Composite Structures 176 (2017) 124–142

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Composite Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compstruct

Confinement of ultra-high-performance fiber reinforced concrete

columns
Hyun-Oh Shin a, Kyung-Hwan Min b,⇑, Denis Mitchell c
a
New Transportation Systems Research Center, Korea Railroad Research Institute, 176 Cheoldobangmulgwan-ro (St), Uiwang-si, Gyeonggi-do 16105, Republic of Korea
b
Rail Research Institute, Chungnam National University, 99, Daehak-ro (St), Yuseong-gu, Daejeon 34134, Republic of Korea
c
Department of Civil Engineering and Applied Mechanics, McGill University, 817 Sherbrooke Street West, Montreal, Quebec H3A0C3, Canada

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

Article history: This study investigates the axial load response of ultra-high-performance fiber-reinforced concrete
Received 3 June 2016 (UHPFRC) columns with compressive strengths of 163 and 181 MPa (design strengths of 150 and
Revised 13 April 2017 180 MPa). The UHPFRC used in this study had 1.5% of hybrid micro-steel fibers (1.0% of 19.5 mm fibers
Accepted 9 May 2017
and 0.5% of 16.3 mm fibers) and did not contain coarse aggregate. A total of nine UHPFRC columns con-
Available online 12 May 2017
fined by transverse reinforcement with volumetric ratios of 0.9–9.9% and two different configurations
(Types A and C) were tested under pure axial load to investigate the influence of these variables. The
Keywords:
overall behavior of the UHPFRC columns was compared with the response of similar strength ultra-
Ultra-high-performance fiber-reinforced
concrete
high-strength concrete (UHSC) columns having coarse aggregate. Test results showed a pronounced
Column effect of the volumetric ratio of the transverse reinforcement on the confinement. Hybrid micro-steel
Confinement fibers controlled brittle cover spalling very well and assisted the transverse confinement reinforcement
Transverse reinforcement after the peak load. Applicability of the confinement reinforcement equations in the current seismic
Hybrid micro-steel fibers design provisions for developing ductile behavior of the UHPFRC columns was investigated. The analyt-
Confinement models ical study examined the ability of the existing high-strength concrete (HSC) confinement models for pre-
dicting the axial load response of the UHPFRC columns, and a prediction model that accounts for the
effects of steel fibers and the stress-strain relationship of UHPFRC is proposed.
Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Extensive research has been carried in order to prevent brittle
failure of high-strength concrete (HSC) and ultra-high-strength
concrete (UHSC) columns for high-rise building applications [1–
9]. Providing transverse reinforcement to confine the core concrete
is the most common solution to avoid brittle failures but it also
results in steel congestion and cannot prevent brittle cover spalling
[4,10]. Recent research found that the addition of steel fibers in
these columns can lead to increased peak loads by delaying initial
cover spalling and improved ductility providing some additional
confinement [10–13]. On the other hand, the addition of steel
fibers in HSC and UHSC mixes can lead to some problems, such
as, non-homogeneity of the matrix as well as a significant decrease
in workability.
Ultra-high-performance fiber-reinforced concrete (UHPFRC) is
being considered one of the promising new construction materials,
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: hyunoh777@gmail.com (H.-O. Shin), minkyunghwan00@g-
mail.com (K.-H. Min), denis.mitchell@mcgill.ca (D. Mitchell).
especially applications for bridge decks and girders due to its sig-
nificant tensile performance (over 8 MPa) and durability compared
to ordinary concrete [14–16]. UHPFRC also has good workability
and a more homogeneous internal structure of the matrix with
hybrid fibers and without the coarse aggregate [17]. UHPFRC also
results in improved ductility, fatigue performance, and durability
compared to normal- and high-strength concretes (NSC and
HSC). These excellent mechanical properties of the UHPFRC seem
suitable to provide improved axial capacity and possibly improved
ductility of RC columns. It is noted that limited research has been
carried out on UHPFRC columns.
Sugano et al. [18] tested nine UHPFRC columns with compres-
sive strengths varying from 159 to 223 MPa under uniaxial com-
pression and six UHPFRC columns with compressive strengths
varying from 199 to 230 MPa under reversed cyclic moment. For
both test series, 0% and 2% of steel fibers were considered as one
of the variables. From the uniaxial compression tests, they demon-
strated that both the compressive strength and the corresponding
peak strain of the confined concrete core increased with increasing
amounts of transverse reinforcement. They suggested empirical
expressions to predict the confined core strength and peak strain

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2017.05.022
0263-8223/Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 H.-O. Shin et al. / Composite Structures 176 (2017) 124–142
Nomenclature
Ag gross area of column section (mm2)
As cross-sectional area of steel reinforcement (mm2)
Asl cross-sectional area of longitudinal reinforcement
(mm2)
Ash cross-sectional area of transverse reinforcement (mm2)
Ast total area of longitudinal reinforcement (mm2)
Acc cross-sectional area of concrete core (mm2)
AR area of equivalent rigid material, AR = Pc  eAu
Au area under the concrete load-strain curve up to strain of
0.02
db nominal diameter of steel reinforcement (mm)
df nominal diameter of steel fiber (mm)
Ec modulus of elasticity of concrete obtained from cylinder
tests (MPa)
0
fc specified compressive strength of concrete from cylin-
der tests (MPa)
fcc maximum compressive stress of confined concrete
(MPa)
fr flexural strength (modulus of rupture) of concrete
(MPa)
fu ultimate strength of steel reinforcement (MPa)
fy yield strength of steel reinforcement (MPa)
fyl yield strength of longitudinal reinforcement (MPa)
fyh yield strength of transverse reinforcement
I10 ductility index
k3 stress block parameter related to the difference be-
tween the strength of the column concrete and the
strength obtained from a concrete cylinder
Ke confinement effectiveness coefficient
kp factor accounting for axial load level (compression),
kp = Pf/Po
kn confinement effectiveness factor, kn = nl/(nl - 2)
lf length of steel fiber (mm)
nl total number of longitudinal bars that are laterally sup-
ported by transverse reinforcement
Pmax maximum axial load carried by RC column (kN)
0
for the UHPFRC columns in terms of a parameter, qsh f yh =f c . From
the reversed cyclic moment tests under high axial load (60% of
the compressive strength), the columns had enhanced ultimate
displacements for increased amounts of transverse reinforcement.
From the reversed cyclic moment tests under relatively low axial
load (30% of the compressive strength), they demonstrated that
both strength and ductility enhancement can be achieved by add-
ing steel fibers (vf = 2%). This study did not fully investigate the
effects of each variable as well as relationships between each set
of variables on the strength and ductility of UHPFRC columns. Fur-
thermore, the suggested empirical model predicts only the con-
fined core strength and the corresponding peak strain not the
complete stress-strain curves of the confined core.
Empelmann et al. [19,20] tested eight UHPFRC (vf = 1.25%) col-
umns with design compressive strengths varying 150 and
160 MPa. They also tested four HSC and NSC columns with and
without steel fibers. They reported that the UHPFRC columns can
achieve similar levels of ductility with that of NSC columns if steel
fibers as well as sufficient transverse and longitudinal reinforce-
ment is provided. They also indicated that the beneficial effects
of steel fibers were not significant in the columns with lower
strength concrete. They proposed an analytical model for predict-
ing the axial load response of UHPFRC columns that idealizes the
stress-strain behavior of the confined concrete by assessing the
effective area of confined concrete, Ac,eff. This study briefly provides
axial capacities, corresponding strains, and ductility levels but did
125
Pc maximum axial load carried by concrete (kN)
Pcc maximum axial load carried by confined concrete core
(kN)
Pf maximum factored axial load for earthquake loading
cases (kN)
Pn normalized axial load (kN)
Po nominal axial strength of a column under pure axial
load (kN)
Poc predicted axial load capacity of concrete (kN)
Pocc predicted axial load capacity of core concrete (kN)
Pyield axial load at first yielding of longitudinal bars (kN)
Rd ductility-related force modification factors in the CSA
Standard CSA23.3-14
T.I. toughness index
e85 remaining capacity of the column dropping to 85% of
Pmax
e50 remaining capacity of the column dropping to 50% of
Pmax
ec peak strain of the concrete corresponding Pc
ecc axial strain corresponding Pcc
ecu axial strain corresponding to marked change in the
descending branch of stress- strain response of confined
concrete
e0c strain at the peak stress of the concrete obtained from
cylinder tests
eult ultimate strain of steel reinforcement
ey yield strain of steel reinforcement
eyield yield strain of RC member
qsh volumetric ratio of transverse reinforcement
qsh(req) volumetric ratio of transverse reinforcement required
by seismic design provisions
qsl volumetric ratio of longitudinal reinforcement
vf volume fraction of steel fiber
not fully address the effects of tests parameters on the complete
performance of UHPFRC columns. The analytical study is also lim-
ited because the conventional approach (‘‘Approach B” from their
paper), which does not account for the beneficial effects of steel
fibers and confinement from transverse reinforcement, provides
the most accurate predictions compared to other models.
Hosinieh et al. [21] tested six UHPFRC columns with 2.5% steel
fibers and having compressive strengths varying from 125 to
138 MPa. The transverse reinforcement details for these columns
were based on the seismic provisions of the CSA Standard (CSA
A23.3-14) [22]. The results of this study demonstrated that the
provision of closely-spaced and well detailed transverse reinforce-
ment allows for the development of excellent ductility in the
UHPFRC columns. They also demonstrated the importance of the
configuration of the transverse reinforcement. Based on the analyt-
ical investigations using the existing HSC and fiber-reinforced con-
crete (FRC) confinement models [23–25], they concluded that there
is a need to develop UHPFRC-specific confinement models. They
successfully address the effects of several parameters on the axial
load response of UHPFRC columns but there was a limited number
of UHPFRC columns having the same compressive strength of
about 130 MPa. In addition, there was only one type of conven-
tional 13 mm-long steel fibers in the test series. The effects of
hybrid steel fibers and different compressive strengths of UHPFRC
were not considered and the analytical study was not able to pro-
vide UHPFRC-specific confinement models.
126 H.-O. Shin et al. / Composite Structures 176 (2017) 124–142
The research reported in this paper is aimed at providing new
test data as well as demonstrating the beneficial effects of hybrid
micro-steel fibers on the behavior of UHPFRC columns confined
by transverse reinforcement. For this purpose, the effects of several
parameters, including the compressive strength of UHPFRC, the use
of hybrid micro-steel fibers, and the amount, spacing, and configu-
ration of the transverse reinforcement, on the axial capacity as well
as the ductility of UHPFRC columns were investigated. Relation-
ships between each set of variables as well as the influence of
the variables on the ductility of the UHPFRC columns are also stud-
ied. Particularity, the beneficial effects of hybrid micro-steel fibers
on the axial load response of the UHPFRC columns, such as delay-
ing cover spalling and ability to substitute for confinement rein-
forcement, were investigated.
This research also investigates the applicability of confinement
reinforcement equations in the current seismic design provisions
of CSA A23.3-14 [22] and ACI 318-14 [26] for developing ductile
behavior of the UHPFRC columns. An analytical model that
accounts for the effects of steel fibers and the stress-strain relation-
ship of UHPFRC was proposed to predict the axial load response of
UHPFRC columns. Based on the experimental and analytical stud-
ies, a design approach for achieving appropriate levels of ductility
and toughness in UHPFRC columns is also proposed.
2. Experimental program
2.1. Description of test specimens
A total of nine square ultra-high-performance fiber-reinforced
concrete (UHPFRC) columns were constructed and tested under
pure axial loading. The UHPFRC used in this study contained 1.5%
hybrid micro-steel fibers (1.0% of 19.5 mm fibers and 0.5% of
16.3 mm fibers) by volume of concrete but did not contain coarse
aggregates. The volume fraction of steel fibers used in this study
was based on a previous study [27] that indicated that UHPFRC
containing 1.5% of hybrid steel fibers was able to develop superior
flexural strength over that of the traditional UHPFRC with 2% of
Fig. 1. Column details: (a) elevation view; (b) cross-section and strain gage locations; (c) reinforcing cage.
13 mm fibers.Details of UHPFRC columns and reinforcement are
shown in Fig. 1. All of the columns had the same geometry with
a 220  220 cross section and a 900 mm total height. A clear con-
crete cover of 15 mm was used for all columns, resulting in a ratio
of core area to gross area of 0.75 that is a similar ratio to practical
columns. The column dimensions and concrete cover were chosen
to have a similar percentage drop in axial load after cover spalling
that can be expected in practical sized columns [3,4,10]. The longi-
tudinal reinforcement for all of the columns consisted of eight-D16
deformed reinforcing bars (db = 15.9 mm, As = 199 mm2) that
extended over the full height of the columns, resulting in a longi-
tudinal reinforcement ratio of 3.28%. Transverse reinforcement
for Column 180-C9.9 was provided by D13 deformed reinforcing
bars (db = 12.7 mm, As = 127 mm2), while transverse reinforcement
for all the other columns was provided by D10 deformed reinforc-
ing bars (db = 9.5 mm, As = 71 mm2) with varying spacing and con-
figurations. All transverse reinforcement in the columns were
detailed with either single or multiple rectilinear hoops having
135-degree bend anchorages and 6db free-end extensions in accor-
dance with current seismic code provisions [22,26]. The 150 mm
long end regions of the columns contained additional transverse
reinforcement (see Fig. 1) and were confined by very stiff
(15 mm-thick) external steel clamps to prevent local failure at
the column ends (see Fig. 2).
Table 1 gives the design details and test variables, including the
longitudinal and transverse reinforcement details and the average
concrete strengths. Also shown in Table 1 are the corresponding
ductility-related force modification factors (Rd) for seismic design
in accordance with CSA Standard A23.3-14 [22]. Column 180-
C9.9 had details conforming with the seismic design provisions
of ACI Code 318-14 [26]. The test program consisted of two series
of columns: 1) the 180-series consisting of four UHPFRC columns
designed for a concrete compressive strength of 180 MPa; and 2)
the 150-series consisting of five UHPFRC columns designed for a
concrete compressive strength of 150 MPa. All of the columns in
each series had the same concrete compressive strength but had
varying amounts, spacing, and configurations of the transverse
 H.-O. Shin et al. / Composite Structures 176 (2017) 124–142 127

Fig. 2. Test setup.

Table 1
Test series.

Column Concrete Longitudinal Transverse reinforcement Design requirement

reinforcement
0
Config-urationb qsh [%] qsh
f c ½MPa Details Size Area Spacing fyh qshðreqÞ
[mm2] [mm] [MPa]

180-series
180-A3.6 180.5 No.-size: 8-D16 A D10 71.3 40 565.0 3.6 – Rd = 1.5  2.5
180-C4.5 (180.0)a Asl = 199 mm2 C D10 71.3 54 (550.0)c 4.5 1.03 Rd = 2.5
180-C6.1 qsl = 3.28% C D10 71.3 40 6.1 1.04 Rd = 4.0
180-C9.9 fyl = 574.7 MPa C D13 126.7 43 554.5 9.9 1.02 ACI 318-14
(550.0)c
150-series
150-A0.9 162.8 No.-size: 8-D16 A D10 71.3 165 565.0 0.9 – Rd = 1.5
150-A3.0 (150.0)a Asl = 199 mm2 A D10 71.3 48 (550.0)c 3.0 – Rd = 1.5  2.5
150-C3.0 qsl = 3.28% C D10 71.3 80 3.0 – Rd = 1.5  2.5
150-C3.8 fyl = 574.7 MPa C D10 71.3 64 3.8 0.96 Rd = 2.5
150-C5.1 C D10 71.3 48 5.1 0.96 Rd = 4.0
a
Design concrete compressive strength.
b
Details of configuration of transverse reinforcement are given in Fig. 1.
c
Design yield strength of transverse reinforcement.

reinforcement. The specimen names include the target compres-
sive strength (180 and 150 MPa), the amount (volume ratio, qsh,
of 0.9–9.9%) and the configuration (Types A and C) of the trans-
verse reinforcement. Type A-configuration had single peripheral
hoops, while Type C-configuration had the combination of periph-
eral hoops and inner diamond-shaped hoops, as shown in Fig. 1b. It
is noted that only four longitudinal bars were laterally supported
by the transverse reinforcement in Type A-configuration, resulting
in confinement effectiveness factor, kn, of 2.0. Whereas, all longitu-
dinal bars were laterally supported by the transverse reinforce-
ment in Type C-configuration, resulting in kn of about 1.33. The
confinement effectiveness factor is expressed as: kn = nl/(nl  2),
where nl is total number of longitudinal bars that are laterally sup-
ported by transverse reinforcement [22,26]. The transverse rein-
forcement details are mainly based on the confinement steel
requirement of the CSA Standard (CSA A23.3-14) [22]. Columns
180-C4.5 and 150-C3.8 were detailed to satisfy the requirements
for ‘moderately ductile columns’ (Rd of 2.5) in the CSA Standard.
While, Columns 180-C6.1 and 150-C5.1 were detailed to satisfy
the requirements for ‘ductile columns’ (Rd of 4.0) in the CSA Stan-
dard. It should be noted that the CSA Standard requirements
account for both the different concrete compressive strengths
and the different yield strengths of the transverse reinforcement.
Actual concrete compressive strengths and yield strengths of the
transverse reinforcement were slightly different from the design
values, resulting in the ratios of transverse reinforcement provided
in the columns to the CSA Standard requirements, qsh/qsh(req), of
1.04 for the 180-series and 0.96 for the 150-series. Therefore, the
180-series had about 4% more and the 150-series had 4% less con-
finement reinforcement than that required by the CSA Standard. It
is also noted that the factor accounting for level of axial load, kp,
which is used for calculating confinement steel requirement in
128 H.-O. Shin et al. / Composite Structures 176 (2017) 124–142
CSA Standard, of 0.27 was used for all columns. The axial load level
factor is expressed as: kp = Pf/Po, where Pf is the factored axial load
and Po is the nominal axial strength [22]. Column 150-A0.9 repre-
sents a poorly confined column that was detailed corresponding to
the requirements for ‘conventional construction’ (Rd of 1.5) in the
CSA Standard. Columns 180-A3.6, 150-A3.0, and 150-C3.0 con-
tained details that are between the required Rd of 1.5 and 2.5. Col-
umn 180-C9.9 contained a significant amount of transverse
reinforcement (qsh = 9.9%) which was detailed to satisfy the con-
finement steel requirements for columns of special moment
frames in the ACI Code (ACI 318-14) [26].
All of the columns in the same series were cast using the same
batch of concrete, resulting in in a constant concrete strength for
all columns in the same series. All columns were cast vertically
to simulate actual construction that is particularly important when
fibers are present. The top surface of the columns were covered
with plastic sheets just after concrete casting and the columns
were cured at room temperature for the first 48 h before form
stripping. After stripping the forms, steam curing (90 ± 2 °C) was
carried out for 60 h, and then the specimens were stored in a lab-
oratory at a room temperature until testing at an age of 60–
80 days.
2.2. Material properties
Two types of UHPFRC mixes, designed for a compressive
strength of 180 MPa and 150 MPa (labeled with 180F and 150F),
were used in this study and their mix proportions are given in
Table 2. Type I Portland cement and zirconium silica fume (ZSF)
were used as cementitious materials for mix 180F, while half of
the ZSF was replaced by blast furnace slag (BFS) in mix 150F. To
improve the homogeneity of the concrete based on the packing
density theory, coarse aggregate was excluded from the mixtures.
In addition, silica sand with grain size of 0.2–0.3 mm and 10 lm
diameter silica flour containing 98% SiO2 were used as fine aggre-
gate and as filler, respectively. The combination of two different
fiber lengths (lf = 16.3 and 19.5 mm) were used to give 1.5% by vol-
ume for both mixes 180F and 150F (1.0% of 19.5 mm fibers and
0.5% of 16.3 mm fibers). This combination of fibers was chosen to
control multiple sizes of cracks. The geometric and physical prop-
erties of the steel fibers used in this test program are presented in
Table 3.
Only two batches of concretes, one for the 180-series and the
other for the 150-series, were used to produce all of the columns.
The mixing sequence for the UHPFRC was carried out in the follow-
ing steps:
1. cement, silica fume, silica sand, and silica flour were first pre-
mixed for approximately 10 min;
2. water premixed with superplasticizer (SP) was added in the dry
state and mixed for another 10 min; and
Table 2
Mix proportions of UHPFRC.
Mix Relative weight ratios to cement
Water Cement ZSFa
180F 0.227 1.000 0.250
150F 0.229 1.000 0.125
a
ZSF: Zirconium silica fume.
b
BFS: Blast furnace slag.
c
SP: Superplasticizer.
d
SF19 and SF16: steel fibers with a length of 19.5 and 16.3 mm (see Table 3).
e
Item in parentheses: volume percent of 1 m3 UHPFRC mix.
3. when the mixture exhibited adequate flowability and viscosity,
the steel fibers were added and then UHPFRC was mixed for an
additional 5 min.
Three cylinders (/100  200 mm) for each mix were tested to
measure the compressive strength of the UHPFRC. These cylinders
were cured under the same conditions as the columns in order to
simulate the column concrete strengths as accurately as possible.
The compression testing was carried out in accordance with ASTM
C39 [28] by using a universal testing machine with a maximum
capacity of 2500 kN. To evaluate the elastic modulus and strain
capacity (strain at the peak), two extensometers were installed to
measure the average compressive strain, as shown in Fig. 3a. Typ-
ical stress-strain curves for the UHPFRCs are shown in Fig. 4a and
the measured mechanical properties are given in Table 4. Three
modulus of rupture specimens (100  100  400 mm) for each of
UHPFRC mix were fabricated and tested in four-point flexure in
accordance with ASTM C1609 [29] over a span of 300 mm. The
loading was monotonically applied and two LVDTs were installed
on both sides of the specimen on a rectangular jig in order to mea-
sure the central deflection relative to the supports (see Fig. 3b).
Since the UHPFRCs used in this study have high toughness, the
flexural testing was carried out until a net deflection of L/60
(=5 mm which is 2.5 times higher than the stipulated end point
of ASTM C1609). Average load-deflections curves for the UHPFRCs
are shown in Fig. 4b and the modulus of rupture and toughness are
given in Table 4.
Deformed reinforcing bars conforming to D16 in the Korean
Standard (KS) were used for the longitudinal reinforcement, while
D13 and D10 KS deformed reinforcing bars were used for the trans-
verse reinforcement. All of the reinforcing bars were Grade 500
(minimum specified yield strength of 500 MPa). The mechanical
properties of the reinforcing bars were determined by tension tests
performed on three random specimens for each size of bar in
accordance with ASTM A1035 [30] (see Fig. 3c). Representative
stress-strain relationships for the bars are shown in Fig. 4c and
the results are summarized in Table 5.
2.3. Instrumentation and test setup
Test setup for the UHPFRC columns are shown in Fig. 2. All of
the columns were subjected to pure axial loading at a rate of
3 kN/s up to a load of 6000 kN (load-control), followed by a dis-
placement control at a rate of 0.0018 mm/s until the end of testing.
The testing was continued until either the resistance of the col-
umns dropped to 20% of the peak axial load or the axial displace-
ment reached a value of 25 mm. The axial load were measured
by the load cell of the testing machine, while the axial deformation
of the columns were measured by a pair of LVDTs mounted on the
front and rear faces of the columns (a total of four LVDTs per each
column) over a gage length of 650 mm. These LVDTs were
BFSb Silica Sand Silica flour SPc SF19d SF16e
– 1.100 0.300 0.033 0.100 (1.0%)e 0.050
(0.5%)e
0.125 1.100 0.300 0.030 0.100 (1.0%) 0.050
(0.5%)
 H.-O. Shin et al. / Composite Structures 176 (2017) 124–142 129

Table 3
Properties of steel fibers.

Fiber Diameter, df [mm] Length, Aspect ratio, lf/df Density Tensile strength Elastic modulus Type
lf [mm] [g/cm3] [MPa] [GPa]
SF16 0.2 16.3 81.5 7.8 2500 200 Straight
SF19 0.2 19.5 97.5 7.8 2500 200 Straight

Fig. 3. Determining mechanical properties: (a) UHPFRC cylinder tests; (b) UHPFRC flexure beam tests; (c) reinforcing bar tension tests.

Fig. 4. Mechanical properties: (a) compression test results of UHPFRC cylinders; (b) flexure test results of UHPFRC beams; (c) tension test results of steel reinforcement.

Table 4
Concrete properties.

Mix Fresh concrete Cylinder test results Flexure beam test results
Flow 0
fc ½MPa e0
c Ec fr Toughness at L/150 Toughness at L/75
[mm] [MPa] [MPa] [kNmm] [kNmm]
180F 820/810 180.5 0.0038 52445 19.8 114.3 185.5
(6.0) (1.40  104) (650.4) (2.4) (12.0) (21.0)
150F 800/810 162.8 0.0035 51472 15.3 86.9 133.0
(5.5) (3.24  104) (1415.8) (2.4) (12.2) (15.9)

Item in parentheses: standard deviation.

130 H.-O. Shin et al. / Composite Structures 176 (2017) 124–142

Table 5
Properties of reinforcing bars.

Bar Type Usage Diameter Area fy ey fu eult

[mm] [mm2] [MPa] [MPa]
D16-SD500 Deformed bar Longitudinal reinforcement 15.9 198.6 574.7 0.0029 690.7 0.0946
(3.8) (1.9  105) (4.7) (0.0026)
D13-SD500 Transverse reinforcement 12.7 126.7 554.5 0.0028 740.0 0.1008
(5.1) (2.6  105) (6.6) (0.0019)
D10-SD500 Transverse reinforcement 9.53 71.33 565.0 0.0028 753.7 0.1138
(4.0) (2.0  105) (9.2) (0.0066)

Item in parentheses: standard deviation.

mounted using threaded rods drilled and epoxied into the core
concrete in order to measure the axial deformations of the con-
fined concrete core. Four electrical resistance strain gages were
attached to the surface of the columns, at the same locations as
the LVDTs, to measure cover concrete deformation (see Fig. 2). As
shown in Fig. 1a and b, eight electrical resistance strain gages were
glued to the longitudinal reinforcement at the mid-height of each
column. A total of four and eight strain gages were instrumented
on the hoops in just above and below the mid-height of the col-
umns for Type A and C configurations, respectively.
3. Experimental results and discussions
3.1. Summary of parameters determining the behavior UHPFRC
columns
Fig. 5 shows different components of the concrete and steel
reinforcement as well as the definition of several parameters used
in determining the overall behavior of typical UHPFRC columns. All
these parameters are calculated and summarized in Table 6 to
quantify the axial load response and post-peak ductility of the
UHPFRC columns.
The loads, Pyield, Pmax, Pc, and Pcc are the axial load at first yield-
ing of longitudinal bars, the maximum axial load of the columns,
the maximum axial load carried by the concrete, the maximum
axial load carried by the confined concrete core, respectively. Each
of the UHPFRC columns, except for Column 180-C9.9, had a higher
first peak load compared to the second peak load (see Fig. 5a). Col-
umn 180-C9.9, having a very large amount of transverse reinforce-
ment, exhibited a higher second peak load than the first peak load,
and hence, Pmax occurs at the second peak (see Fig. 5b). The load Pc
was obtained by subtracting the load carried by the longitudinal
bars from the applied load. The contribution of the longitudinal
bars was determined at each load stage from average longitudinal
strain in the column and assuming an elasto-plastic stress-strain
relationship for the steel (see Fig. 5). The load Pcc was reached after
cover spalling, and hence, is highly dependent on the degree of
confinement. The axial loads, Pmax, Pc, and Pcc, were normalized
with respect to their predicted axial capacities, Po, Poc, and Pocc,
respectively, to account for the different concrete compressive
strengths in the two series [3,4]. The predicted axial load capacity
of the columns, Po, based on current concrete design code [22,26]
can be expressed as:
0
Po ¼ k3 f c ðAg  Ast Þ þ f yl Ast ð1Þ
where k3 is the stress block parameter related to the difference
between the strength of the column concrete and the strength
obtained from a concrete cylinder, Ag is the gross area of the col-
0
umns, f c is the concrete cylinder strength, Ast is the total area of
the longitudinal reinforcement, and fyl is the yield strength of the
longitudinal reinforcement. It is noted that ACI 318-14 [26] uses
k3 = 0.85 regardless of the concrete strength (this study also
used k3 = 0.85), whereas the CSA A23.3-14 Standard [22] uses a
stress block parameter that is a function of the concrete strength.
The predicted axial load capacities, Poc and Pocc, were determined
as follow:
0
Poc ¼ k3 f c ðAg  Ast Þ ð2Þ
Pocc ¼ k3 f c Acc
0
ð3Þ
where Acc is the confined concrete area taken as the net area inside
centerline of the perimeter hoops. Axial strains, ec and ecc, corre-
sponding to the axial loads, Pc and Pcc, respectively, are also

(a) (b)
Fig. 5. Typical contributions of the concrete and steel reinforcement: (a) Pmax occurring at the first peak; (b) Pmax occurring at the second peak.
 H.-O. Shin et al. / Composite Structures 176 (2017) 124–142 131

Table 6
Summary of test results.

Column Axial loads Axial strains Toughness Ductility

Pyield Pyeild Pmax P max Pc Pc Pcc Pcc ec ec ecc ecc e85 e85 e50 e50 Au T.I. b
I10c
Pmax Po Poc Pocc e0c e0c e0c e0c
[kN] [kN] [kN] [kN]
180-series
180-A3.6 6227 0.73 8531 1.05 7618 1.06 6667 1.40 0.0039 1.03 0.0046 1.20 0.0047 1.24 0.0140 3.67 75.8 0.50 6.1
180-C4.5 5678 0.68 8405 1.04 7492 1.04 6901 1.45 0.0038 0.99 0.0048 1.25 0.0061 1.60 0.0338 8.87 90.9 0.61 7.0
180-C6.1 5829 0.70 8306 1.03 7393 1.03 7129 1.50 0.0037 0.97 0.0058 1.53 0.0075 1.98 0.0377 9.89 101.4 0.69 7.9
180-C9.9 6560 0.78 8395a 1.04 7482 1.04 7464 1.63 0.0036 0.94 0.0062 1.62 0.0154 4.04 0.0683 17.91 123.0 0.82 9.3
Average 6074 0.72 8407 1.04 7494 1.04 7040 1.50 0.0037 0.98 0.0053 1.40 0.0084 2.21 0.0385 10.09 97.8 0.65 7.6
150-series
150-A0.9 5634 0.75 7548 1.02 6635 1.02 – – 0.0036 1.00 – – 0.0041 1.19 0.0075 2.09 53.6 0.40 5.4
150-A3.0 6121 0.80 7655 1.04 6742 1.04 6563 1.53 0.0035 0.97 0.0036 1.01 0.0044 1.53 0.0139 3.89 67.6 0.50 6.0
150-C3.0 5878 0.77 7598 1.03 6685 1.03 6619 1.54 0.0034 0.95 0.0038 1.06 0.0054 1.55 0.0142 3.97 70.7 0.53 6.4
150-C3.8 6397 0.84 7631 1.03 6718 1.04 6250 1.46 0.0037 1.02 0.0045 1.25 0.0059 1.68 0.0317 8.84 78.9 0.59 7.0
150-C5.1 6196 0.79 7869 1.06 6956 1.07 6611 1.54 0.0036 1.00 0.0047 1.32 0.0068 1.70 0.0356 9.92 89.5 0.65 7.5
Average 6045 0.79 7660 1.04 6747 1.04 6511 1.52 0.0036 0.99 0.0042 1.16 0.0053 1.48 0.0206 5.74 72.0 0.53 6.4
a
Pmax reached at the second peak,
b
T.I.: Toughness index,
c
I10: Ductility index.

presented and compared with the peak strain of the unconfined
concrete, e0c , which was obtained from the cylinder tests. Further-
more, axial strains, e85 and e50, corresponding to the remaining
capacity of the column dropping to 85% and 50% of the peak load,
respectively, are given in Table 6. These strains provide indicators
of the rate of strength decay during the testing.
The ductility index, I10, [8,9] and toughness index, T.I., [21,31]
were used to evaluate the effects of variables on the post-peak duc-
tility (deformability) and toughness of the UHPFRC columns,
respectively. The definitions of the ductility index and toughness
index are shown in Fig. 6. The ductility index is defined as the ratio
of the area under the axial load-strain curve up to a strain of 5.5
times the ‘‘yield strain” of the member to the area under the curve
up to the ‘‘yield strain” of the member, as shown in Fig. 6a [9]. The
‘‘yield strain” of the member, eyield, is determined by the 3/4 rule,
extrapolating a straight line from the origin through 0.75 Pmax until
it reaches a load level of Pmax (see Fig. 6a) [9]. These definitions give
I10 = 10 for a perfectly elasto-plastic material and I10 = 1 for a per-
fectly elastic-brittle material. In order to define a toughness index
(T.I.), the area under the concrete load-strain curve up to strain of
eAu = 0.02 (denoted by Au) is initially calculated. The toughness
index (T.I.) is obtained by dividing the area Au by the area of an
equivalent rigid material AR = Pc  eAu, as shown in Fig. 6b [21,31].
Therefore, the toughness index (T.I.) is always equal to or less than
1.0 (T.I.  1).
3.2. General behavior
Axial load versus strain responses of the UHPFRC columns are
shown in Fig. 7 and the appearance of typical UHPFRC columns
at different loading stages are also shown in Fig. 8. Fig. 8a shows
the UHPFRC column confined by a very large amount of transverse
reinforcement (qsh = 9.9% and s = 40 mm), while Fig. 8b shows the
UHPFRC column having poor confinement (qsh = 0.9% and
s = 165 mm). All UHPFRC columns exhibited almost linear behavior
in the ascending part of the load-strain responses until the com-
pression yielding of the longitudinal reinforcement occurred. The
180-series and 150-series columns exhibited first longitudinal
bar yielding at an average load, Pyield, of 6074 kN and 6045 kN,
respectively. The fact that the columns with different concrete
strengths had similar axial loads at longitudinal bar yielding is to
be expected because both concretes had very similar moduli of
elasticity (see Fig. 4a). After longitudinal bar yielding occurred,
some minor cracks initiated in the columns, but the axial load
capacity of the columns continued to increase and they reached
the first peak load just before the initiation of cover spalling.

Fig. 6. Definitions of ductility and toughness index: (a) ductility index (I10); (b) toughness index (T.I.)
132 H.-O. Shin et al. / Composite Structures 176 (2017) 124–142

10000 10000
180-series 150-series
8000 8000

Axial Load (kN)

Axial Load (kN)

6000 6000

4000 4000

2000 2000

0 0
0 0.004 0.008 0.012 0.016 0.02 0 0.004 0.008 0.012 0.016 0.02
Axial Strain (mm/mm) Axial Strain (mm/mm)
(a) (b)
Fig. 7. Axial load-strain responses of UHPFRC columns: (a) 180-series; (b) 150-series.

Fig. 8. Typical UHPFRC columns at different loading stages: (a) columns with significant confinement (qsh = 9.9% and s = 40 mm); (b) columns with poor confinement
(qsh = 0.9% and s = 165 mm).

After the first peak load, the UHPFRC columns exhibited a sud-
den decrease in axial load of about 4% and 3% for the 180-series
and the 150-series, respectively. In the finite element studies of
Liu and Foster [5], it was shown that the drop in load with cover
spalling is a function of the ratio of the area of the cover to the
gross area of the columns. Previous studies on the same sized
(the same gross section as well as the same cover depth) UHSC col-
umns [3] and similar sized HSC columns [1] without steel fibers
showed 10–20% and 10–15% losses of axial capacity with cover
spalling, respectively. These drops in capacities are much more sig-
nificant than the axial load losses observed for the UHPFRC col-
umns. As shown in Fig. 8, cover spalling of UHPFRC columns was
not extensive and was well controlled by the hybrid steel fibers.
Furthermore, the cover concrete did not detach from the core of
 H.-O. Shin et al. / Composite Structures 176 (2017) 124–142
the UHPFRC columns, even at very large strains, until the cover was
manually removed at the end of testing (see Fig. 8). These results
can be attributed to the increased number of fibers by using
micro-steel fibers in the UHPFRC mixtures as well as to the better
distribution of fibers in the UHFPRC (without coarse aggregate)
compared to conventional fiber-reinforced concrete (FRC). It
should be noted that within the same volume fractions of fibers,
the number of micro-steel fibers used in this study is higher than
that of normal steel fibers with 30 mm length and aspect ratio of
60, which are commonly used for structural applications.
After the drop in load associated with cover spalling, the axial
capacity of the well confined columns increased again with signif-
icant increases of the strains in the transverse reinforcement,
resulting in a well-defined second peak load. Closely spaced trans-
verse reinforcement in these columns also controlled longitudinal
bar buckling as well as providing excellent core integrity as
observed even at very large strains (See Fig. 8a). The UHPFRC col-
umns having relatively poor confinement exhibited simultaneous
core crushing without a distinct second peak (see Fig. 7b). These
poorly confined columns exhibited significant longitudinal bar
buckling along with core crushing (see Fig. 8b)
3.3. Effect of hybrid micro-steel fibers on cover spalling of UHPFRC
columns
In order to examine the influence of using hybrid micro-steel
fibers on the cover spalling of the UHPFRC columns, the k3 factors
for UHPFRC columns were calculated and compared with those of
the same sized UHSC columns [3] in Fig. 9. The k3 factor is the
stress block parameter that is related to the difference between
the strength of the column concrete and the strength obtained
from a concrete cylinder (from Eq. (1) with Po = Pmax). For HSC
and UHSC columns, the k3 factor also reflects the influence of cover
spalling that occurs before reaching their theoretical axial capacity.
Previous studies on HSC columns [1] and UHSC columns [3]
reported brittle cover spalling of these concretes. The HSC and
UHSC columns exhibited smaller axial load capacities than the the-
oretical values due to early cover spalling, resulting in smaller k3
factor than ACI Code recommendation of 0.85. Especially, compara-
ble UHSC columns [3] with compressive strength about 200 MPa
and without steel fibers exhibited an average k3 factor of 0.72,
ranging from 0.65 to 0.77, with relatively large variation (see
Fig. 9. Comparison of k3 factors for UHPFRC columns and UHSC columns.
133
Fig. 9). This result is attributed to the fact that the cover spalling
of UHSC columns occur during a very high energy state and is
extremely sensitive to any imperfections [3]. On the other hand,
UHPFRC columns showed an average k3 factor of 0.89, ranging from
0.87 to 0.91 (see Fig. 9), which is higher than the ACI Code recom-
mendation of 0.85. This result demonstrates the beneficial effects
of hybrid micro-steel fibers that delay cover spalling of very high
strength concrete over 160 MPa. Furthermore, all of the UHPFRC
columns showed quite similar k3 factors with a coefficient of vari-
ation (COV) of 1.5% (see Fig. 9). The benefits of steel fibers are
apparent for a large range of amount of confinement provided by
transverse reinforcement. This result also demonstrates that
UHPFRC is less sensitive to small defects and flaws due to the more
homogeneous internal structure of the matrix without coarse
aggregates as well as the presence of micro-steel fibers.
3.4. Effect of transverse reinforcement on the response of UHPFRC
columns
Previous studies on the uniaxial behavior of HSC and UHSC col-
umns [1,3] described the effects of the amount (volumetric ratio),
spacing, and configuration of the transverse reinforcement on the
response. It was also observed that the interaction of these vari-
ables play a key role in determining the degree of confinement.
Therefore, the effect of each of these parameters as well as their
interaction for the UHPFRC columns are studied.
3.4.1. Influence of the amount and spacing of transverse reinforcement
It is well known that increasing the amount (volumetric ratio)
of transverse reinforcement has beneficial effects, while increasing
the spacing of the transverse reinforcement has negative effects on
the response of RC columns. By comparing the normalized load
versus axial strain responses of the UHPFRC columns in Fig. 10,
the effects of the spacing and amount of transverse reinforcement
can be ascertained. The normalized load, Pn, was determined as
follow:
Pc
Pn ¼ 0
 ð4Þ
0:85f c Ag  Asl
Fig. 10a–c show the response of each set of UHPFRC columns
with varying hoop spacing and volumetric ratios of the transverse
reinforcement. The other conditions, such as the compressive
strength of the UHPFRC as well as the diameter and configuration
of the transverse reinforcement, were kept constant for all of the
columns in each figure. In Fig. 10a, decreasing the spacing of the
transverse reinforcement from 165 to 48 mm (transverse rein-
forcement ratio increased from 0.9% to 3.0%) resulted in increased
post-peak ductility by 11% and increased toughness by 24%. Nev-
ertheless, both columns exhibited significant drop in load after
the first peak, indicating that more confinement is required to
ensure ductile behavior of these columns. Similar observations
can be made from Fig. 10b and c, with higher amounts of more
closely spaced transverse reinforcement resulting in improved
post-peak ductility and toughness of the UHPFRC columns. The
UHPFRC columns having significant amount of transverse rein-
forcement (more than about 3.8%) showed well defined second
peak loads and exhibited increased ductility, toughness and
confined concrete strength due to the confinement of the core
concrete.
Fig. 10d compares the responses of Column 180-C9.9, having
D13 hoops at a spacing of 43 mm (volumetric ratio of 9.9%), with
Column 180-C6.1, having D10 hoops at a spacing of 40 mm (volu-
metric ratio of 6.1%). These two columns had about the same spac-
ing but different amounts of transverse reinforcement. Column
180-C9.9 exhibited a 9% increase in the confined concrete strength
134 H.-O. Shin et al. / Composite Structures 176 (2017) 124–142
Fig. 10. Effect of spacing and amount of transverse reinforcement: (a) 150-A series; (b) 150-C series; (c) 180-C series; (d) 180-C series (same spacing).
(Pcc/Pocc), a 17% increase in ductility (I10), and a 20% increase in
toughness (T.I.), compared to Column 180-C6.1. This result clearly
indicates the beneficial effect of the higher amount of transverse
reinforcement.
It should be noted that ACI 318-14 (Clause 18.7.5.3) [26] and
CSA A23.3-14 (Clause 21.4.4.3) [22] limit the hoop spacing to six
times the diameter of the smallest longitudinal bars (s 6 6db ) in
order to prevent longitudinal bar buckling. All of the columns in
this test program satisfied this requirement with ‘s’ varying from
2.5db to 5.0db, except for Column C150-A0.9 that had s = 10.4db.
Each set of the columns in Fig. 10b–d showed almost parallel
responses after the second peak. Whereas, Column 150-A0.9 in
Fig. 10a showed a much greater rate of strength decay compared
to Column 150-A3.0. This result indicates that the need to control
bar buckling by limiting the spacing of the transverse reinforce-
ment (see photograph in Fig. 8b).
3.4.2. Influence of the amount and configuration of transverse
reinforcement
The amount and configuration of the transverse reinforcement
determine the effectively confined concrete area. Fig. 11a and b
compare the normalized load-strain responses of columns having
the same hoop spacing but different amounts and configurations
of transverse reinforcement (see Fig. 1b and Table 1). In Fig. 11a
(180-series), the UHPFRC column with multiple hoops (180-C6.1)
exhibited 7%, 30%, and 38% increases in the confined concrete
strength, ductility, and toughness, respectively, compared with
the UHPFRC column confined by a single peripheral hoop (180-
A3.6). Similarly in Fig. 11b (150-sereis), Column 150-C5.1 with
Type C-configuration exhibited a 24% increase in ductility and a
28% increase in toughness, compared to Column 150-A3.0 with
Type A-configuration. The effective confinement is the result of
the combined effects of the configuration and amount of the trans-
verse reinforcement.
Fig. 11c compares the responses of UHPFRC columns 150-C3.0
and 150-A3.0 having the same amount but different configurations
and spacing of transverse reinforcement. Column 150-C3.0 has a
better distribution of the laterally supported longitudinal bars
(eight tied longitudinal bars and corresponding kn = 1.33) but has
a larger hoop spacing (s = 80 mm). Column 150-A3.0 has a closer
hoop spacing (s = 48 mm) but only four longitudinal bars out of
eight are laterally supported by the hoops, resulting in kn = 2.00.
As described above, both of these hoop spacings satisfy the
requirement of CSA Standard and ACI Code for bar buckling
(s 6 6db ). Column 150-C3.0 exhibited slightly improved ductility
by 7% and toughness by 5% compared to Column 150-A3.0, but
the confined concrete strength and the overall behavior of these
two columns were very similar.
 H.-O. Shin et al. / Composite Structures 176 (2017) 124–142
Fig. 11. Effect of configuration and amount of transverse reinforcement: (a) 180-series (same spacing); (b) 150-series (same spacing); (c) 150-series (same reinforcement
ratio).
In summary of the results in Fig. 11, it is concluded that the
amount of transverse reinforcement has a more pronounced effects
on the post-peak response of UHPFRC columns than the configura-
tion of the transverse reinforcement. It is noted that both ACI 318-
14 (Clause 18.7.5.4) [26] and CSA A23.3-14 (Clause 21.4.4.2) [22]
consider the effect of the number of tied longitudinal bars on the
confinement of columns by using the confinement effectiveness
factor, kn.
3.5. Effect of concrete compressive strength on the response of UHPFRC
columns
Fig. 12a and b compare the normalized load-strain responses of
a pair of UHPFRC columns constructed with two different concrete
compressive strengths. Both columns in Fig. 12a were detailed in
accordance with the requirements for Rd of 2.5, while both col-
umns in Fig. 12b contained details that are required for Rd of 4.0.
According to the design requirements of CSA A23.3-14 [22], the
180-series columns (180-C4.5 and 180-C6.1) had about a 20%
greater amount of transverse reinforcement than the 150-series
columns (150-C3.8 and 150-C5.1) to account for the higher con-
crete strength. Normalized load-strain responses of the 180-
series columns and the 150-series columns were very similar.
These results demonstrate the well-known conclusions from stud-
ies on HSC or UHSC columns [3,8] that more confinement is
required as the concrete compressive strength increases. The slight
differences of the responses shown in Fig. 12a and b are due to the
differences between the actual and design concrete compressive
strengths and yield strengths of the transverse reinforcement. As
shown in Table 1, the ratios of transverse reinforcement provided
in the columns to the CSA Standard requirements, qsh/qsh(req), for
the 180-series columns varied from 1.03 to 1.04 and for the 150-
series was 0.96, indicating that the 180-series columns and the
150-series columns had about 4% more and less confinement rein-
forcement, respectively, than that required by CSA Standard A23.3-
14 [22].
Fig. 12c and d show the variation of the I10 ductility index and
toughness parameter (T.I.) with respect to the parameter Keqshfyh.
The confinement effectiveness coefficient, Ke, is the parameter that
accounts for the effective confined concrete by considering the ver-
tical and horizontal spacing of the transverse reinforcement [32].
Because the parameter Keqshfyh does not include a term for the con-
0
crete compressive strength, f c , from the effective confinement
0
index, K e qsh f yh =f c , these plots will illustrate the effect of concrete
compressive strength on the post-peak response of the UHPFRC
columns. As shown in Fig. 12c and d, the UHPFRC columns with
lower strength concrete exhibited improved ductility as well as
135
toughness than the columns with higher strength concrete
when the other confinement parameters, Keqshfyh, are the same.
This result indicates that the increase of concrete compressive
strength places a greater demand on the required amount of
confinement.
3.6. Ability of steel fibers to substitute for confinement reinforcement
Previous studies [10,12,33] on the uniaxial behavior of NSC,
0
HSC, and UHSC (f c  40 to 200 MPa) columns with steel fibers
showed the beneficial effects of steel fibers in delaying premature
cover spalling of these concretes, resulting in improved load carry-
ing capacity, which is also applicable to the UHPFRC columns as
described in Section 3.3. They also indicated the ability of steel
fibers to partially substitute for confinement reinforcement. It is
interesting to note that this benefit of steel fibers is effective for
both well confined and poorly confined NSC and HSC columns,
especially more effective for poorly confined columns. However,
for UHSC columns, steel fibers are effective only when they are
used with a significant amount of confinement reinforcement
and have little effect for poorly confined columns because of brittle
core crushing before the activation of confinement in these col-
umns [10]. In Sections 3.2 and 3.3, excellent performance of hybrid
micro-steel fibers, including increased number of fibers within the
same volume as well as better distribution of fibers, was demon-
strated. These benefits on the partial substitution for the confine-
ment reinforcement in UHPFRC columns is investigated in this
section.
Fig. 13 compares the normalized load-strain responses of the
UHPFRC columns 180-A3.6 and 180-C6.1 with those of UHSC col-
umns (200-A0-6.2%, 200-B0-5.3%, 200-C0-6.9%, and 200-D0-
8.1%), which had been previously tested by Shin et al. [3] (the orig-
inal designations were 200-A2, 200-B1, 200-C1, and 200-D1,
respectively). These companion UHSC columns had equivalent
design details and were tested under the same conditions as the
UHPFRC columns. However, these columns were constructed with-
out steel fibers but had higher amounts of transverse reinforce-
ment compared to the UHPFRC columns 180-A3.6 and 180-C6.1.
In Fig. 13a, the UHSC columns 200-A0-6.2% and 200-B0-5.3% had
72% and 47% more confinement reinforcement, respectively, than
the UHPFRC column 180-A3.6. Similarly, the UHSC columns 200-
C0-6.9% and 200-D0-8.1% had 13% and 33% increased confinement
reinforcement, respectively, compared to the UHPFRC column 180-
C6.1 (see Fig. 13b). From these comparisons, it is clear that steel
fibers are also capable of partially substituting for confinement
reinforcement in UHPFRC columns with ductile detailing (see
Fig. 13b). The UHPFRC column with relatively poor detailing
136 H.-O. Shin et al. / Composite Structures 176 (2017) 124–142

Fig. 12. Effect of concrete strength and CSA confinement requirement: (a) Rd = 2.5; (b) Rd = 4.0; (c) ductility index versus confinement parameter; (d) toughness index versus
confinement parameter.

Fig. 13. Ability of hybrid steel fibers to partial substitute for confinement reinforcement: (a) A3.6-series (poorly confined columns); (b) C6.1-series (well confined columns).
 H.-O. Shin et al. / Composite Structures 176 (2017) 124–142
(180-A3.6) exhibited a sudden drop in load after the first peak, but
it maintained a higher load carrying capacity and showed
improved post-peak response compared to the UHSC columns hav-
ing higher amounts of transverse reinforcement (see Fig. 13a). This
observation demonstrates the ability of steel fibers to partially sub-
stitute for confinement reinforcement even for UHPFRC columns
with poor detailing. In summary, steel fibers are effective for the
partial substitution of the confining reinforcement for UHSC col-
umns with ductile seismic confinement only, however hybrid
micro-steel fibers are effective in enhancing the confinement in
UHPFRC columns regardless of the amount of transverse
reinforcement.
4. Evaluation of current code provisions and design implication
4.1. Evaluation of current seismic provisions
It is well known that ductile behavior of RC columns can be
achieved by increasing the confinement of the core concrete. The
main parameters affecting the confinement of RC columns include
the effects of the amount, spacing, and yield strength of the trans-
verse reinforcement as well as the concrete compressive strength.
0
The effective confinement index, K e qsh f yh =f c , is widely used to
quantify the degree the confinement for RC columns. [8,11,32].
The ductility of RC columns can be quantified by using the ductility
index (I10) [3,8,11]. Zaina and Foster [34] reported that I10 = 6.5 can
0
be achieved for NSC columns (f c  40 MPa) and based on this
observation, Empelmann et al. [19,20] used I10 = 6.5 for an indica-
tor for UHPFRC columns to achieve the same level of ductility as
NSC columns. Foster and Attard [11] analyzed the test data of
HSC columns and concluded that for regions of moderate seismic-
ity desirable ductility could be achieved if I10 is >8. Test results of
other HSC column series [8] and UHSC columns series [3] with
I10 > 8 also showed significantly ductile post-peak responses with
slower rates of strength decay.In order to evaluate the applicability
of current seismic design provisions for UHPFRC columns, the rela-
tionship between the ductility index (I10) and the effective confine-
0
ment index (K e qsh f yh =f c ) for the UHPFRC columns are presented
Fig. 14a. The UHPFRC column 150-A0.9, which was designed to
achieve Rd = 1.5 in the CSA Standard (CSA A23.3-14) [22], showed
Fig. 14. Ductility and toughness index versus effective confinement index: (a) ductility index (I10); (b) toughness index (T.I.)
137
simultaneous core crushing with cover spalling and exhibited a
sudden drop in axial load (see Fig. 7b). As a result, this column
achieved I10 = 5.4 (see Fig. 14a), indicating that the design require-
ment of Rd = 1.5 is not sufficient to provide ductile behavior of
UHPFRC columns, as expected. UHPFRC columns 180-C4.5 and
150-C3.8 that were designed based on Rd = 2.5 in the CSA Standard
showed I10 = 7.0, indicating that moderate ductility can be
achieved. These columns exhibited some drop in axial load after
the second peak, but they maintained 50% of their axial capacities
up to a very large compressive strain (see Fig. 12a). The UHPFRC
columns 180-C6.1 and 150-C5.1 that were designed according to
the requirement for Rd = 4.0 in the CSA Standard achieved I10 of
7.9 and 7.5, respectively. These values were slightly less than
I10 = 8.0 which is an indicator for a significant ductility of the col-
umns, but these columns showed improved post-peak behavior
with distinct second peak loads and gradual strength decay (see
Fig. 12b). It should be noted that for the design of these columns,
a kp factor of 0.27 was used to account for the axial load level on
the columns. This level of compression corresponds to an interme-
diate axial load level in a building structure [2]. The UHPFRC col-
umn 180-C9.9, which was designed according to the requirement
for columns of special moment frames in ACI 318-14 [26], showed
a higher second peak load than the first peak load and exhibited
very gradual strength decay until the end of testing, as shown in
Fig. 7a. This column showed a very high I10 ductility of 9.3. The
confinement reinforcement requirements of the current seismic
design provisions of the 2014 ACI Code (ACI 318-14) [26] apply a
concrete strength factor (kf), a confinement effectiveness factor
(kn), and an axial load level (Pu) from a review of column data stud-
ied by Elwood et al. [6]. Both the ACI Code and CSA Standard con-
sider the confinement effectiveness factor and axial load level, but
only ACI Code uses the term kf to account for brittle failure of con-
0
crete with f c > 70 MPa. It is noted that the CSA Standard limits the
specified concrete compressive strengths for seismic design
0
(f c 6 80 MPa) instead of using the kf term. The use of the kf term
for 180 MPa UHPFRC in the ACI Code results in about 1.6 times
more confinement reinforcement than that required by the CSA
Standard for Rd = 4.0. It is noted that 2014 ACI provisions would
require a transverse reinforcement ratio of about 10% for very high
0
strength (f c  180 MPa) columns and would lead to steel conges-
tion and problems in concrete casting.
138 H.-O. Shin et al. / Composite Structures 176 (2017) 124–142
4.2. New indicators for assessing ductile behavior of UHPFRC columns
The main drawback of using the ductility index (I10) is the lack
of consensus in the research community on a definition of ‘‘yield-
ing” of a RC member [7]. Although, the 3/4 rule can be used to
define ‘‘yielding” of a RC member, extrapolation and more calcula-
tions are required (see Section 3.1 and Fig. 6). In contrast, the def-
inition of the toughness index (T.I.) is clear and relatively easy to
calculate. The T.I. has been used to investigate toughness and
post-peak ductility of RC columns, but only relative comparisons
of the columns in the same test series has been made [21,31].
There is currently no available criteria for quantifying the level of
ductility using the T.I., while design indicators for RC columns
using I10 are well established based on research (i.e., I10 = 8.0 and
I10 = 6.5) [8,9,19,20].
In order to investigate the use of a new indicator for evaluating
the level of ductility of RC columns, the toughness index (T.I.) for
UHPFRC columns is plotted against the effective confinement
0 As a first step for predicting the axial load response of UHPFRC
index, K e qsh f yh =f c , in Fig. 14b. By comparing the relationships in
Figs. 14a and b, it is concluded that the indicators I10 of 6.5 and
8.0 match very well with T.I. values of 0.55 and 0.70. Therefore,
these indicators T.I. = 0.55 and 0.70 could be used to quantify the
level of ductility of UHPFRC columns.
4.3. Design implications
As an attempt to provide a design recommendation for deter-
mining the amount of seismic confinement for UHPFRC columns,
0 Fig. 15 shows examples of the comparison between the experi-
regression analysis between I10 and K e qsh f yh =f c (see Fig. 14a) as
0
well as T.I. and K e qsh f yh =f c (see Fig. 14b) was carried out using
the test data, resulting in following expressions:
0 HSC models show reasonable predictions for the first peak load
I10 ¼ 18:37ðK e qsh f yh =f c Þ þ 5:22 with R2 ¼ 0:984
0
T:I: ¼ 1:923ðK e qsh f yh =f c Þ þ 0:405 with R2 ¼ 0:987
Both Eqs. (5) and (6) are based on a first order linear function
that fits the data better than a logarithmic function. These relation-
ships fit the data very well with significantly high R-square values.
By substituting the indicators for significant ductility of the col-
umns, I10 = 8.0 and T.I. = 0.70, in Eqs. (5) and (6), both equations
resulted in the same value for the effective confinement index,
0 ling. Current HSC models assume a sudden drop in strength for the
K e qsh f yh =f c , of 15.4%. Therefore, modified design equations for the
UHPFRC columns considering the effective confinement index for
ductile response can be expressed as:
0
K e qsh f yh =f c P 0:154
Eq. (7) can be used as an alternative seismic design expression
for the confinement of UHPFRC columns with 1.5% steel fibers and
compressive strengths of 163-181 MPa, that results in ductile
behavior of these columns. Previous studies on HSC and UHSC col-
umns suggested the following design equations based on the same
approach that was used in this study:
0 0
— Foster and Attard ½11 : K e qsh f yh =f c P 0:07; for f c
¼ 60  124MPa
0 0
— Sharma etal: ½8 : K e qsh f yh =f c P 0:136; for f c
¼ 62  83MPa
0 0
— Shin etal: ½3 : K e qsh f yh =f c P 0:173; for f c ¼ 200MPa
ð10Þ
Eq. (7) indicates that confinement reinforcement needed for the
UHPFRC columns is more than that for HSC columns but less than
that for UHSC columns.
5. Analytical study
5.1. Assessment of existing confinement models for HSC columns
A number of confinement models have been proposed in order
to predict stress-strain behavior of HSC columns [23,24,32,35–39].
Based on a critical review of the existing HSC confinement models
which was studied by Sharma et al. [8], the models proposed by
Nagashima et al. [35], Cusson and Paultre [37], and Légeron and
Paultre [24] showed reasonable predictions for the stress-strain
behavior of HSC columns. Especially, it was found that Légeron
and Paultre model [24] has superior accuracy for predicting the
behavior of both circular and square HSC columns.
columns, the suitability of using these models for HSC were inves-
tigated for predicting the behavior of UHPFRC columns. For this
purpose, the UHPFRC column section was divided into different
components (unconfined concrete cover, confined core, and longi-
tudinal reinforcement), as shown in Fig. 15, and different constitu-
tive relationships for each material were used. The detailed
equations for the concrete models and the associated variables,
including the confining pressure and effectively confined area,
are given elsewhere [24,35,37].
mental responses for the UHPFRC columns and their predicted
load-strain responses using the HSC models. Examining the com-
parisons in Fig. 15, a number of conclusions can be made. All
ð5Þ
of the UHPFRC columns, which indicates that the ascending
branches for existing the models are suitable for the application
ð6Þ in the UHPFRC columns. Shin et al. [40] used a reduced stress block
factor of 0.75 to predict stress-strain behavior of UHSC columns to
consider early cover spalling. However, the addition of steel fibers
in the UHPFRC columns controlled early cover spalling effects, indi-
cating that the current stress block factor of 0.85 specified by ACI
318-14 is reasonable for UHPFRC columns. However, all HSC mod-
els overestimate the percentage drop in axial load with cover spal-
unconfined cover concrete (see Fig. 15). As indicated in Sections 3.2
and 3.3, cover spalling of UHPFRC columns was not significant
(axial load losses about 3–4%) and well controlled by the hybrid
ð7Þ steel fibers, and hence, the cover concrete model for UHPFRC needs
to be modified. The Nagashima et al. and Légeron and Paultre mod-
els overestimate both the confined concrete strength and the cor-
responding strain for UHPFRC columns. Whereas, Cusson and
Paultre model showed reasonable predictions for the confined con-
crete strength and corresponding strain as well as the initial por-
tion of the descending branch of the stress-stain response for the
confined UHPFRC after the second peak load. However, UHPFRC
column test results showed a marked change in the descending
branch of the response compared to the predictions at large axial
strain values that should be considered in the prediction model.
ð8Þ
5.2. Prediction models for UHPFRC columns
ð9Þ Based on the above observations, the Cusson and Paultre model
[37] was used and modified to predict the stress-strain behavior
for both confined and unconfined UHPFRC. The ascending branch
of the stress-strain behavior of both unconfined and confined con-
crete were made using the same expression as that used by Cusson
and Paultre (Eqs. (11) and (13)). After reaching the peak stress, the
 H.-O. Shin et al. / Composite Structures 176 (2017) 124–142 139

Fig. 15. Examples of predicting axial load behavior of UHPFRC column (i.e. 150-C5.1) using existing models: (a) Nagashima et al. [35] model; (b) Cusson and Paultre [37]
model; (c) Légeron and Paultre [24] model.

descending branch of the stress-strain response of the unconfined
cover concrete was modified based on the actual behavior obtained
from UHPFRC cylinder tests (Eq. (12)). This cover concrete model
accounts for a more gradual strength decay due to the presence
of micro-steel fibers (see Fig. 16a).
The descending branch of the stress-strain response of the con-
fined core is divided into two phases: 1) the same expression as
that of Cusson and Paultre was used when ecc 6 ec 6 ecu (Eq.
(14)); and 2) a constant axial capacity is proposed when ec P ecu
(Eq. (15)). The strain, ecu , which determines a point of marked
change in the descending branch of the response was defined con-
sidering the confinement effectiveness coefficient, Ke, as well as
volume fraction and aspect ratio of steel fibers, given by ecu = ecc + -
Ke(0.00003vflf/df). Detailed equations for the unconfined and con-
fined concretes are given in Fig. 16 and Eqs. (11)–(15):
– Unconfined concrete:
" #
kðec =e0c Þ
; for ec 6 e0c
0 experimental responses for the UHPFRC columns and detailed
fc ¼ fc
k  1 þ ðec =e0c Þk
f c ¼ linear behav ior; for e0c 6 ec 6 eu and eu 6 ec
where, k is a factor that controls the initial slope and the curvature
of the ascending branch of the unconfined concrete [37] and eu is an
inflection point of the unconfined concrete, given by eu ¼ 1:1e0c .
– Confined
" concrete: #
kðec =ecc Þ
f c ¼ f cc ; for ec 6 ecc ð13Þ
k  1 þ ðec =ecc Þk
h i
f c ¼ f cc exp k1 ðec  ecc Þk2 ; for ecc 6 ec 6 ecu ð14Þ
f c ¼ flat tail; for ecu 6 ec ð15Þ
where k1 and k2 are factors that control the general slope and cur-
vature, respectively, of the descending branch of the confined con-
crete [37]. The details of other parameters are given in previous
research [37]. It is noted that the above Eqs. (11), (13) and (14) used
by Cusson and Paultre are originally proposed by Popovics [41] and
Fafitis and Shah [42], respectively.
Fig. 17 compares the predicted load-strain responses with the
ð11Þ
comparisons of several parameters are summarized in Table 7. It
is noted that the stress in the concrete from the predictions was
ð12Þ multiplied by the factor 0.85 to obtain the predicted force versus
deformation responses. This factor of 0.85 is the same factor

Fig. 16. Modified stress-strain model for UHPFRC (i.e. C150-A3.0): (a) unconfined cover concrete; (b) confined core concrete.
140 H.-O. Shin et al. / Composite Structures 176 (2017) 124–142

Fig. 17. Comparison of predicted and measured axial load-strain responses.

Table 7
Comparison of parameters obtained from test results and prediction model.

Column Test data Prediction Test / Prediction

Pmax Pcc ecc T.I. I10 0
fcc Pmax,p Pcc,p ecc,p T.I.P I10,P Pmax Pcc ecc T:I: I10
f le Pmax;p Pcc;p ecc;p T:I:P I10;P
[kN] [kN] [MPa] [MPa] [kN] [kN]

180-series
180-A3.6 8531 6667 0.0046 0.50 6.1 5.9 213 8454 7729 0.0044 0.51 6.1 1.01 0.86 1.03 0.97 1.01
180-C4.5 8405 6901 0.0048 0.61 7.0 9.6 229 8373 7866 0.0052 0.51 6.8 1.00 0.88 0.92 1.18 1.03
180-C6.1 8306 7129 0.0058 0.69 7.9 14.2 244 8217 7871 0.0066 0.60 7.9 1.01 0.91 0.89 1.13 1.00
180-C9.9 8395a 7464 0.0062 0.82 9.3 22.6 269 7998 7998 0.0099 0.72 9.4 1.05 0.93 0.62 1.15 0.98
Average 8407 7040 0.0053 0.65 7.6 13.1 239 8261 7866 0.0065 0.59 7.6 1.02 0.89 0.86 1.11 1.00
COV 1.1% 4.8% 14.9% 21.3% 17.8% 54.8% 10.0% 2.4% 1.4% 37.2% 16.7% 19.4% 2.0% 3.5% 19.9% 8.7% 2.0%
150-series
150-A0.9 7548 – – 0.40 5.4 0.6 169 7549 7549 0.0035 0.32 4.8 1.00 – – 1.28 1.13
150-A3.0 7655 6563 0.0036 0.50 6.0 4.7 191 7618 7013 0.0040 0.43 6.0 1.00 0.94 0.90 1.18 1.00
150-C3.0 7598 6619 0.0038 0.53 6.4 5.5 195 7613 7060 0.0042 0.44 6.1 1.00 0.94 0.91 1.20 1.05
150-C3.8 7631 6250 0.0045 0.59 7.0 7.3 202 7581 7141 0.0046 0.48 6.6 1.01 0.88 0.98 1.22 1.06
150-C5.1 7869 6611 0.0047 0.65 7.5 11.3 215 7455 7190 0.0058 0.55 7.6 1.06 0.92 0.82 1.18 0.97
Average 7660 6511 0.0042 0.53 6.5 5.9 194 7563 7101 0.0046 0.44 6.2 1.01 0.92 0.90 1.21 1.04
COV 1.6% 2.7% 12.8% 17.1% 12.5% 66.5% 8.7% 0.9% 1.1% 16.8% 19.0% 16.7% 2.4% 3.2% 7.1% 3.3% 5.8%

assumed in the ACI code for predicting the concrete contribution to confinement. The average ratios of Pmax/Pmax,p and I10/I10,p are equal
the axial load resistance of a column. The predictions using the to or slightly higher than 1.0, indicating that the proposed model
proposed models agree reasonably well with the experimental provides very accurate predictions for the axial load capacity as
results for the UHPFRC columns with a wide range of amount of well as post-peak ductility of the UHPFRC columns. It should be
 H.-O. Shin et al. / Composite Structures 176 (2017) 124–142
noted that an elasto-plastic stress-strain relationship was used to
calculate the contribution of the longitudinal reinforcement in
the suggested model for the UHPFRC columns. However, a stress-
strain model that accounts for the bar buckling phenomenon of
the steel reinforcement should be used for the UHPFRC column
having a large spacing of transverse reinforcement (i.e., Column
150-A0.9) because this column exhibited significant bar buckling
during the testing, as shown in Fig. 8(b). In addition, further
research work, including the validation of the proposed model over
a wide range of parameters that affect axial load response of
UHPFRC columns, is required.
6. Conclusions
This paper presents the results of a test program aimed at
studying the axial load response of nine UHPFRC square columns
designed according to the current seismic design provisions of
CSA A23.3-14 and ACI 318-14. The effects of hybrid micro-steel
fibers on cover spalling and the effects of confinement provided
by transverse reinforcement are investigated. Analytical studies
to predict the response of UHPFRC columns and design recommen-
dations are also conducted. The following conclusions are a result
of these experimental and analytical studies:
1) Hybrid micro-steel fibers with a volume fraction of 1.5% con-
trolled premature cover spalling of the UHPFRC columns,
resulting in the same level of the stress block factor, k3, of
0.85 as that of NSC columns.
2) Hybrid micro-steel fibers are effective for the partial substi-
tution of the confining reinforcement of the UHPFRC col-
umns regardless of the amount of the confinement.
3) For a given transverse reinforcement amount, well detailed
configurations and closely spaced transverse reinforcement
improves the post-peak ductility and toughness of the
UHPFRC columns. However, the amount of the transverse
reinforcement was the most important parameter, showing
a pronounced effect on the post-peak behavior of the
UHPFRC columns.
4) The provision of confinement reinforcement in accordance
with the CSA 23.3-14 Standard resulted in reasonable post-
peak behavior with distinct second peak loads and gradual
strength decay that was a function of the ductility level cho-
sen for design. The requirement for columns of special
moment frames in the ACI 318-14 Code, provided a higher
second peak load than the first peak load and exhibited very
gradual strength decay until the end of testing with signifi-
cantly high ductility.
5) New design indicators using the toughness index (T.I.) for
quantifying ductility of UHPFRC columns were proposed. A
design equation for determining the amount of seismic con-
finement for UHPFRC columns is also proposed by consider-
ing the effective confinement index.
6) Predictions of the axial load-strain behavior of UHPFRC col-
umns were made, accounting for the benefits of steel fibers
on controlling premature spalling of the unconfined cover
concrete and resulting in improved ductility and toughness
of the confined concrete. The analytical results demonstrate
that the predictions agree reasonably with the experimental
results.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by a grant from R&D Program of
the Korea Railroad Research Institute, Republic of Korea. Funding
141
from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Council of Canada
(NSERC) is also gratefully acknowledged. The structural experi-
mental program was carried out at McGill University.
References
[1] Cusson D, Paultre P. High-strength concrete columns confined by rectangular
ties. J Struct Eng 1994;120(3):783–804.
[2] Légeron F, Paultre P. Behavior of high-strength concrete columns under cyclic
flexure and constant axial load. ACI Struct J 2000;97(4):591–601.
[3] Shin HO, Yoon YS, Cook WD, Mitchell D. Effect of confinement on the axial load
response of ultrahigh-strength concrete columns. J Struct Eng 2015;141
(6):04014151.
[4] Shin HO, Yoon YS, Cook WD, Mitchell D. Axial load response of ultra-high-
strength concrete columns and high-strength reinforcement. ACI Struct J
2016;113(2):325–36.
[5] Liu J, Foster S. Behaviour of tied high strength concrete columns loaded in
concentric compression. Sydney: University of New South Wales; 1998. p. 143.
[6] Elwood KJ, Maffei J, Riederer KA, Telleen K. Improving column confinement;
part 2: proposed new provisions for the ACI 318 building code. Concr Int
2009;31(12):41–8.
[7] Paultre P, Eid R, Robles HI, Bouaanani N. Seismic performance of circular high-
strength concrete columns. ACI Struct J 2009;106(4):395–404.
[8] Sharma UK, Bhargava P, Kaushik SK. Behavior of confined high strength
concrete columns under axial compression. J Adv Concr Technol 2005;3
(2):267–81.
[9] Foster SJ, Attard MM. Experimental tests on eccentrically loaded high strength
concrete columns. ACI Struct J 1997;94(3):295–302.
[10] Shin HO, Yoon YS, Lee SH, Cook WD, Mitchell D. Effect of Steel Fibers on the
Performance of Ultrahigh-Strength Concrete Columns. J Mater Civ Eng 2015;27
(4):04014142.
[11] Foster SJ, Attard MM. Strength and Ductility of Fiber-Reinforced High-Strength
Concrete Columns. J Struct Eng 2001;127(1):28–34.
[12] Aoude H, Cook WD, Mitchell D. Behavior of columns constructed with fibers
and self-consolidating concrete. ACI Struct J 2009;106(3):349–57.
[13] Paultre P, Eid R, Langlois Y, Lévesque Y. Behavior of steel fiber-reinforced high-
strength concrete columns under uniaxial compression. J Struct Eng 2010;136
(10):1225–35.
[14] Richard P, Cheyrezy M. Composition of reactive powder concretes. Cem Concr
Res 1995;25(7):1501–11.
[15] Yoo DY, Banthia N, Yoon YS. Mitigating early-age cracking in thin UHPFRC
precast concrete products using shrinkage-reducing admixtures. PCI J 2016;61
(1):39–50.
[16] Yoo DY, Shin HO, Yang JM, Yoon YS. Material and bond properties of ultra high
performance fiber reinforced concrete with micro steel fibers. Compos B Eng
2014;58:122–33.
[17] Guerrini GL. Applications of high-performance fiber-reinforced cement-based
composites. Appl Compos Mater 2000;7(2):195–207.
[18] Sugano S, Kimura H, Shirai K. Study of new RC structures using ultra-high-
strength fiber-reinforced concrete (UFC)-The challenge of applying 200 MPa
UFC to earthquake resistant building structures. J Adv Concr Technol 2007;5
(2):133–47.
[19] Empelmann M, Teutsch M, Steven G. Expanding the application range of RC
columns by the use of UHPC. In: Walraven, Stoelhorst, editors. Tailor made
concrete structures. London: Taylor & Francis Group; 2008. p. 461–8.
[20] Empelmann M, Teutsch M, Steven G. Load-bearing behaviour of centrically
loaded UHPFRC columns. In: Proceedings of the Second International
Symposium on Ultra High Performance Concrete. Kassel; 2008. p. 521–528.
[21] Hosinieh MM, Aoude H, Cook WD, Mitchell D. Behavior of ultra-high
performance fiber reinforced concrete columns under pure axial loading. Eng
Struct 2015;99:388–401.
[22] CSA (Canadian Standards Association). Design of Concrete Structures (CSA
A23.3-14). Mississauga: Canadian Standards Association; 2014.
[23] Razvi S, Saatcioglu M. Confinement model for high-strength concrete. J Struct
Eng 1999;125(3):281–9.
[24] Légeron F, Paultre P. Uniaxial confinement model for normal- and high-
strength concrete columns. J Struct Eng 2003;129(2):241–52.
[25] Aoude H. Structural behaviour of steel fibre reinforced concrete members (Ph.
D thesis). McGill University; 2008.
[26] ACI Committee 318. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI
318–14) and Commentary on Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318R–14). Farmington Hills: American Concrete Institute; 2014.
[27] Ryu GS, Kang ST, Park JJ, Koh KT, Kim SW. Mechanical behavior of UHPC (ultra
high performance concrete) according to hybrid use of steel fibers. Adv Mater
Res 2011;287:453–7.
[28] ASTM C39/39M-15a. Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of
Cylindrical Concrete Specimens. West Conshohocken: ASTM International;
2015.
[29] ASTM C1609/C1609M-12. Standard Test Method for Flexural Performance of
Fiber-Reinforced Concrete (Using Beam with Third-Point Loading). West
Conshohocken: ASTM International; 2012.
[30] ASTM A1035/A1035M-16. Standard Specification for Deformed and Plain,
Low-Carbon, Chromium, Steel Bars for Concrete Reinforcement. West
Conshohocken: ASTM International; 2016.
142 H.-O. Shin et al. / Composite Structures 176 (2017) 124–142
[31] Aoude H, Hosinieh MM, Cook WD, Mitchell D. Behavior of rectangular columns
constructed with SCC and steel fibers. J Struct Eng 2015;141(8):04014191.
[32] Mander JB, Priestley MJN, Park R. Theoretical stress-strain model for confined
concrete. J Struct Eng 1988;114(8):1804–26.
[33] Foster SJ. On behavior of high-strength concrete columns: cover spalling, steel
fibers, and ductility. ACI Struct J 2001;98(4):583–9.
[34] Zaina M, Foster SJ. Modelling of fibre-reinforced HSC
columns. Sydney: University of New South Wales; 2005.
[35] Nagashima T, Sugano S, Kimura H, Ichikawa A. Monotonic axial compression
test on ultra-high-strength concrete tied columns. In: Proceedings of 10th
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Madrid; 1992. p. 2983–2988.
[36] Muguruma H, Nishiyama M, Watanabe F. Stress-strain curve model for
concrete with a wide-range of compressive strength. In: Proceedings of
Symposium on High Strength Concrete. California; 1993. p. 314–321.
[37] Cusson D, Paultre P. Stress-strain model for confined high-strength concrete. J
Struct Eng 1995;121(3):468–77.
[38] Assa B, Nishiyama M, Watanabe F. New approach for modeling confined
concrete. II: rectangular columns. J Struct Eng 2001;127(7):751–7.
[39] Bing L, Park R, Tanaka H. Stress-strain behavior of high-strength concrete
confined by ultra-high- and normal-strength transverse reinforcements. ACI
Struct J 2001;98(3):395–406.
[40] Shin H-O, Yoon Y-S, Cook WD, Mitchell D. Enhancing the confinement of ultra-
high-strength concrete columns using headed crossties. Eng Struct
2016;127:86–100.
[41] Popovics S. A numerical approach to the complete stress-strain curve of
concrete. Cem Concr Res 1973;3:583–99.
[42] Fafitis A, Shah S. Lateral reinforcement for high-strength concrete columns.
ACI Spec Publ 1985;87:213–32.