Materials and Structures (2017)50:232
DOI 10.1617/s11527-017-1102-y
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Experimental testing of reinforced concrete and reinforced
ECC flexural members subjected to various cyclic
deformation histories
Timothy E. Frank . Michael D. Lepech . Sarah L. Billington
Received: 8 July 2017 / Accepted: 5 October 2017
Ó RILEM 2017
Abstract Engineered Cementitious Composite
(ECC) materials have been designed to exhibit high
tensile ductility compared to traditional concrete.
ECCs have also shown improved damage tolerance
in compression. When reinforced with steel, ECC
components have been proposed for enhanced seismic
resistance in structural applications. Because of the
uncertainty associated with ground motions, deter-
mining an appropriate cyclic deformation history for
seismic testing of structural components is a chal-
lenge. Three reinforced ECC and three reinforced
concrete beams were tested under three different
cyclic loading protocols. Cracking, strain in the steel
reinforcement, and hysteretic response were moni-
tored. The reinforced ECC beams exhibited an
increase in ductility and hysteretic energy dissipated
over the reinforced concrete beams, particularly when
subjected to a deformation history containing large
initial deformation pulses. The presence and magni-
tude of initial pulses did not affect ductility or failure
mode of the ECC beams, and is not expected to be
relevant in design of reinforced ECC beams for
collapse prevention.
T. E. Frank (&)
US Air Force, Soto Cano AB, Honduras
e-mail: timothy.frank@us.af.mil
M. D. Lepech
S. L. Billington
Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
Keywords Engineered cementitious composite
(ECC)
Reinforced concrete
Deformation history

Steel reinforcement strain
Energy dissipation

Ductility
1 Introduction and motivation
ECC is a class of High-Performance Fiber-Reinforced
Cement-based Composite (HPFRCC) that contains
many similar constituents to traditional concrete. In
contrast to concrete, however, ECC does not contain
coarse aggregate, and includes short, randomly dis-
tributed fibers. ECC is engineered to form multiple,
steady-state cracks under uniaxial tension. On a
mesoscale, multiple cracking allows an ECC compo-
nent to gain strength beyond the formation of the first
crack, a phenomenon referred to as pseudo-strain
hardening [1]. Ultimate specimen strain is a function
of specimen size, shape, mixture design, and applied
strain rate [2–4].
Quasi-static cyclic tests on structural components
have been used to gain a better understanding of steel
reinforced ECC component response to seismic loads.
As ECC with embedded steel reinforcement has been
proposed and implemented in seismic-resistant struc-
tural applications [5, 6], laboratory experimentation
under cyclic loads can be a valuable tool to understand
232 Page 2 of 12
the material’s limits and capabilities, and to make
recommendations for design codes.
Cost and time typically limit laboratory testing to a
small number of specimens. With a limited test
regimen, the choice of deformation history to impose
on each specimen is important. The seismic demand
on a structure depends on many variables including,
for example, ground motion characteristics, soil
properties, inertial mass, and structural period. There-
fore, selecting a single deformation history will
‘‘always be a compromise, but one that should be
conservative for most practical cases’’ [7]. Many
researchers have used a deformation history that
begins with small, elastic cycles. Cyclic amplitude is
then increased every one to three cycles. These cycles
are imposed on the component in a deformation-
controlled fashion until a predetermined failure crite-
rion is reached.
An understanding of reinforced ECC component
behavior under a deformation history wherein the
amplitude of each cycle does not always monotoni-
cally increase is of interest for several reasons. First, in
previous research the cracking pattern of a reinforced
HPFRCC infill panel subjected to recorded ground
motions [8] was significantly different than the
cracking pattern of a similar component subjected to
a monotonically increasing cyclic deformation history
[9]. Additionally, in a preliminary study preceding the
work reported herein, the authors noticed differences
in cracking and strain accumulation in the steel
reinforcement when comparing reinforced ECC spec-
imen behavior under various deformation histories
[10].
Second, structural components made from tradi-
tional reinforced concrete have been found to respond
differently to different deformation histories [e.g.,
11–13]. Strength and stiffness deterioration as well as
specimen ductility varied depending on the applied
deformation history.
Third, initial deformation pulses from ground
motions are not uncommon, and simulations using
recorded ground motion records suggest they can
generate story drifts of at least 7% in a generic frame
structure [14]. The effect of initial deformation pulses
on a reinforced ECC component may be different than
that on a reinforced concrete component because of
the nature of the ECC material itself. Initial pulses
imposed on an ECC component could form a domi-
nant crack with fiber pullout, prevent multiple
Materials and Structures (2017)50:232
cracking and strain hardening, and thus, fundamen-
tally change the composite material’s behavior there-
after. Typical material characteristics of reinforced
ECCs, such as strong bond to steel reinforcement [15]
and strain hardening of the steel reinforcement at low
levels of specimen strain [16], act as potential
vulnerabilities when subjected to large initial cyclic
deformations. Response of a steel reinforced ECC
component subjected to a deformation history con-
taining initial pulses is expected to be different than
that of a similar reinforced concrete component.
To address some of these gaps in understanding,
direct comparisons of reinforced concrete specimens
have been made to reinforced ECC or reinforced
HPFRCC specimens in the past. Increases in energy
dissipated, strength, and ductility, as well as a
reduction in transverse steel required, were noted in
reinforced ECC beams relative to reinforced concrete
beams [17, 18]. In another study, the authors noted a
higher strain accumulation rate in the steel reinforcing
bars, which resulted in failure by fracture of the steel
reinforcement at a lower drift in a reinforced HPFRCC
beam than a reinforced concrete beam [19]. To date,
however, there has been no study examining the
differences between reinforced concrete and rein-
forced ECC beams considering deformation history as
an experimental variable. This study is dedicated to
exploring how the response of a reinforced ECC
flexural member changes when subjected to different
cyclic deformation histories using reinforced concrete
as a means of comparison.
2 Experimental program
2.1 Specimen geometry
The specimens reported here were approximately
quarter-scale of what might be found in a building.
Differences in behavior due to differences in size
between these specimens and full-scale components
was expected to be small due to the small size of the
particles and fibers in the ECC materials (8 mm fiber
length was the largest dimension of any mixture
constituent). The dimensions of all six specimens were
nominally identical. Specimen dimensions and the test
setup are shown in Fig. 1. The vertical beam had a
cross-section of 165 mm 9 203 mm. One 13 mm bar
embedded in each corner resulted in a 0.95% steel
Materials and Structures (2017)50:232
Fig. 1 Geometry, steel reinforcement, and location of internal
strain gages on each reinforced concrete and reinforced ECC
specimen
reinforcement ratio in flexure. Clear cover to the
longitudinal bars was 32 mm on all sides.
The enlarged base had a cross-section of
229 mm 9 381 mm. A total of six, 13 mm horizontal
bars reinforced the enlarged base. Transverse rein-
forcement was designed as seismic detailing per ACI
318-14 [20]. Stirrups were spaced at 37.5 mm
throughout the enlarged base and 342 mm into the
beam. The remainder of the beam stirrups were spaced
at 75 mm.
Two of the four longitudinal reinforcing bars in
each specimen were instrumented with three strain
gages for a total of six strain gages on each specimen.
On each instrumented reinforcing bar, one strain gage
was located within the joint, 5 cm below the joint face.
Two additional strain gages were located on the
reinforcing bar within the beam, one 5 cm above the
joint face, and one 15 cm above the joint face (Fig. 1).
Three string potentiometers placed at third points
along the length of the beam recorded displacement,
and resistive force was recorded by a 50 kN load cell
attached to the hydraulic actuator that displaced the
specimen (not shown).
2.2 Materials
For the three reinforced concrete specimens, the
concrete was provided by a local ready-mix plant per
Page 3 of 12 232
the mixture design shown in Table 1 and delivered to
the site. The concrete for all the reinforced concrete
specimens came from the same batch.
The three reinforced ECC specimens had mixture
proportions as shown in Table 2. The silica sand had a
0.10 mm effective size. The polyvinyl alcohol (PVA)
fibers were supplied by Kuraray Co. Ltd., and
represented 2% of the composite, by volume. Fibers
were 8 mm long and had a 40 lm diameter. The high
range water reducer was Melflux 1641F, manufac-
tured by the BASF Corporation. The viscosity mod-
ifying admixture was Methocell, manufactured by the
Dow Chemical Company. The ECC was made on site,
and mixed in a horizontal pan mortar mixer in separate
batches for each reinforced ECC specimen.
The three reinforced concrete and three reinforced
ECC specimens were moist cured for 7 days and then
allowed to cure at room temperature until being tested.
The reinforced ECC specimens were tested on day
28 ± 2 days. To reduce the difference in estimated
compressive strength between concrete and ECC, the
reinforced concrete specimens were allowed to cure
longer, and were tested on day 56 ± 2 days. All six
specimens were reinforced with deformed mild steel
bars with a 13 mm diameter. The reinforcing bars had
yield stress, ultimate stress, and strain at ultimate
stress of 455, 675 MPa, and 16%, respectively, based
on the average of two samples, each tested quasi-
statically in tension under fixed–fixed grip conditions.
Smooth, 3.2 mm diameter steel wire was used for
transverse reinforcement. Two samples of the steel
wire were also tested quasi-statically in tension under
fixed–fixed grip condition, and exhibited yield stress,
ultimate stress, and strain at ultimate stress of 690,
820 MPa, and 13%, respectively.
Concrete from the same batch as the test specimens
was used to cast 100 mm 9 200 mm cylinders and
80 mm 9 80 mm 9 305 mm beams. Compression
strength of the concrete was 42 MPa with a standard
Table 1 Concrete mixture design (per cubic meter)
Constituent Mass (kg)
Type II/V portland cement 473
1 cm pea gravel 751
Sand 828
Water 144
232 Page 4 of 12
Table 2 ECC mixture design (per cubic meter)
Constituent Mass (kg)
Type II/V portland cement 547
Class F fly ash 656
Silica sand 438
Water 312
PVA fibers 26.0
High range water reducer 2.74
Viscosity modifying admixture 0.613
deviation of 3.3 MPa based on tests of four cylinders
per specimen, for a total of twelve samples, tested at
56 ± 2 days. The modulus of rupture of the concrete
was 5.5 MPa with a standard deviation of 0.52 MPa
based on three beams per specimen, for a total of nine
specimens, tested in third point bending.
ECC from each of the three batches was also tested
in compression and third point bending. In compres-
sion, four cylinders per batch were tested, for a total of
twelve samples. The mean compressive strength of the
batches ranged from 44 to 52 MPa, with an overall
mean and standard deviation of 47 and 3.7 MPa,
respectively. The modulus of rupture of the ECC was
calculated based on third point bending tests of three
beams per batch, for a total of nine samples. The
modulus of rupture of the batches ranged from 8.7 to
10 MPa, with an overall mean and standard deviation
of 9.6 and 1.3 MPa, respectively. Equivalent bending
stress versus vertical displacement response for three
bending tests of both concrete and ECC show repre-
sentative material response (Fig. 2).
2.3 Methods
The enlarged base of each specimen was bolted to a
wide flange steel section, which was fixed to the
laboratory strong floor (Fig. 1). Bending out of plane
was restrained by bracing (not shown). One end of the
hydraulic actuator was attached to a test frame and the
other to the specimen by bolts and steel plates. The
orientation of the actuator varied up to ± 5° during the
test as the top of the specimen moved back and forth
with each cycle. The recorded force from the load cell
was adjusted to account for only the force acting
perpendicular to the specimen. Axial load was not
applied to any specimen. The actuator moved
Materials and Structures (2017)50:232
12
Equivalent Bending Stress (MPa)
8
4
0
0 1 2 3 4
Displacement (mm)
Fig. 2 Third point bending response of three concrete and three
ECC beam samples
4.23 9 10-2 mm/s, and cyclic reversals were con-
trolled by the string potentiometer at the same level as
the actuator. Vertical movement at the point of loading
caused by specimen rotation during each cycle
resulted in the angle between the string potentiometer
and the horizontal varying by less than ± 2°. No
adjustments to the drift recorded by the string poten-
tiometers were made. Testing continued until one of
two failure criteria were met: one of the steel
reinforcing bars fractured or the strength at the peak
of an inelastic excursion was less than 75% of yield
strength (about 60–75% of ultimate strength).
2.4 Applied deformation histories
Three deformation histories were used in this study
(Fig. 3); one each applied to a specimen of each
material. The first deformation history, proposed by
the Federal Emergency Management Agency in
FEMA 461 [21], is similar to many used in previous
research [e.g., 18, 22]. The FEMA deformation history
consists of increasing amplitude steps with two cycles
per step. The first amplitude step was 0.15% drift,
where drift was measured as beam tip displacement
divided by the 813 mm beam length. Each subsequent
amplitude step was 40% larger than the previous
(Fig. 3a). The first few amplitude steps were not
expected to yield the steel reinforcement.
The other two deformation histories began with two
initial pulses followed by the FEMA deformation
history. Initial pulses of 2.5% drift and 7% drift were
Materials and Structures (2017)50:232 Page 5 of 12 232

20 2.5 Test register

(a) FEMA

10 The naming convention of each of the six specimens in

this study are given in Table 3. Each specimen name
Drift (%)

indicates the material (either RC for reinforced

0
concrete or ECC for reinforced ECC) and a descriptor
indicating the applied cyclic deformation history. The
-10 deformation history descriptors are either: F for
‘FEMA,’ SP for ‘Small Pulse,’ or LP for ‘Large
-20 Pulse.’
Cycles

20 3 Experimental results and discussion

(b) Small Pulse (SP)
3.1 Cracking
10
Drift (%)

Cracking patterns for the specimens differed more

0 between cementitious material than across deforma-
tion histories, and depictions of each can be found in
-10 Frank [23]. The cracking pattern in RC-F and RC-SP
began as horizontal flexural cracks until about 3.1%
-20 drift, when cracks inclined at approximately 45° and
Cycles formed shear cracks through the specimen’s core. The
same shear cracks occurred in RC-LP, but formed
20 during the two initial pulses. All reinforced concrete
(c) Large Pulse (LP) specimen final cracking patterns show significant
spalling and concrete material degradation (e.g.,
10
Fig. 4a). Inclined cracking was expected in the
Drift (%)

concrete due to the shear stresses developed in the

0 beam, and the spalling was expected due to the
relatively large imposed deflections.
-10 Consistent with previous tests of reinforced ECC
flexural members [17, 24], cracking in the three
reinforced ECC specimens consisted of horizontal
-20
Cycles flexural cracks with no diagonal (shear) cracks (e.g.,
Fig. 4b), owing to inherent shear strength provided by
Fig. 3 a FEMA, and b small pulse, and c large pulse the ECC composite itself. The dominant flexural crack
deformation histories

selected (Fig. 3b, c), with the intention to cause partial Table 3 Specimen naming convention
and total softening in the ECC material, respectively. Specimen name Material Deformation history
The deformation histories beginning with the 2.5 and
7% pulses will be referred to as the ‘Small Pulse’ (SP) RC-F Reinforced concrete FEMA
and ‘Large Pulse’ (LP) deformation histories in this RC-SP Reinforced concrete Small pulse
study. RC-LP Reinforced concrete Large pulse
ECC-F ECC FEMA
ECC-SP ECC Small pulse
ECC-LP ECC Large pulse
232 Page 6 of 12 Materials and Structures (2017)50:232

(a) (b) depth flexural cracks, and residual splitting crack

Fig. 4 Final cracking patterns of a RC-F and b ECC-F
in the reinforced ECC specimens, across which fiber
bridging was lost during the experimental tests due to
fiber pullout, occurred at or very near to the top of the
joint where the beam and enlarged base met.
Table 4 presents various cracking observations
from the specimens. There were many similarities
across the three reinforced concrete specimens.
Almost all cracks that formed became full-depth
cracks, wherein cracks initiating from both sides
joined. Further, the number of cracks and full-depth
cracks were similar across the three reinforced con-
crete specimens. There were many similarities
between cracking in the three reinforced ECC spec-
imens as well. Drift at dominant flexural crack
formation, number of flexural cracks, number of full-
length varied minimally across the three reinforced
ECC specimens.
Cracking was different between the reinforced
concrete and reinforced ECC specimens. In general,
a 0.1 mm flexural crack formed at about twice the drift
in reinforced ECC (2.2% drift) than in reinforced
concrete specimens (0.81 or 1.1% drift). It was
expected that dominant crack formation in ECC would
be delayed relative to that of concrete due to the
multiple cracking nature of ECC prior to dominant
crack formation. Dominant flexural crack formation
indicated the start of material softening when fibers
began to pull out of the ECC, near the base of the beam.
At drifts beyond dominant flexural crack formation in
the reinforced ECC specimens, specimen strain con-
centrated at the location of the dominant crack.
There were about twice as many flexural cracks in
reinforced ECC than reinforced concrete specimens,
but only 25–36% extended through the full depth of
the reinforced ECC whereas 87–100% extended
through the full depth of the reinforced concrete.
Flexural crack widths in the ECC remained less than or
equal to 0.1 mm throughout testing except for the
dominant crack. Increases in cyclic amplitude at each
step were accommodated by increases in the width of
the dominant crack in the reinforced ECC specimens.
Accordingly, the dominant crack width in the rein-
forced ECC specimens measured at 6.1% drift was
about 2.5 times as large as the largest crack width in
the reinforced concrete specimens. The average
residual splitting crack length after unloading in

Table 4 Cracking observations in the six specimens

Observed response RC ECC
F SP LP F SP LP

Drift at dominant flexural cracka formation (%) 0.81 0.81 1.1c 2.2 2.2 2.2c
b c
Drift at major splitting crack formation (%) 4.3 4.3 4.0 3.1 7.0 7.0c
Avg. no. flexural cracks per side in bottom 2/3 7 7 8 15 14 16
No. full-depth cracks in bottom 2/3 6 7 8 4 5 4
Residual splitting crack length (cm) 25 41 25 13 14 11
Max. flexural crack width at 6.1% drift (mm) 2.3 3.1 1.9 5.5 6.0 6.6
Max. splitting crack width at 6.1% drift (mm) 0.2 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.1 0.3
a
Dominant crack formed when crack width exceeded 0.1 mm
b
Major splitting cracks formed when crack width reached 0.5 mm
c
Occurred during the first initial pulse
Materials and Structures (2017)50:232
reinforced ECC specimens (13 mm) was less than half
as long as those in reinforced concrete specimens
(30 mm) indicating, as expected, greater unbonded
lengths of steel to the concrete formed than unbonded
lengths of steel to the ECC. Due to the small sample
size and natural variability, effects of different defor-
mation histories within either cementitious material
could not be identified by solely observing cracking
responses.
3.2 Reinforcement strain
Strain in the steel reinforcement localized and accu-
mulated differently between specimens of different
material and different deformation history. Steel
reinforcement strain was compared between materials
when specimens were subjected to the FEMA defor-
mation history. The reinforced concrete specimen had
lower values of reinforcement strain at a given drift
than the reinforced ECC specimen, e.g., 1.3 vs. 2.7%
reinforcement strain measured 5 cm into the joint in
RC-F and ECC-F, respectively, at 4.3% drift. Less
reinforcement strain in the reinforced concrete is in
agreement with previous researchers’ observations of
reinforcement strain [16], and can be attributed to the
wider flexural cracks and longer splitting cracks that
developed in the concrete than in the ECC. Wider and
longer cracks in concrete than ECC led to longer
debonded lengths of the steel reinforcement, and thus
the reinforcement strain at the any discrete strain gage
location was lower. In contrast, the matrix-fiber
composite design of ECC, which gives it enhanced
tensile strength and ductility, improved the specimen’s
ability to resist the cracking.
Fig. 5 Reinforcement
strain versus drift measured
Reinforcement Strain (%)
by a strain gage located
5 cm into the joint in a RC-
SP and b ECC-SP
Page 7 of 12 232
Figure 5 shows the relationship of steel reinforce-
ment strain versus specimen drift for RC-SP and ECC-
SP through the completion of the 4.3% drift cycles,
after which, many strain gages failed. The strain gages
positioned 5 cm into the joint recorded data further
through the testing protocols than the strain gages
5 cm above the joint, and thus were used for compar-
ison. The strain evolution shown in Fig. 5 were
recorded on the side of the specimens that went into
tension first. The beginning of the first 0.15% drift
cycle, after the conclusion of the two initial pulses, and
the end of the second 4.3% drift cycle are indicated.
When comparing specimens subjected to the SP
deformation history, the concrete specimen (Fig. 5a)
had lower values of reinforcement strain than the
reinforced ECC specimen (Fig. 5b) at 4.3% drift; 1.2
vs. 1.7% steel reinforcement strain, respectively.
Between the three reinforced concrete specimens,
reinforcement strain measurements at the end of the
4.3% drift step were within 7% of each other,
indicating strain in the steel reinforcement was not
greatly affected by deformation history. Without fiber
confinement, cracking in the concrete led to a similar
level of bond degradation and thus, similar steel
reinforcement strain at 4.3% drift, regardless of the
applied deformation history. Between the reinforced
ECC specimens, however, reinforcement strain at the
end of the 4.3% drift step between specimens
subjected to different deformation histories were
significantly different. For example, ECC-SP had
38% less strain in the steel reinforcement than ECC-F
at 4.3% drift. While this observation could partially be
due to slight differences in the location of the strain
gage relative to the dominant crack, it also indicates
(a) (b)
4 4
Reinforcement Strain (%)
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
-5.0 -2.5 0.0 2.5 5.0 -5.0 -2.5 0.0 2.5 5.0
Drift (%) Drift (%)
Start of 0.15% drift cycles
End of 4.3% drift cycles
232 Page 8 of 12
that bond to the steel reinforcement in ECC may be
more sensitive to deformation history than in concrete.
Bandelt and Billington [25] found that bond
strength of steel reinforcement to ECC was 39%
higher than bond strength of steel reinforcement to
concrete. Further, bond toughness of reinforced ECC
beams was higher than that of reinforced concrete
beams, indicating that the steel reinforcing bars in
reinforced ECC beams retained residual bond strength
at larger values of reinforcing bar slip than the steel
reinforcing bars in reinforced concrete beams. In the
flexural specimens tested herein, the relatively high
bond toughness at the steel-ECC interface within the
reinforced ECC beams facilitated less bond degrada-
tion when subjected to initial deformation pulses than
the comparatively low bond toughness at the steel–
concrete interface within the reinforced concrete
beams. To illustrate this point, strain in the steel
reinforcing bars of RC-SP did not increase between
the first and second cycle to 4.3% drift (Fig. 5a). In
contrast, due to the lower rate of bond degradation
with increasing drift, strain in the steel reinforcing bars
of ECC-SP increased from 3.1 to 3.3% strain (6.5%
increase) between the first and second cycle to 4.3%
drift (Fig. 5b).
3.3 Hysteretic response and specimen ductility
Hysteretic response of the specimens can be found in
Frank [23]. The difference in peak specimen strength
(28–30 kN for reinforced concrete specimens and
30–32 kN for reinforced ECC specimens) was a result
of the differences in tension and compression proper-
ties between the concrete and ECC as reported in
Sect. 2.2, e.g., mean compressive strengths of the
concrete and ECC were 42 and 47 MPa, respectively.
The point along the deformation history when peak
strength was achieved, however, was also different
between reinforced concrete and reinforced ECC
specimens. RC-F achieved peak strength during the
8.5% drift cycles, whereas RC-LP achieved peak
strength at 4% drift during the first excursion as the
concrete on the compression side of the specimen was
undamaged. Peak strength in the hysteretic envelope
of all three reinforced ECC specimens was achieved
near 2% drift regardless of the deformation history.
The high strains that developed in the steel reinforce-
ment led to strain hardening near 2% drift. This strain
hardening, coupled with the high damage tolerance of
Materials and Structures (2017)50:232
ECC [26], as indicated by the lack of significant
crushing and spalling observed, facilitated peak
strength in the reinforced ECC specimens at compar-
atively lower levels of drift than the reinforced
concrete specimens (2% drift compared to 4–8.5%
drift, respectively).
Figure 6 shows the hysteretic response of the RC-
LP and ECC-LP. Additionally, the point in the
deformation history when splitting cracks grew to
0.5 mm wide, crushing, and spalling were first
observed on both sides of each specimen, as applica-
ble, is shown. The hysteretic response of the rein-
forced concrete specimens (e.g., Fig. 6a) showed more
pinching, or lower reloading stiffness, than those of
the reinforced ECC specimens (e.g., Fig. 6b). The
presence of the initial pulses in the SP and LP
deformation histories, however, generated more
pinching than the FEMA deformation history in both
reinforced concrete and reinforced ECC specimens.
Increased lateral translation facilitated by cementi-
tious material damage and bar elongation during the
initial pulses led to the increased pinching with the
presence and size of initial pulses in the deformation
history.
Ductility is perhaps the most critical characteristic
of a structure needed to withstand a large earthquake
and prevent collapse. The ductility of reinforced ECC
specimens was less sensitive to 7% initial pulses than
the ductility of reinforced concrete specimens. Spec-
imens subjected to the FEMA and SP deformation
histories made from both concrete and ECC achieved
ductility of 12% drift, meaning the peak drift achieved
in either direction before failure was 12% drift. When
subjected to the LP deformation history, the reinforced
ECC specimen also achieved 12% drift, whereas the
reinforced concrete specimen reached a peak drift of
7% drift, a 42% reduction. The number of complete
excursions each specimen sustained was between 54
and 56 except RC-LP, which failed after completing
48 excursions.
Despite sustaining damage through cracking and
some crushing and spalling, the core of ECC-LP
remained intact due to the relatively high shear
strength and damage tolerance of the ECC material.
The ECC in ECC-LP was able to provide sufficient
confinement to the longitudinal steel reinforcement
and facilitate failure by fracture of the reinforcement,
the same failure mode as ECC-F and ECC-SP. The
extra plastic deformation due to the two 7% initial
Materials and Structures (2017)50:232
Fig. 6 Hysteretic response (a)
for a RC-LP and b ECC-LP 40
with icons indicating
splitting cracks at least
20
0.5 mm wide, crushing,
Force (kN)
splitting, spalling, and
failure modes 0 0
-20
-40
-15
pulses was not a significant contribution to strain
accumulation in the steel reinforcement at the critical
section (or the strain accumulation was accompanied
by bond degradation which reduced strain), and did
not lead to earlier bar fracture. In contrast, all three
reinforced concrete specimens failed due to concrete
crushing, and thus the crushing that occurred early in
the deformation history of RC-LP directly and signif-
icantly contributed to the cumulative damage that
limited the specimen’s ultimate ductility.
Because ductility of the reinforced ECC specimens
was less sensitive to deformation history than rein-
forced concrete specimens, reinforced ECC design for
collapse prevention may be more consistent between
situations where initial pulses are not expected and
situations where initial deformation pulses may be
more likely, such as near-fault locations. Due to
concrete crushing and subsequent loss of confinement
to steel reinforcing bars, design for collapse preven-
tion of reinforced concrete specimens should depend
on the expected presence and size of initial deforma-
tion pulses. This finding supports previous research of
reinforced concrete structures and their seismic col-
lapse risk [e.g., 27].
3.4 Energy dissipation
Damage from cracking and plastic deformation of the
steel reinforcement contributed to the energy dissi-
pated by each specimen from the beginning of the test
through specimen failure. To compare energy dissi-
pation among specimens with different strengths,
Page 9 of 12 232
(b)
40
20
Force (kN)
-20
-40
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15
Drift (%) Drift (%)
Failure by reinforcing bar fracture Crushing
Failure by cementitious material crushing Spalling
Splitting ≥ 0.5 mm wide
energy dissipated was determined by calculating the
area within each hysteretic loop using the trapezoidal
rule of numerical integration at steps of 0.03% drift,
then normalized by the area of an equivalent elasto-
plastic hysteresis loop to the same peak force and
displacement per [28] for each specimen. This proce-
dure produced a hysteretic energy dissipation ratio for
each complete hysteretic loop [29]. The hysteretic
energy dissipation ratio during the first full cycle to
select drifts is shown in Fig. 7.
Due to wider hysteretic loops, the hysteretic energy
dissipation ratio was larger at every level of drift for
the reinforced ECC specimens than the reinforced
concrete specimens subjected to the same deformation
history. The hysteretic energy dissipation ratio of all
specimens tended to increase with drift, however, it
increased at a higher rate in reinforced ECC than in
reinforced concrete specimens. The higher rate of
energy dissipation per cycle is attributed to higher
strain in the steel reinforcement, as also noted in [17].
At 2.2% drift, the hysteretic energy dissipation
ratios of specimens subjected to the SP and LP
deformation histories were 25–37% less than that in
the specimen of the same cementitious material
subjected to the FEMA deformation history. The
reduced hysteretic energy dissipation ratio at 2.2%
drift occurred because cracks that formed during the
initial pulses did not dissipate energy at drifts less than
the amplitude of the initial pulses. At drifts larger than
the initial pulse amplitude, the presence of initial
deformation pulses had less of an effect on the
hysteretic energy dissipation ratio for specimens made
232 Page 10 of 12
Fig. 7 Hysteretic energy
dissipation of the first full
cycle relative to an
Hysteretic Energy Dissipation Ratio
equivalent elasto-plastic
hysteresis loop to the same
peak force and displacement
of both reinforced ECC and reinforced concrete. For
example, at 4.3% drift the hysteretic energy dissipa-
tion ratio of ECC-SP was within 1.3% of ECC-F and
the hysteretic energy dissipation ratio of RC-SP was
within 4.5% of RC-F.
As drift increased beyond 4.3%, data indicate that
the size of the initial deformation pulse had less of an
effect on the hysteretic energy dissipation ratio in
reinforced ECC than in reinforced concrete speci-
mens. The hysteretic energy dissipation ratio of ECC-
LP was within 7.1% of ECC-F at 6.1% drift, whereas
the hysteretic energy dissipation ratio of RC-LP was
17% lower than RC-F. Fiber bridging across the
narrow crack widths in the reinforced ECC specimens
subjected to initial pulses facilitated greater strain
accumulation in the reinforcing bars (Fig. 5), and thus
steel plasticity made a greater contribution to energy
dissipation than in the reinforced concrete specimens.
Results show that energy dissipated per cycle by a
reinforced ECC component may be significantly lower
during small cycles following initial deformation
pulses when compared to cycles of the same amplitude
that are part of a monotonically increasing deforma-
tion history. Substantial capacity exists, however, to
dissipate energy if large ductility demands are
imposed, for example from an aftershock. In a
reinforced concrete specimen, however, large cycles
Materials and Structures (2017)50:232
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
2.2 4.3 6.1 8.5
Drift (%)
RC-F ECC-F RC-SP ECC-SP RC-LP ECC-LP
following initial deformation pulses were not as
effective in dissipating energy as in a reinforced
ECC specimen. The ability of a reinforced concrete
component to dissipate energy during an aftershock is
expected to be more strongly dependent on the main
shock’s deformation history and whether or not it
contained initial deformation pulses, than a reinforced
ECC component.
4 Conclusions
Three reinforced concrete and three reinforced ECC
specimens were tested under three deformation histo-
ries. Differences in cracking, reinforcement strain,
hysteretic response, failure mode, specimen ductility,
and energy dissipation were observed between cemen-
titious materials and between deformation histories.
Cracking patterns were visibly different between
materials. Cracks in the reinforced ECC specimens
were narrower and more horizontal (indicating flex-
ure) than cracks in the reinforced concrete specimens.
Spalling was more prominent in the reinforced con-
crete specimens, whereas the fibers in the reinforced
ECC specimens prevented spalling. The narrower
cracks in the reinforced ECC specimens facilitated
better bond to the steel reinforcement than in the
Materials and Structures (2017)50:232
reinforced concrete specimens. The increased bond
toughness in the reinforced ECC specimens led to
more rapid strain accumulation. Strain in the steel
reinforcement was higher at a given drift in ECC than
in concrete and, for both materials, was higher at a
given drift when subjected to a deformation history
without initial deformation pulses than with initial
pulses.
The strength of the reinforced ECC specimens was
highest near 2% drift, as the reinforcing steel strain
hardened, then decreased slightly with drift. In con-
trast, peak strength in the reinforced concrete speci-
mens occurred between 4 and 8.5% drift. Pinching of
the hysteresis loops was more pronounced in rein-
forced concrete than reinforced ECC, and occurred to
a greater extent in specimens subjected to initial
deformation pulses. When compared to reinforced
concrete, the ductility of reinforced ECC specimens
was less sensitive to the deformation history applied.
The high damage tolerance in compression demon-
strated by the ECC relative to concrete facilitated the
relative indifference in specimen ductility between the
FEMA deformation history, which consisted of mono-
tonically increasing cycles, and a deformation history
consisting of two initial pulses to either 2.5 or 7% drift
followed by the FEMA deformation history. The
reinforced concrete specimen subjected to a deforma-
tion history containing two initial pulses to 7% drift
experienced concrete crushing during the two initial
pulses. The crushing of the concrete prevented the
specimen from retaining strength during subsequent
cycles with amplitudes exceeding 7% drift. Of the
three reinforced concrete specimens experimentally
tested, only the specimen subjected to the LP defor-
mation history failed at a drift below 12% drift, with
failure due to strength loss occurring after an ultimate
drift of 7% was reached.
An increased number of cracks and increased
plastic deformation of the steel reinforcement in the
reinforced ECC specimens relative to the reinforced
concrete specimens led to differences in normalized
energy dissipated per cycle. Reinforced ECC flexural
components can be expected to dissipate energy
during an aftershock more effectively than reinforced
concrete components, especially if the main shock
generated initial deformation pulses. Total energy
dissipation of the reinforced ECC specimens through
failure was less sensitive to deformation history than
that of the reinforced concrete specimens. The
Page 11 of 12 232
conclusions from the experiments reported herein
provide a fundamental understanding of the response
of reinforced ECC flexural members subjected to three
different deformation histories, and highlights differ-
ences in response from reinforced concrete beams.
Acknowledgements This study was funded by the Air Force
Institute of Technology, the John A. Blume Earthquake
Engineering Center, and the Thomas V. Jones Engineering
Faculty Scholarship at Stanford University.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no
conflicts of interest. The views expressed in this dissertation are
those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or
position of the United States Air Force, Department of Defense,
or the U.S. Government.
References
1. Maalej M, Li VC (1995) Introduction of strain-hardening
engineered cementitious composites in design of reinforced
concrete flexural members for improved durability. ACI
Struct J 92(2):167–176
2. Douglas KS, Billington SL (2010) Strain rate dependence of
HPFRCC cylinders in monotonic tension. Mater Struct
44(1):391–404
3. Kanda T, Li VC (1999) New micromechanics design theory
for pseudostrain hardening cementitious composite. J Eng
Mech 125(4):373–381
4. Mechtcherine V, Silva F, Butler M, Zhu D, Mobasher B,
Gao S, Mäder E (2011) Behaviour of strain-hardening
cement-based composites under high strain rates. J Adv
Concr Technol 9(1):51–62
5. Kanda T, Watanabe S, Li VC (1998) Application of pseudo
strain hardening cementitious composites to shear resistant
structural elements. In: Mihashi H, Rokugo K (eds) Proc
FRAMCOS-3, fracture mechanics of concrete structures,
vol III. Aedificatio Publishers, pp 1477–1490
6. Li VC, Kanda T (1998) Engineered cementitious compos-
ites for structural applications. ASCE J Mater Civil Eng
10(2):66–69
7. Krawinkler H (1996) Cyclic loading histories for seismic
experimentation on structural components. Earthq Spectra
12(1):1–12
8. Lignos DG, Moreno DM, Billington SL (2004) Seismic
retrofit of steel moment-resisting frames with high-perfor-
mance fiber-reinforced concrete infill panels: large-scale
hybrid simulation experiments. J Struct Eng 140:1–13
9. Hanson J, Billington SL (2009) Cyclic testing of a ductile
fiber-reinforced concrete infill panel system for seismic
retrofitting of steel frames. In: Report No. TR 177, The John
A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Stanford Univ.,
Stanford, CA
10. Frank TE, Lepech, MD, Billington SL (2015) Effect of
deformation history on steel-reinforced HPFRCC flexural
232 Page 12 of 12
member behavior. In: Reinhardt HW, Parra-Montesinos GJ,
Garrecht H (eds) 7th RILEM workshop on high perfor-
mance fiber reinforced cement composites, pp 367–374
11. Hwang T (1982) Effects of variation in load history on
cyclic response of concrete flexural members. Dissertation,
University of Illinois
12. Kawashima K, Koyama T (1988) Effect of number of
loading cycles on dynamic characteristics of reinforced
concrete bridge pier columns. Struct Eng Earthq Eng
5(1):205–213
13. Ohno T, Nishioka T (1984) An experimental study on
energy absorption capacity of columns in reinforced con-
crete structures. Proc JSCE Struct Eng Earthq Eng
1(2):23–33
14. Baker JW, Cornell CA (2008) Vector-valued intensity
measures for pulse-like near-fault ground motions. Eng
Struct 30(4):1048–1057
15. Bandelt MJ, Billington SL (2014) Monotonic and cyclic
bond-slip behavior of ductile high-performance fiber-rein-
forced cement-based composites. In Schlangan E, Sierra
Beltran MG, Lukovic M, Ye G (eds) Proc 3d international
RILEM conference on strain hardening cementitious com-
posites (SHCC3), pp 1–8
16. Moreno DM, Trono W, Jen G, Ostertag C, Billington SL
(2014) Tension stiffening in reinforced high performance
fiber reinforced cement-based composites. Cement Concr
Comp 50:36–46
17. Fischer G, Li VC (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
18. Yuan F, Pan J, Dong L, Leung CKY (2013) mechanical
behaviors of steel reinforced ECC or ECC/concrete Com-
posite beams under Reversed cyclic loading. J Mater Civil
Eng 26(8):1–8
19. Tavallali H, Lepage A, Rautenberg J, Pujol S (2012) drift
limits of concrete frame members reinforced with high-
performance steel bars and fibers. In: Parra-Montesinos G,
Reinhardt H, Naaman A (eds) 6th RILEM workshop on high
Materials and Structures (2017)50:232
performance Fiber reinforced cement composites,
pp 329–337
20. ACI Committee, American Concrete Institute and Interna-
tional Organization for Standardization (2014) Building
code requirements for structural concrete (ACI 318-14) and
commentary
21. FEMA 461 (2007) interim testing protocols for determining
the seismic performance characteristics of structural and
nonstructural components
22. Parra-Montesinos GJ, Chompreda P (2007) Deformation
capacity and shear strength of fiber-reinforced cement
composite flexural members subjected to displacement
reversals. J Struct Eng 133(3):421–431
23. Frank TE (2017) Response of reinforced engineered
cementitious composite flexural members subjected to
various cyclic deformation histories. Dissertation, Stanford
University
24. Bandelt MJ (2015) behavior, modeling, and impact of bond
in steel reinforced high-performance fiber-reinforced
cement-based composites. Dissertation, Stanford University
25. Bandelt MJ, Billington SL (2016) Bond behavior of steel
reinforcement in high-performance fiber-reinforced
cementitious composite flexural members. Mater Struct
49(1):71–86
26. Li VC (1997) Damage tolerance of engineered cementitious
composites. In: Karihloo BL, Mai YW, Ripley MI, Ritchie,
RO (eds) Advances in fracture research, proceedings 9th
ICF conference on fracture, pp 619–630
27. Champion C, Liel A (2012) The effect of near-fault direc-
tivity on building seismic collapse risk. Earthq Eng Struct
Dyn 41(10):1391–1409
28. Lequesne RD (2011) Behavior and design of high-perfor-
mance fiber-reinforced concrete coupling beams and cou-
pled-wall systems. Dissertation, The University of
Michigan
29. Olsen E, Billington SL (2011) Cyclic response of precast
high-performance fiber-reinforced concrete infill panels.
ACI Struct J 108(1):51–60