Improving the Failure Mode of Over-Reinforced Concrete

Beams Using Strain-Hardening Cementitious Composites

Ahmed Mohamed Atta 1 and Abd El-Hakim Khalil 2

Abstract: Over-reinforced sections fail suddenly by compression concrete crushing when their ultimate compressive strain has been ex-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Chonbuk National University on 05/21/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ceeded but the longitudinal reinforcement strain has not yielded. This study investigates the use of cementitious repair materials for the
compression side of over-reinforced concrete beams to change their failure mode to ductile failure. In this study, 11 over-reinforced concrete
beams were cast (1 as a control specimen and 10 as strengthened beams). The study’s strengthening material was an ultra-high-performance
strain-hardening cementitious composite (UHP-SHCC). The effect of shear connectors with the strengthening material was investigated.
Meanwhile, replacement of the concrete cover, use of a welded wire mesh inside the additional layer, and concrete strength were tested.
Crack pattern and failure modes were noted, and deflection behavior, failure loads, steel strains, and crack width were measured. The tests
results showed that using strengthening UHP-SHCC material is a highly effective method to increase the load–carrying capacity of existing
over-reinforced concrete beams, and demonstrated the contribution of the proposed technique to improving the ductility behavior of over-
reinforced concrete beams. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000857. © 2016 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Compression failure; Over-reinforced sections; Rehabilitation of structures; Beams; Strain-hardening cementitious
composites; Ultra-high-performance strain-hardening cementitious composite (UHP-SHCC).

Introduction that were strengthened in flexure with a lightly steel-reinforced

One of the most important factors affecting the successful strength-
ening of structures is the selection of the strengthening material, in
which a key factor is compatibility between the strengthening
material and the substrate. Cement-based materials are generally
suitable for repairing and strengthening concrete structures because
of their compatible mechanical and physical properties and other
important considerations such as cost, availability, and construct-
ability (Kamal et al. 2008). The high strength of UHP-SHCC is
an attractive property for strengthening concrete structures. Numer-
ous studies have shown that concrete rehabilitation using ordinary
SHCC is successful at restoring or increasing the load-carrying
capacity of concrete members (Horii et al. 1998; Maalej and Li
1995; Li 1993, 1998, 2004; Li et al. 2000; Kunieda et al. 2006;
Kamal et al. 2008).
One of the most promising areas of application for UHP-SCC is
in the repair of a concrete structure. Several investigations on the
advantages of structures repaired by SHCC have been performed.
Lim and Li (1997) demonstrated the advantages of an interface
crack–trapping mechanism in SHCC/RC composites. The effects
of surface preparation on the fracture behavior of SHCC/RC com-
posites were discussed by Kamada and Li (2000). Additionally, Li
(2004) addressed the required properties for repair materials in
durable repaired concrete structures. Finally, Hussein et al. (2012)
presented ductility behavior in tests on reinforced concrete beams
1
Associate Professor, Faculty of Engineering, Tanta Univ., Tanta 3111,
Egypt; Dept. of Structural Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Tanta
Univ., Seberbay Campus, Tanta 3111, Egypt (corresponding author).
E-mail: Drahmedatta2003@yahoo.com
2
Professor of Concrete Structures, Faculty of Engineering, Tanta Univ.,
Tanta 3111, Egypt.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on July 22, 2015; approved on
October 26, 2015; published online on January 6, 2016. Discussion period
open until June 6, 2016; separate discussions must be submitted for indi-
vidual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Performance of Con-
structed Facilities, © ASCE, ISSN 0887-3828.
SHCC layer (0.3 and 0.6% steel reinforcement ratio). It has been
found that the combination of SHCC and a small amount of
steel reinforcement helps develop a higher strain in the SHCC
strengthening layer at the ultimate load and eliminates observed
early strain localization.
Most design codes limit the amount of tensile reinforcement in
beams to avoid brittle failure. However, a high percentage of steel
reinforcement is sometimes used to minimize structural depth but
still provide adequate stiffness. The limited extent of deflection and
cracking found in over-reinforced beams provides insufficient
warning of impending failure. At present, to avoid brittle compres-
sion failures, codes of practice sensibly prohibit the use of over-
reinforced sections (Ziara et al. 2000). Studies have shown that
the ductility and flexural response of over-reinforced and pre-
stressed concrete beams can be enhanced by the use of full-depth
rectangular steel-wire helical reinforcement. However, circular
helical reinforcement, located entirely above the longitudinal
reinforcement and enveloping the entire compression zone, pro-
vides greater confinement (Base 1962; Hadi and Schmidt 2002;
Whitehead and Ibell 2004; Base and Red 1965).
Most studies have mainly addressed internal confinement in the
compression zone of beams, however, especially those of high-
strength concrete. Kumar et al. (2009) studied the effect of confined
over-reinforced self-compacting concrete beams. This investigation
demonstrates that, by confining the compression zone of an over-
reinforced beam with a steel helix, considerable strength, stiffness,
and ductility can be achieved, even with a tension steel content as
high as 4·79%. In the case of existing members, few studies have
examined the effect of adding a compression layer, such as a ce-
mentitious material, to the top surface of the beams. The repair of
over-reinforced concrete beams to increase their ductility and
change their failure mode using a strain-hardening material such
as UHP-SHCC has not been investigated adequately. The basic idea
of the current research is to use UHP-SHCC only in the compres-
sion zone of over-reinforced concrete beams to change the failure
mode to tension failure. This concept involves composite structural

© ASCE 04016003-1 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 04016003

 Table 1. Mix Proportions of UHP-SHCC and Ordinary Concrete
Unit content (kg=m3 )
Material Water Cement Silica fume Expansion agent Sand Coarse aggregate Super plasticizer Air reducer Fiber (6 mm)
UHP-SHCC 280 1,243 223 20 149 — 20 2.98 18.6
Ordinary concrete 160 400 — — 616 780 — — —

90 High tensile deformed steel bars with 450-MPa yield stress and
580-MPa ultimate stress were used as the main reinforcement,
80
and normal mild steel with 250-MPa yield stress and 360-MPa
70 UHP-SHCC ultimate stress was used for secondary reinforcement (transversal).
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Chonbuk National University on 05/21/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

For UHP-SHCC concrete, the water-to-binder (W/B) ratio was

60 0.225. Low-heat portland cement (density: 3.14 g=cm3 ) was used,
Stress (MPa)

and 15% of the design cement content was substituted with a silica
50
fume (density: 2.2 g=cm3 ). Quartz sand (less than 0.2 mm in
40 diameter; density: 2.68 g=cm3 ) was used as the fine aggregate.
High-strength polypropylene fiber with a 6-mm nominal length
30 was chosen for the UHP-SHCC, and the fiber volume in the mix
was 1.5%. Super plasticizer was used to enhance the workability of
20
Ordinary concrete the matrix. The tensile behavior of the selected UHP-SHCC was
10 characterized by testing six dumbbell-shaped specimens (tested
cross section: 10 × 30 mm) in a uniaxial tensile test. Compressive
0 tests were performed on six 100 × 200-mm cylindrical specimens.
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006
Strain (mm/mm)
The UHP-SHCC’s average tensile strength, compressive strength,
ultimate tensile strain (at ultimate load), and ultimate compression
Fig. 1. Multilinear stress-strain relationships for both types of concrete strain at 28 days were determined to be 8.0 MPa, 85 MPa, 1.5%,
and 0.46%, respectively.
Table 1 lists the mix proportions of the UHP-SHCC and the
ordinary concrete. The multilinear stress-strain relationships for
elements combining conventional reinforced concrete and UHP- both types of concrete are shown in Fig. 1. Fig. 2 shows the stress-
SHCC material. strain relationship for the uniaxial tensile test and the crack pattern
obtained from the uniaxial tensile test for the UHP-SHCC. Multiple
fine cracks were observed in all dumbbell-shaped specimens.
Experimental Program
Specimen Details
Material Properties The experimental program included the testing of 11 RC beams: 1
The concrete mix used for all tested slabs was designed to give an as the control, 9 strengthened with different configurations of UHP-
average concrete cube strength of 30.0 N=mm2 at an age of 28 days. SHCC layers before testing, and 1 repaired with a UHP-SHCC

12

10

8
Stress (MPa)

0
0 1 2 3
Strain %
(a) (b)

Fig. 2. Stress-strain relationship and crack pattern for tensile tests of UHP-SHCC material

© ASCE 04016003-2 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 04016003

 600 300 600
100-mm intervals. All specimens were designed in flexure and
D8 mm @100 mm shear to fail before strengthening at the compression side and to
A
avoid failure due to shear before and after strengthening, according
to ACI 318 (ACI 2011). The proposed reinforcement produced an
200 176 mm enhancement of failure at the zone between the applied loads be-
cause the design strain values in concrete and main steel were
A within the range of ACI 318 for beams that fail in compression
2T18 mm 1500 mm with a maximum value of tensile strain in longitudinal steel not
50 50
more than 2,000 microstrains.
Fig. 3. Dimensions and reinforcement details of tested beams Concrete dimensions and reinforcement details are shown in
Fig. 3. The beams were demolded at the age of two days. For
the strengthened beams (all beams except Specimens CB and
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Chonbuk National University on 05/21/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

20 mm UHP-SHCC 30 mm UHP-SHCC
B-2UHP*), the top surface (compression side) was washed out us-
ing a retardant to obtain a rough surface. The specimens were then
covered with wet towels for an additional 26 days. At the age
200 200 200 of 28 days, the UHP-SHCC strengthening layer was cast with
different configurations on the beams’ compression side. Two
UHP-SHCC–strengthened beams were strengthened using an un-
120 120 120 reinforced UHP-SHCC layer and connected to the original surface
CB B-2UHP and B-2UHP* B-3UHP of the beam without shear connectors (Specimens B-2UHP and
40 mm
Shear connector
30 mm
Shear connector
UHP-SHCC B-3UHP), whereas three beams were strengthened with an unrein-
20 mm D10 mm D10 mm Shear connector
UHP-SHCC UHP-SHCC
D10 mm
forced UHP-SHCC layer using shear connectors between the new
layer and the original beams (Specimens BS-2UHP, BS-3UHP, and
200 200 200 BS-4UHP). Additionally, the effect of replacing the top concrete
cover around the top steel with and without a 4-mm-diameter
welded wire mesh was tested (Specimens BR-2UHP, BR-
120 120 120 2UHP-M, and BS-2UHP-M).
BS-2UHP and BS-2UHP-F20 BS-3UHP BS-4UHP Specimens BS-2UHP-F20 and BS-2UHP were similarly
50 mm UHP-SHCC including
W.W.M
Shear connector strengthened. However, the concrete strength of the original beam
50 mm UHP-SHCC 30 mm of original section 4 mm 20 mm D10 mm
including 30 mm of UHP-SHCC W.W.M
(BS-2UHP-F20) was 20 MPa compared with 30 MPa for specimen
original section 4 mm BS-2UHP. Specimen BS-2UHP* was tested up to failure. Then the
200 200 200 crushed part at the top compression side was removed and the
UHP-SHCC layer was added. Descriptions of all specimens are
listed in Figs. 3, 4, and Table 2. The tested specimens were divided
120 120 120
into five main groups Group I was used to study the effect of
BR-2UHP BR-2UHP-M BS-2UHP-M
shear connectors with different UHP-SHCC layer thicknesses.
Fig. 4. Section A-A for each tested specimen The effect of replacing the concrete cover around the compression
steel with a UHP-SHCC layer was investigated in Group II.
For Group III, the effect of a welded wire mesh as additional
reinforcement inside the UHP-SHCC layer was studied. The effect
layer after failure. All of the beams were 120 mm wide, 200 mm of concrete strength was studied in Group IV. Finally Group V was
high, and 1,600 mm long. Two 18-mm-diameter rebars were used used to study the effect of repairing a failure beam using the UHP-
as tension reinforcements for all beams with an effective depth of SHCC layer. The tested parameters for all groups are summarized
176 mm. Eight-mm-diameter stirrups were used in the shear span at in Table 3.

Table 2. Details of Tested Specimens

Cross section Concrete UHP-SHCC Removed cover Shear Use of WWM inside
Specimen dimension (mm) strength (N=mm2 ) thickness layer (mm) thickness (mm) connector UHP-SHCC layer
CB 120 × 200 26 — — — —
B-2UHP 120 × 200 25 20 — — —
B-3UHP 120 × 200 24.5 30 — — —
BS-2UHP 120 × 200 24.5 20 — X —
BS-3UHP 120 × 200 25 30 — X —
BS-4UHP 120 × 200 26 40 — X —
BR-2UHP 120 × 200 25 50 30 — —
BR-2UHP-M 120 × 200 24 50 30 — X
BS-2UHP-M 120 × 200 25 20 — X X
B-2UHP*a 120 × 200 25.5 20 — — —
BS-2UHP-F20 120 × 200 20.5 20 — X —
Note: WWM = welded wire mesh.
a
B-2UHP* is the same as Specimen B-2UHP, but the UHP-SHCC layer was added after specimen failure.

© ASCE 04016003-3 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 04016003

 Table 3. Comparison Groups and Investigated Parameters
Group Specimen Parameter
I CB Effect of shear connectors with
B-2UHP different UHP-SHCC layer thicknesses
B-3UHP
BS-2UHP
BS-3UHP
BS-4UHP
II CB Effect of replacement of concrete
B-2UHP cover around compression steel
BR-2UHP with UHP-SHCC layer
III CB Effect of welded wire mesh as additional
BR-2UHP reinforcement inside UHP-SHCC layer
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Chonbuk National University on 05/21/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

BR-2UHP-M
BS-2UHP
BS-2UHP-M
IV BS-2UHP Effect of concrete strength Fig. 5. Test setup and instrumentation
BS-2UHP-F20
V CB Effect of repair of failed beam in
B-2UHP compression using UHP-SHCC layer From the previous modes of failure, the effect of shear connec-
B-2UHP* tors appeared only in the case of a UHP-SHCC layer with a thick-
ness of more than 20 mm because no separation appeared at this
thickness and the separation was clearly shown at thicknesses of
more than 20 mm without shear connectors. On the other hand,
the section capacity for specimens with a UHP-SHCC layer of
Test Setup and Instrumentations more than 20 mm was increased with noted value attached to large
All beams were tested up to failure in four-point bending over a values of tensile and shear cracks due to combined stresses at areas
simple span of 1,500 mm and a shear span of 600 mm. Both ends ranging between the load position and support, and the failure ap-
of each beam were free to rotate and translate under the load. The peared due to the separation of the UHP-SHCC layer at this zone.
load was applied by a 400-kN-capacity hydraulic jack in In addition, using concrete with low strength (20 MPa) for the beam
increments of 5 kN until failure. One electrical resistance strain with a UHP-SHCC layer decreases the failure load of the beam
gauge was bonded at the midspan of each rebar. During the test, without changing the mode of failure compared to specimens with
the UHP-SHCC strengthening layer strains and the concrete a concrete strength of 25 MPa. Finally, the use of a UHP-SHCC
strain were recorded by pi-shaped displacement transducers with layer to repair specimens failed in the compression side after re-
a gauge length of 100 mm applied on their side as shown in moving the crushed concrete with a small layer, and reloading it
Fig. 5. Displacement at the midspan was measured by LVDTs. again led to an enhancement in the beam carrying capacity by in-
An automatic data acquisition system was used to monitor creasing the failure load and transferring the position of failure to
loading displacement and strains. The test setup and instrumen- the area ranging between the load position and support with a sep-
tation used to monitor the beams during testing are shown aration in the repair layer at this zone. The failure mode for all
in Fig. 5. tested specimens is shown in Fig. 6.

Test Results and Discussion
Crack Pattern and Failure Modes
For Control Specimen CB, cracks were first initiated at the bottom
fibers in the constant moment zone. As the load increased, new
cracks were created along the beam and propagated toward the
points of load application with crack depths not more than 40%
of the beam depth. Additionally, the beam failed in brittle flexural
compression by sudden concrete crushing in the compression zone,
and the spallingoff of the concrete cover occurred just prior to
crushing. For all specimens that had a UHP-SHCC layer at the
top surface, the mode of failure was changed from brittle to ductile
by increasing flexural crack depth up to 95% of beam depth. A
change in every parameter affected the final failure mode for each
specimen and its final capacity. Two main failure modes were
noted. The first was flexural failure followed by concrete crushing
at the compression side. This failure mode appeared in Specimens
B-2UHP, BS-2UHP, BS-3UHP, BR-2UHP, BR-2UHP-M, BS-
2UHP-M, and BS-2UHP-F20. The second failure mode was flexu-
ral failure followed by sudden shear cracks and the separation of the
UHP-SHCC layer at a distance between the position of the load and
the support.
Experimental Observations
To achieve results for each specimen and determine the differences
in their behavior, the beams were divided into five comparison
groups according to the strengthening scheme summarized in
Table 3. The first group, GI, compared the use of shear connectors
with different UHP-SHCC layer thicknesses. The second group,
GII, studied the effect of replacing the concrete cover around
the compression steel with a UHP-SHCC layer. Group GIII focused
on the effect of a welded wire mesh as additional reinforcement
inside the UHP-SHCC layer. The last two groups, GIV and GI,
illustrated the effects of concrete strength and repair, respectively,
for failure of a beam in compression using the UHP-SHCC layer.
Comparisons of deflection, steel strain, concrete strain, and crack-
ing width at the midspan of the bottom chord of the beam in each
group are presented next.
Effect of Shear Connectors with Various UHP-SHCC
Layer Thicknesses
Fig. 7(a) illustrates the relation between loading and deflection. The
deflection behavior of all specimens reinforced using UHP-SHCC
was the same at the first loading stage. The deflection values
for these specimens seemed to be less than those for the control

© ASCE 04016003-4 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 04016003

 CB

B-2UHP BR-2UHP
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Chonbuk National University on 05/21/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

B-3UHP BR-2UHP-M

BS-2UHP BS-2UHP-M

BS-3UHP BS-2UHP-F20

BS-4UHP B-2UHP*

Fig. 6. Crack pattern and modes of failure for tested beams

specimen because of the strengthening material, which increased
the rigidity of the cross section during this stage. As shown in the
Fig. 7(a), the effect of each variable appeared at the failure stage as
the final deflection values increased. Greater thicknesses of the
UHP-SHCC layer caused remarkable increases in both the final de-
flection values and the failure load. Specimen B-3UHP showed
higher final deflection values than those of Specimen B-2UHP by
11%, whereas Specimen BS-3UHP showed final deflection values
higher than those of BS-2UHP by 31%. It was observed that the
increase in deflection values depended on the thickness of the
strengthening material and that it was dramatically affected when
shear connectors were used to raise the failure load. The results
show that the influence of shear connectors is related to the thick-
ness of the strengthening material. Specimens with shear connec-
tors supported by a UHP-SHCC less than 20 mm thick increased
deflection values by nearly 12%. The specimen with shear connec-
tors but supported by a UHP-SHCC more than 20 mm thick
showed an increase in deflection values of 27%. It was also noted

© ASCE 04016003-5 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 04016003

 210
100 to 125% compared with the control specimen, which reflects
the influence of the strengthening material as a result of the change
180
in failure mode. The results summarized in Table 4 and Fig. 7(c)
indicate that for all specimens of this group reinforced with UHP-
150
SHCC, the main bottom tension reinforced steel reached the yield
stage whereas the control specimen did not. This confirms the
Load (kN)

120
change in failure mode to ductile failure. The cracking and failure
CB load values in Table 4 show that the cracking load of the strength-
90
B-2UHP ened specimen increased over the control by 65%. However, it was
B-3UHP not affected by crack thickness or by the presence of shear connec-
60 BS-2UHP
tor. Contrarily, the failure load for all specimens appeared to be a
BS-3UHP
30 BS-4UHP
function of both layer thickness and the use of shear conned.
Increasing the strengthening layer thickness for B-2UHP and
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Chonbuk National University on 05/21/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0 B-3UHP increased the failure load values by 34 and 39%, respec-

0 5 10 15 20 tively, in comparison with the control specimen. For Specimens
(a) Deflection (mm) BS-2UHP, BS-3UHP, and BS-4UHP, the failure load values in-
creased by 33, 47, and 53%, respectively, in comparison with
210 the control.
For the specimens with a thickness of 20 mm, failure load was
180 not affected when shear connectors were used. For specimens with
greater thicknesses, it observably changed when a shear connector
150 was used, increasing by 7% for Specimen B3-2UHP in comparison
with Specimen BS-3UHP. Based on these observations, the use of
120
shear connectors affects only thicknesses of more than 20 mm. A
Load (kN)

CB
B-2UHP precise investigation of compression strain values indicates that
90
B-3UHP the response of specimens with thicknesses of 20 mm reached a
BS-2UHP maximum value at failure, whereas the response of specimens with
60
BS-3UHP thicknesses of more than 20 mm did not. This could be due to the
BS-4UHP
crushing of the used strengthening materials in specimens B-2UHP
30
and BS-2UHP that appears simultaneously with the failure of this
0
specimens, as shown in Table 4.
0 0.5 1 1.5
(b) Crack width (mm)
Effect of Replacement Concrete Cover around
210 Compression Steel with UHP-SHCC Layer
Replacing the concrete cover depended on modification of the
180
concrete type using the UHP-SHCC strengthening material. This
concrete surrounds the reinforcement steel in the compression
150
zone. In addition, the thickness increment similar to that in the
other specimens caused the total thickness of to increase along
Load (kN)

120
with adhesion to the reinforcement steel in the compression zone.
CB Fig. 8(a) shows an obvious increase of 126% in the final deflection
90
B-2UHP of Specimen BR-2UHP compared with Specimen B-2UHP; the
B-3UHP value of the increase was 156% greater than that of the control.
60
BS-2UHP This behavior was associated with a reasonable upsurge in the
BS-3UHP failure load by 6 and 42% in respective comparison with Specimens
30
BS-4UHP B-2UHP and CB, due to improvement of the compression zone,
which contributed to the absence of compression failure and strength-
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 ening layer separation compared with Specimen B-2UHP. The
(c) Strain (microstrain) noticeable success of this method appeared in the crack width
growth at the failure stage. Fig. 8(b) shows the increase in crack
Fig. 7. Experimental results for Group GI: (a) load deflection width at 89% of the failure loading associated with the increment
curve; (b) load versus crack width at beam midspan; (c) main in beam deflection. The enhanced ductility of Specimen BR-2UHP
reinforcement strain at the failure stage may be the reason for this increase. Fig. 8(c)
shows the yield in main tension reinforcement for Specimen
BR-2UPH, in which the concrete cover surrounding the steel bars
that increasing the strengthening layer thickness by 30 mm slightly was replaced. As deflection and crack width increased, the strain
surged the failure load, but did not affect the final deflection values for the main tension reinforcement bars for BR-2UPH be-
values because of the change in failure pattern as cross section came larger than those for B-2UPH because the final crack width
rigidity increased. for the failure record increased by 420% as shown in Table 4. The
Fig. 7(b) shows typical load values versus crack thickness at results in this table indicate that the strain values in the compression
each tension-loading stage. The results indicated a remarkable in- zone for Specimens BR-2UHP and B-2UPH reached their maxi-
crease in deflection crack thickness during the first loading stages. mum values at the failure stage, becoming evidence for the efficient
At failure, crack thickness increased for all specimens by a ratio of loading performance of the strengthening material.

© ASCE 04016003-6 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 04016003

 Table 4. Test Results for Each Experimental Group
Flexural Maximum tensile Maximum Maximum crack
cracking Ultimate strain in main compression strain at width in tension side Failure
Group Specimen load (kN) load (kN) steel (microstrain) failure (microstrain) at ultimate loads (mm) mode
I CB 30 115 2,300 2,890 0.22 (A)
B-2UHP 50 154 2,771 4,910 0.50 (B)
B-3UHP 45 160 3,216 4,189 0.42 (C)
BS-2UHP 47 153 3,321 4,932 0.51 (B)
BS-3UHP 45 170 3,021 4,722 1.90 (B)
BS-4UHP 51 176 3,384 4,213 1.40 (C)
II CB 30 115 2,300 2,890 0.22 (A)
B-2UHP 50 154 2,771 4,910 0.50 (B)
BR-2UHP 45 163 3,424 4,820 2.60 (B)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Chonbuk National University on 05/21/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

III CB 30 115 2,300 2,890 0.22 (A)

BR-2UHP 45 136 3,424 4,820 2.60 (B)
BR-2UHP-M 42 165 3,831 4,835 2.30 (B)
BS-2UHP 47 153 3,321 4,932 0.51 (B)
BS-2UHP-M 42 155 3,535 4,845 0.77 (B)
IV BS-2UHP 47 153 3,321 4,932 0.51 (B)
BS-2UHP-F20 35 141 2,569 4,842 0.58 (B)
V CB 30 115 2,300 2,890 0.22 (A)
B-2UHP 50 154 2,771 4,910 0.50 (B)
B-2UHP* 35 145 2,591 4,050 0.33 (C)
Note: (A) = compression failure; (B) = flexural failure followed by concrete crushing at compression side; (C) = flexural failure followed by sudden shear
cracks followed by separation of UHP-SHCC layer in zone between load and support.

Effect of Welded Wire Mesh as Additional
Reinforcement inside UHP-SHCC Layer
The use of welded wire mesh inside the strengthening material with
a shear connector or replacing the concrete layer around the steel
bars in the compression zone with UHP-SHCC did not show a de-
tectable effect on the behavior of the beams in deflection, failure
loading, or crack loading because the increase did not exceed 2%,
as shown in Fig. 9(a) and Table 4. The only effect of this material
appeared in the increase in crack width for Specimen BS-2UHP-M
compared with that for Specimen BS-2UHP (without welded wire
mesh), as shown in Fig. 9(b). Crack width increased as a result of
the slight contribution of the welded wire mesh in strengthening the
UHP-SHCC layer against compression loading. The strain values
in the main steel were not affected and remained close, but as
expected they exceeded the values of the yield stage, as can be
observed in Fig. 9(c).
Effect of Concrete Strength
When comparing the change in concrete compressive strength
before and after strengthening using UHP-SHCC material, it
was observed that this material had a clear effect on cracking
load, which decreased in Specimen BS2UHP-F20 by 34% with
a concrete compressive strength of 20 MPa compared with Speci-
men BS-2UPH with a compression resistance of 25 MPa. At the
same time, the final failure load for this specimen decreased by
9% owing to the increase in deflection and the speedy appearance
of cracks with a reduction in rigidity and strain values, as illus-
trated in Figs. 10(a and b). The most important observation
in Fig. 10(c) and Table 4 is that the strain values for the strength-
ening layer or the reinforcement steel did not affect the failure
stage.
Effect of Repair for Failure Beam Using UHP-SHCC
Layer
The repair of damaged beams under compression failure increases
the opportunities for reuse of these beams, and the results for these
beams in this study confirmed the efficiency of the repair method.
The damaged part of Specimen B-2UHP* was replaced with
UHP-SHCC with an additional 20-mm-thick layer. After that,
Specimen B-2UHP* was loaded and compared with Specimen
B-2UHP, which was strengthened before loading. B-2UHP*’s
failure load reached 95% of B-2UHP’s failure load because its
volume of failure was in a very restricted zone and the main
reinforcing steel was not vastly affected by compression failure.
In addition, crack width was less than that of the specimens sub-
jected to bending failure, as shown in Table 4. Fig. 11(a) shows the
results of deflection for this group. It is seen that the final deflection
load for Specimen B-2UHP* reached 90% of the final deflection
load for Specimen B-2UHP, which reflected the perfection of the
repair mechanism and the great adhesion of the UHP-SHCC
material with concrete even without a binder. Fig. 11(b) shows
that the decrease in crack width for Specimen B-2UHP* was less
than that for Specimen B-2UHP because of the change in the
former’s failure behavior as a result of the sudden separation of
the repair layer near the support during sudden shear failure. On
the other hand, the strain values for the reinforcement steel were
not affected by failure mode or by strains in the strengthening
layer. As shown in Fig. 11(c) and Table 4, all bars reached the yield
level with the maximum strain of the strengthening UHP-SHCC
material.
Ductility Analysis
The displacement ductility index ½μD  for load-deflection (P − Δ)
curves can be defined as the ratio between the deflections at failure
load ½Δmax  and yield load ½Δy . The definitions of ultimate and
yield points vary among studies according to the configuration
of tested specimens (Jang et al. 2008; Park 1989). Park (1989) de-
fined ultimate and yield points as shown in Fig. 12. The ductility
index ratio, R, is the ductility index of the different tested beams
compared with the corresponding control beam, CB. It emerged
that all beams that had an added UHP-SHCC layer showed accept-
able increased ductility in comparison with that of the correspond-
ing reference beam, CB. Table 5 summarizes the results of the

© ASCE 04016003-7 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 04016003

 180 180

150 150

120 120

Load (kN)
Load (kN)

90 90
CB
BR-2UHP
60 BR-2UHP-M
60 CB
BS-2UHP
B-2UHP
30 BS-2UHP-M
30 BR-2UHP
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Chonbuk National University on 05/21/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0
0 0 5 10 15 20 25
0 5 10 15 20 25
(a) Deflection (mm)
(a) Deflection (mm)
180
180

150
150

120
120

Load (kN)
Load (kN)

CB CB
90
90
B-2UHP BR-2UHP

60 BR-2UHP-M
60 BR-2UHP
BS-2UHP
30 BS-2UHP-M
30

0
0
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3
(b) Crack width (mm) (b) Crack width (mm)

180 180

150 150

120 120
Load (kN)

Load (kN)

90 CB
90
B-2UHP CB
60 BR-2UHP BR-2UHP
60
BR-2UHP-M
BS-2UHP
30
30 BS-2UHP-M

0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
(c) Strain (microstrain)
(c) Strain (microstrain)
Fig. 8. Experimental results for Group GII: (a) load deflection
curve; (b) load versus crack width at beam midspan; (c) main Fig. 9. Experimental results for Group GIII: (a) load deflection
reinforcement strain curve; (b) load versus crack width at beam midspan; (c) main
reinforcement strain

ductility indexes and the ductility index ratio for the tested spec-
imens. For specimens with different UHP-SHCC thicknesses,
the ductility index increased as the thickness of the strengthening
material increased (Fig. 13). When using UHP-SHCC material
without shear connectors, the ductility indexes for Specimens
B-2UHP and B-3UHP were 16.5 and 29.7% of Beam CB, respec-
tively. The increase in ductility index for Beam B-3UHP, with a
30-mm-thick UHP-SHCC material without shear connectors,
was relatively small compared with the increase in BS-3UHP with
shear connectors because shear connectors avoid separation of
the strengthening material and lead to increases in failure load
and deformation as shown in Fig. 13.
Fig. 14 compares different configurations of the 20-mm-thick
UHP-SHCC layer. From the results obtained, it can be concluded
that the effectiveness of UHP-SHCC as a replacement material
around a concrete reinforcement and a strengthening layer is better
than UHP-SHCC only as an added strengthening layer. The
ductility index for Specimen BR-2UHP was 83% of Specimen
BS-2UHP. This can be attributed to the fact that better cohesion
between the strengthening material and the original concrete

© ASCE 04016003-8 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 04016003

 180 180

150 150

120
120
Load (kN)

Load (kN)
90
90

60 BS-2UHP CB
60
BS-2UHP-F20 B-2UHP
30
B-2UHP*
30
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Chonbuk National University on 05/21/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0
0 5 10 15
0
(a) Deflection (mm) 0 5 10 15

180 (a) Deflection (mm)

180
150

150
120
Load (kN)

120

Load (kN)
90

BS-2UHP 90
60 CB
BS-2UHP-F20
60 B-2UHP
30
B-2UHP*
30
0
0 0.5 1
0
(b) Crack width (mm)
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

180 (b) Crack width (mm)

180
150

150
120
Load (kN)

120
90
Load (kN)

90
60 BS-2UHP
CB
BS-2UHP-F20
60 B-2UHP
30 B-UHP*

30
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
(c) Strain (microstrain) 0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000

Fig. 10. Experimental results for Group GIV: (a) load deflection (c) Strain (microstrain)
curve; (b) load versus crack width at beam midspan; (c) main
Fig. 11. Experimental results for Group GV: (a) load deflection
reinforcement strain
curve; (b) load versus crack width at beam midspan; (c) main
reinforcement strain

surface is achieved when UHP-SHCC is used as a replacement
material around the concrete reinforcement because the stirrups
and the steel for the beam work as effective shear connectors. Addi-
tionally, the increase in the UHP-SHCC layer in this case increases
the effective compression zone. Furthermore, the ductility indexes
for Specimens B-2UHP and B-2UHP* were 1.69 and 1.58, re-
spectively, which confirmed the benefit of providing damaged
over-reinforced concrete beams with a UHP-SHCC layer in the
compression zone because it increases the ductility index with a
very thin additional layer, as shown in Table 5.
Conclusions
Based on the results obtained in this work, the following conclu-
sions can be drawn:

© ASCE 04016003-9 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 04016003

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Chonbuk National University on 05/21/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 12. Ultimate and yield point definitions according to Park (1989)

Table 5. Ductility Results for Tested Specimens

Specimen CB B-2UHP B-3UHP BS-2UHP BS-3UHP BS-4UHP BR-2UHP BR-2UHP-M BS-2UHP-M BS-2UHP-F20 B-2UHP*
Δy (mm) 5.63 5.50 5.44 5.70 5.31 5.42 6.30 6.10 4.80 5.15 4.93
Δmax (mm) 8.18 9.28 10.24 10.39 13.00 13.70 21.04 20.83 11.00 8.12 9.30
μD 1.45 1.69 1.88 1.82 2.44 2.53 3.33 3.41 2.29 1.58 1.89
R(%) — 116 130 125 168 174 230 235 158 109 130
Note: R = ductility index ratio.

3 5

BR-2UHP-M
2.5

BR-2UHP
Displacement ductility index

4
Displacement ductility index

3
1.5

BS-2UHP
1 2 B-2UHP
CB

without shear connectors

0.5 with shear connectors

1
0
0 10 20 30 40
UHP-SHCC thickness 0

Fig. 13. Effect of UHP-SHCC thickness and shear connectors on Fig. 14. Effect of different UHP-SHCC configurations with 20-mm
ductility thickness on ductility

• The specimens with a UHP-SHCC strengthening layer at the
compression zone experienced ductile failure with increased
flexural crack depths up to 95% of the beam depth;
• The effect of shear connectors occurs only in the case of a UHP-
SHCC layer with a thickness of more than 20 mm (more than
10% of the beam depth);
• The section capacity for specimens with a UHP-SHCC layer
more than 20 mm thick (more than 10% of the beam depth)
was notably increased with large tensile and shear crack values
with the use of shear connectors only;
• The strengthening of beams using UHP-SHCC material instead
of concrete surrounding the reinforcement steel in the compres-
sion zone is an easy and effective way to increase section ca-
pacity up to 42% compared with beams attached with a high
deformation level;
• Using the UHP-SHCC layer to strengthen concrete beams with
low strength decreases the beams’ failure load without changing
the mode of failure compared with specimens having normal
concrete strength;
• Repairing beams that fail in the compression side using a UHP-
SHCC layer after removing the crushed concrete enhances the
beam’s carrying capacity by increasing its failure load and
deformation; and
• A considerable increase in ductility is achieved by providing
over-reinforced concrete beams with a UHP-SHCC layer in the
compression zone; this increase ranges from 16.5 to 135% de-
pending on the configuration of the UHP-SHCC layer.
Acknowledgments
The tests in this study were performed at the Reinforced Concrete
Laboratory, Faculty of Engineering, Tanta University. The authors
are grateful for the precious technical assistance of the lab staff.

© ASCE 04016003-10 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 04016003

 References
ACI (American Concrete Institute. (2011). “Building code requirements for
structural concrete and commentary.” ACI.318-11, Farmington Hills.
Base, G. D. (1962). “Helical reinforcement in the compression zone of
concrete beams.” Concr. Constr. Eng., 57(12), 456–461.
Base, G. D., and Red, J. B. (1965). “Effectiveness of helical binding in the
compression zone of concrete beams.” ACI J. Proc., 62(7), 763–781.
Hadi, M. N. S., and Schmidt, L. C. (2002). “Use of helixes in reinforced
concrete beams.” ACI Struct. J., 99(2), 191–198.
Horii, H., Matsuoka, S., Kabele, P., Takeuchi, S., Li, V. C., and Kanda, T.
(1998). “On the prediction method for the structural performance
of repaired/retrofitted structures.” Proc., Fracture Mechanics of Con-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Chonbuk National University on 05/21/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
crete Structures (FRAMCOS-1), AEDIFICATIO, Freiburg, Germany,
1739–1750.
Hussein, H., Kunieda, M., and Nakamura, H. (2012). “Strength and duc-
tility of RC beams strengthened with steel-reinforced strain hardening
cementitious composites.” J. Cem. Concr. Compos., 34(9), 1061–1066.
Jang, Y., Park, H. G., Kim, S. S., Kim, J. H., and Kim, Y. G. (2008). “On the
ductility of high-strength concrete beams.” Int. J. Concr. Struct. Mater.,
2(2), 115–122.
Kamada, T., and Li, V. C. (2000). “The effects of surface preparation on
the fracture behavior ECC/concrete repair system.” J. Cem. Concr.
Compos., 22(6), 423–431.
Kamal, A., Kunieda, M., Ueda, N., and Nakamura, H. (2008). “Evaluation
of crack opening performance of a repair material with strain hardening
behaviour.” J. Cem. Concr. Compos., 30(10), 863–871.
Kumar, R., Singh, B., and Bhargava, P. (2009). “ Behaviour of confined
over-reinforced self-compacting concrete beams.” Struct. Concr. J.,
10(4), 181–191.
© ASCE 04016003-11
J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 04016003
Kunieda, M., and Rokugo, K. (2006). “Recent progress of HPFRCC in
Japan- required performance- required performance and applications.”
J. Adv. Concr. Technol., 4(1), 19–33.
Li, V. C. (1993). “Form micromechanics to structural engineering—The
design of cementitious composites for civil engineering applications.”
Struct. Eng. Earthquake Eng. JSCE, 10(2), 37–48.
Li, V. C. (1998). “ECC for repair and retrofit of concrete structures.”
Proc., Fracture Mechanics of Concrete Structures (FRAMCOS-1),
AEDIFICATIO, 1715–1726.
Li, V. C. (2004). “High performance fiber reinforced cementitious compo-
sites as durable material for concrete structure repair.” Proc., ICFRC Int.
Conf. on Fiber Composites High Performance Concretes, Allied, New
Delhi, India, 57–74.
Li, V. C., Horii, H., Kabele, P., Kanada, T., and Lim, Y. M. (2000). “Repair
and retrofit with engineered cementitious.” Int. J. Eng. Fract. Mech.,
65(2), 317–334.
Lim, Y. M., and Li, V. C. (1997). “Durable repair of aged infrastructures
using trapping mechanism of engineered cementitious composites.”
J. Cem. Concr. Compos., 19(4), 373–385.
Maalej, M., and Li, V. C. (1995). “Introduction of strain hardening engi-
neered cementitious composites in the design of reinforced concrete
flexural members for improved durability.” ACI Struct. J., 92(2),
167–176.
Park, R. (1989). “Evaluation of ductility of structures and structural as-
semblages from laboratory testing.” Bull. New Zealand National
Soc. Earthquake Eng., 22(3), 155–166.
Whitehead, P. A., and Ibell, T. J. (2004). “Deformability and ductility in
over-reinforced concrete structures.” Mag. Concr. Res., 56(3), 167–177.
Ziara, M. M., Haldane, D., and Hood, S. (2000). “Proposed changes to
flexural design in BS 8110 to allow over-reinforced sections to fail
in a ductile manner.” Mag. Concr. Res., 52(6), 443–454.
J. Perform. Constr. Facil.