10.7j 10.7j 0.0045j 1.00 448 156.7 171.2 0.91
Hasgul et al. B1-F 157 49.1f 0.0035g 6.5j 6.5j 0.0043j 0.90 453 52.6 52.6 1.00l
(2018)e B2-F 167 50.1f 0.0035g 6.5j 6.5j 0.0043j 1.90 463 80.0 89.8 0.89
B3-F 157 49.1f 0.0035g 6.5j 6.5j 0.0043j 2.80 456 100.9 111.9 0.90
B4-F 166 50.0f 0.0035g 6.5j 6.5j 0.0043j 4.30 465 98.9 134.4 0.74
Graybeal (2006b)a 80F 200 52.4 0.0043 10.0k 11.2k 0.0047k —m 1862 3,492 4,802 0.73
Graybeal (2009) a
P2-70F 221 56.3 0.0035 g
10.0 k
11.2 k
0.0047 k
— m
1862 3,616 4,248 0.85
Note: 25.4 mm ¼ 1 in:; and 1 lb = 4.45 N.
a
Specimens made of UHPC dosed with 2% straight smooth fibers by volume; fibers had a diameter of 0.2 mm and length of 13 mm.
b
Specimens made of UHPC dosed with 2% fibers by volume; fibers had smooth, twisted, and hooked-end shapes, diameters of 0.12, 0.16, and 0.20 mm, and
lengths of 10.0 and 13.0 mm.
c
Specimens made of UHPC dosed with 2% fibers by volume; fibers had smooth and twisted shapes, diameters of 0.20 and 0.30 mm, and lengths of 13.0, 19.5,
and 30.0 mm.
d
Specimens made of UHPC dosed with 1% and 2% straight smooth fibers by volume; fibers had a diameter of 0.2 mm and length of 13 mm.
e
Specimens made of UHPC dosed with 1.5% straight smooth fibers by volume; fibers had a diameter of 0.13 mm and length of 13 mm.
f
Values not reported; they were approximated using Eq. (6).
g
Values not reported; they were assumed based on the typical proposed value for the ultimate compressive strain for UHPC.
h
Values reported from independent uniaxial tension tests; note that the test methods utilized were different than the one proposed in this paper.
i
Values reported from inverse analysis of independent flexural beam test results following the recommendations of AFNOR (2016b).
j
Values not reported and were obtained by the calibration of the input parameters using the flexural results of only one beam in each set of specimens.
k
Values taken from uniaxial tension tests of similar UHPC product performed by the same authors: Set F1A-Long in Graybeal and Baby (2013).
l
Specimen flexural test results were used for calibration of a number of input material parameters that were not reported for the specimen set.
m
Prestressed girders with effective prestress of 779 and 1,061 MPa for girders 80F and P2-70F, respectively.

© ASCE 04022013-15 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2022, 148(4): 04022013

 average predicted-over-experimental moment ratio, M n =M exp , of
0.96 with a COV of 19.6% for all beams, providing another con-
firmation of the capability of the proposed methodology to predict
the flexural capacity of prestressed and non-prestressed UHPC
beams. The proposed closed-form model inherently depends on the
input mechanical properties; more rigorous determination of these
properties will result in a more accurate approximation of the flexu-
ral capacity.
Summary and Conclusions
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Federal Highway Administration on 01/31/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Aspects of the flexural behavior of UHPC beams are distinct
from those commonly associated with conventional concrete
beams. This paper presents a flexural design framework based
on rational principles with no reliance on empirical formulations.
The framework is supported by an experimental investigation of the
flexural behavior of a pretensioned bulb-tee bridge girder. Analyti-
cal results were compared to experimental data from prestressed
and non-prestressed flexure beam tests found in the literature
and demonstrate the capability of the proposed design method
to predict flexural capacity. Based on these investigations, the fol-
lowing conclusions can be reached:
• The flexural behavior of UHPC beams can be obtained from a
sectional analysis based on a linear strain distribution in a do-
main bounded by the UHPC compression strain limit, the
UHPC localization strain limit, and the rupture strain of the
reinforcing steel. The stresses on strained cross sections can be
obtained from appropriate uniaxial stress-strain models for
UHPC, which are different from those traditionally used for
conventional concrete.
• For flexural design, the UHPC uniaxial compression stress-
strain behavior can be idealized by an elastic-perfectly plastic
stress-strain model. The model requires three material proper-
ties: the modulus of elasticity, the compressive strength, and
the strain at compression strength (compression strain limit).
These properties can be obtained from compression tests per-
formed on cylindrical specimens according to ASTM C1856
(ASTM 2017).
• For flexural design, the tensile stress-strain response of UHPC
can be idealized by an elastic-perfectly plastic or bilinear stress-
strain relationship. The model requires three material property
parameters: the cracking stress, the localization stress, and the
localization strain. These properties can be obtained by execut-
ing a direct tension test on UHPC prismatic specimens.
• The maximum moment capacity of UHPC beams can occur at
crack localization when the strain in the extreme tensile layer is
equal to the UHPC localization strain, or at compression crush-
ing prior to localization when the strain in the extreme compres-
sion layer is equal to the UHPC ultimate compression strain. In
each case, the opposing criteria must not be exceeded when the
primary criteria is reached.
• For members failing at crack localization, the nominal moment–
sectional curvature diagram can be idealized by four key points
corresponding to the initiation of flexural cracks, yielding of the
bottom layer of reinforcement, crack localization, and concrete
crushing. For members failing in compression prior to localiza-
tion, the moment-curvature diagram is simplified into the two or
three branches limited by concrete crushing, which can occur
before or after the tensile yielding of the reinforcement.
• After localization in flexure, beams made with UHPC are ex-
pected to develop one dominant crack. This behavior will cause
the girder to hinge at the cross section of the localized crack,
subjecting the tensile steel reinforcement crossing the
© ASCE 04022013-16
J. Struct. Eng., 2022, 148(4): 04022013
localization crack to excessive strains and eventual rupture.
For this reason, the postlocalization flexural capacity is not rec-
ommended for use in design. More research is needed to quan-
tify the relationship between the rupture strain of the flexural
reinforcement after localization, the opening of the localized
crack, and the development length of the reinforcement in
the vicinity of the localized crack.
• The localization strain of UHPC attained during the preten-
sioned girder flexural test was approximately 24% greater than
the localization strain obtained from direct tension testing, in-
dicating that the primary tensile reinforcement may enhance
the tensile strain capacity of the UHPC. More research is needed
to refine the understanding of this behavior. Moreover, the com-
pression strain limit attained during the test was approximately
20% larger than the ultimate compression strain specified in the
simulations, suggesting that the UHPC in a structural element
can undergo compression strains exceeding the strain at peak
stress obtained from a uniaxial compression test.
• Performing a capacity-based flexural design of UHPC girders
that ignores the UHPC tensile resistance may incorrectly predict
a concrete crushing failure mode at the top of the section, rather
than localization of cracks at the bottom, and significantly over-
estimate the curvature ductility ratio, inadvertently resulting in a
structure that does not demonstrate the desired ductility.
• The results of the proposed design methodology were validated
for a pretensioned girder tested by the authors and the results are
in good agreement with the experimental data. The predicted-
over-experimental flexural moment ratios were 0.97, 1.09, 0.99,
and 0.92 at first crack, 80% of yield, yield, and crack localiza-
tion, respectively. Additionally, the model nominal moment pre-
dictions for 40 prestressed and non-prestressed beams found in
the literature are in good agreement with the experimental data.
The average predicted-over-experimental ratio was 0.96 with a
COV of 19.6% for all beams.
Appendix. Supplemental Background Information
Flexural Design of Concrete Members
Flexural design of concrete members in the United States is
founded on mechanical models and sectional design methods speci-
fied in AASHTO LRFD BDS (AASHTO 2020) and ACI 318-19
(ACI 2019). In these documents, the analysis of the beam is based
on the concepts of equilibrium and strain compatibility utilizing
mechanical models to determine the stresses on strained cross sec-
tions. In compression, the stress-strain behavior of concrete at ul-
timate limit state may be simplified by a calibrated rectangular
stress block. At ultimate loading, discrete longitudinal steel rein-
forcements are added and proportioned to carry all tensile stresses
while ignoring the minimal tensile resistance offered by the con-
crete. When subjected to flexural loads, the tensile reinforcements
span the concrete cracks and enable flexural tensile strains far
greater than that at first concrete cracking. The ultimate capacity
of the beam is commonly limited by the attainment of a flexural
compression failure, defined when the strain in the concrete in com-
pression reaches the assumed compression strain limit of 0.003.
Reinforced concrete flexural elements are described as (1) com-
pression-controlled when the net tensile strain in the extreme ten-
sion steel at ultimate is less than a specified value, generally
associated with the yield strain; (2) tension-controlled when the
steel strain at failure is greater than a specified tensile strain limit
value, e.g., 0.005 for non-prestressed reinforcement with a speci-
fied minimum yielding stress not exceeding 517 MPa (75 ksi)
(AASHTO 2020); and (3) within the transition region when the
J. Struct. Eng.
 net tensile strain in the steel at failure is between the specified
thresholds of the compression- and tension-controlled sections.
The steel tensile threshold value for the tension-controlled sections
is expected to be sufficiently large to allow for excessive deforma-
tion and cracking, providing for a ductile behavior and ample
warning of impending failure. In contrast, given the small tensile
strains in compression-controlled sections, this failure mechanism
may be brittle, with little warning of impending failure. Moreover,
the failure of common compression members, i.e., columns, can
lead to detrimental consequences to the stability of the entire
structure. To address this issue, a reduced moment resistance factor
is specified for compression-controlled sections, i.e., ϕf ¼ 0.75,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Federal Highway Administration on 01/31/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
compared to the resistance factor specified for tension-controlled
sections, i.e., ϕf ¼ 0.90, for non-prestressed and prestressed
components designed according to ACI 318-19 (ACI 2019), and
ϕf ¼ 0.90 and 1.00 for non-prestressed components and pre-
stressed components designed according to AASHTO LRFD BDS
(AASHTO 2020), respectively.
International Recommendations for Flexural Design
In the French design standard, the resisting forces of the sections of
a member subjected to flexure are calculated from a linear strain
diagram included in a domain bounded by a compression strain
limit, corresponding to UHPC crushing, and a reinforcing steel
limit, corresponding to the rupture of reinforcing steel (AFNOR
2016a). For members with no steel reinforcing bars or prestressing
strands, tensile strains are limited to the strain at peak tensile
strength of UHPC. The cross-sectional forces are obtained by em-
ploying compression and tension mechanical stress-strain models to
calculate the stresses corresponding to the assumed strains. The
compression models include a detailed model based on parabolic
representation of the stress-strain results obtained from compres-
sion tests and a simplified elastic-perfectly plastic model with re-
duced design stress and strain limits. The tension models include
an elastic-perfectly plastic or bilinear stress-strain representation,
limited by the strain at crack localization (hardening limit), for
materials exhibiting a constant or increasing stress after cracking,
respectively. The material compression parameters are obtained
directly from uniaxial compression tests, while the tensile param-
eters are obtained indirectly from a prism flexure test using an
inverse analysis technique. The inverse analysis back-calculates
an approximation of the uniaxial tensile stress-strain response
from the moment-deflection results of the prism test and includes
specific procedures to infer the sectional curvatures of the beam
corresponding to the measured deflections at each load step
(AFNOR 2016b).
In the Swiss design recommendations, the ultimate bending re-
sistance of a reinforced UHPC cross section is calculated by resolv-
ing the stresses corresponding to a linear strain diagram included in
a domain bounded by the strains when the peak compression
(crushing) and tensile (localization) strengths are reached (SIA
2016). The compression stress-strain model is linear elastic to fail-
ure, with the failure stress defined by the design compression
strength obtained from compression testing of cylinders or cubes.
In tension, a rectangular stress block is permitted with a stress equal
to the design tensile strength (which is a proportion of the peak
tensile strength) and extending to a distance of 0.9ðh − XÞ from
the extreme tension fiber, where h is height of the beam section
and X is the depth of the neutral axis. If the tensile model is used
to describe a UHPC member with steel reinforcing bars or strands
as the primary flexural tensile reinforcement, the tensile strain limit
(strain at peak tensile strength) may be increased by a factor of 2.0
due to simultaneous action of the fibers and reinforcing steel; in this
© ASCE 04022013-17
J. Struct. Eng., 2022, 148(4): 04022013
case, the design tensile strength is taken as a reduced value of the
elastic limit (cracking stress). The uniaxial tensile stresses and
strains of UHPC are obtained either from a direct tension test or
from an inverse analysis of the load-deflection results of flexural
prism tests. The inverse analysis method assumes a stress distribu-
tion in the section at peak force and uses simplified procedures to
obtain the strain-hardening portion of the UHPC stress-strain re-
sponse based on the measured vertical deflection and sectional cur-
vatures of the prism during the test. The applicability of the Swiss
design recommendation document is limited to UHPC materials
exhibiting a uniaxial stress-strain response showing a continuous
increase in stress after cracking until the peak stress is reached,
i.e., strain-hardening behavior.
In the Canadian design recommendations, the design capacity of
flexural elements composed of strain-hardening fiber-reinforced
concrete (SH-FRC), such as UHPC, is calculated by determining the
sectional forces corresponding to a linear strain diagram bounded by
the SH-FRC crushing strain limit in compression and the rupture of
steel reinforcement in tension (Annex A8.1 of CSA S6:19). The
compression stress-strain model is linear elastic when the strain
value in the extreme compression layer is less than the limiting strain
at crushing. When the extreme compression fiber of the member
equals the ultimate compression strain (i.e., crushing limit), the com-
pression model can be taken as the traditional rectangular stress
block, which is compatible with a triangular stress distribution for
materials with compression strength values exceeding 120 MPa
(17.4 ksi). The tensile model at the ultimate limit state is a rectan-
gular distribution extending over cross-sectional layers where the
tensile strains are less than or equal to the limiting tensile strain
(i.e., strain at peak tensile resistance). The compression parameters
are obtained from uniaxial compression tests, while the uniaxial ten-
sile parameters (i.e., peak stress and strain) are obtained either from a
direct tension test or from an inverse analysis of the load-deflection
results of flexural prism tests. The inverse analysis technique is
based on empirical approximations of the stresses at specific vertical
deflections and crack openings recorded during the testing of a
flexural prism of specified dimensions. The Canadian design docu-
ment specifies a flexural resistance method based on sectional cur-
vature ductility. The maximum flexural resistance M1 is taken as the
maximum of the flexural moment (1) at yielding of the reinforce-
ment in tension, (2) when the strain in the extreme tension fiber is
equal to the limiting tensile strain, or (3) at concrete crushing. The
curvature ductility ratio is defined as the ratio of the sectional cur-
vature at M 1 to the sectional curvature at the yielding of the tensile
flexural reinforcement. If the ductility ratio is greater than 2.0, the
flexural resistance of the member is taken equal to the moment at
yielding of reinforcement. In cases where the curvature ductility is
less than 2.0, the flexural resistance of the member must be taken as
the maximum of 0.50 × M 1 or the flexural resistance calculated
without considering the contribution of fibers. Fig. 1 presents a com-
parison of the cross-sectional stress conditions of UHPC members
computed following the recommendations of the French, Swiss, and
Canadian documents when the strain at the extreme tension layer is
equal to the design tensile strain limit εt;lim and with elastic stresses
in compression.
Data Availability Statement
Some or all data, models, or code that support the findings of this
study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable
request. Some or all data, models, or code generated or used during
the study are proprietary or confidential in nature and may only be
provided with restrictions.
J. Struct. Eng.
 Acknowledgments
The research presented in this paper was funded by FHWA. The
publication of this paper does not necessarily indicate approval
or endorsement of the findings, opinions, conclusions, or recom-
mendations either inferred or specifically expressed herein by
FHWA or the United States Government. This research could
not have been completed were it not for the dedicated support
of the technical professionals associated with the FHWA Structural
Concrete Research Program.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Federal Highway Administration on 01/31/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Notation
The following symbols are used in this paper:
d = distance from top of the section to the centroid of
reinforcing steel;
Ec = modulus of elasticity of UHPC;
Ēc = average modulus of elasticity of UHPC;
Ep = modulus of elasticity of prestressing steel strands;
Es = modulus of elasticity of conventional steel;
fc = stress in extreme compression layer;
fc0 = compressive strength of UHPC;
f̄c0 = average compressive strength of UHPC;
fcrd;F = design cracking strength of UHPC as defined by
Fig. 3.206 of NF P18-710;
fps = stress in prestressing strand layer;
f pu = ultimate tensile strength of prestressing strands;
f̄ pu = average ultimate tensile strength of prestressing
strands;
f py = yield strength of prestressing strands;
f̄ py = average yield strength of prestressing strands;
fs = stress in reinforcing steel layer;
fs;d = design stress of reinforcing steel as defined by the
appropriate international design document;
f sy = yield stress of conventional steel;
f t;r = effective cracking stress of UHPC;
f̄t;cr = average effective cracking stress of UHPC;
f td;C = design tensile strength of UHPC as defined by Fig.
CA8.1.8a of CSA S6:19;
ftd;F = design tensile strength of UHPC as defined by Fig. 3.206
of NF P18-710;
f td;S = design tensile strength of UHPC as defined by Section
2.4.2.3 of SIA 2052;
f t;lim = tensile strain limit under service loads;
ft;loc = localization stress of UHPC;
f̄t;loc = average localization stress of UHPC;
h = overall thickness or height of a member;
M = applied bending moment on UHPC girder;
Mc = flexural moment at crushing of UHPC at extreme
compression layer;
M cr = flexural moment at the first flexural crack;
M exp = total experimental moment corresponding to applied
moment, M, plus the self-weight moment, M ini ;
Mini = bending moment induced by the self-weight of the
UHPC girder and loading apparatus;
M L = flexural moment at crack localization, when the extreme
tensile layer, εt , is equal to the localization strain of
UHPC, εt;loc ;
M n = nominal flexural moment;
Mr = factored flexural moment;
© ASCE 04022013-18
J. Struct. Eng., 2022, 148(4): 04022013
M sl = baseline flexural moment for ductility considerations,
calculated when the bottom layer of steel is equal to 80%
the yield stress of steel reinforcement;
M y = flexural moment at yielding of the extreme layer of
reinforcement;
M1 = maximum flexural moment as defined by Section
CA8.1.8.4.3.1 of CSA S6:19 documents;
X = distance from extreme compression fiber to the neutral
axis of the section;
α = reduction factor on the compressive strength reflecting
the linearity limit of the material compressive stress-
strain response;
γ = reduction factor applied on the tensile stress parameters
(ft;cr and ft;loc ) to account for variability in the material
testing results;
ΔX = distance from extreme compression fiber to the neutral
axis of the section of the intermediate strain profile in
Fig. 13;
ΔεB = change in strain at midspan at extreme bottom fiber;
Δεcp1 = change in strain in the concrete at midspan at the level of
the first layer of strands;
Δεcp2 = change in strain in the concrete at midspan at the level of
the second layer of strands;
Δεcp3 = change in strain in the concrete at midspan at the level of
the third layer of strands;
Δεi = change in strain in UHPC layer i;
ΔεT = change in strain at midspan at extreme top fiber;
Δψ = change in sectional curvature taken as Δεt =ΔX;
εB = strain at midspan at extreme bottom fiber;
εB;ini = initial strain at midspan at extreme bottom fiber,
corresponding to σB;ini ;
εc = strain in extreme compression layer;
εcp = elastic compression strain limit taken as αf c0 =E;
εcp1 = strain in the concrete at midspan at the level of the first
(top) layer of strands;
εcp2 = strain in the concrete at midspan at the level of the
second layer of strands;
εcp3 = strain in the concrete at midspan at the level of the third
(bottom) layer of strands;
εcp1;ini = initial strain in the UHPC at the level of the first (top)
layer of prestressing strands;
εcp2;ini = initial strain in the UHPC at the level of the second layer
of prestressing strands;
εcp3;ini = initial strain in the UHPC at the level of the third
(bottom) layer of prestressing strands;
εcu = strain at ultimate compressive strength of UHPC;
ε̄cu = average strain at ultimate compressive strength of
UHPC;
εi = strain in UHPC layer i;
εi;ini = initial strain in UHPC layer i;
εpe = strain in the effective prestress;
εps = strain in the prestressing strand layer;
εpu = rupture tensile rupture strain of prestressing strands;
ε̄pu = average tensile rupture strain of prestressing
strands;
εpy = yield strain of prestressing strands;
εp1 = strain in the first (top) layer of steel strands;
εp2 = strain in the second layer of steel strands;
εp3 = strain in the third (bottom) layer of steel strands;
εp1;ini = initial strain in the first (first) layer of prestressing strands
(at the star M ini );
J. Struct. Eng.
 εp2;ini = initial strain in the second layer of prestressing strands
(strain at M ini );
εp3;ini = initial strain in the third (bottom) layer of prestressing
strands (strain at M ini );
εs = strain in reinforcing steel layer;
εsu = rupture strain of conventional steel;
εsy = yield strain of conventional steel;
εT = strain at midspan at extreme top fiber;
εT;ini = initial strain at midspan at extreme top fiber,
corresponding to σT;ini ;
εt = strain in extreme tensile layer;
εt;cr = strain at effective cracking stress of UHPC;
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Federal Highway Administration on 01/31/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
εt;lim = design tensile strain limit of UHPC as defined by the
appropriate international design document;
εt;loc = average localization strain of UHPC;
ε̄t;loc = average localization strain of UHPC;
μ = curvature ductility ratio defined as ψL =ψy ;
μexp = experimental value of curvature ductility ratio;
μmin = specified minimum curvature ductility ratio;
μnt;sim = simulated value of curvature ductility ratio when the
tensile resistance of UHPC is ignored;
μsim = simulated value of curvature ductility ratio;
ρ = reinforcement ratio of conventional steel;
σB;ini = initial stress at midspan at extreme bottom fiber;
σT;ini = initial stress at midspan at extreme top fiber;
ϕf = resistance factor for flexural moment;
ψ = sectional curvature defined as the ration of the
compressive strain in the section over the depth of
the neutral axis;
ψc = sectional curvature at crushing of UHPC at extreme
compression layer;
ψcr = sectional curvature at the first flexural crack;
ψL = sectional curvature at crack localization, when the
extreme tensile layer, εt , is equal to the localization strain
of UHPC, εt;loc ;
ψsl = baseline sectional curvature for ductility considerations,
calculated when the bottom layer of steel is equal to 80%
the yield stress of steel reinforcement;
ψy = sectional curvature at yielding of the extreme layer of
reinforcement; and
ω̄c = average density of UHPC.
References
Aaleti, S., B. Petersen, and S. Sritharan. 2013. Design guide for
precast UHPC Waffle Deck panel system, including connections.
Rep. No. FHWA-HIF-13-032. Washington, DC: Federal Highway
Administration.
AASHTO. 2020. LRFD bridge design specifications. 9th ed. Washington,
DC: AASHTO.
AASHTO. 2022. Standard method of test for uniaxial tensile response of
ultra-high performance concrete. AASHTO T 397 Washington, DC:
AASHTO.
ACI (American Concrete Institute). 2019. Building code requirements for
structural concrete and commentary. ACI 318-19. Farmington Hills,
MI: ACI.
AFNOR (Association Française de Normalisation). 2016a. National addi-
tion to the Eurocode 2—Design of concrete structures: Specific rules
for ultra-high performance fibre-reinforced concrete (UHPFRC). NF
P18-710. Paris: AFNOR.
AFNOR (Association Française de Normalisation). 2016b. Ultra-high
performance fibre-reinforced concrete—Specifications, performance,
production, and conformity. NF P18-470. Paris: AFNOR.
© ASCE
J. Struct. Eng., 2022, 148(4): 04022013
ASTM. 2014. Standard test method for static modulus of elasticity and
poisson’s ratio of concrete in compression. ASTM C469/C469M. West
Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
ASTM. 2017. Standard practice for fabricating and testing specimens
of ultra-high performance concrete. ASTM C1856/C1856M. West
Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
ASTM. 2018a. Standard specification for low-relaxation, seven-wire steel
strand for prestressed concrete. ASTM A416/A416M. West Consho-
hocken, PA: ASTM.
ASTM. 2018b. Standard test method for compressive strength of cylindri-
cal concrete specimens. ASTM C39/C39M. West Conshohocken, PA:
ASTM.
ASTM. 2020. Standard test method and definitions for mechanical testing
of steel products. ASTM A370. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
Baby, F., P. Marchand, and F. Toutlemonde. 2014. “Shear behavior of ultra-
high performance fiber-reinforced concrete beams. I: Experimental in-
vestigation.” J. Struct. Eng. 140 (5): 04013111. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000907.
Bencardino, F., L. Rizzuti, G. Spadea, and R. N. Swamy. 2010. “Experi-
mental evaluation of fiber reinforced concrete fracture properties.” Com-
posites, Part B 41 (1): 17–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb
.2009.09.002.
Bolander, J. E., S. Choi, and S. R. Duddukuri. 2008. “Fracture of fiber-
reinforced cement composites: Effects of fiber dispersion.” Int. J. Fract.
154 (1–2): 73–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10704-008-9269-4.
Chen, L., and B. A. Graybeal. 2012. “Modeling structural performance
of ultrahigh performance concrete I-girders.” J. Bridge Eng. 17 (5):
754–764. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000305.
Chen, S., R. Zhang, L. J. Jia, and J. Y. Wang. 2018. “Flexural behaviour of
rebar-reinforced ultra-high-performance concrete beams.” Mag. Concr.
Res. 70 (19): 997–1015. https://doi.org/10.1680/jmacr.17.00283.
CSA (Canadian Standard Association). 2019. Canadian highway bridge
design code. S6:19. Torronto, ON: CSA.
Cunha, V. M. C. F., J. A. O. Barros, and J. M. Sena-Cruz. 2011. “An in-
tegrated approach for modelling the tensile behaviour of steel fibre re-
inforced self-compacting concrete.” Cem. Concr. Res. 41 (1): 64–76.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2010.09.007.
De Larrard, F., and T. Sedran. 2002. “Mixture-proportioning of high-
performance concrete.” Cem. Concr. Res. 32 (11): 1699–1704. https://
doi.org/10.1016/S0008-8846(02)00861-X.
Doyon-Barbant, J., and J. P. Charron. 2018. “Impact of fibre orientation on
tensile, bending and shear behaviors of a steel fibre reinforced con-
crete.” Mater. Struct. 51 (6): 157. https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-018
-1282-0.
El-Helou, R., and B. Graybeal. 2019. “The ultra girder: A design concept
for a 300-foot single span prestressed ultra high-performance concrete
bridge girder.” In Proc., 2nd Int. Interactive Symp. on Ultra-High
Performance Concrete. Ames, IA: Iowa State Univ.
El-Helou, R. G. 2016. “Multiscale computational framework for analysis
and design of ultra-high performance concrete structural components
and systems.” Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. of Civil and Environmental En-
gineering, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State Univ.
El-Helou, R. G., Z. B. Haber, and B. A. Graybeal. 2022. “Mechanical
behavior and design properties of ultra-high performance concrete.”
ACI Mater. J. 119 (1). https://doi.org/10.14359/51734194.
El-Helou, R. G., I. Koutromanos, C. D. Moen, and M. Moharrami. 2020.
“Triaxial constitutive law for ultra-high-performance concrete and
other fiber-reinforced cementitious materials.” J. Eng. Mech. 146 (7):
04020062. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EM.1943-7889.0001777.
Gowripalan, N., and I. R. Gilbert. 2000. Design guidelines for ductal pre-
stressed concrete beams. Sydney: The University of New South Wales,
VSL (Aust) Pty Ltd.
Graybeal, B. A. 2006a. Material property characterization of ultra-high
performance concrete. Rep. No. FHWA-HRT-06-103. McLean, VA:
Federal Highway Administration.
Graybeal, B. A. 2006b. Structural behavior of ultra-high performance con-
crete prestressed I-girders. Rep. No. FHWA-HRT-06-115. McLean,
VA: Federal Highway Administration.
04022013-19 J. Struct. Eng.
 Graybeal, B. A. 2008. “Flexural behavior of an ultrahigh-performance con-
crete I-girder.” J. Bridge Eng. 13 (6): 602–610. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)1084-0702(2008)13:6(602).
Graybeal, B. A. 2009. Structural behavior of a prototype ultra-high per-
formance concrete pi-girder. Report No. FHWA-HRT-10-027. McLean,
VA: Federal Highway Administration.
Graybeal, B. A., and F. Baby. 2013. “Development of direct tension test
method for ultra-high- performance fiber-reinforced concrete.” ACI
Mater. J. 110 (2): 177–186.
Graybeal, B. A., and B. Stone. 2012. Compression response of a rapid-
strengthening ultra-high performance concrete formulation. Rep. No.
FHWA-HRT-12-064. McLean, VA: Federal Highway Administration.
Habel, K., M. Viviani, E. Denarié, and E. Brühwiler. 2006. “Development
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Federal Highway Administration on 01/31/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
of the mechanical properties of an ultra-high performance fiber rein-
forced concrete (UHPFRC).” Cem. Concr. Res. 36 (7): 1362–1370.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2006.03.009.
Haber, Z., I. De La Varga, B. Graybeal, B. Nakashoji, and R. El-Helou.
2018. Properties and behavior of UHPC-class materials. Rep. No.
FHWA-HRT-18-036. McLean, VA: Federal Highway Administration.
Hasgul, U., K. Turker, T. Birol, and A. Yavas. 2018. “Flexural behavior of
ultra-high-performance fiber reinforced concrete beams with low and
high reinforcement ratios.” Struct. Concr. 19 (6): 1577–1590. https://
doi.org/10.1002/suco.201700089.
Huang, H., X. Gao, L. Li, and H. Wang. 2018. “Improvement effect of
steel fiber orientation control on mechanical performance of UHPC.”
Constr. Build. Mater. 188 (Nov): 709–721. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.conbuildmat.2018.08.146.
Lepech, M. D., and V. C. Li. 2009. “Water permeability of engineered ce-
mentitious composites.” Cem. Concr. Compos. 31 (10): 744–753.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2009.07.002.
Li, C., Z. Feng, L. Ke, R. Pan, and J. Nie. 2019. “Experimental study on
shear performance of cast-in-place ultra-high performance concrete
structures.” Materials (Basel) 12 (19): 3254. https://doi.org/10.3390
/ma12193254.
Magureanu, C., I. Sosa, C. Negrutiu, and B. Heghes. 2012. “Mechanical
properties and durability of ultra-high-performance concrete.” ACI
Mater. J. 109 (2): 177–184.
Maya Duque, L. F., I. De La Varga, and B. Graybeal. 2016. “Fiber
reinforcement influence on the tensile response of UHPFRC.” In Proc.,
1st Int. Interactive Symp. on UHPC. Ames, IA: Iowa State Univ.
Meade, T., and B. Graybeal. 2010. “Flexural response of lightly reinforced
ultra-high performance concrete beams.” In Proc., 3rd fib Int. Congress.
Washington, DC: Fédération International du béton.
NJDOT (New Jersey DOT). 2016. Design manual for bridges and struc-
tures. 6th ed. Trenton, NJ: NJDOT.
Oesterlee, C. 2010. “Structural response of reinforced UHPFRC and RC
composite members.” Ph.D. dissertation, School of Architecture, Civil
and Environmental Engineering, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology
Lausanne.
PCI (Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute). 2014. PCI bridge design
manual. 3rd ed. Second Release. Chicago: PCI.
Peng, X., and C. Meyer. 2000. “A continuum damage mechanics model
for concrete reinforced with randomly distributed short fibers.”
Comput. Struct. 78 (4): 505–515. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0045-7949
(00)00045-6.
Pros, A., P. Diez, and C. Molins. 2012. “Modeling steel fiber reinforced
concrete: Numerical immersed boundary approach and a phenomeno-
logical mesomodel for concrete-fiber interaction.” Int. J. Numer. Meth-
ods Eng. 90 (1): 65–86. https://doi.org/10.1002/nme.3312.
Qiu, M., X. Shao, K. Wille, B. Yan, and J. Wu. 2020a. “Experimental in-
vestigation on flexural behavior of reinforced ultra high performance
concrete low-profile T-beams.” Int. J. Concr. Struct. Mater. 14 (1):
5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40069-019-0380-x.
© ASCE 04022013-20
View publication stats J. Struct. Eng., 2022, 148(4): 04022013
Qiu, M., Y. Zhang, S. Qu, Y. Zhu, and X. Shao. 2020b. “Effect of reinforce-
ment ratio, fiber orientation, and fiber chemical treatment on the direct
tension behavior of rebar-reinforced UHPC.” Constr. Build. Mater.
256 (Sep): 119311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.119311.
Radtke, F. K. F., A. Simone, and L. J. Sluys. 2010. “A computational model
for failure analysis of fibre reinforced concrete with discrete treatment
of fibres.” Eng. Fract. Mech. 77 (4): 597–620. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.engfracmech.2009.11.014.
Russel, H., and B. A. Graybeal. 2013. Ultra-high performance concrete:
A state-of-the-art report for the bridge community. Rep. No. FHWA-
HRT-13-060. McLean, VA: Federal Highway Administration.
Schauffert, E. A., and G. Cusatis. 2012. “Lattice discrete particle model for
fiber-reinforced concrete. I: Theory.” J. Eng. Mech. 138 (7): 826–833.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EM.1943-7889.0000387.
Shao, Y., and S. L. Billington. 2019. “Utilizing full UHPC compressive
strength in steel reinforced UHPC beams.” In Proc., 2nd Int. Interactive
Symp. on Ultra-High Performance Concrete. Ames, IA: Iowa State
Univ.
SIA (Swiss Society of Engineers and Architects). 2016. Recommendation:
Ultra-high performance fibre-reinforced cement-based composites
(UHPFRC) construction material, dimensioning, and application.
2052. Lausanne, Switzerland: SIA.
Skogman, B. C., M. K. Tadros, and R. Grasmick. 1988. “Flexural strength
of prestressed concrete members.” PCI J. 33: 96–123.
Smith, J., G. Cusatis, D. Pelessone, E. Landis, J. O’Daniel, and J. Baylot.
2014. “Discrete modeling of ultra-high-performance concrete with ap-
plication to projectile penetration.” Int. J. Impact Eng. 65 (Mar): 13–32.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2013.10.008.
Soranakom, C., and B. Mobasher. 2008. “Correlation of tensile and flexu-
ral responses of strain softening and strain hardening cement compo-
sites.” Cem. Concr. Compos. 30 (6): 465–477. https://doi.org/10.1016
/j.cemconcomp.2008.01.007.
Soranakom, C., and B. Mobasher. 2009. “Flexural design of fiber-
reinforced concrete.” ACI Mater. J. 106 (5): 461–469.
Stürwald, S. 2017. “Bending behaviour of UHPC reinforced with rebars
and steel fibres.” In Proc., 2017 fib Symp.: High Tech Concrete: Where
Technology and Engineering Meet, 473–481. Cham, Switzerland:
Springer.
Walsh, K. K., N. J. Hicks, E. P. Steinberg, H. H. Hussein, and A. A.
Semendary. 2018. “Fiber orientation in ultra-high-performance concrete
shear keys of adjacent-box-beam bridges.” ACI Mater. J. 115 (2): 227–
238. https://doi.org/10.14359/51701097.
Wille, K., and A. E. Naaman. 2013. “Effect of ultra-high-performance con-
crete on pullout behavior of high-strength brass-coated straight steel
fibers.” ACI Mater. J. 110 (4): 451–462.
Yang, I. H., C. Joh, and B. S. Kim. 2010. “Structural behavior of ultra high
performance concrete beams subjected to bending.” Eng. Struct.
32 (11): 3478–3487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2010.07.017.
Yao, Y., X. Wang, K. Aswani, and B. Mobasher. 2017. “Analytical proce-
dures for design of strain softening and hardening cement composites.”
Int. J. Adv. Eng. Sci. Appl. Math. 9 (3): 181–194. https://doi.org/10
.1007/s12572-017-0187-4.
Yin, H., K. Shirai, and W. Teo. 2019. “Finite element modelling to predict
the flexural behaviour of ultra-high performance concrete members.”
Eng. Struct. 183 (Mar): 741–755. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct
.2019.01.046.
Yoo, D. Y., N. Banthia, and Y. S. Yoon. 2017. “Experimental and numerical
study on flexural behavior of ultra-high-performance fiber-reinforced
concrete beams with low reinforcement ratios.” Can. J. Civ. Eng.
44 (1): 18–28. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjce-2015-0384.
Yoo, D. Y., and Y. S. Yoon. 2015. “Structural performance of ultra-high-
performance concrete beams with different steel fibers.” Eng. Struct.
102 (Nov): 409–423. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2015.08.029.
J. Struct. Eng.