Original article

J Strain Analysis
2017, Vol. 52(2) 121–134
Ó IMechE 2017
Direct tension-dependent flexural Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
behavior of ultra-high-performance DOI: 10.1177/0309324716689625
journals.sagepub.com/home/sdj

fiber-reinforced concretes

Duy-Liem Nguyen1, Duc-Kien Thai2 and Dong-Joo Kim2

Abstract
This research investigated the effects of direct tensile response on the flexural resistance of ultra-high-performance
fiber-reinforced concretes by performing sectional analysis. The correlations between direct tensile and flexural
response of ultra-high-performance fiber-reinforced concretes were investigated in detail for the development of a
design code of ultra-high-performance fiber-reinforced concrete flexural members as follows: (1) the tensile resistance
of ultra-high-performance fiber-reinforced concretes right after first-cracking in tension should be higher than one-third
of the first-cracking strength to obtain the deflection-hardening if the ultra-high-performance fiber-reinforced concretes
show tensile strain-softening response; (2) the equivalent bottom strain of flexural member at the modulus of rupture is
always higher than the strain capacity of ultra-high-performance fiber-reinforced concretes in tension; (3) the softening
part in the direct tensile response of ultra-high-performance fiber-reinforced concretes significantly affects their flexural
resistance; and (4) the moment resistance of ultra-high-performance fiber-reinforced concrete girders is more signifi-
cantly influenced by the post-cracking tensile strength rather than the tensile strain capacity. Moreover, the size and geo-
metry effects should be carefully considered in predicting the moment capacity of ultra-high-performance fiber-
reinforced concrete beams.

Keywords
Ultra-high-performance fiber-reinforced concretes, modulus of rupture, moment resistance, strain-hardening, deflection-
hardening

Date received: 13 July 2016; accepted: 23 December 2016

Introduction UHPFRCs should be clearly understood. Although

Ultra-high-performance fiber-reinforced concrete
(UHPFRC) is one of the most promising construction
materials for durable and robust infrastructure due to
its ultra-high compressive strength, high ductility,
cracking resistance, and durability.1–8 The superior
mechanical and material properties of UHPFRCs are
very attractive to structural engineers to apply them in
civil and military infrastructures for enhancing their
resistance under severe environments and loads.
However, there is no international code for design-
ing structural members or structures using UHPFRCs
although there have been several guidelines.9–11 It is a
hindrance in application of UHPFRCs to real infra-
structure. In preparing the design code for the struc-
tural members using UHPFRCs, the mechanical
properties of structural members using UHPFRCs
should be clearly understood. Specifically, the correla-
tion between the tensile and fleuxural response of
several researches have discussed about the correla-
tion,12–16 further investigation is needed as follows:
1. The deflection-hardening condition for the
UHPFRCs, with tensile strain-softening response,
should be clearly understood because the
deflection-hardening accompanied by multiple
micro-cracks is one of the superior mechanical
properties of UHPFRCs. Moreover, the structural
1
Faculty of Civil Engineering, Ho Chi Minh City University of Technology
and Education, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
2
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Sejong University,
Seoul, Republic of Korea
Corresponding author:
Duy-Liem Nguyen, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Ho Chi Minh City
University of Technology and Education, 01 Vo Van Ngan Street, Thu Duc
District, Ho Chi Minh City 700000, Vietnam.
Email: liemnd@hcmute.edu.vn
122 Journal of Strain Analysis 52(2)

members using UHPFRCs would be mostly under

flexural loads although UHPFRCs are categorized
corresponding to the direct tensile response: strain-
softening and strain-hardening responses of
UHPFRCs depend on fiber type and volume con-
tent in mixture.17,18 The tensile strain-hardening
response of UHPFRCs definitely generates a
deflection-hardening response in flexure, whereas
the tensile strain-softening UHPFRCs may generate
a deflection-hardening or deflection-softening.18,19
2. In calculating the nominal moment resistance of
UHPFRCs beams or girders, what is the tensile
strain and corresponding stress at the bottom section
of the UHPFRCs girders in comparison with direct
tensile response? In general, the maximum moment
resistance of deflection-hardening UHPFRCs can be
determined at the modulus of rupture (MOR),
whereas that of deflection-softening UHPFRCs is at
the limit of proportionality (LOP), as can be seen in
Figure 1.
Figure 1. Typical tensile strain-softening and strain-hardening
3. The moment resistance of UHPFRC girder is behaviors of FRC, HPFRCC, and UHPFRC.17,18
known to be sensitive to the tensile parameters of
UHPFRCs: which tensile parameter, between ten-
sile strength and strain capacity, is the most critical
in the maximum moment resistance?20–22 What is
the effects of tensile-softening region of UHPFRCs
on the maximum moment resistance of UHPFRCs
in flexure? How is the difference between the pre-
dicted (or calculated) and measured moment resis-
tance, from experiments, of UHPFRCs?

These questions have motivated this analytical

study, which is based on chapter IV of PhD disserta-
tion of the first and corresponding author (Nguyen).22
The research aimed at providing helpful information
about the correlation between direct tensile and flexural
responses of UHPFRCs. The specific objectives are (1)
to discover the deflection-hardening condition of tensile
performance of UHPFRCs, (2) to estimate the bottom
strain and corresponding stress of UHPFRCs girders
at MOR, (3) to compare the influence of direct tensile
strength and ductility on the flexural behavior of
UHPFRCs, and (4) to evaluate the difference between
the predicted and measured flexural behaviors of
UHPFRCs.
Tensile and flexural parameters of
UHPFRCs
A typical direct tensile and flexural behavior of
UHPFRCs is illustrated in both Figures 1 and 2,
respectively. Tensile parameters are notated at both the
first-cracking ðecc ; scc Þ and post-cracking ðepc ; spc Þ
points as material properties as shown in Figure 1.17,18
The first-cracking point is defined as the LOP in the
tensile response, whereas the post-cracking point is
identified as the point where the maximum tensile stress
occurs. A tensile strain-hardening transpires with the
Figure 2. Typical moment–curvature response of HPFRCC or
UHPFRC.12
condition spc 5scc . For the strain-hardening of
UHPFRCs, the tensile strain capacity ðepc Þ at the post-
cracking point indicates the material ductility of
UHPFRCs. The area under the stress–strain curve until
the post-cracking point is estimated as the energy
absorption capacity ðTpc Þ
Flexural parameters are identified at the LOP and
MOR, as described in Figure 2.12 Flexural parameters
at LOP, where the first crack of beam occurs, include
moment resistance ðMLOP Þ and corresponding curva-
ture ðFLOP Þ, or load ðPLOP Þ and corresponding deflec-
tion ðdLOP Þ. Similarly, the flexural parameters at MOR,
where the softening branch indicating crack opening
process starts, comprise moment resistance capacity
ðMMOR Þ and corresponding curvature ðFMOR Þ, or load
ðPMOR Þ and corresponding deflection ðdMOR Þ. The
deflection-hardening can be obtained if the moment at
MOR is higher than that at LOP ðMMOR 5MLOP Þ.
With a beam subjected to positive moment, the
strains at the bottom and top of the section are notated
Nguyen et al.
Figure 3. Distribution of stress and strain at cross section by modeling: (a) Strain distribution, (b, c, d) Naaman,12 (e) Kanakubo,16
(f) Soranakom et al.,13 (g) Soranakom and Mobasher,14 (h) Soranakom and Mobasher,15 and (i) Sujivorakul (2012)28.
as et and ec , respectively, while the corresponding stres-
ses are named as st and sc , respectively. The moment
resistance, corresponding to the bottom strains ecc and
epc , are named as Mcc and Mpc , respectively. It is noted
that Mcc ffi MLOP since the first crack happens here. In
addition, the maximum moment ðMmax Þ, often called
moment capacity of cross section, may occur at either
the MOR or LOP, as described in Figure 2.
Simplified models for section analysis of
UHPFRC beams
To obtain the moment resistance of a beam using
cement-based materials, the stress versus strain
response of materials under compression, as well as
direct tension, would be simplified for section analysis.
Several section analyses performing distribution of
stress and strain on the flexural section using FRCs
and high-performance fiber-reinforced cementitious
composites (HPFRCCs) have been reported,12–16 as
described in Figure 3. The following models of com-
pressive and tensile behavior of UHPFRCs are pro-
posed according to their experimental test.
The compressive stress versus strain response of
UHPFRCs is proposed to be linear elastic as described
in Figure 4(b) because the measured compressive stress
versus strain response of UHPFRCs prior to LOP is
almost linear and the response beyond LOP would not
be used due to the brittle failure of UHPFRCs, with
sudden load drop and scatter, under compression as
shown in Figure 4(a). Besides, UHPFRCs generally
show a very high compressive strength of more than
150 MPa and the compressive failure strain of
UHPFRC varies between 0.34% and 0.94%,4,23,24
123
whereas the tensile strength of UHPFRCs varies
between 10 and 15 MPa.7,8 Resultantly, the cross sec-
tion will consequently fail at bottom (tension-con-
trolled section), that is, the extreme compressive strain
at the top of the beam section is still within linear elas-
tic limit at the failure of UHPFRC beam under positive
moment.
UHPFRCs can produce tensile strain-softening or
strain-hardening response corresponding to the fiber
type and volume content reinforced in composites.17,18
The tensile stress versus strain response of UHPFRCs
would be simplified as bilinear or trilinear according to
the tensile response after first-cracking point. The ten-
sile strain-hardening model of UHPFRCs can be fur-
ther simplified as a bilinear curve because the strain at
first-cracking ðecc Þ is generally much smaller than the
strain at post-cracking point ðepc Þ, and the toughness
from the modeled curve is close to that from experi-
mental curve, as shown in Figure 5(a). On the contrary,
Figure 5(b) and (c) shows the strain-softening response
of UHPFRCs after first-cracking without or with verti-
cal load drop, respectively. The ultimate tensile strain
ðetu Þ of UHPFRCs may be allowed up to 2.5% by
RILEM TC 162-TDF,25 whereas the value of ultimate
compressive strain ðecu Þ should be determined accord-
ing to measured data from compression test.
Section analysis
Similar to concrete, the prediction of moment resis-
tance of UHPFRCs requires two basic conditions: (1)
static equilibrium and (2) compatibility of strains. In
addition, the strain profile along the depth of section is
assumed to be linear, that is, the plan section remaining
124 Journal of Strain Analysis 52(2)

Figure 4. (a) Compressive behaviors of UHPFRCs containing an identical 2% fiber content by volume with various fiber types24 and
(b) their simplified model.

Figure 5. Simplified models for tensile behavior of UHPFRC: (a) tensile-hardening behavior (T1), (b) tensile-softening behavior
without a clear sudden load drop (T2), and (c) tensile-softening behavior with a clear sudden load drop (T3).

plane during bending, while the stress profile hypotheti- ðMt Þ are calculated using the equilibriums of horizontal
cally corresponds to strain according to the simplified forces and moments at section, as provided in equa-
models, as described in Figure 3. tions (1)–(3). The equations of Mt , Ft , and the location
of neutral axis c = kh, which are considered as the
functions of et , are derived and shown in Table 1
Load versus deflection response of UHPFRCs X
Ti  C = 0 ð1Þ
A rectangular section of beam with depth h and width X
b was analyzed under the positive moment. Figures 6–8 Mt = Ti  yTi + C  yC ð2Þ
provide the distributions of the stress and strain at sec- ec et
tion according to three cases of tensile models: (1) ft = = ð3Þ
kh ½ð1  kÞh
strain-hardening, (2) strain-softening with inclined load
drop, and (3) strain-softening with vertical load drop. where yTi and yC are the distance from NA to equiva-
Each case of tensile models was analyzed in both (a) lent tensile force Ti and equivalent compressive force
elastic and (b, c) plastic stage. The bottom strain ðet Þ is C, respectively; ft is the curvature which corresponds
considered as a variable, then, location of neutral axis to moment Mt , whereas ec is the strain at the top of the
(kh), curvature of beam ðFt Þ, and moment resistance beam.
Nguyen et al. 125

The load versus deflection response of UHPFRCs in 4MMOR

PMOR = ð11aÞ
flexure, to compare the predicted flexural response "L (    )
using equations (1)–(3) with experimental results, was L2 MLOP 2 MLOP
obtained from the moment versus curvature response dMOR = FMOR 2  
24 MMOR MMOR
as follows. Figure 9(a) and (b) shows the distribution
    
along the beam of moment–curvature (M–u) and shear MLOP FMOR ð1 + y ÞL2 h 2
force–shear strain (V–g) in four-point and three-point + FLOP 1 + +
MMOR 6c L
bending test.
ð11bÞ
For the four-point bending test, the relationship
between the applied load and the moment at middle-
span is provided by equation (4), while the deflection at Deflection-hardening condition
middle-span can be calculated using equations (5) and
(6) for linear and non-linear portion, respectively A deflection-hardening occurs with the condition
(where L is the span length, Poisson’s ratio n = 0:2, MMOR 5MLOP , that is, the maximum moment resis-
and shear factor c = 1=1:5 for rectangular section)21 tance ðMmax Þ appears at eMOR . eLOP . The Mmax can be
mathematically estimated under fundamental condition
6M dMt =det = 0. However, it is very difficult to solve this
P= ð4Þ differential equation; thus, the method of eliminating
L
"   # the prior infinitesimal is proposed for the analysis in
23FL2 36ð1 + y Þ h 2
d= 1+ ð5Þ this research. The idea of this method is that, if a
216 23c L moment resistance, MT , with eT . ecc = eLOP , is found
" (    ) to be larger than MLOP , this means the deflection-
L2 MLOP 2 MLOP
d= F 23  4 4 hardening occurs. Figures 10 and 11 provide the analy-
216 M M sis results according to the simplified tensile models as
     follows:
MLOP Fð1 + y ÞL2 h 2
+ FLOP 4 + 4 +
M 6c L
1. A tensile strain-hardening UHPFRC always pro-
ð6Þ duces a deflection-hardening, and at MOR, the
For three-point bending test, the applied load can be extreme tensile strain of the beam is
drawn using equation (7), whereas the middle-span eMOR . epc . ecc , while the extreme tensile stress of
deflections are provided by equations (8) and (9) for the beam is sMOR \ spc , as shown in Figure 10(a).
linear and non-linear portion, respectively
Example 1. Considering a tensile strain-hardening
4M UHPFRC with scc = 5 MPa, ecc = 0:00025, spc =
P= ð7Þ
L 12 MPa, epc = 0:0035, E2 = 20; 000 MPa, and
"   #
FL2 2ð1 + y Þ h 2 Ec = 50; 000 MPa.
d= 1+ ð8Þ Because ecc \ \ epc , the tensile model T1 can be
12 c L
" ( used, E1 = 2000 MPa. Select eT = 1:01 epc , using equa-
   )
L2 MLOP 2 MLOP tion in Table 1 for stage (b) of tensile model T1 , the cal-
d= F 2  culation provides MT = 23:121 ðbh2 =6Þ at et = eT and
24 M M
     Mpc = 23:015 ðbh2 =6Þ at et = epc . Ratio MT =Mpc =
MLOP Fð1 + y ÞL2 h 2 1:005 . 1 means eMOR . epc .
+ FLOP 1 + +
M 6c L
ð9Þ 2. A strain-softening of UHPFRC with an inclined
load drop always produces a deflection-hardening,
Finally, the load-carrying capacity and middle-span and at MOR, the extreme tensile strain of beam is
deflection at MOR can be shown in equations (10a), eMOR . ecc , while the extreme tensile stress of beam
(10b), (11a), and (11b) for four-point and three-point is sMOR \ scc , as shown in Figure 10(b).
bending, respectively
6MMOR Example 2. Considering a strain-softening of UHPFRC
PMOR = ð10aÞ with scc = 10 MPa, ecc = 0:0004, spc = 8 MPa,
L
" (    ) epc = 0:0014, and Ec = 50; 000 MPa. Using the tensile
L2 MLOP 2 MLOP model T2 , the calculation provides E0 = 25; 000 MPa
dMOR = FMOR 23  4 4
216 MMOR MMOR and E1 = 2000 MPa.
     Select eT = 1:0001 ecc , using equation in Table 1 for
MLOP FMOR ð1 + y ÞL2 h 2 stage (b) of tensile model T2 , the calculation provides
+ FLOP 4 + 4 +
MMOR 6c L MT = 11:7167 ðbh2 =6Þ at et = eT and MLOP = 11:7157
ð10bÞ ðbh2 =6Þ at et = ecc . Ratio MT =MLOP = 1:0008 . 1
126 Journal of Strain Analysis 52(2)

Figure 6. Strain and stress distribution along the depth of section for strain-hardening UHPFRC: (a) ecc 4et 4epc and (b)
epc 4et 4etu .

Figure 7. Strain and stress distribution along the depth of section for strain-softening UHPFRC with an inclined drop load, epc . ecc :
(a) 04et 4ecc , (b) ecc 4et 4epc , and (c) epc 4et 4etu .

Figure 8. Strain and stress distribution along the depth of section for strain-softening UHPFRC with a vertical drop load, epc = ecc :
(a) 04et 4ecc and (b) ecc 4et 4etu .

means eMOR . ecc and flexural behavior exhibits deflec- 3. A strain-softening of UHPFRC with a little vertical
tion-hardening. load drop ð0:67ecc 4epc \ ecc Þ will produce a
Nguyen et al.
Figure 9. Distribution along the beam of moment–curvature (M–u) and shear force–shear strain (V–g): (a) four-point bending and
(b) three-point bending.
deflection-hardening, and at MOR, the extreme ten-
sile strain of beam is eMOR . ecc , while the extreme
tensile stress of beam is sMOR \ scc , as shown in
Figure 10(c).
Example 3. Considering a strain-softening of UHPFRC
with a vertical load drop: scc = 10 MPa, ecc =
0:0004 = epc , spc = 8 MPa, Ec = 50; 000 MPa, and
E2 = 5000 MPa. Using the tensile model T3 , the calcu-
lation provides E0 = 25; 000 MPa.
Select eT = 1:0001 ecc , using equation in Table 1 for
stage (b) of tensile model T3 , the calculation provides
MLOP = 11:7157 ðbh2 =6Þ at et = ecc and MT = 11:7164
127
ðbh2 =6Þ at et = eT and thus ratio MT =MLOP =
1:00006 . 1; this means eMOR . ecc and flexural beha-
vior exhibits deflection-hardening.
4. A strain-softening of UHPFRC with a significant
vertical load drop ðepc \ 0:67ecc Þ possibly produces
a deflection-softening, and at LOP, the extreme ten-
sile strain of beam is eLOP = ecc , while the extreme
tensile stress of beam is sLOP = scc , as shown in
Figure 11.
Example 4. Considering a strain-softening of UHPFRC
with a vertical load drop: scc = 10 MPa,
128 Journal of Strain Analysis 52(2)

Table 1. Equations of moment resistance according to simplified tensile models of UHPFRC.

Tensile model Stage Equation of Mt , Ft , and neutral axis c as a function of et

pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi  pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 
(T1) Strain-hardening (a) 04et 4epc bh2 Ec et 2scc + E1 et
Mt = pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi scc pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi + 2E1 et + 3scc
6pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Ec etffi + pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2scc + E1 etffi Ec et + 2scc + E1 et
et Ec et + 2scc + E1 et
Ft = pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
h Ec et ffi
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2scc + Et et
c = kh = pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi h
 2 Ec et + 2scc + E t et   pffiffiffiffiffi 
(b) epc 4et bh 1 2E2 ðet  epc Þ3 + 3ðspc  E2 epc Þðet  epc Þ2
Mt = pffiffiffiffiffi E c + 2 Ec X 3
6 ðX + Ec et Þ2 + 6spc epc ðet  epc Þ + ðscc + 2spc Þe2pc
 pffiffiffiffiffi  qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
et X + Ec et
Ft = p ffiffiffiffiffi , where X = E2 ðet  epc Þ2 + 2spc ðet  epc Þ + ðscc + spc Þepc
h Ec e t
X
c = kh = pffiffiffiffiffi h
X + Ec et pffiffiffiffiffi 
(T2) Strain-softening with (a) 04et 4ecc bh 2
2 Ec 2 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi

an inclined load drop Mt = E0 et pffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffi , MLOP = bh6 scc Ec ecc pffiffiffiffiffiffi ffi2 pffiffiffiffiffi
Ec ecc + scc
6pffiffiffiffiffi pEffiffiffiffi c ffi+
 E0
et Ec + E0
Ft = pffiffiffiffiffi
h pEffiffiffiffiffiffi
c
scc
c = kh = pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffiffi h
Ec ecc + s( cc )
(b) ecc 4et 4epc bh2 1 3 2
2 2E1 ðet  ecc Þ + 3ðscc  E1 ecc Þðet  ecc Þ
Mt = ð1  kÞ
6 e2t + 6scc ecc ðet  ecc Þ + 2scc e2cc
bh2 1
+ kð1  kÞf2X 2 g
6 et qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
pffiffiffi

Ft = eht X p+ ffiffiffiEc et
, where X = E1 ðet  ecc Þ2 + 2scc ðet  ecc Þ + scc ecc
E c et
c = kh = pffiffiffiX
E e +X
h
8
c t
9
(c) epc 4et
2
>
< 2E2 ðet  epc Þ3 + 3ðspc  E2 epc Þðet  epc Þ2 >
=
bh 1 2 3 2
Mt = ð1  kÞ 2E 1 ðepc  ecc Þ + 3ðs cc  E 1 ecc Þðepc  ecc Þ
2
6 et >
: >
;
+ 6spc epc ðet  epc Þ + 6scc ecc ðepc  ecc Þ + 2scc e2cc
bh2 1
+ kð1  kÞf2Y 2 g
6 et pffiffiffiffiffi 
et Y + Ec et
Ft = pffiffiffiffiffi , c = kh = pffiffiffi Y
E c et + Y
h
h c et
qEffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
where Y = E2 ðet  epc Þ2 + 2spc ðet  epc Þ + scc epc + spc ðepc  ecc Þ
 pffiffiffiffiffi 
(T3) Strain-softening with (a) 04et 4ecc bh2 2 Ec 2 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi

a vertical load drop Mt = E0 et pffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffi , MLOP = bh6 scc Ec ecc pffiffiffiffiffiffi ffi2 pffiffiffiffiffi
Ec ecc + scc
6pffiffiffiffiffi pEffiffiffiffi c ffi+
 E0
et Ec + E0
Ft = pffiffiffiffiffi
h pEffiffiffiffiffiffi
c
scc
c = kh = pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffiffi h
Ec ecc + s( cc )
(b) ecc 4et bh2 1 3 2
2 2E2 ðet  ecc Þ + 3ðspc  E2 ecc Þðet  ecc Þ
Mt = ð1  kÞ
6 e2t + 6spc ecc ðet  ecc Þ + 2scc e2cc
bh2 1
+ kð1  kÞf2X 2 g
6 et pffiffiffiffiffi  qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
et X + Ec et
Ft = pffiffiffiffiffi , where X = E2 ðet  ecc Þ2 + 2spc ðet  ecc Þ + scc ecc
h Ec e t
X
c = kh = pffiffiffiffiffi h
X + Ec et

ecc = 0:0004 = epc , spc = 5 MPa, Ec = 50; 000 MPa,
and E2 = 5000 MPa. Using the tensile model T3 , the
calculation provides E0 = 25; 000 MPa.
Select eT = 1:0001 ecc , using equation in Table 1 for
stage (b) of tensile model T3 , the calculation provides
MLOP = 11:7157 ðbh2 =6Þ at et = ecc and MT = 11:7151
ðbh2 =6Þ at et = eT and thus ratio MT =MLOP =
0:99995 \ 1, that is, there is a reduction in moment
right after LOP and flexural behavior would be deflec-
tion-softening.
Nguyen et al.
Figure 10. Shapes of tensile models of UHPFRCs to surely produce deflection-hardening and the flexural stress and strain at the
beam bottom at MOR: (a) strain-hardening (T1), (b) strain-softening with an inclined load drop (T2), and (c) strain-softening with a
little vertical load drop (T3).
Figure 11. Shape of tensile model of UHPFRCs to possibly
produce deflection-softening and the flexural stress and strain at
the beam bottom at LOP.
Effects of tensile-softening portion on the moment
resistance
Performance of the tensile-softening branch, accompa-
nied by propagation of localized crack, significantly
affects the moment resistance of UHPFRCs. The
UHPFRC with higher energy absorption capacity in
direct tension generally produces a higher moment
resistance and deflection capacity. Following examples
for the three tensile models will clearly show the men-
tioned effects:
1. Tensile strain-hardening case. Considering a
strain-hardening UHPFRC with scc = 7:6 MPa,
spc = 11:8 MPa, and epc = 0:006, slope E2 varies
from 666 (1) to 1138 (2) and to 1614 MPa (3). The
beam has a span length of 450 mm, and width and
depth of cross section of 150 mm. Using the tensile
129
model T1 , the section analysis gives the results as
follows: PMOR =PLOP = 3:28; 3:22; and3:19, respec-
tively, and dMOR = 1:85; 1:68; and 1:59 mm,
respectively. Figure 12 shows that both load-
carrying and deflection capacity of UHPFRC
decrease with the increase in slope E2 , that is,
UHPFRC absorbing more energy in direct tension
will produce higher moment resistance and deflec-
tion capacity. In addition, all predicted load versus
deflection curves exhibit deflection-hardening
behavior ðPMOR =PLOP . 1Þ.
2. Tensile strain-softening with an inclined load drop
case. Considering a strain-softening UHPFRC
with scc = 9 MPa, ecc = 0:0003, and spc =
4:5 MPa, slope E1 varies from 1071 (1) to 2045 (2)
and to 6429 MPa (3). The beam has a span length
of 450 mm, width and depth of cross section of
150 mm. Using the tensile model T2 , the section
analysis gives the results as follows:
PMOR =PLOP = 1:83; 1:69; and 1:44, respectively,
and dMOR = 0:47; 0:35; and 0:22mm, respectively.
Figure 13 shows that both load-carrying and
deflection capacity of UHPFRC decrease with the
increase in slope E1 . All predicted load versus
deflection curves also exhibit deflection-hardening
behavior ðPMOR =PLOP . 1Þ.
3. Tensile strain-softening with a vertical load drop.
Considering a strain-softening UHPFRC with
scc = 9 MPa, ecc = epc = 0:0005, load drop ratio
n = spc =scc varying from 0.28 (1) to 0.44 (2) and
to 0.72 (3). Beam has span length of 450 mm,
width and depth of cross section of 150 mm. Using
the tensile model T3 , the section analysis gives the
results as follows: PMOR =PLOP = 0:67; 0:91;
and 1:31, respectively and dMOR = 0:23; 0:30; and
0:53mm, respectively. Figure 14 shows that both
load-carrying and deflection capacity of UHPFRC
decrease with the increase in load drop ratio
n = spc =scc . UHPFRC with little load drop
n = 0.72 . 0.67 (3) will produce deflection-
hardening behavior ðPMOR =PLOP . 1Þ, whereas
130 Journal of Strain Analysis 52(2)

Figure 12. Effect of softening slope E2 on flexural parameters of tensile strain-hardening UHPFRCs: (a) model of tensile strain-
hardening with varied slope E2, (b) predicted flexural behavior, (c) effect of E2 on ratio PMOR =PLOP , and (d) effect of E2 on dMOR.

Figure 13. Effect of softening slope E1 on flexural parameters of tensile strain-softening UHPFRCs with an inclined load drop:
(a) model of tensile strain-hardening with varied slope E1, (b) predicted flexural behavior, (c) effect of E1 on ratio PMOR =PLOP , and
(d) effect of E1 on dMOR.
Nguyen et al.
Figure 14. Effect of spc =scc ratio on flexural parameters of tensile strain-softening UHPFRCs with sudden load drop: (a) model of
tensile strain-softening with varied spc =scc ratio, (b) predicted flexural behavior, (c) effect of spc =scc on PMOR =PLOP , and (d) effect of
spc =scc on dMOR.
UHPFRC with n = 0.28 and n = 0.44 \ 0.67
(1 and 2) will produce deflection-softening beha-
vior ðPMOR =PLOP \ 1Þ. Moment resistance and
deflection capacity are ranked as follows:
(3) . (2) . (1).
Effects of tensile strength and ductility of UHPFRCs
on the moment resistance
Both direct tensile strength and ductility of UHPFRC
affect moment resistance capacity.21,22 Three types of
UHPFRCs with same energy absorption capacities ðTÞ
but different tensile strengths were investigated for
exploring how much effect of tensile strength and ducti-
lity of UHPFRCs on the Mmax . To simplify the investi-
gation, the model of tensile response was interpreted to
be uniform. The uniform tensile stress of UHPFRC1,
UHPFRC2, and UHPFRC3 was assumed to be s0 ,
2s0 , and 3s0 , respectively, corresponding to their ulti-
mate strain e0 , 1=2e0 , and 1=3e0 , respectively. Figure 15
shows the assumed strain and stress distributions along
the depth of section and comparison result. The Mmax
increases as the tensile strength of UHPFRC increases,
that is, the tensile strength much effects on the Mmax
than the ductility (strain capacity).
131
Predicting flexural behavior of UHPFRCs
The predicted flexural behaviors in this research
(notated as Pre-) were compared to experimental ones
(notated Ex-) referred to previous research of Nguyen
et al.20 The investigated UHPFRC contained a blend
of 1% twisted and 1% short, smooth steel fiber by vol-
ume. Three different sizes of flexural specimens (width
3 depth 3 span length) were 50 3 50 3 150 mm3 (S),
100 3 100 3 300 mm3 (M), and 150 3 150 3 450 mm3
(L), while the size of tensile specimen (width 3 thick-
ness 3 gauge length L) was 50 3 50 3 175 mm3. All
flexural specimens were examined under four-point
bending test, whereas the tensile specimens were tested
under direct tension. The simplified compressive and
direct tensile response of UHPFRC is modeled in
Figure 16(a) based on experimental test. Figure 16(b)
shows the predicted and experimental flexural beha-
vior. Table 2 provides the parameters of the material
models used for the prediction, while Table 3 shows the
comparative flexural resistances. The results of the pre-
dicted and experimental flexural behavior according to
size of flexural specimens are dissimilar. For large-sized
specimen, the predicted and experimental curves are
fairly fit, and the difference between them is more and
more as the size of flexural specimen decreased. The
132 Journal of Strain Analysis 52(2)

where Mt and Mad are the predicted moment resistance

from section analysis and predicted moment resistance
after adjusting, respectively; j1 is the factor considering
specimen size according to Weibull’s theory of size
effect, and Table 4 can be used to compute the effective
volume of beam according to loading configuration;27
and j2 is the factor considering specimen geometry.
Although the general equation for predicting
moment resistance was proposed in this research, fur-
ther investigation is required with larger database from
experimental test to determine the values of j1 and j2
convincingly.

Conclusion
This research provides useful information for the design
of UHPFRC flexural members by performing the sec-
tion analyses of the UHPFRC flexural member. The
following conclusions can be drawn from this analytical
study:

 Condition to produce a deflection-hardening of

UHPFRC is explored as follows: the direct tensile
Figure 15. The assumed strain and stress distributions at performance demonstrates strain-hardening, strain-
section and the derived moment resistance capacities of softening with an inclined load drop, or strain-
UHPFRCs. softening with a slight vertical load drop
ðð2=3Þecc 4epc \ ecc Þ. A deflection-softening could
Table 2. Parameters of the material models used for the only be produced from a strain-softening with a
prediction.20,24. significant vertical load drop ðepc \ ð2=3Þecc Þ.
 At MOR of a deflection-hardening UHPFRC, the
Compressive behavior scu ðMPaÞ 170 tensile strain at beam bottom exceeds strain capac-
ecu ð%Þ 0.4 ity while the corresponding tensile stress at beam
Direct tensile behavior scc ðMPaÞ 0.025
ecc ð%Þ 7.56 bottom is lower than direct tensile strength.
spc ðMPaÞ 11.78  The softening portion of a direct tensile behavior of
epc ð%Þ 0.58 UHPFRC, accompanied by propagation of loca-
scu ðMPaÞ 7.00 lized crack, significantly affects moment resistance
ecu ð%Þ 1 and even governs deflection-softening or hardening
*On the branch of localized crack opening. of UHPFRC. Generally, UHPFRC absorbing
more energy in direct tension would produce higher
explanation of such difference is due to the size effect moment resistance and deflection capacity.
of UHPFRC which was reported in Nguyen et al.,20,26  Moment resistance capacity is significantly depen-
that is, the flexural strength is only one in analysis but dent on tensile strength rather than ductility of
really changed according to different size geometries UHPFRC although both tensile strength and strain
from experiment. Therefore, the predicted moment capacity of UHPFRC affect the produced flexural
resistance should be adjusted as equation (12) behavior.
 The factor of size and geometry effect should be
Mad = j1 j2 Mt ð12Þ considered in predicting the flexural behavior of
UHPFRC.

Table 3. Comparative flexural resistances.

Flexural specimen Predicted flexural resistance Experimental flexural resistance20 Ratio

pre pre
fMOR PMOR dpre
MOR
exp
fMOR exp
PMOR dexp
MOR
exp
PMOR pre
=PMOR dexp pre
MOR =dMOR
MPa kN mm MPa kN mm

Small 26.43 22.02 0.560 38.91 32.43 0.893 1.47 1.59

Medium 26.43 88.09 1.119 29.10 97.02 1.272 1.10 1.14
Large 26.43 198.19 1.679 26.99 202.43 1.861 1.02 1.11
Nguyen et al. 133

Figure 16. The comparison between experimental flexural behaviors of UHPFRC under four-point bending test and predicted
ones: (a) model of compressive and tensile response and (b) the predicted (Pre-) and experimental (Ex-) flexural behavior.

Table 4. Effective volumes for rectangular beams.27 2. Benson SDP and Karihaloo BL. CARDIFRCÒ—devel-
opment and mechanical properties. Part III: uniaxial ten-
Configuration Effective volume sile response and other mechanical properties. Mag
Concrete Res 2005; 57(8): 433–443.
Uniform bending V=½2ðm + 1Þ 3. Rossi P, Arca A, Parant E, et al. Bending and compres-
Three-point V=½2ðm + 1Þ2  sive behaviours of a new cement composite. Cement Con-
Four-point, general ðV=2Þ½ðm + 1  2nmÞ=ðm + 1Þ2 y crete Res 2005; 35(1): 27–33.
Four-point, 1/4-point ðV=4Þ½ðm + 2Þ=ðm + 1Þ2  4. Graybeal B. Compressive behavior of ultra-high-
Four-point, 1/3-point ðV=6Þ½ðm + 3Þ=ðm + 1Þ2  performance fiber-reinforced concrete. ACI Mater J
ym
2007; 104(2): 146–152.
Weibull modulus indicating brittleness of material, considered as
5. Graybeal B and Davis M. Cylinder or cube: strength
material property; n: location of applied load from either outer support
testing of 80 to 200 MPa (11.6 to 29 ksi) ultra-high-
point, for example, for four-point bending, 1/4-point loading, n = 1/4.
performance fiber-reinforced concrete. ACI Mater J
2008; 105(6): 603–609.
Acknowledgements 6. Farhat FA, Nicolaides D, Kanellopoulos A, et al. High
The opinions expressed in this paper are those of the Performance fibre-reinforced cementitious composite
authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the (CARDIFRC)—performance and application to retrofit-
sponsors. ting. Eng Fract Mech 2007; 74(1–2): 151–167.
7. Wille K, Kim DJ and Naaman AE. Strain-hardening
UHP-FRC with low fiber contents. Mater Struct 2011;
Declaration of conflicting interests 44: 583–598.
8. Park SH, Kim DJ, Ryu GS, et al. Tensile behavior of
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest
ultra high performance hybrid fiber reinforced concrete.
with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publi-
Cement Concrete Comp 2012; 34(2): 172–184.
cation of this article. 9. AFGC Groupe de Travail BFFUP. Ultra high performance
fiber-reinforced concretes: interim recommendations—
Funding scientific and technical committee. Paris: Association
Francxaise de Genie Civil, 2002.
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following finan- 10. Japan Society of Civil Engineers (JSCE). Recommenda-
cial support for the research, authorship, and/or publi- tions for design and construction of ultra high strength fiber
cation of this article: This research was supported by reinforced concrete structures (Draft) (JSCE guidelines for
Sejong University and Ho Chi Minh City University of concrete no. 9). Tokyo, Japan: JSCE, 2006.
Technology and Education. 11. Almansour H and Lounis Z. Design of prestressed
UHPFRC girder bridges according to Canadian High-
way Bridge Design Code. In: Proceedings of the interna-
References
tional workshop on ultra high performance fiber reinforced
1. Chanvillard G and Rigaud S. Complete characterization concrete (UHPFRC), Marseille, 17–18 November 2009,
of tensile properties of DUCTALÒ UHP-FRC according pp.1–16. London: Hermes Science Publishing Ltd.
to the French recommendations. In: Proceeding of the 12. Naaman AE. Strain hardening and deflection hardening
4th international workshop on high performance fiber rein- fiber reinforced cement composites. In: Proceedings of the
forced cement composites (HPFRCC4) (ed AE Naaman 4th international symposium on high performance fiber
and HW Reinhardt), Ann Arbor, MI, 16–18 June 2003, reinforced cement composites, Ann Arbor, MI, USA, June
pp.21–34. Bagneux: RILEM Publications SARL. 15–18 2003, pp.95–113, RILEM Publications S.A.R.L.
134
13. Soranakom C, Mobasher B and Bansal S. Effect of mate-
rial non-linearity on the flexural response of fiber rein-
forced concrete. In: Proceedings of the 8th international
symposium on brittle matrix composites (BMC8), Insty-
tut Podstawowych Problemów Techniki, Warschau War-
saw, 22–25 October 2006 Cambridge: Woodhead Publ.
[u.a.], 2006.
14. Soranakom C and Mobasher B. Closed-form solutions
for flexural response of fiber-reinforced concrete beams.
J Eng Mech: ASCE 2007; 133(8): 933–941.
15. Soranakom C and Mobasher B. Correlation of tensile
and flexural responses of strain softening and strain hard-
ening cement composites. Cement Concrete Comp 2008;
30: 465–477.
16. Kanakubo T. Tensile characteristics evaluation method
for ductile fiber-reinforced cementitious composites. J
Adv Concr Technol 2006; 4(1): 3–17.
17. Naaman AE and Reinhardt HW. Chapter 41: characteri-
zation of high performance fiber reinforced cement com-
posites. In: Naaman AE and Reinhardt HW (eds) High
performance fiber reinforced cement composites: HPFRCC
2: proceedings of 2nd international workshop on HPFRCC
(RILEM no. 31). London: E. & F.N. Spon, 1996, pp.1–24.
18. Naaman AE and Reinhardt HW. Proposed classification
of HPFRC composites based on their tensile response.
Mater Struct 2006; 39: 547–555.
19. Lofgren I. Fibre-reinforced concrete for industrial
construction—a fracture mechanics approach to material
testing and structural analysis. PhD Thesis, Department
of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Chalmers Uni-
versity of Technology, Goteborg, 2005, 268 pp.
20. Nguyen DL, Kim DJ, Ryu GS, et al. Size effect on
flexural behavior of ultra-high-performance hybrid
fiber-reinforced concrete. Compos Part B: Eng 2013; 45:
1104–1116.
Journal of Strain Analysis 52(2)
21. Nguyen DL and Kim DJ. Predicting flexural behavior of
ultra-high-performance fiber-reinforced concrete based
on uniaxial tensile behavior. In: Proceeding of the 9th
Korea-Japan joint seminar on bridge maintenance, Kush-
iro, Japan, 24–27 July 2013, pp.77–79, conference
organizer.
22. Nguyen DL. Size dependent mechanical behavior of ultra-
high-performance fiber-reinforced concrete. PhD Disserta-
tion, Sejong University, Seoul, Korea, 2015, 88 pp.
23. Al-Azzawi AA, Sultan A and Risan HK. Behavior of
ultra high performance concrete structures. ARPN J Eng
Appl Sci 2011; 6(5): 95–109.
24. Nguyen DL and Kim DJ. Compressive behavior of ultra-
high-performance fiber-reinforced concretes with steel
fiber. In: Proceedings of the KCI conference, Jeju, Korea,
14–17 May 2014, pp.945–946, Korea Concrete Institute.
25. RILEM TC 162-TDF: test and design methods for steel
fibre reinforced concrete—s-e design method. Mater
Struct/Matériaux et Construction 2003; 36: 560–567.
26. Nguyen DL, Ryu GS, Koh KT, et al. Size and geometry
dependent tensile behavior of ultra-high-performance
fiber-reinforced concrete. Compos Part B: Eng 2014; 58:
279–292.
27. Quinn GD. Weibull strength scaling for standardized rec-
tangular flexure specimens. J Am Ceram Soc 2003; 86:
508–510.
28. Sujivorakul C. Flexural model of doubly reinforced
concrete beams using ultra high performance fiber rein-
forced concrete. In: Proceedings of Hipermat 2012 3rd
international symposium on Ultra-high performance fiber
reinforced concrete and Nanotechnology for high perfor-
mace construction materials, Kassel, Germany, 2012,
pp. 435–442.