Composite Structures 252 (2020) 112685

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Effect of steel-polypropylene hybrid fiber and coarse aggregate inclusion on

the stress–strain behavior of ultra-high performance concrete under uniaxial
compression
Fangqian Deng, Lihua Xu ⇑, Yin Chi ⇑, Fanghong Wu, Qian Chen
School of Civil Engineering, Wuhan University, 8 Dong Hu South Road, Wuhan 430072, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This paper investigates for the first time the effect of blending hybrid steel‐polypropylene fiber (SF‐PF) and
Ultra‐high performance concrete coarse aggregate (CA) on the stress–strain behavior of ultra‐high performance concrete (UHPC) under uniaxial
Steel fiber compression. The uniaxial compression tests of UHPC specimens were carried out for different SF‐PF, CA
Polypropylene fiber dosages and PF aspect ratios. Results show that the addition of hybrid SF‐PF not only helps build stronger inter-
Coarse aggregate
faces in UHPC, but also alters the failure pattern. The single corporation of SF significantly enhances the tough-
Compressive behavior
Stress–strain response
ness, while the compressive strength and elastic modulus are diminished due to the less strong and compact
‘skeleton’ structure composed of the cement unhydrated core and hydrated coating. The toughness can be fur-
ther improved under larger PF aspect ratio for the higher PF utilization ratio in restraining micro‐cracks’
growth. The inclusion of CA leads to an evident increase in both the strength and modulus attributed to the
increasing packing density and stronger ‘skeleton’, but simultaneously reduces the deformability and tough-
ness. PF could compensate for the adverse effects of CA on the toughness without sinking too much. Finally,
a developed analytical model is presented for predicting the UHPC compressive stress–strain behavior consid-
ering the dosage of SF, PF and CA.

1. Introduction
Over the past few decades, remarkable advances have been
achieved in the area of concrete material, typified by the research
and application of ultra‐high performance concrete (UHPC) [1].
Equipped with high strength, improved ductility and durability, satis-
factory workability and volume stability, UHPC is regarded as the ‘fu-
ture’ material with prospective usage in high‐rise buildings, large‐span
space structures, bridge engineering and other infrastructures [2].
The superior performance of UHPC is attributed to the condensed
microstructure via high density particle packing as well as the fiber
reinforcing effect sourced from relatively high volume content of steel
fibers [3]. It has to be noted that the condensed microstructure is
achieved by utilizing various cementitious materials, including a high
dosage of cement, silica fume, fly ash, ground granulated blast furnace
slag and fine quartz sand [4]. Nowadays, in order to meet the growing
demand of UHPC in civil infrastructure, the ever‐increasing consump-
tion of cement accelerates significant emissions of greenhouse gases,
thereby causing seriously environmental issues [5]. On the other hand,
the well‐chosen raw materials and the sophisticated curing technolo-
gies [6,7] during the UHPC fabrication process are also energy‐
intensive, leading to a significant increase in the industrial production
cost. In view of this, considerate efforts have been devoted to the com-
position optimization to seek for UHPC manufacturing with less cost
and energy consumption [8]. Up to date, the inclusion of coarse aggre-
gate (CA) into the UHPC matrix has been proposed as a viable route to
mitigate its current limits and broaden its application [9–11]. CA is a
more economic material than other raw materials, thus can act as a
substitute for expensive quartz sand without impairing the mechanical
strengths of UHPC [6,11]. For the compressive behavior, Cetin and
Carrasquillo observed that in normal concrete, the maximum compres-
sive strength was achieved when using an optimum CA content
between 36% and 40% [12]. Furthermore, the hydration temperature
rise can also be lowered due to the decreased binder content and its
strong restraint on the shrinkage of UHPC [13]. Nevertheless, the
inclusion of CA would cause uneven fiber dispersion [14] and mean-
while introduce more weak interfaces and more flaws into UHPC
[15], which results in a lower bonding strength and fiber utilization
efficiency, and consequently, a lower toughness and fracture energy
[10]. Therefore, for UHPC incorporating CA, the optimal content of

⇑ Corresponding authors at: School of Civil Engineering, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430072, China.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2020.112685
Received 4 March 2020; Revised 8 June 2020; Accepted 1 July 2020
Available online 7 July 2020
0263-8223/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
F. Deng et al.
CA should be investigated carefully in order to obtain better mechan-
ical properties.
The fibers as equally essential components are incorporated in the
UHPC for the main purpose of overcoming its brittle nature as well as
enhancing its tensile strength [16]. UHPC without fibers exhibits very
brittle failure with tensile strength ranging from 7 MPa to 10 MPa,
while fiber reinforced UHPC poses higher tensile strength varying
from 7 MPa to 15 MPa and ductile behavior in the post‐cracking stage
with pronounced descending portion in the stress–strain diagram [17].
Among multiple fiber types involved, steel fiber (SF) is the most pop-
ular due to its high strength and modulus, that can avoid the occur-
rence of fiber fracture at the cracking zones in UHPC, providing
superior crack‐bridging capabilities [1]. A number of experimental
studies have been conducted towards the evaluation on the effects of
SF on mechanical properties of UHPC, and it is unanimously acknowl-
edged that the addition of SF can improve the peak strength and post‐
peak behavior in tension, compression and bending with the failure
model of UHPC specimens transformed from complete damage or sud-
den explosion into a ductile failure [18]. Recently, El‐Helou et al. [19]
have presented a series of compressive tests on UHPC with SF contents
of 0, 2% and 4% in order to capture the full compressive stress–strain
curve. These test results show that SFs slightly increase the peak com-
pressive strength by about 12% compared to that of UHPC without
fibers but not so much difference in the peak compressive strength
between fiber volume of 2% and 4%. Note that for concrete materials,
including UHPC, the fracture process to failure is manifested in multi‐
scales: from microscale to macroscale. SF is a common‐used macro‐
fiber that can bridge macro cracks and then prevent their further prop-
agation in a large scale; however, for the micro cracks emerged at the
early stage, the inhibition effect of SF is limited. Inspired by this, quite
a few researchers have made attempts to employ the combination of
multiple fibers into cementitious matrix to take full advantage of each
fiber’s bridging effect on the cracks of different scales at different load-
ing stages [13,20–23]. It has been proved that polypropylene fiber
(PF), as a typical kind of micro‐fiber, can effectively improve the over-
all properties of cementitious material when combined with steel fiber
forming a hybrid fiber (HF) system. For instance, Yu et al. reported
that the ultimate flexural strength of UHPC with SF (2 vol%) and PF
(0.4 vol%) is about 25 MPa, which is clearly larger than the one with
SF only (about 19 MPa) [24]. In addition, PFs do not corrode, and are
thermally stable, so that they can be chemically inert in the alkaline
environment of concrete [25,26]. Moreover, PF has a hydrophobic sur-
face—it does not interfere with the concrete hydration reaction [27]. It
was also confirmed that the addition of PF played a distinct role in
enhancing the bonding behavior of SF in ordinary HF reinforced con-
crete [28]. Thus, a combination of SF‐PF in concrete could take advan-
tages of both fibers’ material properties to effectively improve the
interfacial conditions by restricting the incidence and propagation of
concrete cracks [8]. For the UHPC with aggregates, it was also found
that the interfacial transition zone (ITZ) between the aggregate and
matrix can be linked by PFs which bridge the micro‐cracks at the
ITZ [24,29].
As a matter of fact, the response of UHPC subjected to compression
is a foundation for successful analyses and design of structures. Thus
far, many experiments have been conducted on the UHPC compressive
strength and elastic modulus, with a range of influential factors taken
into consideration, such as specimen size, pre‐treatment, steel fibers,
Table 1
Chemical compositions of cementitious materials in UHPC, in mass percent (%).
Composition CaO SiO2 Al2O3
Cement 64.94 19.58 4.50
Silica fume 0.213 92.87 0.354
Fly ash 2.44 48.74 30.63
Composite Structures 252 (2020) 112685
casting direction, loading rate, etc. [17,30,31]. However, they were
noted to essentially focus on single steel fiber or hybrid steel fiber just
varying in the fiber length [32], and the effect of combination of dif-
ferent fiber types and aggregates remains to be further elucidated. In
addition, notwithstanding some investigations have been devoted to
determining the overall stress–strain behavior of UHPC, some critical
issues remain to be unveiled, in particular, the hybrid fiber reinforce-
ment mechanism as well as the fiber‐aggregate hybrid effect on the
compressive constitutive relationship of UHPC.
The objective of this study is to investigate the uniaxial compres-
sive behavior of UHPC blended with HF and CA. The failure mode,
micro‐scale failure mechanism, stress–strain curve, compressive
strength, deformation capacity and roughness are evaluated. The influ-
ences of SF content, PF content, PF aspect ratio and CA content on
these parameters are discussed. Finally, a developed analytical model
is proposed to predict the uniaxial compressive response of UHPC with
HF and CA contents considered.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Materials and mix proportions
To form the cementitious binder in the UHPC matrix (named as
CM), three types of cementitious materials were used: P·O 52.5 Ordi-
nary Portland Cement (OPC), silica fume and fly ash. The chemical
compositions of these cementitious materials in the form of oxide were
examined by X‐ray fluorescence (XRF) and listed in Table 1. The nat-
ural river sand with a fineness modulus of 2.6 and a maximum size
of 2.36 mm was used as the fine aggregate. The particle size distribu-
tions of the used granular materials are shown in Fig. 1. In addition, a
polycarboxylate‐based superplasticizer with a water‐reducing effi-
ciency greater than 30% was adopted to improve the workability of
the UHPC. The mix proportion of the UHPC matrix is given in Table 2
complying with the Specification JGJ 55‐2011 [33] and GB/T 31387‐
2015 [34]. Moreover, to investigate the hybrid fiber effect on the com-
pressive behavior, two different types of fibers were considered in this
study, i.e., SF and PF, as shown in Fig. 2. The detailed characteristics of
both fibers are listed in Table 3. The PF with different aspect ratios
from 167 to 396 were considered. The crushed granite with irregular
shape and texture was used as the CA at a bulk density of 1.51 g/cm3
and grain size mainly ranging from 5 mm to 20 mm. The CA was
washed before casting to eliminate the effect of dust on the water
consumption.
For fiber reinforced concrete materials, two of the most important
factors that affect the concrete properties are fiber aspect ratio (ratio of
fiber length over diameter) and volume fraction [1]. In current
research, the fiber reinforcement indices in terms of SF volume frac-
tion, PF aspect ratio and PF volume fraction are the main variables,
and their respective values for each specimen group are summarized
in Table 4. It was observed that increasing the SF volume content to
1% or 1.5% has an obvious effect on strengthening and toughening
the UHPC, while the SF with a dosage greater than 2% are hardly dis-
persible during the mixing procedure [35,36]. Therefore, to find the
optimal SF content, straight SF at volume fractions of 1.5%, 1.75%
and 2.0% were used, and the aspect ratio of SF was kept at 60 with
a fixed length of 12 mm. For PF, three kinds of volume fractions
(0.05%, 0.10% and 0.15%) and aspect ratios (167, 280 and, 396) were
Fe2O3 SO3 MgO K2O Na2O
3.12 3.06 2.14 0.75 0.079
0.113 1.26 0.224 0.332 0.068
2.611 0.706 0.575 1.25 0.552
2
F. Deng et al.
Fig. 1. Particle size distributions of the used granular materials.
selected according to the literature [21,22,28,37]. For CA, three differ-
ent volume dosage (0, 15% and 30%) were adopted to investigate the
synergistic effect of CA and HF content on the mechanical behavior of
UHPC under compression referring to [10]. As a result, a total of 31
specimen groups were designed, including 1 group of controlled UHPC
specimens without addition of fibers and aggregates, 3 groups of single
fiber reinforced UHPC, 15 groups of hybrid fiber reinforced UHPC and
12 groups of UHPC with aggregate added (Table 4). Note that
three identical specimens were prepared and tested for each batch of
UHPC.
2.2. Specimen preparation
To prepare the specimens, a 100L vertical planetary mixer with a
maximum mixing speed of 120r/min was used. The mixing procedure
was carried out in the following steps: First, all of the dry components,
including cement, silica fume, fly ash, fine sand and crushed granite
were dry‐mixed for 2–3 min to obtain a good dispersion; Secondly,
approximately three quarters of superplasticizer and all the water were
well premixed and then poured into the dry mixture. Third, after wet‐
mixing for 5 min, as the mixture had enough fluidity and viscosity, the
SFs and PFs were slowly sprinkled into the mixture by hand and mixed
for another 3 min. Finally, the remaining superplasticizer was added
and mixing was continued for a while until good flowability was
achieved.
Thereafter, each batch of the fresh UHPC mixture was cast into
three plastic moulds with a dimension of
100 mm × 100 mm × 300 mm placed on a vibrating table. After com-
paction for about 1 min to eliminate air bubbles in UHPC, the speci-
mens were covered with plastic sheets to prevent loss of moisture
during hardening. Then, all the specimens were demolded after 24 h
rest followed by 28 days curing in a standard curing room at 20 °C
and 95%RH. When curing is completed, the specimens were then dried
in an air‐tight container for 24 h to prevent further hydration of
cementitious materials. In addition, for each batch, six cubic speci-
mens with 100 mm side length were prepared from the same batch
mixture for basic compressive and split tensile strength tests (Table 4).
Moreover, to reveal the mechanism underlying the synergic effect of
fiber and coarse aggregate, some typical small‐sized samples with
the long side less than 20 mm were taken from the UHPC specimens
Table 2
Mix proportion of the UHPC matrix without fibers (kg/m3).
Cement Silica fume Fly ash
800 50 150
Composite Structures 252 (2020) 112685
and then the micro‐structures of the samples were then observed using
Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM).
2.3. Testing methods
Prior to compression tests, all the UHPC prisms were grinded to
minimize uneven surfaces at each end. The actual height of each spec-
imen was measured and recorded. Then, the compression tests were
conducted using the RMT‐301 mechanics test system with a load
capacity of 1500 kN. The system is a computer‐controlled, multi‐
functional, electro‐hydraulic, servo testing machine for the mechanical
properties of specific materials such as rock and concrete. Two linear
variable differential transformers (LVDTs) were located vertically
and connected to a digital transducer to capture the displacement of
the specimen. The force was directly recorded by the load cell attached
to the testing machine. The experimental setup for the uniaxial com-
pression test is presented in Fig. 3.
In accordance with the Chinese standard CECS 13:2009 [38], each
specimen was preloaded to a load value of about 20 kN. After that, the
quasi‐static loading for measuring the complete stress–strain curve is
implemented by a displacement control scheme. The loading rate
applied to the prismatic specimen was 0.001 mm/s until the displace-
ment recorded reaching about 3.5 mm.
After the compression tests, the micro‐structures of the UHPC
small‐sized samples were observed by SEM. In preparation for the
SEM test, all samples were stored in a vacuum drying oven at 60 °C
for 48 h and then the sample surfaces were coated with carbon to
increase the electrical conductivity. The image analysis is based on
measurement of signals from the secondary electron‐sample interac-
tion for surface topology with the accelerating voltage of 15 kV.
3. Experimental results and discussion
3.1. Failure mode
The typical failure patterns of UHPC prismatic specimens are
shown in Fig. 4. As can be seen from Fig. 4a, pure UHPC without fibers
or CAs failed in an extremely brittle manner under compression with a
sudden explosion at the peak stress accompanying with a fragmenta-
tion. In contrast, UHPC specimen with SF showed a shear or cone‐
shear failure mode instead of vertical splitting as shown in Fig. 4b,
which is in consistent with the reported observations [17,39]. When
the load reaches its maximum, an initial main crack formed in the
diagonal direction. Owing to the activated crack‐bridging effect pro-
vided by the evenly distributed SFs, the crack gradually propagated
into multiple micro‐crack, thus preventing the fragmentation and
retaining the specimen’s integrity. Moreover, smaller width of the
main crack was observed for specimens with higher volume fraction
of SF.
Fig. 4c displays the representative failure pattern for the prisms
made of UHPC containing hybrid SF‐PF. Similar to the specimen S20
containing single SF, the failure of specimen S20PA10 containing HF
also demonstrate a diagonal cracking pattern but with less crack width
and limited crack extension length. This means the addition of PF has a
positive effect on the crack‐resistance. This is because, from the per-
spective of smaller length scale, fibers in the matrix restrain the crack
propagation through a fiber bridging‐debonding‐sliding process [40].
It was interestingly found that the addition of PF plays a useful role
in enhancing the bonding performance between the SF and matrix,
Sand Water Superplasticizer Water/binder ratio
1220 160 30 0.16
3
F. Deng et al. Composite Structures 252 (2020) 112685

Fig. 2. Photo of steel fiber, polypropylene fiber and coarse aggregate. (a) SF; (b) PF; (c) CA.

Table 3
Fiber characteristics.

Fiber type Name Geometry Density (kg/m3) Diameter (mm) Length (mm) Aspect ratio Tensile strength (MPa) Modulus (GPa) Texture

SF S straight 7850 0.2 12 60 2800 200 Brass-coated

PF PA filament 910 0.048 8.0 167 400 4 as-received
PB 13.4 280
PC 19.0 396

Table 4
Specimen design and variables considered in the compression test.

No. Specimen name Volume fraction of SF/% Volume fraction of PF/% Volume fraction of CA /% Aspect ratio of PF fcu* (MPa) fst* (MPa)

1 S15PA05 1.50 0.05 0 167 118.2 13.66

2 S15PA10 1.50 0.10 0 167 124.3 15.19
3 S15PB10 1.50 0.10 0 280 108.6 13.53
4 S15PC10 1.50 0.10 0 396 95.4 11.99
5 S15PA15 1.50 0.15 0 167 114.4 12.26
6 S17PA05 1.75 0.05 0 167 111.6 15.49
7 S17PA10 1.75 0.10 0 167 118.4 16.03
8 S17PB10 1.75 0.10 0 280 103.4 14.22
9 S17PC10 1.75 0.10 0 396 90.7 13.48
10 S17PA15 1.75 0.15 0 167 111.1 15.28
11 S20PA05 2.00 0.05 0 167 103.1 14.13
12 S20PA10 2.00 0.10 0 167 113.3 15.62
13 S20PB10 2.00 0.10 0 280 95.1 14.09
14 S20PC10 2.00 0.10 0 396 90.7 12.79
15 S20PA15 2.00 0.15 0 167 98.8 14.01
16 S20PA05C15 2.00 0.05 15 167 135.9 13.42
17 S20PA10C15 2.00 0.10 15 167 123.1 15.60
18 S20PA15C15 2.00 0.15 15 167 125.7 15.57
19 S20PA05C30 2.00 0.05 30 167 136.9 12.24
20 S20PA10C30 2.00 0.10 30 167 127.1 13.08
21 S20PA15C30 2.00 0.15 30 167 118.5 11.32
22 S20PB10C15 2.00 0.10 15 280 125.1 11.49
23 S20PB10C30 2.00 0.10 30 280 123.1 13.41
24 S20PC10C15 2.00 0.10 15 396 95.2 10.38
25 S20PC10C30 2.00 0.10 30 396 109.6 12.73
26 S20C15 20 0 15 – 141.4 15.20
27 S20C30 20 0 30 – 123.8 12.64
28 S15 1.50 0 0 – 122.8 14.64
29 S17 1.75 0 0 – 115.3 15.49
30 S20 2.00 0 0 – 103.9 14.68
31 CM 0 0 0 – 91.2 2.51

*Note: fcu and fst respectively denote the cube compressive and split tensile strength of the UHPC specimen. Each value presented here is the averaged test result
from three specimens of the same batch. Take the “S20PB10C15” as an example, which means the designed UHPC specimen with the SF volume fraction, PF
volume fraction, CA volume fraction and PF aspect ratio of 2.0%, 0.1%, 15% and 280, respectively.

including the chemical adhesion and friction resistance [28]. There-
fore, the introduction of HF not only results in building up a stronger
fiber–matrix interface, but also improves the failure pattern of single
fiber reinforced UHPC, leading to a near‐intact specimen shape after
failure.
The UHPC specimens with both HF and CA, as shown in Fig. 4d,
demonstrated a cone‐shear or shear failure mode as well as a good
integrity like those in Fig. 4b and c. By contrast, more diagonal cracks
with less crack width were observed in Fig. 4d. In these specimens, the
CAs at the fracture plane were ruptured. This is consistent with the

4
F. Deng et al.
Fig. 3. Test setup.
Fig. 4. The typical failure patterns of UHPC specimens.
findings in [35,39] that CA at the crack tip can restrain the extension
of micro‐cracks in the initial stages, and once these micro‐cracks con-
verge into macro‐ones, some cracks would extend through the CA,
which make use of the full strength potential of CA. Therefore, the
advantages by introduction of CA are two‐fold: 1) leading to an
increase in aggregate‐matrix interfaces, which are commonly taken
as weak links in the UHPC; 2) acting as a crack arrestor at early stages
like SF, resulting in a comprehensive inhibition effect on cracks
together with HF in different loading periods.
3.2. Stress–strain response
The uniaxial compressive stress–strain curves of all the specimens
are grouped according to the influential factors and displayed in
Fig. 5a–f. Apparently, the stress–strain curve can be mainly divided
into two sections: an ascending section up to the peak stress and a
descending section to a relatively stable value of the residual stress.
The ascending section can be further divided into a linear elastic seg-
ment and a nonlinear segment. For the UHPC matrix without any fiber
added in, i.e. specimen CM, the uniaxial compressive stress increases
almost linearly with strain up to the maximum followed by a sudden
failure. Owing to the abrupt, explosive manner of CM specimen failure,
the descending part of the curve was hardly captured.
It can be easily seen from Fig. 5a that the maximum compressive
stress of UHPC strengthened with SF is higher than that of specimen
CM. Moreover, the elastic stiffness, the peak stress, the peak strain
and the post‐peak softening performance vary with three kinds of vol-
ume fractions in SF added. For a fixed SF dosage, the effects of PF with
5
Composite Structures 252 (2020) 112685
three dosages and aspect ratios on the stress–strain curves are pre-
sented in Fig. 5b–d. In comparison to the UHPC specimen containing
single SF, the incorporation of HF renders the post‐peak behavior of
UHPC more ductile, despite a lower compressive strength observed
if more PF are added. As to the effect of PF aspect ratio, the orange
experimental curves in these figures demonstrate low peak stress
and elastic modulus, which indicates that the longer PF (such as about
19 mm) seems not to be a suitable choice for the reinforcement of
UHPC.
Fig. 5e and f display the experimental curves of UHPC specimens
under compression with both hybrid fiber and coarse aggregate added
in. In the case of the same SF content (Fig. 5d–f), it can be obviously
found that the UHPC with CA has higher compressive strength, mainly
due to the rigid skeleton role of aggregates (including the fine aggre-
gates) in cementitious paste which increases the stiffness and strength
[35]. In addition, as can be seen from Fig. 5e that the existence of PF
can effectively enhance the function of CA when the CA dosage is rel-
atively low, i.e. 15%, while this effect tends to be not very obvious
when the CA dosage becomes 30%.
Based on the directly obtained compressive stress–strain curves and
experimental observations, the typical response for UHPC under com-
pression is sketched in Fig. 6 as well as the micro‐crack growth pro-
cess. The typical curve can be divided into four stages.
• Elastic stage (segment OA)
When the strain goes from zero to point A with the corresponding
stress reaching the greatest value σe that is directly proportional to
F. Deng et al. Composite Structures 252 (2020) 112685

(a) 100 CM (b) 120

S15
(c) 120
S17
S15 S15PA05 S17PA05
100 100
Compressive stress (MPa)

S17 S15PA10 S17PA10

Compressive stress (MPa)

Compressive stress (MPa)

80
S20 S15PA15 S17PA15
80 S15PB10 80 S17PB10
60 S15PC10 S17PC10
60 60

40
40 40

20 20 20

0 0 0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Micro strain Micro strain Micro strain

Fig. 5. Uniaxial compressive stress–strain curves of UHPC specimens. Effect of hybrid fiber content (a–d) and aggregate content (e-–f).

strain, the relationship between the stress and strain can be regarded • Instable crack propagation stage (segment BC)
as linear and the slope is just the elastic modulus. Despite the exis-
tence of initial microcracks in matrix, most of them do not extend. When the strain further increases from the peak stress (point B) to
The interface between the fiber and matrix is initially intact and point C, an obvious softening behavior is shown. At this stage, the
bonded at this stage, thus the fiber reinforcement effect is not obvi- damage accumulation was accelerated with an unsteady propagation
ous [28]. of the multiple cracks until an obliquely penetrating crack was finally
generated. Within the fracture plane region, the intercepted fibers
• Stable crack propagation stage (segment AB) were gradually pulled out from the matrix even some fibers end with
a rupture failure mode. Additionally, the extra inclusion of CA could
By further increasing the load, the stress response gradually devi- work and bring an unknown impact on the fiber’s effect which
ates from being linear, as a consequence of multiple cracks propaga- depends on the relative volume content between fibers and aggregates
tion. During this stage, the micro‐cracks continuously expand, gather [35].
and extend to the crack free zone in the matrix, and finally become dis-
cernible macro‐cracks, which is called the stable crack propagation • Residual stage (segment CD)
stage. The phenomenon observed in the test was that the macroscopic
crack on the surface of the specimen surface formed at an angle of After point C, the stress response would not change rapidly but
about 60° to the loading direction. For the plain UHPC without any reduce slowly with the increase in the compressive strain. Since most
fibers, the macro‐crack usually had a larger width and fewer branches, of the matrix have lost bearing capacity, the compressive resistance
and the concrete on surfaces of the specimen was severely peeled off. mainly relies on the pressure and shear between the opened fracture
After reaching the maximum σp (point B), the compressive stress surfaces and the interfacial bond between the fiber and matrix.
immediately dropped accompanied by a loud explosion sound heard. From the above descriptions, the SF and PF volume fraction, PF
While for the UHPC matrix reinforced with SF or HF, only a small aspect ratio and CA volume fraction in the UHPC matrix are noted
amount of concrete peels off and the crack width is shallow with lots to be significant factors for the UHPC compressive behavior and failure
of branches. At this stage, the crack bridging effect of fiber is gradually process, which will be discussed detailedly in following subsections.
exerted since that with more and more cracks passing through fibers,
the SF or PF across the crack bears the load between the fracture sur- 3.3. Analysis of the factors influencing the uniaxial compressive behavior
faces in the form of chemical adhesion and friction (not fully‐
debonded fibers), which alleviates the stress concentration at the crack From each uniaxial compressive stress vs. strain curve, some critical
tip and delays the expansion of the crack. More importantly, as can be quantities were extracted which can be used to denote the UHPC com-
seen in Fig. 6b, if SF and PF coexist, SF is mainly responsible for pre- pressive behavior, i.e., the peak stress (or compressive strength), peak
venting larger cracks, while PF is mainly for smaller cracks, leading to strain (the strain at the peak stress), modulus of elasticity and tough-
a better crack resistance. With regard to the UHPC containing both HF ness. It is worth mentioning that the toughness index (TI) is normally
and CA, the aggregates could also act as crack arrestors for the fact that used to characterize the uniaxial compressive stress–strain relationship
the strength of the UHPC matrix and ITZ are vastly improved in com- of UHPC after the peak point. TI is a unique parameter to quantify the
parison with plain concrete [39,41] and thus cracks may extend capability of the material to absorb energy and resist fractural damage.
through the aggregate which make more use of the full strength poten- Till now, many researchers have proposed different definitions for TI
tial of CA. of fiber reinforced cementitious composites under compression

6
F. Deng et al.
Fig. 6. The whole process of compression deformation. (a) The typical compressive stress–strain relationship; (b) the micro-scale failure process of UHPC
reinforced with SF, SF + PF and SF + PF + CA.
[42–44]. In current study, the TI is defined as the ratio of the area
under a stress–strain curve up to a strain of three times of the peak
strain divided by that before the peak strain [43]. The averaged result
data of these quantities for each group were figured out and are all
summarized in Table 5. For all cases shown, the ratio of the error to
the averaged value is lower than 5%. Then the influences of the
above‐mentioned variables, i.e., SF dosage, PF dosage and aspect ratio,
CA dosage, are addressed in the following subsections.
3.3.1. Effect of hybrid fiber content
The effects of different hybrid fiber contents on the peak stress,
peak strain, elastic modulus and toughness index are shown in Figs. 7
and 8. The compressive stress recorded of UHPC with simply hybrid
fiber added was found to keep a maximum value in the range from
about 90 MPa to 115 MPa, while the peak strain varies between
2978 με and 3272 με. Obviously, these uniaxial compressive strength
values are not consistent with the definition of UHPC in U.S. and Eur-
ope codes, whereas the current Chinese specification suggests that the
high‐performance concrete with cube compressive strength greater
than 120 MPa be called as UHPC. Due to size effect, concrete cylinders
or prisms exhibit less compressive strength than cubes and the results
shown in Table 4 indicate the cube compressive strength for most spec-
imens still satisfy the definition of UHPC in China. As for the elastic
modulus and toughness index, the values range from 32 GPa to
40 GPa and 1.62 –2.86, respectively.
Compressive strength is one of the most important properties of
cement‐based materials. Most reported experimental studies show that
7
Composite Structures 252 (2020) 112685
steel fibers can slightly increase the compressive strength compared to
that of UHPC without fibers [10,19,35], which is consistent with the
test results in current research (Table 5). When increasing the SF vol-
ume content from 1.5% to 1.75%, it can be easily seen from Fig. 7a
that the peak stress has little change and would drop to a value lower
than 95 MPa or even 85 MPa with the SF content further increased to
2.0%. This finding was also covered by the previous conclusions that
the fiber volume dosage had a limited impact on the compressive
strength [17,29,35], and in some certain studies, increasing the addi-
tion of SF to a relatively high volume even had a negative influence on
the compressive strength [17]. Some possible reasons causing the dif-
ferent rules shown by numerous researchers will be discussed in Sec-
tion 3.4.1. Comparatively, as shown in Fig. 8a and Table 6, there
seems no obvious monotonically increasing or decreasing trend found
in the influence of PF dosage on the compression strength. Nonethe-
less, for the UHPC matrix already incorporating a high dosage of SF,
such as 2.0%, the addition of growing amount of PF can further cause
a slight decrease in the peak stress. Therefore, taking lager values for
both the SF and PF contents at the same time is not advisable.
Elastic modulus (also known as modulus of elasticity, or the coeffi-
cient of elasticity) of concrete materials is a number which is defined
as the slope of the stress–strain curve from stress of zero to a compres-
sive stress of 0.45σp [45]. Physically, it indicates a material’s resistance
to being deformed when the force is applied to it, that is, the stiffness
of a material. The influence of SF content on the elastic modulus is sim-
ilar to that on the compressive strength. Illustrated in Fig. 7c, UHPC
mixture experienced a reduction in the elastic modulus with the addi-
F. Deng et al. Composite Structures 252 (2020) 112685

Table 5
Summary of peak stress, peak strain, elastic modulus and toughness index.

Specimen name Peak stress (MPa) Rσ Peak strain (με) Rε Elastic modulus (MPa) RE Toughness Index/TI

S15PA05 112.4 1.21 3179.49 1.23 38.8 1.01 1.62

S15PA10 110.3 1.19 3215.60 1.24 41.0 1.07 2.09
S15PB10 104.7 1.13 2781.61 1.08 40.0 1.04 2.30
S15PC10 89.3 0.96 3217.41 1.25 32.5 0.85 2.15
S15PA15 108.6 1.17 3272.40 1.27 39.1 1.02 2.05
S17PA05 107.2 1.15 3197.86 1.24 40.4 1.05 1.85
S17PA10 107.6 1.16 3122.32 1.21 37.2 0.97 1.85
S17PB10 96.7 1.04 3146.41 1.22 33.6 0.88 2.06
S17PC10 77.0 0.83 3080.66 1.19 29.6 0.77 2.57
S17PA15 105.9 1.14 3042.53 1.18 38.3 1.00 2.33
S20PA05 91.9 0.99 2978.65 1.15 33.8 0.88 2.27
S20PA10 90.9 0.98 3005.18 1.16 34.4 0.90 2.30
S20PB10 74.5 0.80 2956.82 1.14 29.7 0.78 1.75
S20PC10 89.7 0.96 3075.76 1.19 32.8 0.86 2.54
S20PA15 89.5 0.96 3054.52 1.18 32.9 0.86 2.60
S20PA05C15 101.8 1.09 2751.76 1.07 41.4 1.08 2.44
S20PA10C15 105.5 1.13 2890.34 1.12 41.3 1.08 2.26
S20PA15C15 100.8 1.08 2960.66 1.15 39.5 1.03 2.41
S20PA05C30 115.8 1.25 2803.03 1.08 44.9 1.17 2.83
S20PA10C30 113.1 1.22 2811.75 1.09 46.0 1.20 2.37
S20PA15C30 115.4 1.24 2873.13 1.11 45.7 1.19 2.34
S20PB10C15 108.3 1.16 3188.32 1.23 40.5 1.06 2.51
S20PB10C30 106.0 1.14 2444.26 0.95 50.9 1.33 2.59
S20PC10C15 91.0 0.98 2863.49 1.11 37.6 0.98 2.42
S20PC10C30 88.7 0.95 2606.26 1.01 42.4 1.11 2.35
S20C15 102.1 1.10 2885.53 1.12 39.7 1.04 2.17
S20C30 111.3 1.20 2640.69 1.02 48.6 1.27 2.87
S15 109.6 1.18 3089.61 1.20 38.1 0.99 1.84
S17 108.3 1.16 3061.59 1.19 38.0 0.99 2.25
S20 94.6 1.02 3071.85 1.19 34.5 0.90 2.43
CM 93.0 1.00 2583.52 1.00 38.3 1.00 1.00

Note: Rσ, Rε, RE represent the ratio between the peak stress, peak strain and elastic modulus of UHPC specimen and that of UHPC concrete without fibers or
aggregates, respectively.

Fig. 7. Effect of SF volume content on peak stress, peak strain, elastic modulus and toughness index of UHPC. (a) Peak stress; (b) strain at peak stress; (c) elastic
modulus; (d) toughness index.

8
F. Deng et al. Composite Structures 252 (2020) 112685

Fig. 8. Effect of PF volume content on peak stress, peak strain, elastic modulus and toughness index of UHPC. (a) Ppeak stress; (b) peak strain; (c) elastic modulus;
(d) toughness index.

Table 6
Significance analysis of SF and PF contents on Rσ, Rε, RE and RI.

Analysis parameters
Index Variance Sum of squares S Degree of freedom f Mean square S/f Ratio of F Significance

Rσ A SA = 0.0912 2 0.0456 226.2 **

B SB = 0.0017 3 0.0006 2.75 –
Rε A SA = 0.0085 2 0.0042 4.95 (*)
B SB = 0.0005 3 0.0002 0.18 –
RE A SA = 0.0442 2 0.0221 19.34 **
B SB = 0.0012 3 0.0004 0.35 –
RI A SA = 0.5171 2 0.2585 11.4 **
B SB = 0.2695 3 0.0898 3.97 (*)

Note: Factor A and B denote the volume fractions of SF and PF, respectively.
Value of F for the factors, which appear minor impact [F < F0.90(η1, η2)] are maked with “–” in the table column of significance.
Mark ‘**’ central impact, significance criterion F > F0.99(η1, η2).
Mark ‘*’ secondary impact, significance criterion F0.95(η1, η2) < F < F0.99(η1, η2).
Mark ‘(*)’ tertiary impact, significance criterion F0.90(η1, η2) < F < F0.95(η1, η2).

tion of discrete SFs. Whereas, the PF influence on the modulus of elas-
ticity can be totally negligible as shown in Fig. 8c and Table 6. These
results are consistent with the reporting in literature [46]. As for the
peak strain, it is a result of both the peak stress and elastic modulus,
which indicates the deformability of the specimen at the ultimate
strength. Close rules of SF content on the two performance indexes
shown result in that the SF content would have no obvious impact
on the peak strain, in accord with the trend displayed in Fig. 7b. In
contrast, the slight difference of PF content’s effect on the peak stress
and elastic modulus makes a marginally better deformability of UHPC
with PF added at the peak point as shown in Fig. 8b. For example, in
the UHPC mixtures with 1.5% or 1.75% SF added which are preferable
dosages for the strength and elastic modulus, a higher volume content
of PF addition is appropriate for the deformability property.
Relevant to the compressive strength and deformability of UHPC,
compressive toughness reflects its property of absorbing energy and
resisting damage when it is under compressive damage. As aforemen-
tioned, the compressive toughness index was used to quantitatively
evaluate the specimen toughness. Evidently, this index can compre-
hensively reflect the influence of both the compressive strength and
deformability at the post‐peak loading stage. Based on the test results
plotted in Fig. 7d, it is clearly seen that the addition of SF significantly
enhances the toughness of UHPC and this enhancement effect is sub-
stantially influenced by the increase in the SF content, which is well
supported by many experimental results [8,17,47]. This is mainly
because that when a matrix cracks, the fiber will consume more energy
to overcome the interface friction so that is can be pulled out from the
matrix, thus making UHPC have good integrity after cracking [47].
Specifically speaking, for UHPC mixtures without PF, there is an
increase of 22% and 32% in toughness index for 1.75% and 2.0% SF
volume fractions respectively compared with that for 1.5% SF dosage.
And the extra addition of PF with the aspect ratio of 167 seems to
bring slight changes, on average, to the SF’s enhancement on the
UHPC toughness. From the variance analysis in Table 6, it can be noted
that compared with SF dosage, the effect of PF volume content is
insignificant except for the toughness.
3.3.2. Effect of PF aspect ratio
Fig. 9 illustrates the influence of PF aspect ratio on the peak stress,
peak strain, elastic modulus and toughness index of UHPC. By compar-

9
F. Deng et al.
Fig. 9. Effect of PF aspect ratio on peak stress, peak strain, elastic modulus and toughness index of UHPC. (a) Peak stress; (b) peak strain; (c) elastic modulus; (d)
toughness index.
ison of Figs. 8a and 9a, it can be found that the effect of PF aspect ratio
on the peak stress turns out to be greater than that of PF dosage. Con-
cretely, the compressive strength is reduced in different degree by add-
ing PF with aspect ratio increasing from 167 to 396. For instance, for a
fixed SF content of 1.75%, the reduction rate of peak strength of UHPC
with PF aspect ratio from 280 to 396 nearly twice as much as that with
PF aspect ratio varying from 167 to 280. Moreover, the extra addition
of SF with a higher dosage content would aggravate this decreasing
effect, while adding both SF and CA does not make the case worse. Pre-
sumably, this is mainly due to the fact that longer PF would intertwine
more SF and then group them into clusters, while the addition of CA
could alleviate such problem [37].
Fig. 9b and c show that increasing the PF length makes little impact
on the peak strain, by and large, and meanwhile slightly lower the
elastic modulus. The major advantage of using longer PF consists in
enhancing the toughness of UHPC as depicted in Fig. 9d. That is, the
toughness index of UHPC can be increased by 0.2 to 0.3 when the
PF aspect ratio grows from 167 to 280 for all cases shown. However,
if it further rises to 396, there would be no much change, even a slight
drop observed in the toughness in addition to the specimen S17PC10.
3.3.3. Effect of CA content
Fig. 10 presents the influential rule of CA volume dosage on the
four compressive parameters. It is generally seen that the addition of
CA into UHPC can enhance the compressive strength and elastic mod-
ulus, but reduces the deformability and toughness, which is consistent
with the findings in literature [35]. For instance, as the orange points
shown in Fig. 10a and d, when the respective value of PF content and
aspect ratio are kept at 0.15% and 196, the addition of CA in the
amount of 15% and 30% brings about an increase in the peak stress
by about 12.6% and 28.9%, and a decline in the toughness index by
about 7.3% and 10%. Simultaneously, from Fig. 10b, a decrease in
the peak strain by approximate 3% and 5.9% can also be seen if
increasing the CA content to 15% and 30%. As mentioned above,
the reinforcement mechanism of CA to the strength and elastic modu-
lus can be illustrated on two fronts: one is a more compact microstruc-
ture of UHPC produced and the other is the rigid skeleton of the
10
Composite Structures 252 (2020) 112685
combination of aggregates and fibers in the matrix [35,39,41]. Nota-
bly, if enough HFs were added, the weakening effect of CA on the
UHPC toughness can be negligible. Hence, from these analyses in cur-
rent study, a 15% volume content of CA is advised to be added into the
UHPC matrix to achieve better performance.
3.4. Discussion: mechanism of fiber and aggregate’s effect
3.4.1. Effect of SF
As the most commonly used fiber type in UHPC applications, SF has
been extensively confirmed to enhance the material’s performance in
many aspects, such as the crack resistance, tensile and flexural
strength, ductility and toughness [9,17,30,32,35,48]. With regard to
the compressive behavior, it was widely believed that the addition
of SFs substantially increased the compressive strength, compared to
the mixtures without fibers [9,35,39,49]. Nonetheless, it has not come
to any uniform conclusion about the relationship between the SF con-
tent and the compressive strength. It is argued that the higher amount
of SF provided an improvement of the compressive strength
[39,50,51], or did not have a considerable impact [17,29] or even
has a negative influence on it [32]. These differences, absolutely, are
caused by various reasons, such as the fiber shape, mixture proportion
as well as other manufacture conditions. Herein, why these differences
occurred cannot be explained in this study. Instead, the mechanism of
SF’s effect can still be analyzed from a meso‐ or even micro‐ perspec-
tive. The following is a two‐sided analysis of probable reasons that
would cause decrease and increase of compressive strength with SF
dosage growing.
The observation results of UHPC’s microstructure morphology by
scanning electron microscope (SEM), as shown in Fig. 11, indicated
that the matrix structure of hardened paste was rather dense due to
its low water/binder ratio. The UHPC matrix is composed of hydration
products, un‐hydrated cement clinker particles and powder particles
like fly ash (see Fig. 11b). In the process of hydration reaction, an
interface is definitely formed between the incompletely hydrated core
and the surrounding hydrated products. These un‐hydrated cores are
embedded in the hydrated products with an orderly distribution, and
F. Deng et al.
Fig. 10. Effect of CA volume content on peak stress, peak strain, elastic modulus and toughness index of UHPC. (a) Peak stress; (b) peak strain; (c) elastic modulus;
(d) toughness index.
Fig. 11. SEM observations of matrix and steel fiber interface in UHPC. (a) A typical region of UHPC matrix; (b) an enlarged view of a local region in the left image;
(c) the region of SF –matrix ITZ.
plays a role like a skeleton to the hydrated matrix as illustrated in
Fig. 12a, thus leading to the ultra‐high strength of UHPC [8,52].
Based on the already existed ‘skeleton’ structure in UHPC on the
microscopic scale, the introduction of SF into the mixture is bound
to bring some changes on this structure due to the wetting properties
of SF. SF behaves hydrophilic and water would move to its surface
[53], so that in the vicinity of the surface, there is an obvious interfa-
cial transition zone (hereafter referred to as ITZ) between the SF and
matrix where water/binder ratio keeps higher than the matrix far
away, which can be clearly seem from previous nanoindentation test
results on the SF‐cementitious matrix ITZ as shown in Fig. 13 [54].
From Fig. 13(a) and (b), less water is able to react with cement in
the matrix away from the ITZ. Thereby, if we plus the elastic modulus
distribution of individual iron oxide and hardened cement paste (HCP)
together, the total elastic property distribution like a trough at the ITZ
can be obtained in Fig. 13(c), consistent with the nanoindentation
results shown in Fig. 13(d) and (e). Likewise, for the SF‐matrix ITZ
in UHPC with a low water/binder ratio shown in Fig. 11c, it can be
predicted that a larger incompletely hydrated degree of cement clinker
would be found in the matrix. That is to say, smaller coating thickness
11
Composite Structures 252 (2020) 112685
of hydrated products surrounding the cores would be obtained and
instead the void spaces between the clinker particles could not be fully
filled and remain empty. Therefore, some particle cores are separated
without continuous coatings as illustrated in Fig. 12b and make little
contribution to building the whole ‘skeleton’ structure. Under uniaxial
compressive loading, this ‘skeleton’ structure, as the major contributor
to resisting external forces, tends to be less strong and compact com-
pared to that shown in Fig. 12a. This is a probable reason to explain
why increasing SF content renders the UHPC compression strength
to be lower.
It is important to note that in the above explanation, the externally
applied compressive force is predominantly borne by the ‘skeleton’
structure composed of the core‐coating system without considering
the effect of SF due to its low content in the whole mixture. The real
function of SF lies in the effective resistance of crack propagation in
those local tensile regions within the matrix though under compressive
loading, which can be deduced from the failure mode shown in Fig. 4a
and b. In areas where micro‐cracks already exist, randomly distributed
SFs bridge those cracks passed through by them and restrain cracks’
growth as sketched in Fig. 14a, therefore, leading to a multiple‐
F. Deng et al. Composite Structures 252 (2020) 112685

Fig. 12. Schematic diagrams of the skeleton role of incompletely hydrated cores in UHPC. (a) UHPC mixture without fibers; (b) UHPC mixture with SF.

Fig. 13. Nanoindentation test results on the SF-cementitious matrix ITZ. (a) Distribution of main element contents in the ITZ by EDS results; (b) ITZ formation
mechanism; (c) schematic diagram of elastic property superposition of the Hardened cement paste (HCP) and Fe oxide at ITZ; (d) 2D contour map of elastic
modulus distribution at ITZ; (e) distributions of average elastic properties with different water/cement (w/c) ratios at ITZ [54].

smeared cracking pattern other than the occurrence of remarkable
mono‐cracks. Then, a better matrix integrity obtained enhances the
bearing capacity of UHPC and more SFs added would further increase
this enhancement. The toughness can also be improved ascribed to
fiber bridging‐debonding‐sliding failure mode which produces much
more dissipated energy [40].
Overall, the above two sides seem paradoxical but either of them
plays a role in influencing the compressive behavior. Therefore, it will
depend on which side dominates whether the compressive strength is
increased or reduced. In other words, the shown rule between the SF
content and compressive strength from the experimental research
can backwards reflect which side matters more.
3.4.2. Hybrid effect of SF and PF
As presented in Table 6, the effect of PF volume content is insignif-
icant on the compressive strength, while some slight improvements in
the toughness can still be seen with PF content growing. The reason for
this phenomenon can be revealed from the point of SF bonding behav-
ior, which has been discussed in our previous related work [28] as
shown in Fig. 15. From the SF pull‐out test results in HF reinforced
concrete in this figure, increasing the PF volume content in the matrix
has positive effects on the interfacial bonding property of SF. For
instance, the addition of PF with 0.10% volume content into the
matrix could averagely increase the SF pull‐out peak load, residual
load and pull‐out energy by about 40%, 35% and 50%. These phenom-

12
F. Deng et al.
Fig. 14. Schematic of the bridging action of SFs on the crack propagation with
(a) different SF content and (b) different PF aspect ratios.
ena can be explained by two main reasons. One is that SF is hydrophi-
lic while PP fiber behaves as a hydrophobic material, therefore more
water concentrated around the steel fiber make the cement clinker bet-
ter hydrated with a lower porosity in the vicinity of the interface as
sketched in the right‐hand side of Fig. 15; second is that PF can effec-
tively inhibit the nucleation and growth of micro‐cracks in the matrix
as the steel fiber is being pulled out. That is to say, a higher content of
PF in the matrix has an enhancement effect on the chemical adhesion
and friction resistance between SF and matrix, at the debonding stage
and frictional sliding stage, respectively. Accordingly, combining with
the discussions aforementioned, better bonding behavior between the
SF and matrix obtained with a modest increase in PF content could
apparently lead to an improvement in the toughness; nevertheless,
whether the compressive strength changes or not is still uncertain
according to the analysis in the previous subsection.
Another thing to note that using longer PF or increasing PF aspect
ratio also helps to enhance the toughness of UHPC, as depicted in
Fig. 15. Effect of PF volume fraction on SF pull-out behavior and PF reinforcement mechanism on SF chemical adhesion and friction resistance [28].
13
Composite Structures 252 (2020) 112685
Fig. 9d. Let us consider two cases of UHPC mixture where PF has dif-
ferent aspect ratios, but the PF volume for them are kept to be equal.
Under this condition, it is easy to see that the total number of PF for
the case with lower PF aspect ratio is less than the other case, and vice
versa as sketched in Fig. 14b. Presuming all the PF can be distributed
randomly in the matrix, longer PF would intercept more microcracks
and transfer the force from the neighboring concrete zone to farther
areas, thus naturally reducing the stress concentration within the
whole matrix. For this reason, longer PF has higher utilization ratio
in the terms of restraining the microcracks’ growth; therefore, the
toughness can be improved to a certain extent under higher PF aspect
ratio.
3.4.3. Hybrid effect of CA and PF
Given the difficulty of extracting some direct information about the
hybrid effect of CA and PF on the compressive strength and toughness
from Fig. 10, the evaluation method ‐ hybrid effect index α was
employed in this study [55]:
fh  f0
α¼ ð1Þ
∑ðf i  f 0 Þ  βi
βi ¼ V i =V
∑βi ¼ 1
where fh denotes the compressive strength or toughness index of UHPC
with both CA and PF, while fi is for UHPC with single CA or PF (i refers
to CA or PF); f0 denotes that for UHPC with no CA and PF, but just a
fixed 2.0% content of SF instead; βi is the relative volume fraction of
CA or PF in the whole volume of CA and PF; Vi is the volume of CA
or PF and V is the total volume including all of them.
It should be noted that in the calculation of fi, the volume of CA or
PF should be the same as the volume of CA or PF in the hybrid volume
V. Hereby, when α > 1, the hybrid effect is positive; when α < 1, the
hybrid effect is negative. Another thing to notice is that the index α is
not applicable to the evaluation of the hybrid effect involving SF for
that the SF dosage designed ranges from 1.5% to 2.0% in steps of
F. Deng et al.
0.25%, but not starts from zero. This is the reason why this evaluation
method was not used in other subsections.
By using Eq. (1) and Table 5, the calculated hybrid effect indexes of
UHPC with different CA and PF contents are listed in Table 7. It can be
seen that the hybrid indexes for UHPC specimens with 30% volume
content of CA addition are all larger than 1, indicating that a higher
dosage of CA can effectively improve the compressive bearing capac-
ity, but also weaken the toughness. In this case, a PF volume fraction
of 0.5% is optimum to maximize this positive effect on the strength
and at the same time keep the toughness maintained without sinking
too much. When the CA volume content is moderate, i.e., 15%, the
hybridization of CA and PF with 0.1% dosage plays a positive effect
on the compressive strength but an apparently negative influence on
the toughness.
3.4.4. Hybrid effect of SF, PF and CA
It is well known that UHPC achieves high‐performance characteris-
tics partly because of its high packing density as well as a relatively
low porosity. Packing density provides an indication of how efficiently
particles fill a certain volume. If a high volume of aggregates is packed
in a given volume, the need for cementitious binder, which is rather
highly priced in the case of UHPC, to fill the voids between aggregates
and fibers will be decreased [56–58]. In view of this, increasing the
packing density of the granular raw materials (aggregates, cementi-
tious materials, etc.) is one step towards lowering the porosity of the
hardened material.
In the case of traditional HF reinforced UHPC, the binder, com-
posed of cementitious materials and fine aggregates with two‐sized
spherical particles as an example for simplification (such as the size
of 1 mm and 2 mm shown in Fig. 16a), fill in the space between SF
and PF. The maximum solid concentration, which occurs when the
particles are tightly packed against each other, is taken as the packing
density of fine aggregates. When lowering the scale from millimeter to
micrometer, the paste filled in the space between fine aggregates, con-
sists of the cement core‐coating system as aforementioned in Sec-
tion 3.4.1. Fig. 16b shows a sketch that irregularly shaped CAs with
larger particle size commonly ranging from 5 to 15 mm are added into
the UHPC. Note that the diameter size of CA and length size of fibers
are basically in the same order of magnitude, resulting in that CA can
be distributed between the fibers to partly avoid fiber cluster. Under
the millimeter scale, by comparing Fig. 16a and b it can be easily seen
that if a proper amount of smaller particles (fine aggregates) is added
to larger particles (coarse aggregates), the smaller particles would fill
the voids between the larger ones, thus increasing the packing density
and meanwhile decreasing the total surface area of all aggregates. Gen-
erally, the larger the surface area is, the smaller the water film thick-
ness coating the cement clinker would be. That is, another
advantage of adding CA lies in helping build an enough thick coating
surrounding the cement clinker to avoid empty avoids between clink-
ers, and thus more clinker particles can work together forming a stron-
ger ‘skeleton’ like that shown in Fig. 12. From the above, the
increasing packing density and the stronger clinker ‘skeleton’ simulta-
neously play a strengthening effect on the compressive strength of
UHPC with CA as the blue line shown in Fig. 17.
Table 7
The comparison of hybrid effect index of UHPC with different CA and PF
contents.
Hybrid effect index α
Specimen name
compressive strength toughness index
S20PA05C15 0.96 −0.04
S20PA10C15 1.47 0.66
S20PA15C15 0.84 0.08
S20PA05C30 1.26 0.91
S20PA10C30 1.11 −0.14
S20PA15C30 1.25 −0.2
14
Composite Structures 252 (2020) 112685
The SEM image in Fig. 17 presents there still exist some micro‐
debonding and micro‐cracks at the ITZ between the aggregate and
matrix [35], though UHPC was proved to have a more compact ITZs
than the conventional concrete [8,59]. Hence, the A‐M ITZ is deemed
as the weakest link in the UHPC and this weakening effect would grow
with the CA content increasing as the brown line shown in Fig. 17. If
we subtract the brown line from the blue line in the graph, the red line
can be obtained, which indicates the real relationship between the
compressive bearing capacity and the CA content. Once the beneficial
effect of increased capacity compensates for the adverse effects of
micro‐defects, the maximum compressive can be achieved where the
CA content reaches the optimum content [35]. This is consistent with
previously reported findings [60,61], wherein the compressive
strength of normal strength concrete and high strength concrete
increased as the CA content growing. Given this, it can be deduced
from Fig. 10 that the CA content of 30% is under the optimum content
so that an increase in the peak stress was observed when the CA dosage
increased from zero to 30%.
4. Analytical model for stress–strain relationship under uniaxial
compression
Analogous to plain concrete, the compressive stress–strain constitu-
tive relation of UHPC is of significant importance in the analysis and
design of UHPC structural members. Till now, a number of empirical
expressions for the stress–strain relation of fiber reinforced concrete
have been proposed for predicting the behavior of UHPC under com-
pression [32,39,44,62,63]. Herein, the compressive stress–strain rela-
tionship expression suggested by the China Code GB50010‐2010 [62]
was introduced for its simple form and accessibility of satisfying pre-
dicting the ascending part and descending part of the curves of tradi-
tional fiber reinforced concrete materials. The equations are given as
follows:
σ ¼ ð1  dc ÞEɛ ð2Þ
where σ and ε denote the actual compressive stress and strain of the
UHPC specimen, respectively; E is the modulus of elasticity; dc is
defined as the elastic damage evolution parameter under uniaxial com-
pression, ranged between 0 and 1 and is monotonically increasing with
the strain, shown as Eq. (3) which is the original expression in the code
[62].
( ρn
1  n1þx ðx ⩽ 1Þ
dc ¼
n
ð3Þ
ρ
1  kðx1Þ 2
þx
ðx > 1Þ
σp Eɛ p
ρ¼ ; n¼ ð4Þ
Eɛ p Eɛp  σ p
where σp and εp denote the peak stress and peak strain, respectively; k is
the parameter that controls the shape of the descending branch of the
curve; x = ε/εp.
This model showed a good agreement with the ascending part of
the experiment curves in this study. However, due to the rather high
compressive strength of UHPC, the descending part of Eq. (3) could
not match well with the current results. Hence, two correction factors,
k1 and k2, are introduced to better reflect the real complete stress–-
strain curve. Then, dc turns into the following form:
( ρn
1  n1þx n ðx ⩽ 1Þ
dc ¼ ρ ð5Þ
1  k ðx1Þ k2
þx
ðx > 1Þ
1
where k1 and k2 are parameters that control the descending branch of
the curve for UHPC specimen under compression. It is noted that k2
should be greater than or equal to 0.8, to guarantee the monotonic
decrease of the σ‐ε curve or the monotonic increase of dc under the con-
dition of 1 < x ≤ 5 since the ultimate strain is generally no more than
five times the peak strain.
F. Deng et al. Composite Structures 252 (2020) 112685

Fig. 16. Simplified multi-scale depiction of the effect of aggregate size distribution on the UHPC packing density. (a) hybrid fiber reinforced UHPC without CA; (b)
hybrid fiber reinforced UHPC with CA.

Fig. 17. Compensation between the strengthening and weakening effects of CA on the compressive bearing capacity.

To figure out the values of k1 and k2 for each curve, two main steps Table 8
were needed: first, the values of σp, εp and E were calculated through Values of parameters k1 and k2 for each UHPC specimen.
equations with the volume fractions of SF, PF and CA as the indepen-
Specimen name k1 k2 R2
dent variables which can be derived from statistical regression analy-
ses. The suggested regression equations are shown in Eqs. (6)–(8). S15PA05 10.184 0.800 0.509
Second, substituting the calculated σp, εp and E into Eqs. (4) and (5) S15PA10 5.664 0.800 0.924
S15PA15 6.504 0.967 0.979
yields a complete stress–strain function with only two unknown
S17PA05 8.034 0.819 0.894
parameters, k1 and k2. Afterwards, a best fitting statistical analysis S17PA10 11.027 1.203 0.816
was performed to match each experimental curve in Fig. 5. Finally, S17PA15 5.163 1.329 0.878
the values of k1 and k2 as well as the coefficient of determination R2 S20PA05 5.422 1.171 0.977
are obtained and summarized in Table 8. S20PA10 4.663 0.873 0.932
S20PA15 3.425 1.197 0.969
σ p ¼ 4:175 V 3SF  7:52 V PF þ 0:691 V CA þ 126:809 ð6Þ S20PA05C15 4.040 0.865 0.839
S20PA10C15 4.936 0.986 0.952
S20PA15C15 4.288 1.302 0.899
ɛ p ¼ 0:037V 3SF þ 0:598 V PF  0:008 V CA þ 3:266 ð7Þ S20PA05C30 2.756 1.504 0.979
S20PA10C30 4.886 1.569 0.994
E ¼ 1:175 V 3SF  3:84 V PF þ 0:399 V CA þ 44:071 ð8Þ S20PA15C30 4.7271 1.146 0.973
S20C15 6.406 1.278 0.955
where VSF, VPF and VCA denote the SF, PF and CA volume fraction in S20C30 2.428 1.421 0.998
UHPC, respectively and the unit here is percentage. S15 11.837 1.248 0.811
To check the validity of the analytical model, some experimental S17 5.597 1.134 0.917
S20 4.075 0.956 0.975
compressive stress–strain responses and predicted results are com-

15
F. Deng et al.
Fig. 18. Typical comparisons of predicted results and experimental results of the uniaxial compressive stress–strain curve for UHPC specimens. Current study:
S15PA05 (a), S17PA10 (b), S20C30 (c), S20PA10C15 (d); Independent study: VSF = 2.0% [32] (e), VSF = 2.0%, VAG = 30% [39] (f).
pared and presented in Fig. 18a–d. Satisfactory correlation can be
observed between the two curves shown in each figure. Moreover,
the verification of the analytical model was also carried out to ascer-
tain its feasibility of predicting the compressive stress–strain behavior
in independent studies [32,39]. The specimens chosen in the litera-
ture [32,39] are named as L0S2 and OM, respectively. For L0S2,
the given parameter is the SF addition at a 2.0% dosage in the UHPC
matrix; while for OM, both SF of 2.0% dosage and CA of 30% dosage
are added. Note that the analytical model in current study has its lim-
itation and application range, including the SF volume fraction
between 1.5% and 2.0, the peak strain no more than about
125 MPa. In view of this, the peak stress and peak strain of the
OM were simultaneously expanded by 1.1 times during calculating
the predicted the response attributed to the difference of mixture
proportion between the current study and the literature [39]. It
can be seen from Fig. 18e and f that the proposed analytical model
gives a good prediction of the uniaxial compressive response in HF
and CA reinforced UHPC. It is therefore believed, under the above
conditions, the model can be applied to economic control and design
of UHPC in future practical engineering.
5. Conclusions
From the above research results and analyses, the following conclu-
sions can be drawn:
1. The addition of SF‐PF hybrid fiber into UHPC not only helps build
stronger interfaces, but also improves the failure pattern of UHPC,
leading to a more near‐intact shape after failure. The single incor-
poration of SF significantly enhances the UHPC toughness and this
enhancement effect positively correlates with the SF dosage caused
by the energy dissipation during the fiber bridging‐debonding‐
sliding failure at the crack zone, while the compressive strength
and elastic modulus are diminished due to the less strong and com-
pact ‘skeleton’ structure. For the UHPC mixture containing 1.5% or
1.75% SF with relatively high strength and modulus, a higher vol-
ume content of PF addition is appropriate for the deformability and
toughness on account of its positive effect on the SF interfacial
16
Composite Structures 252 (2020) 112685
bond. Moreover, the toughness can be further improved to certain
extent under larger PF aspect ratio, such as 280 and 396.
2. Under the PF content and aspect ratio kept at 0.15% and 196, the
addition of CA in the amount of 15% and 30% brings about an
increase in the peak stress by about 12.6% and 28.9%, and a
decline in the toughness index by about 7.3% and 10%. The
increased packing density and stronger clinker ‘skeleton’ are coop-
eratively responsible for the strengthening effect on the compres-
sive strength of UHPC with CA, while the micro defects in the
CA‐matrix interface weaken the UHPC properties. In such case,
the addition of SF and PF could cause the weakening effect of CA
on the UHPC toughness to be negligible.
3. A developed analytical model is presented for predicting the com-
pressive stress–strain behavior of UHPC with the dosage of SF, PF
and CA taken into consideration. The research results prove that
UHPC can achieve both satisfied compressive behavior and eco-
nomic benefit with an optimum content of CA added, which paves
a way towards construction material design and prospective engi-
neering applications of UHPC with a lower carbon footprint. It
should also be pointed out that further studies on the relationship
between the macroscopic mechanical response and microstructure
evolution of UHPC with CA is needed for better understanding the
underlying failure mechanism.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Fangqian Deng: Investigation, Data curation, Methodology, For-
mal analysis, Writing ‐ original draft. Lihua Xu: Conceptualization,
Writing ‐ review & editing, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Project
administration. Yin Chi: Writing ‐ review & editing, Validation, Pro-
ject administration. Fanghong Wu: Investigation, Resources. Qian
Chen: Investigation.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
F. Deng et al.
Acknowledgements
This study was financially supported by the National Natural
Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 51738011, No. 51978538
and No. 51878519). The authors greatly appreciate their financial
support.
References
[1] Wu CQ, Li J, Su Y. Development of ultra-high performance concrete against blasts:
from materials to structures, first ed. Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing; 2018.
[2] Azmee NM, Shafiq N. Ultra-high performance concrete: From fundamental to
applications. Case Stud Constr Mater 2018;9:e00197.
[3] Yoo DY, Banthia N. Mechanical properties of ultra-high-performance fiber-
reinforced concrete: a review. Cem Concr Compos 2016;73:267–80.
[4] Wille K, Naaman AE, Parra-Montesinos GJ. Ultra-high performance concrete with
compressive strength exceeding 150 MPa (22 ksi): a simpler way. ACI Mater J
2011;108(1):46–54.
[5] Lima C, Caggiano A, Faella C, Martinelli E, Pepe M, Realfonzo R. Physical
properties and mechanical behaviour of concrete made with recycled aggregates
and fly ash. Constr Build Mater 2013;47:547–59.
[6] Wille K, Naaman AE, El-Tawil S, Parra-Montesinos GJ. Ultra-high performance
concrete and fiber reinforced concrete: achieving strength and ductility without
heat curing. Mater Struct 2012;45(3):309–24.
[7] Chan YW, Chu SH. Effect of silica fume on steel fiber bond characteristics in
reactive powder concrete. Cem Concr Res 2004;34(7):1167–72.
[8] Wang DH, Shi CJ, Wu ZM, Xiao JF, Huang ZY, Fang Z. A review on ultra high
performance concrete: Part II. Hydration, microstructure and properties. Constr
Build Mater 2015;96:368–77.
[9] Zhang LH, Liu JZ, Liu JP, Zhang QQ, Han FY. Effect of steel fiber on flexural
toughness and fracture mechanics behavior of ultra high-performance concrete
with coarse aggregate. J Mater Civ Eng 2018;30(12):4018323.
[10] Liu JZ, Han FY, Cui G, Zhang QQ, Lv J, Zhang LH, et al. Combined effect of coarse
aggregate and fiber on tensile behavior of ultra-high performance concrete. Constr
Build Mater 2016;121:310–8.
[11] Yu R, Spiesz P, Brouwers HJH. Mix design and properties assessment of Ultra-High
Performance Fibre Reinforced Concrete (UHPFRC). Cem Concr Res
2014;56:29–39.
[12] Cetin A, Carrasquillo RL. High-performance concrete: Influence of coarse
aggregates on mechanical properties. ACI Mater J 1998;95(3):252–61.
[13] Yoo DY, Kim SW, Park JJ. Comparative flexural behavior of ultra-high-
performance concrete reinforced with hybrid straight steel fibers. Constr Build
Mater 2017;132:219–29.
[14] Liu JP, Li CF, Liu JZ, Cui G, Yang ZQ. Study on 3D spatial distribution of steel
fibers in fiber reinforced cementitious composites through micro-CT technique.
Constr Build Mater 2013;48:656–61.
[15] Tasdemir C, Tasdemir MA, Lydon FD, Barr BIG. Effects of silica fume and aggregate
size on the brittleness of concrete. Cem Concr Res 1996;26(1):63–8.
[16] El-Dieb AS. Mechanical, durability and microstructural characteristics of ultra-
high-strength self-compacting concrete incorporating steel fibers. Mater Des
2019;30(10):4286–92.
[17] Hoang AL, Fehling E. Influence of steel fiber content and aspect ratio on the
uniaxial tensile and compressive behavior of ultra high performance concrete.
Constr Build Mater 2017;153:790–806.
[18] Shi CJ, Wu ZM. Ultra-high performance concrete. Kirk-Othmer Encycl Chem
Technol 2018.
[19] El-Helou RG, Moen CD, Cusatis G. Ultra-high performance fiber-reinforced
concrete: extensive material characterization, model validation, and structural
simulations. Presentation at ACI Fall 2014 convention, Washington, DC; 2014.
[20] Chi Y, Yu M, Huang L, Xu LH. Finite element modeling of steel-polypropylene
hybrid fiber reinforced concrete using modified concrete damaged plasticity. Eng
Struct 2017;148:23–35.
[21] Huang L, Chi Y, Xu LH, Chen P, Zhang AL. Local bond performance of rebar
embedded in steel-polypropylene hybrid fiber reinforced concrete under
monotonic and cyclic loading. Constr Build Mater 2016;103:77–92.
[22] Huang L, Xu LH, Chi Y, Xu HR. Experimental investigation on the seismic
performance of steel-polypropylene hybrid fiber reinforced concrete columns.
Constr Build Mater 2015;87:16–27.
[23] Song PS, Wu JC, Hwang S, Sheu BC. Statistical analysis of impact strength and
strength reliability of steel-polypropylene hybrid fiber-reinforced concrete. Constr
Build Mater 2005;19(1):1–9.
[24] Yu R, Tang P, Spiesz P, Brouwers HJH. A study of multiple effects of nano-silica
and hybrid fibres on the properties of ultra-high performance fibre reinforced
concrete (UHPFRC) incorporating waste bottom ash (WBA). Constr Build Mater
2014;60:98–110.
[25] Lopez-Buendia AM, Romero-Sanchez MD, Climent V, Guillem C. Surface treated
polypropylene (PP) fibres for reinforced concrete. Cem Concr Res
2013;54:29–35.
[26] Zheng Z, Feldman D. Synthetic fibre-reinforced concrete. Prog Polym Sci 1995;20
(2):185–210.
[27] Zhu YG, Kou SC, Poon CS, Dai JG, Li QY. Influence of silane-based water repellent
on the durability properties of recycled aggregate concrete. Cem Concr Compos
2013;35(1):32–8.
17
Composite Structures 252 (2020) 112685
[28] Deng FQ, Ding XX, Chi Y, Xu LH, Wang L. The pull-out behavior of straight
and hooked-end steel fiber from hybrid fiber reinforced cementitious
composite: experimental study and analytical modelling. Compos Struct
2018;206:693–712.
[29] Smarzewski P, Barnat-Hunek D. Property assessment of hybrid fiber-reinforced
ultra-high-performance concrete. Int J Civ Eng 2018;16(6a):593–606.
[30] Yoo DY, Yoon YS. A review on structural behavior, design, and application of ultra-
high-performance fiber-reinforced concrete. Int J Concr Struct Mater 2016;10
(2):125–42.
[31] Yoo DY, Kim MJ, Kim SW, Park JJ. Development of cost effective ultra-high-
performance fiber-reinforced concrete using single and hybrid steel fibers. Constr
Build Mater 2017;150:383–94.
[32] Wu ZM, Shi CJ, He W, Wang DH. Uniaxial compression behavior of ultra-high
performance concrete with hybrid steel fiber. J Mater Civil Eng 2016;28
(12):6016017.
[33] JGJ 55-2011. Specification for mix proportion design of ordinary concrete. Beijing:
China Architecture and Building Press; 2011.
[34] GB/T 31387-2015. Reactive powder concrete. Beijing: Standards Press of China;
2015.
[35] Xu LH, Wu FH, Chi Y, Cheng P, Zeng YQ, Chen Q. Effects of coarse aggregate and
steel fibre contents on mechanical properties of high performance concrete. Constr
Build Mater 2019;206:97–110.
[36] Xu LH, Lu QR, Chi Y, Yang YX, Yu M, Yan YX. Axial compressive performance of
UHPC filled steel tube stub columns containing steel-polypropylene hybrid fiber.
Constr Build Mater 2019;204:754–67.
[37] Chi Y, Xu LH, Zhang YY. Experimental study on hybrid fiber-reinforced concrete
subjected to uniaxial compression. J Mater Civ Eng 2014;26(2):211–8.
[38] CECS 13:2009. Standard test methods for fiber reinforced concrete. Beijing: China
Planning Press; 2010.
[39] Liu ZY, Chen WW, Zhang WH, Zhang YS, Lv HL. Complete stress-strain behavior of
ecological ultra-high-performance cementitious composite under uniaxial
compression. ACI Mater J 2017;114(5):783–94.
[40] Chin CS, Xiao RY. Experimental and nonlinear finite element analysis
of fiber-cementitious matrix bond-slip mechanism. In: High performance
fiber reinforced cement composites 6, Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands; 2012. p.
145-52.
[41] Löfgren I. Fibre-reinforced Concrete for Industrial Construction – a fracture
mechanics approach to material testing and structural analysis. Chalmers
University of Technology; 2005.
[42] Nataraja MC, Dhang N, Gupta AP. Stress-strain curves for steel-fiber
reinforced concrete under compression. Cem Concr Compos 1999;21(5–6):
383–90.
[43] Mansur MA, Chin MS, Wee TH. Stress-strain relationship of high-strength fiber
concrete in compression. J Mater Civil Eng 1999;11(1):21–9.
[44] Fanella DA, Naaman AE. Stress-strain properties of fiber reinforced mortar in
compression. ACI J Proc 1985;82(4):475–83.
[45] ACI 318-08. Building code requirements for structural concrete and commentary.
American Concrete Institute; 2008.
[46] Suksawang N, Wtaife S, Alsabbagh A. Evaluation of elastic modulus of fiber-
reinforced concrete. ACI Mater J 2018;115(2):239–49.
[47] Deng MK, Han J, Liu HB, Qin M, Liang XW. Analysis of compressive toughness and
deformability of high ductile fiber reinforced concrete. Adv Mater Sci Eng
2015;2015:1–7.
[48] Kazemi S, Lubell AS. Influence of specimen size and fiber content on mechanical
properties of ultra-high-performance fiber-reinforced concrete. ACI Mater J
2012;109(6):675–84.
[49] Prem PR, Murthy AR, Bharatkumar BH. Influence of curing regime and steel
fibres on the mechanical properties of UHPC. Mag Concr Res 2015;67(18):
1–15.
[50] Krahl PA, Gidrao GDS, Carrazedo R. Compressive behavior of UHPFRC under
quasi-static and seismic strain rates considering the effect of fiber content. Constr
Build Mater 2018;188:633–44.
[51] Wu ZM, Shi CJ, He W, Wu LM. Effects of steel fiber content and shape on
mechanical properties of ultra high performance concrete. Constr Build Mater
2016;103:8–14.
[52] Long GC, Xie YJ, Wang PM, Jiang ZW. Properties and micro/mecrostructure of
reactive powder concrete. J Chin Ceram Soc 2005;33(4):456–61.
[53] Ranjbar N, Talebian S, Mehrali M, Kuenzel C, Metselaar HSC, Jumaat MZ.
Mechanisms of interfacial bond in steel and polypropylene fiber reinforced
geopolymer composites. Compos Sci Technol 2016;122:73–81.
[54] Xu LH, Deng FQ, Chi Y. Nano-mechanical behavior of the interfacial transition
zone between steel-polypropylene fiber and cement paste. Constr Build Mater
2017;145:619–38.
[55] Wang P, Huang Z, Zhou D, Wang X-D, Zhang C. Impact mechanical properties of
concrete reinforced with hybrid carbon fibers. J Vib Shock 2012; 2012,;31
(12):14–8.
[56] De Larrard F, Sedran T. Optimization of ultra-high-performance concrete by the
use of a packing model. Cem Concr Res 1994;24(6):997–1009.
[57] Elrahman MA, Hillemeier B. Combined effect of fine fly ash and packing density on
the properties of high performance concrete: an experimental approach. Constr
Build Mater 2014;58:225–33.
[58] Lange F, Mortel H, Rudert V. Dense packing of cement pastes and resulting
consequences on mortar properties. Cem Concr Res 1997;27(10):1481–8.
[59] Wang C, Yang CH, Liu F, Wan C, Pu XC. Preparation of ultra-high performance
concrete with common technology and materials. Cem Concr Compos 2012;34
(4):538–44.
F. Deng et al.
[60] Meddah MS, Zitouni S, Belâabes S. Effect of content and particle size distribution
of coarse aggregate on the compressive strength of concrete. Constr Build Mater
2010;24(4):505–12.
[61] Stock AF, Hannantt DJ, Williams RIT. The effect of aggregate concentration upon
the strength and modulus of elasticity of concrete. Mag Concr Res 1979;31
(109):225–34.
18
Composite Structures 252 (2020) 112685
[62] GB50010-2010. Code for design of concrete structures. Beijing: China Architecture
and Building Press; 2010.
[63] Ezeldin AS, Balaguru PN. Normal- and high- strength fiber-reinforced concrete
under compression. J Mater Civil Eng 1992;4(4):415–29.