Dynamic Response of Concrete Frames Including Plain

Ductile Cementitious Composites

Jiangtao Yu 1; Junhong Ye 2; Bin Zhao 3; Shilang Xu 4; Bin Wang 5;
and Kequan Yu, M.ASCE 6
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Louisiana Dept Trans & Dev on 06/19/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: Ultrahigh ductile cementitious composites (UHDCC) developed by the authors has the tensile strain capacity up to 10%.
Considering UHDCC has deformability close to steel used for the reinforcement of the concrete, the authors tried to study the feasibility
of using plain UHDCC in civil engineering construction. In the present study, shaking table tests were conducted on two one-quarter–scale
two-story frame models. One was a reference frame made of reinforced concrete (RC), while the other was a frame, of which all the seismic-
vulnerable parts were made of plain UHDCC and the rest parts were inherited from the reference RC frame. The RC frame and UHDCC frame
were exposed to a series of scaled earthquakes with the peak ground acceleration ranging from 0.105g to 1.178g. The seismic capacities of
two frames were evaluated in terms of damage pattern, interstory shear-drift behavior and residual drift. It is indicated that the UHDCC
frame had a similar seismic resistance capacity to the reference RC frame and performed even better in vibration control. According to the
acquired dynamic characteristics and tensile strain, a preliminarily explanation was given to the seismic performances of the UHDCC frame.
Finally, according to the relevant provisions in various seismic codes, the seismic performance level of the UHDCC frame was estimated.
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0002292. © 2019 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Automatic construction; Engineered cementitious composite; Strain hardening; Shaking table test; Drift ratio.

Introduction construction industries. Engineers are now struggling to address

Concrete is known as a material with excellent compressive
strength but weak tensile capacity (James and James 2011). In most
of engineering practices, concrete structures have to be incorpo-
rated with steel reinforcement to achieve sufficient strength and
ductility in their service lives. Nevertheless, steel reinforced con-
crete structures are still not ductile enough under extreme
impacts, such as explosion and earthquake. Apart from the safety
concerns, there are environmental and economic implications
associated with concrete degradation under service conditions
(Herrmann 2013). Obviously, repeatedly repairing RC infrastruc-
tures because of cracks, steel corrosions, and concrete spalls, is un-
sustainable and costly. Moreover, due to the ageing population all
over the world, labor shortage is becoming a burning problem for
1
Associate Professor, State Key Laboratory of Disaster Reduction in
Civil Engineering, Key Laboratory of Performance Evolution and Control
for Engineering Structures, Dept. of Disaster Mitigation for Structures,
Tongji Univ., Shanghai 200092, China. Email: yujiangtao@tongji.edu.cn
2
Ph.D. Candidate, Dept. of Disaster Mitigation for Structures, Tongji
Univ., Shanghai 200092, China. Email: 1710745@tongji.edu.cn
3
Professor, State Key Laboratory of Disaster Reduction in Civil Engi-
neering, Dept. of Disaster Mitigation for Structures, Tongji Univ., Shanghai
200092, China (corresponding author). Email: tongjizk1@163.com
4
Professor, College of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Zhejiang
Univ., Hangzhou 310058, China. Email: slxu@zju.edu.cn
5
Research Associate, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Hong Kong Polytechnic Univ., Hong Kong 999077, China. Email:
btjwang@polyu.edu.hk
6
Ph.D. Candidate, Dept. of Disaster Mitigation for Structures, Tongji
Univ., Shanghai 200092, China. Email: zjzjykq@163.com
Note. This manuscript was submitted on March 13, 2018; approved on
September 27, 2018; published online on March 27, 2019. Discussion
period open until August 27, 2019; separate discussions must be sub-
mitted for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Struc-
tural Engineering, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445.
the issue by developing automatic construction, e.g., 3D building
printing (Perkins and Skitmore 2015). However, when concrete is
broadly adopted as raw material for building printing, the work of
processing and installing steel reinforcement can never be saved.
Therefore, how to effectively enhance the mechanical performance
of concrete has become one of the keys for civil engineering in the
future.
The previous issues may be addressed once the natural brittle-
ness of concrete is overcome. Just imagine what will happen if
concrete has sufficient strength and strain capacity. First, the brittle
failure of concrete structure may be eliminated and steel reinforce-
ment may be kicked out of concrete; then steel reinforcement
corrosion will never be a problem for civil engineers, thus the
sustainability and durability of infrastructures can be dramatically
enhanced. Last but not the least, free from steel reinforcement,
a highly efficient automatic concrete construction should be
realized.
In the past several decades, comprehensive efforts have been
made by researchers to overcome the brittleness of concrete. Add-
ing short random fibers to concrete matrix, which forms fiber-
reinforced concrete (FRC), has proven to be an effective way to
improve the mechanical properties of concrete, particularly the
fracture toughness, strength, and energy absorption under impact
(Naaman 2003). Strain-hardening cementitious composites (SHCC)
[also known as engineered cementitious composites (ECC)] are a
family of FRC with microcracking and strain-hardening character-
istics under increasing tension. Generally, normal ECCs have the
tensile strengths from 3 to 15 MPa, and the corresponding tensile
strain capacities from 2% to 5% (Li 2003; Yu et al. 2015; Wu and Li
2017; Zhang and Zhang 2017, 2018; Lu et al. 2018). Conversely,
according to the ISO code (ISO 2008), steel used for reinforcing
concrete should have a tensile strain capacity more than 7% and
an elongation at breaking point over 15%. Additionally, the codes
for building’s seismic design usually require an even greater tensile

© ASCE 04019042-1 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2019, 145(6): 04019042

 deformability. For instance, the seismic design code issued in China
requires that the tensile strain capacity of steel reinforcement should
be more than 9% [GB 50011 (SAC 2016)]. It implies that, although
ECC possesses the exceeding tensile capacity, it may be still insuf-
ficient to be used as structural material solely, especially under
extreme conditions, such as earthquake. Recently, a new type of
ECC with superior deformability (tensile strain capacity ranging
from 8% to 12%) has been developed, which was named as ultra-
high ductile cementitious composites (UHDCC). The direct tensile
strength of UHDCC is in the range of 4–20 MPa, and the compres-
sive strength is in the range of 15–150 MPa (Yu et al. 2015, 2017,
2018a, b, c). Moreover, beams made of plain UHDCC had the sim-
ilar bearing capacities to RC beams having steel reinforcement ratio
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Louisiana Dept Trans & Dev on 06/19/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Shaking Table Test
Geometries and Reinforcement
Shaking table tests were carried out in the laboratory of civil en-
gineering disaster reduction at Tongji University. The MTS shaking
table with planar size of 4 × 4 m is capable of generating ground
motions with six degrees of freedom (DOF). Under a payload
of 150 kN, the maximum accelerations can reach 1.20g in the
horizontal directions.
The prototype structure was a building with a two-story and
single-bay frame in one direction, and a two-story and double-
bay frame in the other direction. The story height was 6 m and

of 0.5% to 1.5% under monotonic loadings (Ding et al. 2018b; Yu the beam spans in two directions were 8 and 6 m, respectively.
et al. 2018b). It is the first time that a cementitious material matches Due to the size limitation of the shaking table, the model structures
the deformability of reinforcing steel, thus making itself a sole were designed at a reduced scale of 1:4 (i.e., SL ¼ 0.25) as shown
material to be used in building construction. in Fig. 1, of which the planar size was 2 × 3 m and the story height
Conversely, because earthquake remains one of the most severe was 1.5 m.
risks to all the existing structures and RC frame is one of the most The reinforcement of the RC model frame is illustrated in Fig. 2.
vulnerable structure forms under earthquake, comprehensive stud- The reinforcement ratios of beams, side columns and middle col-
ies have been conducted to improve the seismic performance of umns were 0.7%, 1.9%, and 2.3%, respectively. Tensile test showed
RC frame. Many researchers have tried to replace the concrete that the yield stress and peak stress of ϕ8 rebar (8 mm in diameter)
in RC frame with FRC (Khuntia and Goel 1998; Shannag et al. were 319 and 451 MPa, respectively, with the strain at peak stress
2005; Parra-Montesinos et al. 2005; Li and Wang 2002), and their
test results indicated that the incorporation of fiber effectively re-
duced the requirement of shear stirrups in the joint zone and could
also provide a satisfactory seismic performance even if no stirrups
were used. Moreover, in the last decade, some researchers have
x
used ECC to enhance the seismic capacity of structural compo-
y
nents. Fischer and Li (2002) and Fischer (2003) investigated the
effect of ductile deformation behavior of ECC on the response of
steel reinforced flexural members subjected to lateral reversal
loads. The test results showed an advantageous synergistic effect
between ECC matrix and steel reinforcement. Billington and Yoon
(2004) found that using ECC allowed the precast column system to
dissipate more hysteretic energy than the traditional RC system,
and maintain better integrity under cyclic loads. Kesner and
Billington (2005) developed an infill system made by ECC for
frame structures as a retrofit strategy for critical facilities, the test
results indicated that the strength and stiffness can be enhanced by
the different mix designs of ECC. Dong et al. (2012) and Pan et al. Fig. 1. Planar layout of the frames (unit: millimeters).
(2017) experimentally and numerically studied the seismic behav-
iors of steel reinforced ECC/RC composite beams and columns
under low-cyclic loading. Yuan et al. (2013) and Wu et al. (2017)
found that steel reinforced engineered cementitious composite
columns are superior to RC columns in terms of ductility, energy
dissipation capacity, and damage tolerance. And it is of interest that
the combination of superelastic shape memory alloys and ECC was
effective in reducing damage and increasing the serviceability of
bridge columns after strong earthquakes (Varela and Saiidi 2014).
In all the previous studies, FRC were designed to work together
with longitudinal reinforcement. Exceptionally, Su (2018) con-
ducted cyclic lateral loading tests on five UHDCC beams without
steel reinforcement. It is indicated that the plain UHDCC beams
possessed excellent seismic capacity, which matched that of RC
beams with the steel reinforcement ratios of 1%.
Nevertheless, no experiment or analysis focused on the re-
sponse of a whole structures made of plain concrete or FRC under
dynamic loadings. In light of this situation, the authors tried to
conduct shaking table tests on a frame primarily made of plain
UHDCC. In comparison to a reference frame, i.e., a normal RC
frame, the performance of such a structure will be taken as a pre-
liminary demonstration for using plain cementitious composites in
Fig. 2. Reinforcement details of RC frame (unit: millimeters).
construction.

© ASCE 04019042-2 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2019, 145(6): 04019042

 Table 1. Typical scale factors for model earthquakes are equivalent to those of a prototype under actual
Parameter Relationship Model/prototype earthquakes. Therefore, the seismic performance of an actual struc-
ture can be directly reflected by the model test results.
Length SL 0.25
Strain Sε 1.0
Modulus of elasticity SE 0.37 Material Properties
Stress Sσ ¼ SE 0.37
Specific mass Sρ ¼ Sσ =ðSL · Sa Þ 0.79 One of UHDCCs reported in literature (Yu et al. 2017; Ding et al.
Mass Sm ¼ Sσ · S2L =Sa 1.23 × 10−2 2018a) was employed as prototype material for UHDCC frame,
Drift ratio Sθ 1.0 namely UHDCC-P in the present paper. The mechanical property
Damping Sc ¼ Sσ · S1.5
L · Sa
−0.5
3.38 × 10−2 of UHDCC-P is listed in Table 4. UHDCC-P has the similar elastic
Period 0.5
ST ¼ SL · Sa −0.5 0.36 modulus and compression strength, but a tensile strain capacity two
Frequency Sf ¼ S−0.5
L · S0.5
a 2.76 orders of magnitude higher than that of high strength concrete.
Sv ¼ ðSL · Sa Þ0.5 Also, normal strength concrete (Concrete-P in Table 4) was taken
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Louisiana Dept Trans & Dev on 06/19/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Velocity 0.69
Acceleration Sa 1.90
of 15.6%, while the yield stress and peak stress of ϕ6 rebar (6 mm
in diameter) were 445 and 535 MPa, respectively, with the strain at
peak stress of 19.5%. The diameter of 10# and 14# steel wires were
3.25 and 2 mm, respectively, of which the tensile strengths were
450 MPa.
Similitude Laws
For the scaled models to be tested on the shaking table, the simili-
tude laws of the elastoplastic materials between the prototypes and
the models are essential. Because the dynamic behaviors of a struc-
ture can be identified by three basic parameters, i.e., stiffness, mass,
and restoring force, which are relevant to time (t), length (L),
modulus of elasticity (E), and specific mass (ρ), the following ex-
pression can be obtained:
SE
¼1 ð1Þ
Sρ · Sa · SL
where SE , Sρ , SL , and Sa are the scale factors of E, ρ, L, and the
acceleration a, respectively. It is obvious from Eq. (1) that only
three of the four model parameters are independent (Zhou et al.
2011; Harris and Sabnis 1999).
Theoretically, Sa should be 1.0 because the mass-induced accel-
eration remains constant. However, the maximal value of the noise
may be larger than the amplitude of input in case of small earth-
quake, leading to a distorted seismic input pattern. Therefore, the
acceleration scale factor Sa was set to be 1.9 and additional mass
was attached to the model to compensate the lack in gravity. Con-
sequently, the total weight of the model reached 51.8 kN, including
a weight of 27.6 kN from the additional mass. The scale factor of
SE was estimated to be 0.37 according to Eq. (1), and all the other
scale factors were computed as shown in Table 1. The time scale
factor Sf is calculated to be 2.76 according to Eq. (2)
sffiffiffiffiffiffi
Sa
Sf ¼ ð2Þ
SL
Note that the scale factors of strain and drift ratio are both 1.0,
which means the strain and the drift ratio of a model under scaled
as the prototype material for RC frame, of which the elastic modu-
lus is about 30 GPa and compressive strength is about 30 MPa.
Considering the scale factors of elastic modulus and stress were
equal to 0.37, the scaled elastic modulus and compressive strength
of Concrete-M and UHDCC-M should be reduced to about 11 and
11 MPa, respectively. Moreover, the tensile strength of UHDCC-M
should be 0.37 of the tensile strength of UHDCC-P (i.e., 4.9 MPa),
which is extremely important because no longitudinal reinforce-
ment exists in UHDCC.
Accordingly, the materials used to fabricate the model frames
were specially designed to tailor the target properties. To reduce
the tensile and compressive strengths of UHDCC-M, water content
was artificially increased, and ground granulated blast furnace slag
(GGBFS) and silica fume used in the UHDCC-P were replaced
with fly ash. To achieve high strain capacity, short-cut polyethylene
(PE) fibers of 2% in volume fraction were kept in UHDCC-M
matrix. Conversely, lime powder was used as inactive admixture to
fabricate Concrete-M. The mix proportions of the prototype and
model materials are shown in Table 2; the mechanical and geo-
metric information of the PE fiber used in mixture is given in
Table 3.
Experiments were conducted to verify the similarity of material
properties. Dog bone–shaped samples were used in the standard-
ized tensile test (JSCE 2008). After 28 days curing, three
UHDCC-M samples were tested on a MTS electroservo machine
(1 N resolution), as shown in Fig. 3. All the specimens exhibited
multicracking and strain hardening behavior under increasing ten-
sile loads. Fig. 4 illustrates the tensile behavior of UHDCC-M,
whose tensile strain capacity reached 13.55% at the peak stress
of 4.97 MPa, showing a significant advantage in deformability over
ordinary FRC. The averaged cracking strain and cracking strength
of UHDCC-M were 0.2% and 3.2 MPa, respectively. Compared
with normal concrete and mortar, the cracking strain of UHDCC
is obviously higher due to the PE fiber reinforcement. Furthermore,
by plotting the tensile stress-strain curves of UHDCC-M (with the
y-axis on the left side) and UHDCC-P (with the y-axis on the right
side) in a same diagram as shown in Fig. 5, it is evident that the
similitude laws of material’s tensile behavior was achieved. The
cylinders of UHDCC-M and Concrete-M before and after the com-
pression test are shown in Fig. 6. Compared with the spalling
Concrete-M cylinder, the UHDCC-M cylinders exhibited exceed-
ing plastic deformability. The compressive stress-strain curves
shown in Figs. 7 and 8 indicate that UHDCC-M had a similar

Table 2. Mix proportion of material (kg=m3 )

Mixture ID Silica sand Cement Lime powder Fly ash GGBFS Silica fume Water HRWR
UHDCC-P (prototype material) 700 500 — — 650 150 230 25
UHDCC-M (model material) 874 592 — 712 — — 413 5.0
Concrete-M 1,300 259 61 — — — 300 —

© ASCE 04019042-3 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2019, 145(6): 04019042

 Table 3. Properties of PE fiber 7

Category Property 6
Diameter (μm) 24

Tensile stress (MPa)

5
Strength (GPa) 2.9
Elastic modulus (GPa) 116 4
Length (mm) 18
Rupture elongation (%) 2.6 3
Density (g=cm3 ) 0.97
2 UHDCC-M1
UHDCC-M2
1 UHDCC-M3
0
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Louisiana Dept Trans & Dev on 06/19/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0.00 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12 0.15 0.18

Tensile strain

Fig. 4. Tensile strain versus stress curves of UHDCC-M.

8 24

7
19
6

Tensile stress (MPa)

Tensile stress (MPa)
5 14
4

3 9
UHDCC-M
2 UHDCC-P
4
1

0 -1
0.00 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12 0.15
Tensile strain

Fig. 5. Tensile behavior of UHDCC-M and UHDCC-P.

UHDCC-M Concrete-M

Fig. 3. Tensile test on dog bone–shaped specimen.

elastic modulus and compressive strength to Concrete-M, but pos-

sessed a compressive deformability 10 times greater than that of
Concrete-M.
As shown in Table 4, the elastic moduli of Concrete-M and
UHDCC-M are close to 11 GPa, and the compressive strengths of
both materials are close to 11 MPa. Consider that the tensile Fig. 6. Specimens before and after compression test.
strength of UHDCC-M is about 0.38 of that of UHDCC-P. Refer-
ring to the aforementioned targets, the similarity of material’s
mechanical properties was satisfied.
• After the shaking table test for the RC frame, the seismically
damaged parts, i.e., all the columns, the column-beam joints
Model Construction
in the first story and the foundation, were demolished. The
The RC frame was made of Concrete-M and steel reinforcement, reserved parts (the white zones in Fig. 11) included the middle
whose geometries and reinforcement are shown in Figs. 1 and 2. parts of the beams, all the slabs in the first story, and all the
The RC frame was first tested on the shaking table as shown in beams, slabs, and the upper parts of columns in the second story.
Fig. 9. Then the UHDCC frame was fabricated by assembling plain • UHDCC-M was used to rebuild the demolished parts, including
UHDCC components and the reserved parts of RC frame with the columns and column-beam joints in the first story (the gray
following steps: zones in Figs. 10 and 11, also the white zones in Fig. 12).

© ASCE 04019042-4 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2019, 145(6): 04019042

 16
components and RC components were painted red, as shown
14 in grayscale in Fig. 12. In this way, the UHDCC frame was
completed.
12
Stress (MPa)

10 Test Setup and Procedure

8 A total of 10 linear variable differential transducers (LVDT) and
12 accelerometers were installed to the UHDCC frame in x- and
6
y-directions; see Fig. 1. A noncontact displacement measurement
4 system was also employed to track the movement of the UHDCC
frame at 31 points. Two additional LVDTs were installed at the
2 bottom ends of two columns for verification. The layout of instru-
mentation is illustrated in Fig. 13.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Louisiana Dept Trans & Dev on 06/19/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 The RC frame was designed for a seismic zone of intensity 7.5
Compressive strain according to the Chinese code [GB 50011 (SAC 2016)], in which
buildings in a seismic zone are required to sustain the earthquakes
Fig. 7. Compressive strain-stress curves of UHDCC-M. of major, moderate, and minor levels, whose return periods in years
are 2,475, 475, and 50, and the exceedance probability is 2%, 10%,
and 63.2%, respectively, within 50 years of the design period.
Accordingly, the peak ground acceleration (PGA) corresponding
18
to the minor, moderate, and major levels of seismic intensity 7.5
16 Concrete-M1 is specified as 0.055g, 0.15g, and 0.31g, respectively. El Centro,
Concrete-M2 Kobe, and Shanghai artificial waves were chosen as ground input
14
Concrete-M3 in shaking table tests. The Shanghai artificial wave was specifically
12
Stress (MPa)

chosen for the soft soil condition in eastern China. During test, all
10 the ground motions were applied in x-direction, as shown in Fig. 1.
8 The time histories of seismic accelerations were scaled to achieve
6 the same peak value for all the intensity levels.
As listed in Table 5, the test process was divided into six stages.
4
From Stages 1 to 6, the seismic inputs were chosen as earthquakes
2 of the following intensity: Minor 7.5, Moderate 7.5, Major 7.5,
0 Major 8.0, Major 8.5, and Major 9.0, respectively. Note that the
0.0000 0.0010 0.0020 0.0030 test on the RC frame terminated after Stage 4, i.e., the major earth-
Compressive strain quake of intensity 8.0, while the UHDCC frame experienced all the
earthquake excitations. Between each two stages, white noise input
Fig. 8. Compressive strain-stress curves of Concrete-M. was applied to acquire the variations of dynamic characteristics of
the frames.

The geometric dimensions of UHDCC beams and columns were
identical to those of the demolished RC components. No long-
itudinal steel bar or stirrup was used in fabricating the UHDCC
components. Then, those UHDCC components were installed to
the foundation, which was to be cast again after demolition, as
shown in Fig. 10.
• The precast UHDCC components (the gray zones in Fig. 11,
also the white zones in Fig. 12) and the reserved RC frame were
assembled and connected together using high fluidity mortar.
The compressive strength of the high fluidity mortar cubes
(50 × 50 × 50 mm) was 43.2 MPa. Fig. 11 shows the gaps
before casting, as well as steel bars used for connecting. The
reserved beams, columns, and joints of the RC frame were
painted yellow, all the reserved slabs in the first and second story
were painted blue, and the connections between the UHDCC
Results and Discussion
Cracking and Damage Pattern
Seismic damages were recorded at the end of every stage. For the
RC frame, no visible crack was observed before inputting Stage 2,
i.e., Moderate 7.5. Vertical cracks occurred at the ends of beams in
the first story after Moderate 7.5 (E2, K2, and SH2 in Table 5).
With the increase in the seismic intensity, horizontal cracks oc-
curred at the column ends of the first story. After Major 8.0 (E4,
K4, and SH4 in Table 5), concrete spalling was observed at the ends
of the beams in the first story and steel reinforcement was slightly
buckled.
For the UHDCC frame, no visible crack appeared before input-
ting Moderate 7.5. Vertical cracks were found at the beam ends of

Table 4. Mechanical property of UHDCC and fine aggregate concrete used for models
Tensile strain Peak tensile Elastic Peak compression
Mixture ID capacity (%) strength (MPa) modulus (GPa) strength (MPa)
UHDCC-P (prototype material) (Ding et al. 2018a) 10.13 13.21 32.80 94.00
UHDCC-M (model material) 13.55 4.97 8.94 12.85
Concrete-P (prototype material) — — 30.00 30.00
Concrete-M (model material) — — 10.93 9.23

© ASCE 04019042-5 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2019, 145(6): 04019042


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Louisiana Dept Trans & Dev on 06/19/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 9. RC frame on shaking table.
Precast UHDCC column
Precast UHDCC components
Steel bars for foundation
Fig. 10. Processing steel bars for the foundation of UHDCC frame.
the first story after Moderate 7.5. During Major 8.0 and Major 8.5,
cracks initiated and grew near the beams and columns adjacent to
core joints of the first story. In the whole process of testing, no
UHDCC spalling occurred and no visible damage was observed
in the connections (Fig. 12) and the reserved RC components
(Fig. 12). The typical cracking patterns of the UHDCC frame
are illustrated in Fig. 14. An electronic telescope was used to mea-
sure crack width, as shown in Fig. 15. It was found that the widths
of most cracks were no more than 0.1 mm, except for several criti-
cal cracks near core joints of the first story, of which the width ex-
ceeded 1.0 mm after inputting Major 9.0, as shown in Fig. 16. In
general, the UHDCC frame realized the requirement of weak beams
and strong columns by the seismic design codes [GB 50011 (SAC
2016) and NZS3101 (NZS 1995)]. Also, it exhibited excellent
crack width control over the RC frame under increasing seismic
loadings.
© ASCE
J. Struct. Eng., 2019, 145(6): 04019042
Interstory Drift Ratio and Base Shear
The maximal interstory displacements and drift ratios of the tested
frames are listed in Table 6, and the relations between PGA and
interstory drift ratio under different types of seismic input are pre-
sented in Fig. 17. At Minor 7.5, the interstory drift ratios of the
UHDCC frame subjected to El Centro, Kobe, and Shanghai artifi-
cial waves were 1:769, 1:927, and 1:721, respectively, which sat-
isfied the required lower limit (i.e., 1:550) defined by the Chinese
code [GB 50011 (SAC 2016)]. While at Major 7.5, the interstory
drift ratios of the UHDCC frame reached 1:95, 1:90, and 1:50, re-
spectively, which were also smaller than the allowable value of 1:50
[GB 50011 (SAC 2016)]. Compared with the interstory drift of the
RC frame, the drift of the UHDCC frame was smaller under minor
earthquakes but increased at a higher rate. At Major 8.0, the drifts
of the UHDCC frame exceeded those of the RC frame, especially
under the Shanghai artificial wave. As mentioned previously, the
UHDCC frame underwent some extra excitations, i.e., Major
8.5 and Major 9.0, of which the PGAs were 0.969g and 1.178g,
respectively. At Major 9.0, the interstory drift ratios of the UHDCC
frame under El Centro and Kobe waves of Major 9.0 reached
1:26 and 1:35, respectively. Note that the drifts were highly depen-
dent on the types of seismic input. Specifically, the drifts under the
Shanghai artificial wave were significantly greater than those under
the El Centro and Kobe waves.
Residual displacement is widely adopted as an indicator to
evaluate the damage of structures after earthquake. During the test,
the maximum residual displacements of the first and second stories
of the UHDCC frame were 5.1 and 8.1 mm, which occurred at the
Major 8.5 Shanghai artificial wave. The corresponding residual
drifts of the UHDCC frame reached 1:294 and 1:185, respectively.
After all the earthquake input, the accumulated residual displace-
ments of the UHDCC frame at the first and second stories reached
5.01 and 10.32 mm, respectively. The corresponding residual drift
of the UHDCC frame were 1:299 and 1:145, respectively. Accord-
ing to the Japanese design specification (Japan Road Association
2002), to make sure a bridge is capable of sustaining limited dam-
ages during an earthquake and recovering within a short period, the
residual displacement of piers should be less than 1/100 times of
the height from the pier bottom to the point of inertia force of the
superstructure. Obviously, the state of the UHDCC frame met this
requirement.
The relations of base shear versus drift ratio and base shear ver-
sus GPA are illustrated in Figs. 18 and 19. It is clearly seen that the
base shears of UHDCC frame are equal or even a slightly higher
than that of the RC frame at Minor 7.5. After that, all the base shear
curves of the UHDCC frame bends toward the x-axes, exhibiting
nonlinear behavior under strong earthquakes. At Major 8.0, the
shears of the UHDCC frame were 53.39%, 73.87%, and 58.58%
of those of the RC frame under El Centro, Kobe, and Shanghai
waves, respectively. The shears reached their peaks at different
intensities of earthquake, specifically Major 7.5 for RC frame under
the El Centro and Kobe waves, Major 8.0 for UHDCC frame under
the Kobe wave, and Major 8.5 for UHDCC frame under the El
Centro wave.
Fig. 20 illustrates the relations of PGA versus base share force
and PGA versus drift, which are all averaged from the responses
corresponding to El Centro, Kobe, and Shanghai artificial waves.
The averaged base shear of the UHDCC frame is obviously lower
than that of the RC frame, while the drift of the UHDCC frame,
which is slightly lower under minor earthquakes, exceeds that of
the RC frame at Major 8.0. Comparatively, the gap between the
base shears is much bigger than that in drifts. To explain the differ-
ent responses of UHDCC frame and RC frame under earthquake,
04019042-6 J. Struct. Eng.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Louisiana Dept Trans & Dev on 06/19/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 11. Connection between the UHDCC components and reserved RC components.
Fig. 12. UHDCC frame after painting.
a discussion is conducted according to the dynamic characteristics
of two frames in the following section.
Discussion Based on Dynamic Characteristics
Modal frequencies and damping ratios of the tested frames were
identified by using the white-noise tests (Clough et al. 1993). The
first and second modal frequencies and damping ratios are pre-
sented in Table 7. Fig. 21 shows the development of the frequen-
cies. It is shown that the frequencies of both frames decreased
with the increasing PGAs. From Minor 7.5 (0.105 g) to Major 8.0
(0.76 g), the RC frame and the UHDCC frame reduced 35.5% and
© ASCE
J. Struct. Eng., 2019, 145(6): 04019042
Connecting beams and columns
Connecting beams and slabs
60.0% of its original natural frequencies, respectively, which ex-
plains why the UHDCC frame lost its structural stiffness at a higher
rate than the RC frame. Furthermore, from Major 8.0 (0.76g) to
Major 9.0 (1.178g), the natural frequency of the UHDCC frame
reduced from 2.0 to 1.75 Hz, only 5% of its original value.
As mentioned previously, the drifts corresponding to Shanghai
artificial wave were obviously larger than those to El Centro and
Kobe waves, especially under high-intense excitations; see Table 6.
This can be easily explained by comparing the acceleration re-
sponse spectrums among different seismic input. Fig. 22 illus-
trates the acceleration response spectrums of El Centro, Kobe, and
Shanghai artificial waves, as well as the natural periods (frequency)
of the UHDCC frame at different stages. It is clear that the mag-
nitude of acceleration to Shanghai artificial wave exceeds the other
two after 0.4 s, and the gaps are broadened with the increasing
period, which is coincident with the drift development of the
UHDCC frame.
Fig. 23 illustrates the development of damping ratios. It is seen
that the damping ratios of both frames were increased with the in-
crease in PGA. From Minor 7.5 (0.105g) to Major 8.0 (0.76g), the
first modal damping ratio of the RC frame increased from 7.37%
(after Minor 7.5) to 9.27% (after Major 8.0), while that of the
UHDCC frame increased from 5.53% to 13.58%, which is about
1.5 times of RC frame. After Major 9.0 (1.178g), the first damping
ratio of the UHDCC frame reached 14.97%, increasing by 2.71
times that of its original.
It is known that concrete fracture deteriorates integrity of RC
structures, leading to the reductions of frequency and structural
stiffness. It is also known that the development of damages can
enhance the energy dissipation of a structure. For normal RC struc-
tures, vibrational energy is primarily dissipated by the kinematic
hardening effect of steel reinforcement. While for FRC structures,
the energy dissipation mechanism is different and primarily com-
posed of three parts: (1) energy dissipated by the chemical debond-
ing at matrix/fiber interface and frictional slipping as the fibers are
pulled out of the matrix; (2) energy dissipated at the enhanced crack
04019042-7 J. Struct. Eng.
 Maximal strain point
on beam end
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Louisiana Dept Trans & Dev on 06/19/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Accelerometers
LVDTs
LVDTs at column feet Maximal strain point
on column end

Fig. 13. Layout of instrumentation.

Table 5. Input earthquake motions

Earthquake PGA (g) Earthquake PGA (g)
Number intensity Stage Model/prototype Number of intensity Stage Model/prototype
1 White noise WN1 0.05 13 White noise WN4 0.05
2 Minor 7.5 E1 0.105/0.055 14 Major 8 E4 0.76/0.40
3 Minor 7.5 K1 0.105/0.055 15 Major 8 K4 0.76/0.40
4 Minor 7.5 SH1 0.105/0.055 16 Major 8 SH4 0.76/0.40
5 White noise WN2 0.05 17 White noise WN5 0.05
6 Moderate 7.5 E2 0.285/0.15 18 Major 8.5 E5 0.969/0.51
7 Moderate 7.5 K2 0.285/0.15 19 Major 8.5 K5 0.969/0.51
8 Moderate 7.5 SH2 0.285/0.15 20 Major 8.5 SH5 0.969/0.51
9 White noise WN3 0.05 21 White noise WN6 0.05
10 Major 7.5 E3 0.589/0.31 22 Major 9 E6 1.178/0.62
11 Major 7.5 K3 0.589/0.31 23 Major 9 K6 1.178/0.62
12 Major 7.5 SH3 0.589/0.31 24 White noise WN7 0.05
Note: E1 refers to the El Centro wave in Stage 1; K2 refers to the Kobe wave in Stage 2; and SH3 refers to the Shanghai artificial wave in Stage 3.

tips as the cracks propagate; and (3) energy dissipated by the open–
close effect of the fiber-bridged crack mouths under cyclic loading.
In normal conditions, the magnitude of energy dissipated by FRC
cannot match that dissipated by steel reinforcement. However,
due to its ultrahigh strain-hardening characteristics, UHDCC be-
comes a material comparative to RC in energy dissipation. From
the perspective of structural dynamics, the decreased structural fre-
quency reduces the energy input from ground motion, and the in-
creased damping ratio enhances the energy dissipation of structure.
Thereby, the UHDCC frame experienced close interstory drift but
drastically reduced base shear in comparison with the RC frame,
thus it is demonstrated to have a potential of helping structures
achieving vibration control under strong earthquakes.
Although UHDCC is preliminarily proved to have acceptable
seismic capacity, there is still a concern about its deformability
under cyclic loading, which in turn determines the ductility and
reliability of a whole structure under strong earthquakes. The fol-
lowing section focuses on the tensile strain capacity of UHDCC
during testing.
Discussion of Tensile Strain Capacity
The maximal values of strain in UHDCC were calculated based
on the displacement data acquired by the noncontact displacement
measurement system and LVDTs. Figs. 24 and 25 illustrate the
development of the maximal strains under various earthquakes.
From Minor 7.5 (0.105g) to Moderate 7.5 (0.285g) and Major
7.5 (0.589g), the strain of UHDCC in column was increased from
0.05% to 0.16% and 0.91%; simultaneously the strain of UHDCC
in beam was increased from 0.09% to 0.47% and 1.24%, respec-
tively. As mentioned previously, the cracking strain of UHDCC is
about 0.2%, while the cracking strain of normal concrete and mor-
tar is commonly about 0.05%. It implies that there should be much
fewer cracks occurring in the UHDCC frame at low-intense exci-
tations, e.g., at Minor 7.5. As a proof, it is shown that the natural
frequency of the UHDCC frame dropped by 5%, while that of the
RC frame dropped by 10%. This provides an explanation for the
comparatively low drift for the UHDCC frame at low-intense seis-
mic excitation.

© ASCE 04019042-8 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2019, 145(6): 04019042

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Louisiana Dept Trans & Dev on 06/19/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a)

(b)

Fig. 14. Damage pattern of the UHDCC frame after shaking table test: (a) crack pattern of beam adjacent to core joint; and (b) crack pattern of column
adjacent to core joint. The numbers written on specimens refers to the number of the white noise test when new cracks were observed.

Critical crack
Measurement
range: 2 mm

Fig. 15. Crack width of UHDCC frame. Fig. 16. Critical cracks in UHDCC frame.

© ASCE 04019042-9 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2019, 145(6): 04019042

 80
Table 6. Maximal interstory displacement and drift ratios El centro (RC)
Kobe (RC)
70 Major 7.5
RC frame UHDCC frame Shanghai (RC)
Major 8.0
El centro (UHDCC)
Interstory Interstory 60
Kobe (UHDCC)
Seismic displacement Drift displacement Drift Shanghai (UHDCC)

Sh ear fo rce (kN)

50 Moderate 7.5
intensity Series (mm) ratio (mm) ratio
Minor 7.5 E1 2.74 1:547 1.95 1:769 40

K1 3.49 1:430 1.62 1:927 30

SH1 3.52 1:426 2.09 1:721
Major 8.5
20
Moderate 7.5 E2 8.13 1:185 5.78 1:259 Major 9.0
K2 11.37 1:132 9.14 1:164 10
SH2 10.89 1:138 7.73 1:194 Minor 7.5
0
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Louisiana Dept Trans & Dev on 06/19/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Major 7.5 E3 21.03 1:71 15.74 1:95 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
K3 22.35 1:67 16.75 1:90 PGA (g)
SH3 22.83 1:66 29.96 1:50
Fig. 19. Base shear versus GPA.
Major 8.0 E4 24.35 1:62 28.12 1:53
K4 21.47 1:70 23.59 1:64
SH4 32.56 1:46 52.59 1:29
Major 8.5 E5 — — 45.25 1:33 Average of base shear (RC)
Average of base shear (UHDCC)
K5 — — 32.88 1:46 70 Average of top drifts (RC) 60
SH5 — — 76.15 1:20 Average of top drifts (UHDCC)

Major 9.0 E6 — — 57.77 1:26 60

50
K6 — — 43.30 1:35
50
Note: E1 refers to the El Centro wave in Stage 1; K2 refers to the Kobe 40

Sh ear fo rce (kN)

Difference in drifts
wave in Stage 2; and SH3 refers to the Shanghai artificial wave in Stage 3.

Drift (mm)
40
30
30
1.4 20
20
1.2 Difference in shear force
10
10
1.0
PGA (g)

0.8 0 0
El Centro (UHDCC) 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
0.6 Kobe (UHDCC) PGA (g)

0.4 Shanghai (UHDCC)

El Centro (RC) Fig. 20. Response spectrum of seismic inputs.
0.2 Kobe (RC)
Shanghai (RC)
0.0
0 1/100 2/100 3/100 4/100 5/100 6/100
Inter-story drift ratio Table 7. Frequency and damping ratio of the tested frames
RC frame UHDCC frame
Fig. 17. Comparison of maximal relative displacements under different
seismic inputs. Frequency Damping Frequency Damping
(Hz) ratio (%) (Hz) ratio (%)
Series f1 f2 ξ1 ξ2 f1 f2 ξ1 ξ2
WN1 3.88 13.50 7.37 2.54 5.00 16.00 5.53 3.61
WN2 3.50 13.00 8.28 2.95 4.75 15.50 5.85 3.75
80 El centro (RC) WN3 3.25 12.00 8.97 3.68 3.00 13.00 11.31 6.59
Kobe (RC)
70 WN4 2.75 11.00 8.94 4.47 2.25 11.25 13.17 6.93
Shanghai (RC)
El centro (UHDCC)
WN5 2.50 10.50 9.27 4.56 2.00 10.00 13.58 6.49
60
Kobe (UHDCC) WN6 — — — — 1.75 9.50 12.73 7.25
WN7 — — — — 1.75 9.00 14.97 6.89
Shear force (kN)

50 Shanghai (UHDCC)

40

30
In the whole process of testing, the peak strains were detected
20
under the Shanghai artificial wave of Major 8.5. Among all the
10 measuring points, the strains appearing at the bottom end of a
0
middle column reached 5.55%, and those appearing at the side
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 end of a lateral beam reached 3.30%. Fig. 13 illustrates the specific
Drift ratio /% locations. According to the aforementioned similarity, the strains
acquired in the model test can be equivalently extrapolated to those
Fig. 18. Base shear versus drift ratio.
of the prototype subjected to real earthquakes. Therefore, the

© ASCE 04019042-10 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2019, 145(6): 04019042

 RC frame 1st frequency
RC frame 2nd frequency
UHDCC frame 1st frequency
UHDCC frame 2nd frequency
Frequency /Hz

PGA(g)
El Centro
Kobe
SHW2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Louisiana Dept Trans & Dev on 06/19/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Strain(%)

PGA (g) Fig. 24. Maximal strain in the columns of the UHDCC frame.
Fig. 21. Frequencies in different stages.

EL CENTRO
0.30
KOBE

PGA(g)
SHW2 El Centro
0.25
Kobe
Design response
0.20 spectrum SHW2
Acceleration(g)

0.15 Minor 7.5

0.10
Moderate 7.5 Strain(%)
Major 8.0
0.05
Major 7.5 Fig. 25. Maximal strain in the beams of the UHDCC frame.
Major 8.5 and 9.0

0.00
0 0.2 0.4
Period(s)
Fig. 22. Acceleration response spectrums.
RC frame 1st damping
RC frame 2nd damping
UHDCC frame 1st damping
UHDCC frame 2nd damping
0.6 0.8
demand for tensile strain capacity of UHDCC frame in real seismic
scenarios was obtained.
Ductility remains one of the greatest concerns in seismic struc-
tural design. For RC structures, although the yield strain of rein-
forcing steel is only about 0.2%, the tensile strain at peak stress
should be more than 9% (GB 50011). This tremendous margin
in strain capacity ensures structural safety. Because UHDCC used
in the present test has a tensile strain capacity greater than 8%, the
margins of the tensile strain capacity should be sufficient for struc-
tural material without steel reinforcement even under extremely
strong earthquakes.

Evaluation of Seismic Performance of the UHDCC

Frame
Damping /%

ASCE standard (ASCE 2007) requires various structural perfor-

mance levels for RC frames subjected to earthquakes. For the basic
safety objective, an RC frame should achieve the life safety (LS)
performance level (3-C) under a moderate earthquake (exceedance
probability is 10% within 50 years) and the collapse prevention
performance level (5-E) under a major earthquake (exceedance
probability is 2% within 50 years). Accordingly, damages in ver-
tical structural components and interstory drifts are recommended
as indicators to determine the structural performance level of struc-
PGA (g) tures. As mentioned previously, UHDCC has excellent crack width
control, thus even the critical cracks in the UHDCC frame had a
Fig. 23. Damping ratios in different stages.
width far less than the limits provided in Tables C1–3 of ASCE

© ASCE 04019042-11 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2019, 145(6): 04019042

 Table 8. Structural performance levels of UHDCC frame and RC frame
Performance level Limited drift ratio UHDCC frame RC frame
Operational 1/550 >Minor 7.5 >Minor 7.5
Immediate occupancy 1% transient >Moderate 7.5 >Moderate 7.5
Life safety 2% transient and 1% permanent >Major 7.5 and Moderate 8.5 >Major 7.5 and Moderate 8.5
Collapse prevention 4% transient or permanent Major 8.5 >Major 8.0
Source: Data from ASCE (2007).

Table 9. Seismic performance objectives for RC frame buildings

Performance levels corresponding to the categorized building
Seismic
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Louisiana Dept Trans & Dev on 06/19/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

performance level A B C D UHDCC frame

Minor Operational Operational Operational Operational A, B, and C at 7.5
Moderate Operational Operational Immediate occupancy Life safety C at 7.5
Major Operational Immediate occupancy Life safety Collapse prevention C at 7.5
Extremely major Immediate occupancy Life safety Collapse prevention — C at 8.5

41-06 (ASCE 2007). Additionally, no spalling or shear cracking
was observed during the shaking table test. Therefore, some of the
damage indexes for RC structures are not applicable for UHDCC
structures. In this study, the structural performance levels were
solely determined by the interstory drift, as shown in Table 8.
Furthermore, according to the Chinese standard [GB 50223
(SAC 2008)], buildings can be classified into four categories,
i.e., A, B, C, and D, depending on their consequence of failure
and functional importance. For every category, there are specific
requirements to the levels of comprehensive performance of struc-
tures at different seismicity intensities (Jiang et al. 2013). For ex-
ample, Category C refers to the buildings with normal functions.
Based on the contents in Table 8, the UHDCC frame was qualified
to satisfy the seismic performance objective for Category C ranging
from Minor 7.5 to Major 8.5, as shown in Table 9. It implies that
plain UHDCC may be strong and ductile enough for constructing
the majority of buildings in the majority of seismic zones all over
the world.
In general, according to the behaviors of the UHDCC frame
under earthquakes, including the maximal interstory drift and base
shear, a structure primarily made of plain UHDCC was demon-
strated to have the potential to resist various intensities of earth-
quakes. Furthermore, based on the observations of the acquired
dynamic characteristics and tensile strain, a preliminarily explan-
ation was given to the special seismic performances of the UHDCC
frame under earthquakes.
Conclusions
The authors conducted shaking table tests on a normal RC frame
and a UHDCC frame to verify the feasibility of applying plain
UHDCC in concrete construction. The primary conclusions are
drawn as follows:
• In comparison to the RC frame, the UHDCC frame experienced
slightly higher interstory drift, but obviously lower base shear
under strong earthquakes. The special responses of the UHDCC
frame under various earthquakes is attributed to the special
dynamic characteristics induced by material itself. To some ex-
tent, UHDCC is verified to be a structural material of excellent
energy dissipation and helpful in vibration control.
• The performance of the UHDCC frame is highly dependent on
the high tensile strain capacity of material, which ensures struc-
tural reliability even under strong earthquakes.
• The interstory drift ratios and the residual displacements of the
UHDCC frame satisfy the demands from the codes for seismic
design. And its performances satisfy the seismic performance
objective for the majority of buildings located in the majority
seismic zones all over the world.
The aforementioned conclusions are drawn based on limited test
results. More systematic studies are needed to achieve a better
understanding of the capacity of this new kind of structural form
at both serviceability state and ultimate limit state.
Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge Projects 51478362 and
51778461, which are supported by the National Natural Science
Foundation of China. This research is also funded (2016-KF08)
by the Shanghai Key Laboratory of Engineering Structure Safety
(SRIBS), China.
References
ASCE. 2007. Seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings. ASCE/SEI
41-06. Reston, VA: ASCE.
Billington, S. L., and J. K. Yoon. 2004. “Cyclic response of unbonded
posttensioned precast columns with ductile fiber-reinforced concrete.”
J. Bridge Eng. 9 (4): 353–363. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1084
-0702(2004)9:4(353).
Clough, R. W., J. Penzien, and D. S. Griffin. 1993. Dynamics of structures.
2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Ding, Y., J. T. Yu, K. Q. Yu, and S. L. Xu. 2018a. “Basic mechanical prop-
erties of ultra-high ductility cementitious composites: From 40 MPa
to 120 MPa.” Compos. Struct. 185 (Feb): 634–645. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.compstruct.2017.11.034.
Ding, Y., K. Yu, J. Yu, and S. Xu. 2018b. “Structural behaviors of ultra-
high performance engineering cementitious composites (UHP-ECC)
beams subjected to bending—Experimental study.” Constr. Build.
Mater. 177 (Jul): 102–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018
.05.122.
Dong, L., J. Pan, F. Yuan, and C. K. Y. Leung. 2012. “Flexural behaviors
of steel reinforced ECC/concrete composite beams.” Mem. Am. Math.
Soc. 141 (671): 297–300.
Fischer, G. 2003. “Intrinsic response control of moment-resisting frames
utilizing advanced composite materials and structural elements.” ACI
Struct. J. 100 (2): 166–176.

© ASCE 04019042-12 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2019, 145(6): 04019042

 Fischer, G., and V. C. Li. 2002. “Effect of matrix ductility on deformation
behavior of steel-reinforced ECC flexural members under reversed
cyclic loading conditions.” ACI Struct. J. 99 (6): 781–790.
Harris, H. G., and G. M. Sabnis. 1999. Structural modeling and experimen-
tal techniques. 2nd ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Herrmann, A. W. 2013. “ASCE 2013 report card for America’s infra-
structure.” In Vol. 99 of Proc., IABSE Symp. Report, 9–10. Zurich,
Switzerland.: International Association for Bridge and Structural
Engineering.
ISO. 2008. Steel for the reinforcement of concrete. Part 2: Ribbed bars.
ISO 6935-2: 2015. Beijing: NEQ, China Construction Industry Press.
James, K. W., and G. M. James. 2011. Reinforced concrete mechanics and
design. 6th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Japan Road Association. 2002. Design specifications of highway bridges
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Louisiana Dept Trans & Dev on 06/19/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Part V: Seismic design. Tokyo: Ministry of Land, Infrastructure,
Transportation and Tourism.
Jiang, H., B. Fu, and L. Chen. 2013. “Damage-control seismic design of
moment-resisting RC frame buildings.” J. Asian Archit. Build. Eng.
12 (1): 49–56. https://doi.org/10.3130/jaabe.12.49.
JSCE (Japan Society of Civil Engineers). 2008. JSCE recommendations for
design and construction of high performance fiber reinforced cement
composites with multiple fine cracks. Tokyo: JSCE.
Kesner, K., and S. L. Billington. 2005. “Investigation of infill panels made
from engineered cementitious composites for seismic strengthening and
retrofit.” J. Struct. Eng. 131 (11): 1712–1720. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)0733-9445(2005)131:11(1712).
Khuntia, M., and S. C. Goel. 1998. “FRC-encased steel joist composite
beams under reversed cyclic loading.” J. Struct. Eng. 124 (10):
1115–1124. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1998)124:10
(1115).
Li, V. C. 2003. “On engineered cementitious composites (ECC).” J. Adv.
Concr. Technol. 1 (3): 215–230. https://doi.org/10.3151/jact.1.215.
Li, V. C., and S. X. Wang. 2002. “Flexural behaviors of glass fiber-
reinforced polymer (GFRP) reinforced engineered cementitious
composite beams.” ACI Mater. J. 99 (1): 11–21.
Lu, C., V. C. Li, and C. Leung. 2018. “Flaw characterization and correlation
with cracking strength in engineered cementitious composites (ECC).”
J. Cem. Concr. Res. 107 (May): 64–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.cemconres.2018.02.024.
Naaman, A. E. 2003. “Engineered steel fibers with optimal properties for
reinforcement of cement composites.” J. Adv. Concr. Technol. 1 (3):
241–252. https://doi.org/10.3151/jact.1.241.
NZS (Standards New Zealand). 1995. Concrete structures standard,
Part 1: The design of concrete structures. NZS3101. Wellington,
New Zealand: Standards Council.
Pan, J., C. Mo, X. Li, and J. Chen. 2017. “Seismic behaviors of steel
reinforced ECC/RC composite columns under low-cyclic loading.”
J. Southeast Univ. 33 (1): 70–78. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1003
-7985.2017.01.012.
Parra-Montesinos, G. J., P. Dasgupta, and S. C. Goel. 2005. “Development
of connections between hybrid steel truss-FRC beams and RC columns
for precast earthquake-resistant framed construction.” Eng. Struct.
27 (13): 1931–1941. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2005.06.017.
Perkins, I., and M. Skitmore. 2015. “Three-dimensional printing in the
construction industry: A review.” Int. J. Constr. Manage. 15 (1): 1–9.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2015.1012136.
© ASCE 04019042-13
J. Struct. Eng., 2019, 145(6): 04019042
SAC (Standardization Administration of China). 2008. Standard for clas-
sification of seismic protection of building constructions. [In Chinese.]
GB 50223. Beijing: China Architecture and Building Press.
SAC (Standardization Administration of China). 2016. Code for seismic
design of buildings. GB 50011. Beijing: China Architecture and
Building Press.
Shannag, M. J., N. Abu-Dyya, and G. Abu-Farsakh. 2005. “Lateral load
response of high performance fiber reinforced concrete beam-column
joints.” Constr. Build. Mater. 19 (7): 500–508. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.conbuildmat.2005.01.007.
Su, S. 2018. “Experimental and numerical simulation study on seismic
behavior of members with UHDCC.” [In Chinese.] Master thesis, Dept.
of Disaster Mitigation for Structures, Tongji Univ.
Varela, S., and M. Saiidi. 2014. “Dynamic performance of novel bridge
columns with superelastic CuAlMn shape memory alloy and ECC.”
Int. J. Bridge Eng. 2 (3): 29–58.
Wu, C., and V. C. Li. 2017. “CFRP-ECC hybrid for strengthening of the
concrete structures.” J. Compos. Struct. 178 (Oct): 372–382. https://doi
.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2017.07.034.
Wu, C., Z. Pan, R. K. L. Su, C. K. Y. Leung, and S. Meng. 2017. “Seismic
behavior of steel reinforced ECC columns under constant axial loading
and reversed cyclic lateral loading.” Mater. Struct. 50 (1): 78. https://doi
.org/10.1617/s11527-016-0947-9.
Yu, J., J. Lin, Z. Zhang, and V. C. Li. 2015. “Mechanical performance of
ECC with high-volume fly ash after sub-elevated temperatures.” Constr.
Build. Mater. 99 (Nov): 82–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat
.2015.09.002.
Yu, K., L. Li, J. Yu, Y. Wang, J. Ye, and Q. Xu. 2018a. “Direct tensile
properties of engineered cementitious composites: A review.” Constr.
Build. Mater. 165 (Mar): 346–362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.conbuildmat.2017.12.124.
Yu, K., L. Li, J. Yu, J. Xiao, J. Ye, and Y. Wang. 2018b. “Feasibility of
using ultra-high ductility cementitious composites for concrete struc-
tures without steel rebar.” Eng. Struct. 170 (9): 11–20. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.engstruct.2018.05.037.
Yu, K., Y. Wang, J. Yu, and S. Xu. 2017. “A strain-hardening cementitious
composites with the tensile capacity up to 8%.” Constr. Build. Mater.
137 (Apr): 410–419. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.01
.060.
Yu, K., J. Yu, J. Dai, and Z. Lu. 2018c. “Development of ultra-high
performance fiber-reinforced composites using polyethylene fibers.”
Constr. Build. Mater. 158 (Jan): 217–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.conbuildmat.2017.10.040.
Yuan, F., J. Pan, Z. Xu, and C. K. Y. Leung. 2013. “A comparison of
engineered cementitious composites versus normal concrete in beam-
column joints under reversed cyclic loading.” Mater. Struct. 46 (1–2):
145–159. https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-012-9890-6.
Zhang, Z., and Q. Zhang. 2017. “Self-healing ability of engineered
cementitious composites (ECC) under different exposure environ-
ments.” Constr. Build. Mater. 156 (Dec): 142–151. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.08.166.
Zhang, Z., and Q. Zhang. 2018. “Matrix tailoring of engineered cementi-
tious composites (ECC) with non-oil-coated, low tensile strength PVA
fiber.” Constr. Build. Mater. 161 (Feb): 420–431. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.11.072.
Zhou, Y., X. Lu, W. Lu, and J. Qian. 2011. “Study on the seismic perfor-
mance of a multi-tower connected structure.” Struct. Des. Tall Spec.
Build. 20 (3): 387–401. https://doi.org/10.1002/tal.533.
J. Struct. Eng.