Construction and Building Materials 37 (2012) 874882

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

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

Experimental test methods to determine the uniaxial tensile and compressive

behaviour of ultra high performance bre reinforced concrete (UHPFRC)
A.M.T. Hassan , S.W. Jones, G.H. Mahmud
School of Engineering, University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 3GH, UK

h i g h l i g h t s

" Simple test methods in both tension and compression for UHPFRC were developed.
" The modulus of elasticity, stressstrain curve and post peak behaviour were studied.
" Consistency of the test results shows the reliability of the developed test methods.
" Effect of steel bres on strength and ductility investigated.
" Ductility and strength improves signicantly due to the presence of steel bre.

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

Article history: Ultra High Performance Fibre Reinforced Concrete (UHPFRC) is an exceptional type of concrete with supe-
Received 14 November 2011 rior mechanical and durability properties. The development of appropriate test methods to determine the
Received in revised form 26 March 2012 mechanical properties of this material, especially the tensile behaviour, have been found to be challeng-
Accepted 25 April 2012
ing. This paper presents experimental studies using simple test methods to study the modulus of elastic-
Available online 23 May 2012
ity, stressstrain curve and post peak behaviour in both tension and compression of UHPFRC reinforced
with and without steel bres. Dog-bone shaped and cylinder specimens were tested in tension and com-
Keywords:
pression, respectively. The tests were conducted using controlled closed-loop testing machines and Lin-
UHPFRC
UHPC
ear Variable Displacement Transducers (LVDTs), in a relatively straight forward manner. The effects of
Uniaxial tensile testing techniques steel bres on the tensile and compressive strength, modulus of elasticity and post-cracking behaviour
Uniaxial compressive testing techniques at different ages were investigated. The efciency and simplicity of the proposed tests method were stud-
Stressstrain curve ied. Finally, using the test methods described here, a complete stressstrain curve for UHPFRC was
obtained, which can be used in advanced numerical modelling.
2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
UHPFRC is a combination of high strength concrete and steel
bre reinforcement, rst discovered in France [1]. Concrete with
compressive strength in the range of 100150 MPa and steel bres
with high tensile strength in the range of 8502000 MPa are used
to produce this material [2]. Due to its superior qualities, UHPFRC
could be a suitable solution for structures, where high strength and
durability properties are required. Since its rst appearance, this
material has been used in numerous structural applications in
the eld of bridges, pavements, and architectural structures [3].
With the growing use of UHPFRC in modern construction, deter-
mining its tensile and compressive properties is essential in the
study of its structural behaviour, numerical modelling and fracture
mechanics. To date, the AFGC recommendation [4] has been
Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 151 7945095; fax: +44 151 7945218.
E-mail address: eg0u61c9@liverpool.ac.uk (A.M.T. Hassan).
recognised internationally and used widely for the design of this
material. There have been a number of studies [511], each with
their own interpretations, to develop appropriate test methods in
both tension and compression. However, identifying a relatively
simple test method to capture the full stressstrain curve in ten-
sion and compression has not yet been found.
This paper describes work undertaken to develop suitable test
methods for the determination of the uniaxial tensile and compres-
sive behaviour of UHPFRC, reinforced with steel bres and without
it (hereinafter designated as UHPC). The quantity of bres added to
the UHPFRC mix was 2% by volume ratio. In the mix used in this
study, the steel bres were 13 mm long and 0.2 mm in diameter.
The ultimate compressive and tensile stress with their correspond-
ing strains and the elastic modulii for both concrete mixes were
determined. The inuence of the addition of steel bres in increas-
ing both strength and ductility properties were examined. The
efciency and simplicity of the test methods were studied and
compared to the conventional tests used for normal concrete.

0950-0618/$ - see front matter 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.04.030
 A.M.T. Hassan et al. / Construction and Building Materials 37 (2012) 874882
1.1. Tensile testing method
Generally, tensile properties of concrete are determined using
three types of test methods, direct tension tests, splitting tests,
and exural tests. Dog-bone shaped specimens have been used in
direct tensile tests but are rarely preformed. This test has been
found to be complicated and requires detailed preparation for
alignment and gripping the specimen [8,9]. The tensile splitting
and exural tests are preformed using cylinder and prism speci-
mens, respectively. These tests are widely used for normal concrete
and easy to perform due to their simplicity and commercially
available equipment. The cylinder splitting test for normal con-
crete is dened by many standards [12,13]. This method is prefer-
able for brittle material testing (such as normal concrete) where
complete failure occurs with a single crack. However, such test
should be avoided for UHPFRC, in which considerable compressive
crushing occurs at the platens of the testing machine due to steel
bre content. In this test, the specimen is subjected to a complex
combination of shear, tension, compression stresses with signi-
cant stress gradients which may result in an inaccurate tensile
strength result [8,10]. The local zones of high compressive stresses
at the extremes results in higher values than the actual tensile
strength. Also, ACI committee 544.2R hardly recommends the use
of this test on steel bre reinforced concrete.
Flexural tests are also used to determine the tensile strength of
normal concrete and UHPFRC. In this test, notched and unnotched
prism specimens are tested in three or four point bending and de-
tailed guidance is provided in several standards [1417]. This
method of testing is based on simple beam-bending theory and lin-
ear elastic stressstrain behaviour up to failure. However, concrete
is a non-linear material and the assumption of a linear stress distri-
bution is not valid. Therefore, results obtained using this method is
always greater than the direct tensile strength. Further discussion
regarding the splitting and exure tests and possible reasons of
why these methods result in higher values of strength than the ac-
tual tensile strength is discussed by Neville [18]. A more accurate
technique that can capture the true tensile strength of UHPFRC
and UHPC can be achieved using the uniaxial tensile test. Despite
a number of difculties in performing this test, a test method in
this study was developed using dog-bone specimens. The speci-
mens were cast in a dog-bone shape so that a uniaxial stress eld
was created through the central section of the specimen and local-
isation of cracks and failure occur in these areas.
1.2. Compression testing method
The most common test on hardened concrete is the compressive
strength test. Many recognised standards [19,20] have provided de-
tailed guidance for the measurement of the compressive strength
and modulus of elasticity for normal concrete using cylinder and
cube specimens. This study has followed the test conguration de-
scribed in the BS 1881-121 and ASTM C469-94 for the determination
of compressive stressstrain values and modulus of elasticity for
both UHPFRC and UHPC. However, the test methods described in
both standards were found to be unsuitable, especially in the mea-
surement of post-cracking behaviour for UHPFRC specimens. De-
tailed discussions regarding the problems involved with both tests
are provided in the later sections of this paper. Therefore, with mod-
ications to the standard tests, a simple method was developed in
which the entire stressstrain range was obtained.
2. Materials and mix design
The details of the mix proportions used in this study are presented in Table 1.
The mix design is developed by a previous research study at the School of Engineer-
ing, University of Liverpool [2]. The mechanical, chemical and physical properties of
875
Table 1
Mix design for UHPFRC and UHPC.
Material UHPFRC (kg/m3) UHPC (kg/m3)
Cement 657 657
GGBS 418 418
Silica fume 119 119
Silica sand (average size 0.27 mm) 1051 1051
Superplasticizers 40 40
Water 185 185
Steel bre 2% volume 157 0
the materials are reported by Yang et al. [21]. Two different concrete mixes
(UHPFRC and UHPC) were cast and the only difference between both mixes is the
inclusion of steel bres in the UHPFRC. In the mixing process, materials were
weighed and placed in a horizontal pan mixer in the order: silica fume, cement,
Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag (GGBS), and silica sand. The materials were
rstly dry mixed for nearly 5 min before water with superplastisers, previously
mixed together were added to the mix. The materials were mixed for a further
10 min until the dry powder mix transformed into a wet paste concrete. At this
stage the UHPC mix was ready; all the required specimens were cast into moulds
and compacted on a vibrating table for 1 min. For the UHPFRC concrete, steel bres
were slowly added by hand to the wet concrete paste in the mixer. The concrete
was mixed for a further 2 min to ensure proper dispersion of bres and then the
specimens were prepared. Specimens from both mixes were covered with damp
hessian and polythene sheets, and kept at laboratory temperature (20 C) for
24 h. After all the specimens were checked for initial set, demoulding took place
at approximately 24 h. All the specimens were placed in a curing tank in an elevated
temperature of 90 C for the next 48 h and nally kept at laboratory temperature
until the testing day.
3. Specimen preparation and experimental setup
Specimens for UHPFRC and UHPC were subsequently tested at
7, 14 and 28 days after casting. To eliminate variations in casting
and testing procedures, careful consideration was given at all
stages. In particular, the same equipment and procedures for cast-
ing and testing were used at all times. Simple testing procedures to
determine the modulus of elasticity and the full stressstrain
curves in tension and compression were developed, as described
below.
3.1. Direct tensile test
In this test, two unnotched dog-bone specimens of slightly
different geometries, each with an overall length of 200 mm, were
prepared. The cross section of the specimens starts with
50  50 mm and changes to a prismatic shape of 26  50 mm after
either 25 or 50 mm away from each ends of the specimens, see
Fig. 1. The dimensions of the tapered section was chosen to be at
least equal of two bre lengths (13 mm) in order to avoid bre ball-
ing, ensuring random bre distribution and enabling failure in this
part of the specimen. The lengths of the reduced cross section were
set as 126 and 76 mm, respectively, in order to examine the effect of
different lengths on the test results.
Preparation of the test involved designing a jig and end plates
connected to 12 mm dia. steel rods. The specimens was held using
the jig to minimise misalignment and then two end plates were
glued at each end of the specimen using epoxy resin, as shown in
Fig. 2a. The epoxy was applied at least 24 h prior to the test to
reach its ultimate strength. Fig. 2b illustrates the test setup in a
Denison displacement control testing machine with a capacity of
100 kN. Two LVDTs were mounted on opposite sides of the speci-
men to measure displacement along the length of the narrow cross
section. In this test, displacement control at a rate of 0.4 mm/min
was applied to the steel rods and the tensile load transmitted to
the specimen. The loaddisplacement diagram was produced
digitally as the test proceeded, and the entire stressstrain curve
in both the ascending and descending branches was recorded.
876 A.M.T. Hassan et al. / Construction and Building Materials 37 (2012) 874882

Fig. 1. The dog-bone specimen geometries.

Steel rod

End plate

Epoxy

(a) (b)
Fig. 2. Uniaxial tensile tests setup: (a) Specimen preparation. (b) Tests setup.

3.2. Compression test
Uniaxial compression tests were performed on cylinder
specimens of 50 mm dia.  100 mm using three different test
methods. The rst method was performed using the guidance from
the BS 1881-121:1983. The specimens were loaded at a rate of
0.5 MPa/s and measurements were taken using electrical strain
gauges. As this method is designed only for the determination of
the static modulus of elasticity, it was unable to capture the
post-cracking behaviour for the UHPFRC specimens. The strain
gauges were detached from the surface of the specimen and came
off at peak strength due to concrete spalling, see Fig. 3a. A second
 A.M.T. Hassan et al. / Construction and Building Materials 37 (2012) 874882 877

method was carried out in compliance with ASTM C469 using two
rigid circular rings, which were secured at approximately two
thirds the height of the specimen using clamping screws. Two
LVDTs were introduced between the rings and positioned on
opposite sides of the specimen. Tests were conducted using a
deection control testing machine at a rate of 0.04 mm/min and
measurements were recorded. This method was able to capture
the stressstrain values up to the rst crack strength for the
UHPFRC specimens (or ultimate strength for the UHPC samples).
However, it was observed that the method was unsuitable for cap-
turing the post-cracking behaviour of the UHPFRC specimens be-
cause the clamping screws started to rotate with the occurrence
of shear line failure, see Fig. 3b.
To overcome the difculties encountered with the above two
test methods, a third method of testing was proposed. In this
method, the circular rings with the LVDTs were used only to

(a)

(b)

(c)
Fig. 3. Uniaxial compression test setup: (a) In compliance with the BS standard. (b) In compliance with the ASTM standard. (c) Modied test.
878 A.M.T. Hassan et al. / Construction and Building Materials 37 (2012) 874882

(a) 10.0
9.0

8.0

Stress (MPa) 7.0

6.0
UHPFRC 7 days
UHPFRC 14 days
5.0 UHPFRC 28 days
UHPC 7 days
4.0 UHPC 14 days
UHPC 28 days
3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0
0.0000 0.0005 0.0010 0.0015 0.0020 0.0025 0.0030 0.0035 0.0040
Strain

(b) 10.0
9.0

8.0 UHPFRC 7 days

UHPFRC 14 days
7.0 UHPFRC 28 days
Stress (MPa)

6.0

5.0

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0
0.0000 0.0050 0.0100 0.0150 0.0200 0.0250 0.0300 0.0350 0.0400 0.0450 0.0500 0.0550
Strain
Fig. 4. Tensile stressstrain curve with respect to age: (a) Up to the rst crack. (b) Full stressstrain.

measure the elastic stage of the test. In addition, two more LVDTs
were placed parallel to the specimen to measure the cross head
movement of the test machine, hence, the post-cracking stage
was recorded, see Fig. 3c. The full compressive stressstrain re-
sponse was then obtained by combining the two sets of results.
Furthermore, a pinned cross head was employed for all the tests
to avoid end constraint induced by friction between the rigid load-
ing platen and the specimen [22]. Prior to each test, all the cylinder
specimens were grinded according to the BS EN 12390-3:2009 to
minimise uneven surfaces at each end.
4.1. Linear elastic phase
The initial modulus of elasticity with no permanent deforma-
tion takes place in this stage. The maximum tensile strength at-
tained in this part is the peak strength of the matrix while bre
content does not signicantly affect the overall material behaviour.
At this stage, the major part of the tensile strength is achieved with
a corresponding small deformation as shown in Fig. 4a.
4.2. Crack developing phase

4. Results and discussions
For each test in tension and compression, at least three speci-
mens from both concrete mixes were tested and an average value
is presented here. For the uniaxial tensile tests, strain was obtained
by dividing the average of the LVDT extension with the LDVT gauge
length. Stress was obtained by dividing the machine load by the
cross-sectional area of the narrow section of the specimen. Fig. 4,
presents the tensile stressstrain curves at various ages, the char-
acteristic material behaviour for both concretes can be summa-
rised below.
This regime follows the elastic phase, in which the rst micro-
cracks develop. At the start of this phase, the UHPC specimens fail
rapidly at the weakest point due to the localisation of the maxi-
mum strain in a single crack which is greater than the strain limit
of the matrix, see Fig. 5a. In contrast, stress is maintained in the
UHPFRC specimens by the composite action of the steel bres
bridging across the cracks in the concrete. Tensile strength in-
creases at a very small rate compared to the elastic phase and high
deformation takes place with reduced modulus of elasticity. This
phase is known as pseudo strain hardening or the pseudo plas-
tic phase, meaning that no true plastic microstructural changes
 A.M.T. Hassan et al. / Construction and Building Materials 37 (2012) 874882 879

Fig. 5. Uniaxial tensile tests: (a) UHPC failure. (b) Formation of macrocrack and post peak failure.

160
150
140
130
120
110 UHPFRC 7 days
100 UHPFRC 14 days
Stress (MPa)

90 UHPFRC 28 days
UHPC 7 days
80
UHPC 14 days
70 UHPC 28 days
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.000000 0.004000 0.008000 0.012000 0.016000 0.020000
Strain
Fig. 6. Compressive stressstrain curve with respect to age.

take place compared to those in a real plastic material [23]. The
strain hardening behaviour distinguishes UHPFRC from all the
other types of concrete. In this phase, a large number of micro-
cracks developed along the entire length of the prismatic section
of the specimen, see Fig. 5b. Crack width and opening are inu-
enced by the presence of steel bres and stress is transferred by
the bres bridging across the faces of each crack. Sufcient bond
between the matrix and the bres are essential in this phase as
well as an even distribution of bres. This phase ends when the
bres holding both sides of the microcracks are no longer capable
of sustaining the maximum stress causing deformation or bre
pull-out to occur.
4.3. Failure phase
This phase starts when the ultimate tensile strength of UHPFRC is
reached at the end of the strain hardening regime. Deformation
localises at the weakest point of the section when several
880 A.M.T. Hassan et al. / Construction and Building Materials 37 (2012) 874882

Fig. 7. Compression tests: (a) UHPC at failure. (b) Formation of cracks and UHPFRC at failure.

microcracks combine to form a macrocrack, perpendicular to the
direction of the extension as shown in Fig. 5b. Slipping between
the bres and the matrix occurs and the stress starts to decrease.
However, from this point onwards the stressstrain curve can no
longer be expressed as a function of average deformation, but of
localised deformation [24]. The measurement taken in this phase
is known as crack mouth opening in which strain is no longer evenly
distributed along the specimen. Quantities and properties of the
steel bres govern the shape and length of the stressstrain curve
and the ductility behaviour. The progressive bre pull out behaviour
is heavily dependent on the matrix strength and length of the bres.
The limiting value of the crack mouth opening is typically related to
half the length of the longest bre in the composite, for this study
6.5 mm (13 mm steel bre). Finally, variation in the length of the
prismatic section (76 or 126 mm) appears to have no inuence on
the tensile strength of both concretes.
For the uniaxial compressive tests, results only from the modi-
ed method (the third method) are presented here. Strain for the
elastic stage was attained by dividing the average of the LVDT
deformations by the LDVT gauge length held by the circular rings.
After the occurrence of the rst crack, strain was obtained by divid-
ing the average of the LVDT deformation measuring the cross head
movement by the total specimen height. The stress was obtained
by dividing the machine load by the initial cross-sectional area of
the cylinder specimen. The compressive stressstrain curves for
the UHPFRC and UHPC concretes at different ages are illustrated
in Fig. 6. The proposed method of testing, in accordance with the
ASTM Standard, using circular rings with LVDTs mounted on
cylinder specimens is designed such that platen restraints from
the testing machine are eliminated and uniaxial compressive
behaviour is measured. In contrast, cross-head total displacement
measurement does not take this into account and measures the to-
tal height displacement of the sample including the areas at both
ends that are affected by the platen restraints. The latter method
is complicated by this platen effect and could provide inconsistent
results and should not be entirely relied on. It may result in higher
strain measurement and a smaller value for the initial elastic mod-
ulus. Therefore, both methods have to be used together for this
material. In this study, results from the latter method were
amended until the initial elastic modulus and strain values in the
elastic region were equal to the former method. Then, results from
both sets of readings were combined together to present the full
stressstrain response of the material using the ASTM Standard
and the amended cross-head readings to plot the pre-cracking
and post-cracking behaviour, respectively.
For the compressive behaviour, addition of steel bre appears to
have a relatively small effect on the pre-cracking compressive
strength and elastic modulus. However, its inuence on the post-
cracking behaviour and failure mechanism is signicant. From
Fig. 6, the elastic stage for both concretes at different ages follows
a similar trend up to the rst crack strength. The UHPC specimens
behave elastically until peak strength and then follow a sudden
strain softening, similar to its tensile strength. With the formation
of the rst crack when lateral deformation exceeded its tensile
capacity, the UHPC specimens lost their total strength and failed
in an abrupt explosive manner, see Fig. 7a. In contrast, UHPFRC
specimens behave elastically up to approximately 9095% of their
compressive strength, followed by strain hardening behaviour
(compression hardening) up to peak strength, although in some
tests this behaviour did not occur. Following the peak strength a
progressive strain softening occurs in which the presence of bres
governs the softening stage, similar to its tensile behaviour. The

Table 2
Tensile and compressive stressstrain values with modulus of elasticity for UHPFRC and UHPC and different ages.

Age UHPFRC UHPC

(days)
Maximum Corresponding Maximum Corresponding Elastic Maximum Corresponding Maximum Corresponding Elastic
tensile strain compressive strain modulus tensile strain compressive strain modulus
stress (microstrain) stress (MPa) (microstrain) (GPa) stress (microstrain) stress (MPa) (microstrain) (GPa)
(MPa) (MPa)
7 8.97 2781 145.96 3651 45.37 4.47 156 124.34 3260 41.14
14 8.92 1499 149.05 4168 44.83 4.96 204 124.13 3284 42.09
28 9.07 2749 150.56 3730 45.55 5.36 166 121.32 3238 42.08
 A.M.T. Hassan et al. / Construction and Building Materials 37 (2012) 874882
(a) 10
9 at peak strength was reported in range of 1.53 compared to
8 the values of 0.150.25 for the UHPC. In contrast, maximum
Strength (MPa)
7 UHPFRC specimens are only 1020% greater than those of UHPC.
6 This shows the signicance of steel bre content in concrete struc-
5
4 the presence of steel bres in UHPFRC increases the modulus of
3
2 UHPC
UHPFRC
1
7 14 28
Age (days)
(b) 160
150
Strength (MPa)
140
130
120
UHPC
UHPFRC
110
7 14 28
Age (days)
Fig. 8. Ultimate strength gain with respect to age: (a) Tensile strength. (b)
Compressive strength.
interaction between the bres and the matrix contributes to duc-
tile compressive failure where the concrete surface remains intact
even at total strength loss, see Fig. 7b. From the test results pre-
sented here, it is clear that the shape of softening behaviour for
the UHPFRC specimens in both tension and compression is hard
to predict. This could be due to the fact that bres in the concrete
were distributed and orientated unevenly. To get to more consis-
tent material properties of this material, further studies of the
orientation and distribution of bres in the concrete are needed.
At the same time as the cylinder tests, 100 mm cube specimens
were also tested for compressive strength. Generally, the cylinder
compressive strength is lower than its cube strength for the same
concrete due to the conning effect of the testing machine platens
and the aspect ratio of the specimen. A strength reduction factor is
usually used to convert the cube strengths to cylinder strengths
and the factor is in the vicinity of 0.82 for normal concrete and in-
creases toward 1.0 as the concrete strength increases [25]. It is re-
ported that the differences for UHPFRC are not greater than 10%
[10]. However, results reported here are in a range of 1113%
and this could be due to the variations of the testing methods
and specimen sizes applied here and in the literature.
Fig. 8a and b illustrates the rate of strength gain at different ages
and inuence of bre content on the maximum tensile and com-
pressive strength. Only small differences in strength development
were reported between 7 and 28 days for UHPFRC and UHPC. The
concretes appear to have reached their ultimate strength within
7 days due to the curing regime of the elevated temperature of
881
90 C. From Fig. 8a, tensile strengths of UHPFRC were approxi-
mately double those of UHPC. Maximum tensile strain attained
compressive strengths with their corresponding strains of the
tures where high tensile strengths are required, particularly for
punching shear resistance in bridge deck design. Furthermore,
elasticity over that for UHPC by 610%. For full test results for
the ultimate tensile and compressive stressstrain values and
modulus of elasticity at different ages see Table 2. Finally, the con-
sistency of test results reported here, justies the simplicity and
credibility of the developed test methods.
5. Conclusions
The steel bre content in UHPFRC had a signicant effect on
improving the tensile strength by almost double compared to
those of UHPC. This is a signicant benet for concrete structures
where punching shear failure is an important consideration such
as with bridge deck designs. Moreover, ductility in both tension
and compression were improved substantially. In contrast, their
inuence on the compressive strength and modulus of elasticity
was relatively small.
Conventional test methods used for normal concrete were
found to be unreliable for the measurement of the post-cracking
behaviour of UHPFRC in both tension and compression. In order
to overcome these limitations, simple test methods were devel-
oped in this study. The consistency of the test results presented
here is very similar to what has been reported in the literature
[4], this demonstrates the precision and simplicity of the proposed
test methods.
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the nancial support from
the Engineering and Physical and Science Research Council, UK
for their support of this study through a DTA award. Also the
authors wish to acknowledge the technical support provided by
Mr. Marc Bratley and Mr. David Hunter at the concrete laboratory
of the University of Liverpool.
References
[1] Richard P, Cheyrezy M. Composition of reactive powder concretes. Cement
Concr Res 1995;25(7):150111.
[2] Le T. Ultra high performance bre reinforced concrete paving ags. Liverpool,
UK: University of Liverpool; 2008.
[3] Behloul M, Batoz J. Ductal applications over the last Olympiad. In: Fehling E,
Schmidt M, Strwald S, editors. Proceedings of the second international
symposium on ultra high performance concrete, Kassel, Germany: Kassel
University Press GmbH; 2008. p. 85562.
[4] BFUP AFGC. Ultra high performance bre-reinforced concretes. Interim
Recommendations. France: AFGC/SETRA Working Group; 2002. p. 142.
[5] Li H, Xu S, Leung C. Tensile and exural properties of ultra high toughness
cemontious composite. J Wuhan University Technol Mater Sci Ed
2009;24(4):67783.
[6] Rokugo K, Kanda T, Yokota H, Sakata N. Applications and recommendations of
high performance ber reinforced cement composites with multiple ne
cracking (HPFRCC) in Japan. Mater Struct 2009;42(9):1197208.
[7] Zhang J, Stang H, Li VC. Experimental study on crack bridging in FRC under
uniaxial fatigue tension. J Mater Civil Eng 2000;12(1):6673.
[8] Mallat A, Alliche A. A modied tensile test to study the behaviour of
cementitious materials. Strain 2011;47(6):499504.
[9] Benson SDP, Karihaloo BL. CARDIFRC1 development and mechanical
properties. Part III: Uniaxial tensile response and other mechanical
properties. Mag Concr Res 2005;5(5):43343.
[10] Graybeal BA. Characterization of the behavior of ultra-high performance
concrete: University of Maryland; 2005. [Ph.D.]
882 A.M.T. Hassan et al. / Construction and Building Materials 37 (2012) 874882
[11] Song PS, Hwang S. Mechanical properties of high-strength steel ber-
reinforced concrete. Construct Build Mater 2004;18(9):66973.
[12] ASTM C496-96. Standard test method for splitting tensile strength of
cylindrical concrete specimens. ASTM Standards; 1996. p. 4.
[13] BS EN 12390-6. Testing hardened concrete Part 6: Splitting tensile strength
of test specimens. British Standards Institution; 2009. p. 14.
[14] ASTM C 293-94. Standard test method for exural strength of concrete (using
simple beam with center-point loading). ASTM Standard; 1994. p. 3.
[15] BS EN 12390-5. Testing hardened concrete Part 5. Flexural strength of test
specimens. British Standards Institution; 2009. p. 14.
[16] BS EN 14651:2005+A1:2007. Test method for metallic bre concrete.
Measuring the exural tensile strength (limit of proportionality (LOP),
residual). British Standards Institution; 2008. p. 20.
[17] JSCE-SF4. Method of test for exural strength and exural toughness of steel
bre reinforced concrete. Japanese Society of Civil Engineers; 1984. p. 14.
[18] Neville AM. Properties of concrete. 4th ed. Prentice Hall; 1996.
[19] BS 1881-121. Testing concrete Part 121: Method for determination of static
modulus of elasticity in compression. British Standards Institution; 1983. p. 12.
[20] ASTM C469-94. Standard test method for static modulus of elasticity and
Poissons ratio of concrete in compression. ASTM Standards; 1994. p. 4.
[21] Yang SL, Millard SG, Soutsos MN, Barnett SJ, Le TT. Inuence of aggregate and
curing regime on the mechanical properties of ultra-high performance bre
reinforced concrete (UHPFRC). Construct Build Mater 2009;23(6):22918.
[22] Lu X, Hsu C-TT. Behavior of high strength concrete with and without steel ber
reinforcement in triaxial compression. Cement Concr Res 2006;36(9):167985.
[23] Spasojevic A. Structural implications of ultra-high performance bre-reinforced
concrete in bridge design (Ph.D.): cole Polytechnique Federale De Lausanne;
2008.
[24] Hillerborg A. The theoretical basis of a method to determine the fracture
energy GF of concrete. Mater Struct 1985;18(4):2916.
[25] De Larrard F, Belloc A, Renwez S, Boulay C. Is the cube test suitable for high
performance concrete? Mater Struct 1994;27(10):5803.