Engineering Structures 210 (2020) 110309

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Experimental and analytical research on the flexural behaviour of steel–ECC T

composite beams under negative bending moments
Jiansheng Fana, Shuangke Goub, Ran Dingc, , Jun Zhangc, Zhengjie Shib
⁎

a
Beijing Engineering Research Center of Steel and Concrete Composite Structures, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China
b
Dept. of Civil Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China
c
Key Lab. of Civil Engineering Safety and Durability of China Education Ministry, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Due to the strain-hardening and multi-cracking properties, engineered cementitious composite (ECC) is a new
Reinforced engineered cementitious composite solution to the cracking issue in the negative bending moment region of steel–concrete composite beams. This
Steel–ECC composite beam paper presents an experimental and analytical study on the flexural performance of composite steel–ECC beams
Negative bending moment subjected to negative bending moments as well as the tension stiffening behaviour of reinforced ECC (R/ECC)
Tension stiffening
flange slabs. Three beams with different slab materials and reinforcement ratios were tested under a hogging
Crack width
Analytical model
moment. Experimental results demonstrated significant enhancement in stiffness and crack resistance for the
steel–ECC composite beams. A practical four-parameter fibre-bridging model was established to describe the
strain-hardening behaviour of different ECC materials. Then, a modified analytical tension-stiffening model for
R/ECC was formulated considering the strain-hardening behaviour of ECC and rebar–ECC bond–slip interaction
based on the conventional tension-stiffening model for reinforced concrete. This modified model was verified by
several direct tensile tests of R/ECC members. In addition, by applying the model to the traditional fibre
beam–column element model, the mechanical performance and crack opening of general R/ECC structures were
derived. The simulation results of the steel–ECC composite beams demonstrated satisfactory accuracy compared
with the test results. Finally, a parametric study based on the new model was conducted to identify the influence
of several important material and structural parameters on the flexural performance of steel–ECC composite
beams under negative moments.

1. Introduction cracking control in negative bending moment regions.

Steel–concrete composite structures were first utilized in the 1920s,
and since then, this type of structure has seen significant application in
buildings and bridges [1]. Composite structures combine the com-
pressive strength of concrete and the tensile strength of steel through
effective connectors between these two materials [2], which exhibit
excellent mechanical performance and achieve high material efficiency
at the same time. One of the most critical issues of composite beams is
the cracking of the concrete slab in the hogging moment region, since it
leads to low stiffness and poor durability [3,4], which hinders the ap-
plication of these structures in frame buildings and continuous girder
bridges. Currently, methods for addressing this issue include increasing
the reinforcement ratio, applying prestressing, and releasing shear re-
striction in the hogging moment zone [5]. In practical design of bridges,
the above solutions are usually adopted simultaneously to achieve
Engineered cementitious composite (ECC) is a new type of high-
performance fibre reinforced cementitious composites (HPFRCC) that
exhibit significant strain-hardening properties while maintaining a low
crack width [6]. Since their invention by Victor Li in the 1990s [7], ECC
has been studied extensively all over the world. Through proper design
of the balance between matrix and fibre, ECC exhibits a tensile strain up
to 3–7% while maintaining a tensile strength of over 4 MPa [8,9]. Ex-
perimental tests show that ECC can work well with steel and rebar [10],
resulting in better mechanical performance, ductility, energy con-
sumption, fatigue performance, and durability [11–16]. Thus it is a new
and prospective solution to the cracking issue in composite beams by
applying ECC material in the negative bending moment region.
Several experimental programmes have been conducted to study the
bending performance of ECC structures. Lepech and Li [17,18] con-
ducted a demonstration project to apply ECC in bridge link slabs. The

Corresponding author.
⁎

E-mail addresses: fanjsh@mail.tsinghua.edu.cn (J. Fan), gskthu@163.com (S. Gou), dingran@mail.tsinghua.edu.cn (R. Ding),
junz@mail.tsinghua.edu.cn (J. Zhang), shi-zj08@139.com (Z. Shi).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.110309
Received 31 July 2019; Received in revised form 3 January 2020; Accepted 29 January 2020
Available online 19 February 2020
0141-0296/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J. Fan, et al.
test results showed that ECC link slabs exhibited a large strain capacity
and durability. Afefy et al. [19] and Zhang et al. [20] studied the
flexural performance of layered ECC–concrete composite beams, which
exhibited higher flexural strength, ductility, and cracking resistance. In
addition, several numerical [21] and theoretical studies [22] have been
conducted to simulate the bending performance of ECC beams. How-
ever, there were few experimental and analytical studies on the bending
behaviour of steel–ECC composite beams.
The tension-stiffening effect of reinforced ECC (R/ECC) flange slabs
in steel–ECC composite beams under negative moments is closely re-
lated to the stiffness and crack width of composite beams. Significant
tension-stiffening effects were observed in several typical direct tension
tests of R/ECC members [23]. Fischer and Li [24] revealed that the
strain difference between ECC and rebar was negligible in direct tension
test. Kang et al. [25] revealed that the increase of the reinforcement
ratio improved the overall deformation capacity of the test members;
hence, a minimum reinforcement ratio should be required to ensure
adequate ductility. Tension stiffening effect is determined by crack
spacing, bond–slip behaviour, and the crack–bridging constitutive law.
So far, many efforts have been devoted to study the bond behaviour
[26–28] and crack–bridging constitutive law [29–33] of R/ECC mem-
bers. While most research focused on the experimental results of R/ECC
members, few theoretical approaches have been developed.
Therefore, this study focuses on the negative flexural performance
of steel–ECC composite beams and the tension stiffening behaviour of
R/ECC flange slabs through experimental and analytical methods. An
experimental program including two steel–ECC and one steel–concrete
composite beams was designed to examine the failure mode, loading
capacity, stiffness, ductility, and crack propagation under negative
moments. Then, a modified analytical tension-stiffening model for R/
ECC was formulated considering the strain hardening of ECC and
rebar–ECC bond–slip interaction. This model was based on the con-
ventional tension-stiffening model for reinforced concrete. By applying
the model to the traditional fibre beam–column element model, the
flexural performance of steel–ECC composite beams was thoroughly
investigated and crack width was specifically calculated.
2. Experimental programme
2.1. Specimen design and material properties
Based on the focus of the study, three specimens were designed to
experimentally evaluate the flexural performance of steel–ECC com-
posite beams under hogging moments. Fig. 1 shows the design details of
the cross sections including dimensions and reinforcement details. Di-
mensions were identical for all specimens with a length of 3200 mm, a
height of 250 mm and a width of 600 mm. The steel beam had an I-
shaped cross section with a height of 180 mm and a width of 100 mm.
The thickness of the web and the flange were 6 and 8 mm, respectively.
The width and thickness of the concrete/ECC slab were 600 and 70 mm,
respectively. The shear studs were placed in two rows with a diameter
Fig. 1. Cross-section of test specimens.
2
Engineering Structures 210 (2020) 110309
of 8 mm, a height of 45 mm, and a spacing of 50 mm, which were
designed to achieve sufficient shear connection between the steel beam
and concrete/ECC slab. Transverse reinforcement included 6 mm
HPB235 bars with a spacing of 200 mm at top of the slab, and 8 or
10 mm HPB235 bars with a spacing of 70 mm at bottom of the slab. The
longitudinal reinforcement of SCB-1 and SEB-1 included eight HRB335
longitudinal bars with a diameter of 12 mm. The longitudinal re-
inforcement of SEB-2 contained eight HRB335 bars with a diameter of
8 mm. The basic parameters of the test specimens are summarized in
Table 1.
The tensile strength of steel plates used in the I-shaped beams and
steel bars used in the slabs are shown in Table 2. The initial loading
strain rate was 30 με/s. After yielding, the loading rate was increased to
around 500 με/s. For steel–concrete composite beams, three
150 mm × 150 mm × 150 mm concrete cubes were cast and cured
under the same environmental conditions. The measured average
compressive strength was 55.4 MPa. The PVA-ECC material was pro-
duced with PVA fibres that had a tensile strength of 1620 MPa, a length
of 12 mm, and a volume fraction of 1.7%. The measured properties of
the ECC are shown in Table 3.
2.2. Loading apparatus and measurement
As shown in Fig. 2, the composite beams were simply supported on
top of the slab with a span of 3 m. Four-point bending tests were applied
with a 600 mm-long pure bending region. A transverse distributive
girder was employed between the actuator and the beam to guarantee a
uniform distribution of the force. Stiffening ribs were added to the
support and the loading point of the steel beam to avoid local bucking
caused by stress concentration. The concrete/ECC slab was constructed
on the propped steel beam, and the tests were carried out two months
later. The loading history consisted of a force-controlled stage followed
by a displacement-controlled stage after the flange of the steel beam
yielded. The load level increased by 5 kN during the force control stage
to help carefully observe the deformation and crack propagation of the
test specimens.
The measurement scheme is shown in Fig. 3. Linear variable dif-
ferential transformers (LVDT) were employed to measure the dis-
placement at the middle and at the supports of the beams. Ex-
tensometers were employed to measure slippage between the steel
beam and the concrete/ECC slab. The strain distribution along the
height of three critical sections was recorded by strain gauges.
2.3. Experimental results and analysis
2.3.1. Observed phenomenon
For specimen SCB-1 with a concrete slab under negative loading, the
first flexural crack propagated at a load of 10 kN. The crack width
reached 0.2 and 0.5 mm at a load of 60 and 145 kN, respectively. As the
load increased towards the peak load, buckling of the bottom flange
was observed. In addition, splitting cracks were observed on the con-
crete slab parallel to the direction of the longitudinal reinforcement.
The failure mode is shown in Fig. 4 (a).
For specimen SEB-1 with an ECC slab, the first visible flexural crack
was observed at a load of 55 kN. The crack width increased slowly
within the pre-yielding stage, while the number of cracks increased
rapidly. The peak load Pp denotes the maximum load during the loading
process. When the load reached Pp, a large number of fine cracks were
generated at the top of the ECC slab. The bottom steel plates and bars
yielded and buckling was clearly observed at the bottom flange of the
steel beam. The failure mode of SEB-2 was similar to that of SEB-1
except for a higher crack width and larger crack spacing. Details of the
strain development and crack propagation will be described later in this
paper.
After failure of the negative loading specimens, a comparison of the
top slabs was carried out and shown in Fig. 4 (d). Compared with
J. Fan, et al. Engineering Structures 210 (2020) 110309

Table 1
Basic parameters of test specimens.
Specimen Slab material Steel beam dimensions (mm) Slab dimensions (mm) Longitudinal reinforcement Reinforcement ratio

SCB-1 concrete 180 × 100 × 6 × 8 70 × 600 8Φ12 2%

SEB-1 ECC 180 × 100 × 6 × 8 70 × 600 8Φ12 2%
SEB-2 ECC 180 × 100 × 6 × 8 70 × 600 8Φ8 1%

Table 2
Tensile strength of steel plates and reinforcement bars.
Material Thickness/ Yield strength Ultimate Elongation ratio
Diameter (mm) fy (MPa) strength fu
(MPa)

Plates 6 474.5 536.1 23.20%

8 409.8 450.5 22.10%
Bars 8 306.7 345.9 17.30%
12 349.7 397.1 16.90%
Fig. 2. Loading schemes of composite beams.

specimen SCB-1, specimen SEB-1 exhibited significantly smaller crack

widths and crack spacings. No evident splitting crack was observed on
the ECC slab.
2.3.2. Load–displacement curves
The load versus displacement curves of specimens under negative
loading are shown in Fig. 5. Points C, Y, and P represent the cracking,
yielding, and peak points, respectively. As can be seen in the figure, the
first crack on the concrete slab of specimen SCB-1 was observed at a
load of 0.062 Pp. For specimens SEB-1 and SEB-2 with an ECC slab, the
corresponding load levels were 0.35 Pp and 0.39 Pp, respectively. The
stiffness of the steel–ECC composite beams decreased slightly before 0.9
Pp. After that, the tangent stiffness decreased and deflection increased
rapidly. The reinforcement bars, top and bottom steel flange started to
yield successively. After the peak load, an evident buckling was ob-
served in the bottom flange of the steel beam and the load capacity
slowly decreased. It can be seen from the test curves of SEB-1 and SCB-1
that the ECC material had a significant contribution to the stiffness of
the composite beams before yielding. At a load level of 0.4 Pp, the se-
cant stiffness of SEB-1 was 40% higher than that of SCB-1. Finally, the
bucking of the bottom flange resulted in a decrease of the loading ca-
pacity of the ECC composite beams.
A summary of the test results of all specimens is shown in Table 4.
Specifically, Py and δy denote the yielding load and the corresponding
displacement, respectively. The cracking load Pcr denotes the load level
at which the first visible crack was observed. The peak load Pp and peak
displacement δp denote the maximum load and the corresponding dis-
placement, respectively. The ultimate load Pu denotes the maximum
load between 0.85 Pp and the final load at end of the test. The ultimate
displacement δu denotes the corresponding displacement. As shown in
Table 4, the ductility of steel–ECC specimens is relatively higher than
that of steel–concrete specimens.
2.3.3. Strain development
The strain distribution development along the height of all beams is
shown in Fig. 6. Lack of strain values at certain heights means that the
corresponding strain gauges failed during the load. The yellow line at
the height of 180 mm indicates the interface between the steel beam
and concrete/ECC slab. As shown in the figure, the strain distribution
along the steel beam height was almost linear during the entire loading
process. However, when the load reached 0.6Pp, the strain distribution
of the composite beam deviated from linear relation, which might be
related to the imprecision of concrete strain gauges under large tensile
strain. As shown in Fig. 6 (a) and (b), the neutral axis of SEB-1 was
significantly higher than that of SCB-1 before 0.5 Pp. After this load,
tension stiffening effect of the R/ECC slab started to decrease, which led
to the decline of neutral axis height. The same phenomenon was ob-
served in specimen SEB-2, whereas the neutral axis height range of
specimen SCB-1 with a concrete slab was relatively stable. The com-
pressive strain development of the bottom flange in the mid-span before
yielding of the beam is shown in Fig. 7. Bottom flanges in all specimens
eventually yielded under compression. As can be seen from the figure,
the compressive strains of bottom flange in ECC specimens were always
lower than those in the concrete specimen at the same load level.
The strain comparison of reinforcement bars and ECC/concrete
slabs are shown in Fig. 8. For specimen SCB-1, the strain difference
occurred at a load level of 20 kN and increased rapidly after cracking of
the concrete slab. For specimen SEB-1 with an ECC slab, a compatible
deformation of rebar and ECC was observed before the load level of 50
kN. After the ECC slab cracked, the strain difference started to increase
in a relatively small range. Nevertheless, the deformation compatibility
of specimen SEB-1 was better than that of SCB-1. For specimen SEB-2
with a smaller rebar diameter, rebar and ECC slab maintained good
compatibility during the entire loading process. The multi-cracking
property of ECC eliminated the strain concentration of bars at the
cracked section and the deformation of both materials was compatible.
This observation is consistent with the research results obtained by
Fischer and Li [24].
2.3.4. Crack propagation
The first crack of specimens SCB-1, SEB-1 and SEB-2 was generated
at mid-span. After first cracking, multiple cracks were observed near the
slab mid-span. For concrete specimen SCB-1, approximately five evi-
dent cracks spread over the entire section at a load level of 55 kN. After
that, the crack width increased rapidly and no new crack was observed
at the pure bending region. For ECC specimens, however, new cracks

Table 3
Material properties of the ECC.
ECC for SEB-1 & SEB-2 Concrete for SCB-1

Compressive strength fcu,E (MPa) Tensile strength ft,E (MPa) Elastic modulus EE (MPa) Poisson's ratio Compressive strength fcu (MPa)

55.8 3.7 22,050 0.146 55.4

3
J. Fan, et al. Engineering Structures 210 (2020) 110309

Fig. 3. Layout of LVDTs, extensometers and strain gauges.

kept forming. Specimen SEB-1 exhibited the best multiple cracking

ability, with more than ten cracks extending over the entire section at
the pure bending region.
Crack width is known to affect the permeability and corrosion of
concrete structures. The crack width growth curves are shown in Fig. 9.
For the concrete slab in specimen SCB-1, the crack width reached 0.1
and 0.2 mm at 0.06 Pp and 0.37 Pp, respectively. The maximum crack
width exceeded 0.5 mm at a load level of 145 kN. For specimen SEB-1
with an ECC slab, the crack width remained below 0.1 mm before 0.7
Pp. After the entire section yielded, the crack width was still smaller
than 0.2 mm. The development of crack width in specimen SEB-2 was
identical with specimen SEB-1, except that the crack width was slightly
larger. For R/ECC specimens under direct tension, the crack width at
reinforcement yielding was around 100 μm [23], which was slightly
smaller than that in R/ECC composite beams. This inconsistency might
be related to different specimen scales and reinforcement heterogeneity
in the composite beams. Fig. 5. Load–displacement curves of test specimens.
The final crack patterns of the negative loading specimens are
shown in Fig. 10. The number next to the crack indicates the cracking crack spacing in steel–ECC composite beams.
load. The crack spacing of SCB-1 was around 120 mm at a low load
level, whereas that of specimen SEB-1 continued to decrease during the
entire loading process. The final crack spacing for specimen SEB-1 was 3. Theoretical analysis of the flexural strength of steel–ECC
less than 70 mm. Crack spacing was relatively higher for specimen SEB- composite beams
2, which indicated that a higher reinforcement ratio led to a closer
For steel–concrete composite beams subjected to negative bending

(a) (b)

SEB-2

SCB-1

SEB-1

(c) (d)
Fig. 4. Failure mode of (a) SCB-1 (b) SEB-1 (c) SEB-2 and (d) top slabs of the negative loading specimens.

4
J. Fan, et al. Engineering Structures 210 (2020) 110309

Table 4
Summary of test results.
Specimen Cracking load Pcr (kN) Yielding load Peak load Ultimate load δu /δy

Py (kN) δy (mm) Pp (kN) δp (mm) Pu (kN) δu (mm)

SCB-1 10 141 20 162 69 138 102 5.0

SEB-1 55 133 15 158 57 135 99 6.5
SEB-2 55 117 14 141 78 120 128 9.0

moments, most design codes [34–36] suggest neglecting the tensile

strength of concrete. In this section, three methods are adopted to
calculate the flexural capacity of such beams, including the elastic
method, plastic method neglecting the tensile strength of ECC, and
plastic method considering the tensile strength of ECC. The corre-
sponding stress distribution are shown in Fig. 11 (b)-(d), where Cs and
Ts denote the compressive load and tensile load, respectively, of the
steel beam, Tr denotes the tensile load of the reinforcement bars, TE
denotes the tensile load of the ECC slab, ft_E, fys, and fyr, denote the
tensile strength of ECC, yield strength of steel and rebar, respectively.
The beam is considered to reach its ultimate capacity when the outmost
steel fibre yields in the elastic method, or the whole section yields in the
plastic method. The comparison between the calculated flexural
strengths and the measured value is shown in Table 5. It can be seen in
the table that the test results are somewhere between the elastic and
plastic analysis results. Moreover, the tested strengths of SEB-1 and
SEB-2 are 21% and 22% lower, respectively, than corresponding plastic
analysis results considering the tensile contribution of ECC. This can be Fig. 7. Strain development of the bottom flange.
attributed to the fact that buckling occurred in the bottom flange of the
steel beam although the design satisfies the stability requirements for 4.1.1. General definition of the R/ECC tension model
flange and web plates. At ultimate loads, the bottom flanges of all The partition of the R/ECC tension model is shown in Fig. 12. Re-
specimens yielded. However, steel web strains of specimens SCB-1, SEB- gion B denotes the bonding region between cracks where the rebar is
1, and SEB-2 at a height of 75 mm from the bottom flange are 2389, stiffened by the ECC through effective bonding. Region C denotes the
1541, and 1369 με, respectively, less than the yield strain. Thus, crack region where ECC cracked and the load is transferred through the
buckling occurs before the whole section yields. More investigations rebar and fibres. For normal RC members, interaction between rebar
should be conducted to determine the ultimate negative flexural and concrete in region B results in improvement of the tension stiffness
strength of steel–ECC composite beams. beyond the initial cracking load. The tension-stiffening effect is closely
related to the bond behaviour between concrete and rebar. After
cracking of the concrete, the tensile stress at the cracking region drops
4. Theoretical analysis of tension stiffening effects and crack quickly from ft to zero as the crack width develops from zero to a
width of R/ECC slabs certain value. The decrease of stress in the cracking region is referred to
as a tension softening effect, which occurs usually before yielding of the
4.1. Development of a tension model for R/ECC reinforcement. However, for R/ECC members, experimental studies
[23–25] revealed that fibres in the cracking region can resist part of the
Numerous researches have been conducted to predict the tensile tensile load not only before but also after reinforcement bar yields. The
behaviour and cracking of reinforced concrete (RC) members. This increasing of stress in cracking region of R/ECC members is referred to
study focuses on proposing a new tension-stiffening and strain-hard- as a strain-hardening effect in this paper. The strain-hardening effect is
ening model for R/ECC members and on implementing the model to closely related to the crack width ω, which equals 2lC. In addition to
fibre beam–column models to obtain crack simulation of R/ECC tension-stiffening and strain-hardening effects, crack spacing is another
members. important factor to determine the overall tension behaviour of R/ECC

Fig. 6. Strain distribution at mid-span section of specimens (a) SCB-1, (b) SEB-1 and (c) SEB-2.

5
J. Fan, et al. Engineering Structures 210 (2020) 110309

Fig. 8. Strain comparison of rebar and ECC/concrete in specimens (a) SCB-1, (b) SEB-1 and (c) SEB-2.

160 members. The crack spacing is referred to as Lm in the tension model.

Thus, the sum of lB and lC equals to Lm/2.

120 4.1.2. Bond–slip model for steel bar embedded in ECC

Recently, several studies have been carried out to determine the
Load P (kN)

bond–slip behaviour of steel bars embedded in ECC materials [26–28].

80 Deng et al. [27] investigated the influence of several critical para-
meters, such as ECC strength and cover thickness, on the bond beha-
viour of R/ECC members. Test results indicated that deformed bars
SCB-1 embedded in ECC exhibited outstanding damage resistance. A nor-
40
SEB-1 malized average bond stress model was then proposed to predict the
SEB-2 structural response of the bond–slip behaviour. Lee et al. [28] in-
vestigated the bond behaviour between steel reinforcement and ECC
0 with different embedment lengths. A slightly higher bond strength was
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 achieved in R/ECC members than in RC members. An analytical
Crack width ω (mm)
bond–slip model including detailed parameter recommendations was
Fig. 9. Crack width growth curves. then proposed to determine the bond strength of R/ECC members with
short and long embedment lengths, respectively.
This study employs the bond–slip model by Lee et al. [28] and the

Side Span 55 Middle Span Side Span

35 80 55

100 45 45
30

90 25 55 50 100 75
50
18 50 25 130
100 160 25

(a)
100 75 110
Side Span Middle Span Side Span
110 120
120 120
75
120 110 120 120

75 120
130 100 55
75 70 80 65 90
120 90 90
120 100 110 70
180 75 75 110
75

(b)

60
70
Side Span 90 Middle Span Side Span
120 90 80 70 90
60 60
130 120 110 70
100 80 80 75 90
75
120 100 55 110 110
60 80
80
130 70 75 60 65 80 110
80 130 70 55 55 80
70

(c)
Fig. 10. Crack development at top of the slab in specimens (a) SCB-1, (b) SEB-1 and (c) SEB-2.

6
J. Fan, et al. Engineering Structures 210 (2020) 110309

Fig. 11. Stress distribution of (a) a typical negative bending composite beam in (b) elastic method, (c) plastic method neglecting the tensile strength of ECC, and (d)
plastic method considering the tensile strength of ECC.

Table 5
Comparison between theoretical and experimental flexural strength.
Specimen Test value Elastic Plastic analysis Plastic analysis
(kN⋅m) analysis (neglecting ECC) (considering ECC)
(kN⋅m) (kN⋅m) (kN⋅m)

SCB-1 97.2 85.4 106.3 106.3

SEB-1 95.0 85.4 106.3 115.0
SEB-2 84.8 80.7 89.6 103.6

x B: Bonding region
PVA fibres ECC B CC B C: Cracking region

Rebar

lB lC lC lB
Lm

Fig. 12. Regional division of the R/ECC tension model.

relationship is shown as follows, where τ denotes the average bonding
strength, s denotes the pull out distance, s1, s2 and s3 denote three
different slip levels, and τ1 and τ2 denote the corresponding bond
strength level. The value of s1, s2 and s3 are 1.5, 3.0, and 10.5 mm,
respectively. The value of τ1 and τ2 are determined as 3.4 fc and 1.3 fc ,
respectively.
1 s s1 for s s1
1 for s1 < s
=
2 +(1 2 )(s3 s ) (s3 s2 ) for s2 < s
2 for s3 < s
4.1.3. Crack spacing in R/ECC members
While the crack bridging relations of ECC have been extensively
studied, few studies have been conducted to investigate the crack
spacing. Li [8] studied the multiple cracking of ECC with different oil
coating contents. The observations indicated that the crack spacing
dropped from 30 mm to several millimetres as the oil agent content
increased from zero to 1%. A comparison between R/ECC and RC
uniaxial tension specimens showed that the crack spacing of ECC
members was substantially smaller than that of RC members [25]. Fi-
scher and Li [24] conducted a test on the tension-stiffening behaviour
of R/ECC members. The cracks were evenly distributed along the spe-
cimen and the average crack spacing was around 10 mm. In ECC
structures, however, the crack spacing varied from 20 to 100 mm ac-
cording to several experimental studies [23]. The crack spacing of
specimens SCB-1 and SEB-1 tested in this study after the overall sections
yielded are shown in Fig. 13. As can be seen from the figure, the crack
distribution in SEB-1 is significantly denser than in SCB-1. The crack
Fig. 13. Crack distribution and crack spacing of specimens (a) SCB-1 and (b)
SEB-1.
spacing of SEB-1 is around 50 mm.
It is challenging to realize the crack spacing prediction in ECC
structures mainly because of the unpredictable section defects and
material heterogeneity in large-scale structures. The cross section in
SEB-1 could be roughly divided into three categories, i.e. the normal
section, the section weakened by studs and the section weakened by the
s2 transverse reinforcement. The crack spacing is thus closely related to
s3 the spacing of the weakened sections. This assumption can be verified
(1) by Fig. 13 (b), where the crack distribution is consistent with the
transverse reinforcement details. For common ECC structures, the crack
distribution is closely related to the design details and the crack brid-
ging relations of ECC materials. Further research should be conducted
to clarify the crack spacing of R/ECC members. Currently, in order to
ensure sufficient redundancy in practical design, the recommended
value for crack spacing is the transverse reinforcement spacing. In this
paper, the crack spacing is chosen as the test values.
4.1.4. Crack bridging relationship for ECC materials
The strain hardening effect of R/ECC members occurs in the
cracking region. In unreinforced ECC tension members, fibres passing
through the crack region can commonly resist all tensile loads. The
bridging stress is defined as the load transferred by the fibre divided by
the area of the cross-section, and it is equal to the stress of ECC in an
uncracked section. The stress distribution of R/ECC members is more
complex than in unreinforced ECC members. As illustrated in Fig. 14
(a), after cracking of ECC materials, stress of the matrix in region C
drops to zero. As the crack opens to a certain width, reinforcement bars

7
J. Fan, et al. Engineering Structures 210 (2020) 110309

PVA fiber Region B PVA fiber

Matrix Matrix
Bar Bar

Region C Region C Region B

Bar stress Bar stress

Fiber stress
ECC stress
Matrix stress
(a) (b)
Fig. 14. Ideal distribution of stresses between cracks in the (a) separate model
and (b) integral model of R/ECC members. Fig. 15. A simplified bridging stress–crack width model for reinforced ECC in
structural calculation.

and fibres slide out of the matrix. In region C, the tension force of the
structural analysis.
matrix transfers to both rebar and fibres. Thus, the bridging stress of
A simplified four-parameter crack bridging model (Eq. (2)) is pro-
fibres is now lower than the stress of the matrix. The tension behaviour
posed to facilitate the application in numerical calculation, and the
of the matrix and fibres are considered separately in many studies on
accuracy is verified later in this paper. The bridging model consists of
unreinforced ECC materials, and many crack–bridging relations are
proposed through this separate model. However, considerable para- two quadratic curves. And the first derivative of the curve is con-
tinuous. As shown in Fig. 15, cracking stress σc denotes the cracking
meters of fibres and matrix bring difficulties in simulating large-scale
R/ECC structures. Another way to quantify the tensile contribution of stress of the matrix. Ultimate stress σu and ultimate crack width ωu
denote the maximum bridging stress and the corresponding crack width
ECC in R/ECC members is to consider fibres and matrix as a whole
during the loading process, respectively. Failure width ω0 denotes the
material. As shown in Fig. 14 (b), the integral model consists of only
crack width when the bridging stress drops to zero. The ultimate crack
two materials. Numerous research on crack–bridging relations makes it
width ωu could be negative depending on the balance of fibre and
possible to employ the integral model in numerical analyses of R/ECC
matrix. In this situation, the fibre reinforced matrix exhibits a tension-
structures.
softening effect instead of a strain-hardening effect. Each parameter
The crack bridging relationship is key to the strain-hardening effect
represents an explicit physical characteristic and all parameters are
in R/ECC integral models. So far, many analytical models have been
easy to determine in tension tests. Besides, the simplified model can
proposed to describe the fibre-bridging law based on different as-
simulate most crack bridging curves in Table 6 with sufficient accuracy
sumptions and conditions. Table 6 summarizes part of the typical fibre-
in structural simulations. Ultimate stress σu and cracking stress σc can
bridging models developed since 1992. Li et al. [7] established the first
be derived from the tensile strength and the crack strength during ECC
model predicting the complete bridging stress–crack width curve for
direct tension test. As suggested by several uniaxial tension tests
ECC. This model considers the randomly distributed fibres and the
[30,32], the recommended ranges for ωu and ω0 are 0.1–0.2 mm and
snubbing effect. Since then, more and more mechanisms have been
0.8–1.0 mm, respectively, for ECC materials with stable multiple
added to extend the adaptability of the original model. Yang et al. [30]
cracking and strain hardening behaviour.
proposed a numerical fibre-bridging constitutive law considering al-
most all fibre-matrix mechanisms including fibre rupture, chemical c u u
2
u
( 2
bonding, slip-hardening, matrix spalling, Cook-Gordon effect and two- 2 u) + u for ( u) ( u
u 0 )( c u)
=
way pull-out effects. Several years later, Huang et al. [31] introduced a u( c u)
2
( 0 )2 for ( u) > u u
simplified bridging model with explicit expressions. This model ignores ( u 2
0) ( c u) + u
2
u ( u 0 )( c u)

several effects with relatively less impact including matrix spalling and
Cook-Gordon effect. Even so, dozens of micromechanical parameters
and complex computational processes make it difficult to apply in
structural simulations. Some of these parameters are difficult to obtain
even in structural labs. A simplified crack bridging model with para-
meters that are easy to obtain through material tests is needed in
(2)
4.1.5. Tension stiffening analysis procedure for R/ECC members
The analytical model for R/ECC members subjected to uniaxial
tension is derived based on the tension model for RC members proposed

Table 6
Current analytical fibre-bridging models for ECC materials.
Theoretical model by Proposed year Snubbing effect Fibre rupture Chemical bonding Slip-hardening Matrix spalling Two-way pullout Fatigue

Li et al. [7] 1992 ○ × × × × × ×

Maalej et al. [37] 1995 ○ ○ × × × × ×
Lin and Li [38] 1997 ○ × × ○ × × ×
Kanda and Li [39] 1999 ○ ○ ○ × × × ×
Lin and Kanda [29] 1999 ○ ○ ○ ○ × × ×
Yang et al. [30] 2008 ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ×
Huang et al. [31] 2015 ○ ○ ○ ○ × ○ ×
Qiu and Yang [40] 2016 ○ ○ ○ ○ × × ○

8
J. Fan, et al. Engineering Structures 210 (2020) 110309

Fig. 16. Ideal stress distribution of the R/ECC model considering strain-hardening property.

by Xu et al. [41]. The ideal stress distribution of the R/ECC tension derived. The average bond stress ¯ is also calculated based on Eq. (1).
model is shown in Fig. 16. At T0, ECC stress is lower than the cracking Then, the stress–strain distribution (σe(x) and εe(x)) of uncracked ECC
stress and thus no crack forms. At T1, a crack forms at region C and a in region B can be obtained. The stress–strain distribution (σr(x) and εr
bridging stress of the ECC material is generated between cracks. After (x)) of rebar can be derived from the constitutive law and the equation
the maximum load is reached, the strain hardening and tension stif- of equilibrium. Finally, the overall load P, average stress ¯ , and the
fening effects start to decrease. The function σ(x) denotes the dis- corresponding average strain ¯ are obtained. In this way, a unified R/
tribution of sectional stress along crack spacing. The function τ(x) de- ECC tension model combining reinforcement and ECC has been estab-
notes the distribution of interface shear stress between the lished. During the elastic stage, the average stress–strain of the R/ECC
reinforcement bar and matrix, which can be derived from Eq. (1) by members can be derived as follows:
assuming that the global slip equals half the crack width and that the
(L m ) r (L m )2
bond stress is uniform. Stress functions σe(x) and σr(x) denote the stress ¯= + e( 2) + ( 2)
distribution of the ECC and reinforcement bar, respectively. The Lm Ee L m Ee L m d r (9)
average stress ¯ and average strain ¯ of R/ECC members can be defined
r (L m )2
as follows: ¯e = e( 2) + ( 2)
Lm dr (10)
Lm
e (x )· A e + r (x )· Ar 2 2 e (x )· A e+ r (x )· Ar ¯e + r ¯r
¯ = = dx =
A e + Ar Lm 0 A e + Ar (1 + r) Er E (L ) r Er (L m )2
¯r = + r m e( 2) + ( 2)
(3) Lm Ee L m Ee L m dr (11)
Lm
2 2 2 lB r Er r Er (L m ) + Ee L m
¯= r (x ) dx = + e (x ) dx ¯ = + e( )
Lm 0 Lm Lm 0 (4) (1 + r ) Lm (1 + r ) Ee Lm

where Ae and Ar denote the area of ECC and reinforcement bars, re- r ( r Er + Ee )(L m )2
+ ( 2)
spectively; ρr denotes the reinforcement ratio of the R/ECC section, (1 + r ) Ee L m d r (12)
calculated as Ar/(Ar + Ae)≈Ar/Ae; ω denotes the crack width. Eq. (4)
where Ee and Er denote the elastic modulus of ECC and reinforcement,
also represents the deformation compatibility relationship of the R/ECC
respectively; ¯e , and ¯r denote the average stress of ECC and rebar,
member. The equations of equilibrium in section B can be derived as
respectively. The derivation of the tension model is shown in the
follows:
Appendix A. This tension model can provide both the constitutive law
Lm
2 (x )·Cr and the corresponding crack width for R/ECC members. In ECC struc-
e (x ) = + dx
e0
x Ae (5) tures, the mechanical behaviour of R/ECC members can be pre-ob-
tained through the R/ECC tension model. By applying the behaviour of
R/ECC members to the fibre beam model, the mechanical performance
Lm
2 (x )· Cr
r (x ) = dx
r0
x Ar (6) and cracking behaviour of common ECC structures can be obtained.

where Cr denotes the sum of the circumferences of all steel bars; σe0 and
σr0 denote the stress of ECC and rebar at the cracking region. The ECC
stress σe0 can be derived from the crack bridging relations in Eq. (2).
The constitutive law of reinforcement bars and uncracked ECC mate-
rials are defined as follows:
e = e ( e)
r = r ( r)
where all constitutive laws can be input through arbitrary stress–strain
curves. In this study, the response of ECC before cracking is assumed to
be elastic and the reinforcement constitutive law employs the measured
stress–strain curve.
The analysis procedure for R/ECC members in uniaxial tension is
shown in Fig. 17. First of all, a crack width and an average crack spa-
cing are selected and input into the analysis program. Then, the brid-
ging stress σe0 and the regional division of the R/ECC model can be
4.2. Verification of the tension model
4.2.1. Verification of the crack bridging model
For validation of the simplified four-parameter crack bridging
model, the analytical fibre–bridging models in Table 6 are employed.
(7) All the previous analytical models are obtained directly from the lit-
eratures shown in Table 6. All the ECC crack bridging models are im-
(8)
plemented in the tension model to predict the mechanical behaviour of
reinforced ECC specimens. By comparing the simulation results from
the simplified model and the previous analytical models, the accuracy
of the proposed model is evaluated. A reinforced ECC specimen with a
120 mm square section and a reinforcement ratio of 3.0% is adopted in
the analysis. The yield strength of the rebar is 400 MPa. The simulation
results are shown in Fig. 18. Despite various expressions in all the
analytical models, the simplified crack bridging model has sufficient
accuracy in structural simulation.

9
J. Fan, et al. Engineering Structures 210 (2020) 110309

Fig. 17. Analysis procedure for the proposed R/ECC tension model.

4.2.2. Direct tension tests In simulation of Kang’s tests, σc, σu, ωu, and ω0 equal to 1.5 MPa,
For validation of the proposed R/ECC tension model, several R/ECC 3.0 MPa, 0.2 mm, and 1.0 mm, respectively. The corresponding para-
members tested in previous studies [23,25] were employed. In the meters in the simulation of Moreno’s tests are 2.7 MPa, 3.0 MPa,
tension behaviour analysis, the observed crack spacing and the mea- 0.2 mm, and 1.0 mm, respectively. The crack spacing equals 6 mm. As
sured reinforcement constitutive laws are employed. The cracking can be seen in the figure, the simulated responses by the proposed
stress and ultimate stress of ECC were measured in the original material tension model of R/ECC members show good agreement with the test
tests and the critical crack widths are chosen as the recommendations. results. It should be noted that the initial stiffness of several specimens
Fig. 19 shows comparison of the tensile behaviour of simulations and are slightly higher in simulations. The disparity is caused by the elastic
experimental tests. assumption of the uncracked ECC material. The difference increases
Kang et al. [25] conducted several tension tests to study the influ- with the increase of the cross section area. The observed crack widths of
ence of reinforcement ratio on the behaviour of R/ECC members. all specimens were less than 100 μm before yielding, which was con-
Moreno et al. [23] studied the tension stiffening effect of several re- sistent with the simulation results.
inforced HPFRCC members and those with ECC materials are employed.

250 250 250 250

ECC: 120 mm square ECC: 120 mm square ECC: 120 mm square ECC: 120 mm square
Rebar Ratio: 3.0 % Rebar Ratio: 3.0 % Rebar Ratio: 3.0 % Rebar Ratio: 3.0 %
200 σc=0.0 MPa 200 σc=0.7 MPa 200 σc=3.4 MPa 200 σc=1.0 MPa
σu=4.0 MPa σu=4.0 MPa σu=4.0 MPa σu=4.0 MPa
ωu=0.1 mm ωu=0.1 mm ωu=0.1 mm ωu=0.1 mm
Load P (kN)

Load P (kN)

Load P (kN)

Load P (kN)

150 ω0=1.2 mm 150 ω0=1.2 mm 150 ω0=0.6 mm 150 ω0=0.8 mm

100 100 100 100

Steel bar Steel bar Steel bar Steel bar

50 50 50 Lin, 1997 50 Kanda, 1999
Li, 1992 Maalej, 1995
Proposed model Proposed model Proposed model Proposed model
0 0 0 0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Strain ε (%) Strain ε (%) Strain ε (%) Strain ε (%)
(a) (b) (c) (d)
250 250 250 250
ECC: 120 mm square ECC: 120 mm square ECC: 120 mm square ECC: 120 mm square
Rebar Ratio: 3.0 % Rebar Ratio: 3.0 % Rebar Ratio: 3.0 % Rebar Ratio: 3.0 %
200 σc=0.0 MPa 200 σc=0.6 MPa 200 σc=0.7 MPa 200 σc=1.9 MPa
σu=4.0 MPa σu=4.0 MPa σu=4.0 MPa σu=4.0 MPa
ωu=0.1 mm ωu=0.1 mm ωu=0.1 mm ωu=0.1 mm
Load P (kN)

Load P (kN)

Load P (kN)

Load P (kN)

150 ω0=0.5 mm 150 ω0=0.4 mm 150 ω0=0.4 mm 150 ω0=0.6 mm

100 100 100 100

Steel bar Steel bar Steel bar Steel bar

50 Lin, 1999 50 Yang, 2008 50 50 Qiu, 2016
Huang, 2015
Proposed model Proposed model Proposed model Proposed model
0 0 0 0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Strain ε (%) Strain ε (%) Strain ε (%) Strain ε (%)
(e) (f) (g) (h)

Fig. 18. Verification of the simplified crack bridging model with analytical fibre–bridging models proposed by (a) Li, 1992 [7], (b) Maalej, 1995 [37], (c) Lin, 1997
[38], (d) Kanda, 1999 [39], (e) Lin, 1999 [29], (f) Yang, 2008 [30], (g) Huang, 2015 [31], and (h) Qiu, 2016 [40].

10
J. Fan, et al. Engineering Structures 210 (2020) 110309

90 90 120
ECC: 90 mm square ECC: 120 mm square ECC: 150 mm square
75 Rebar: φ13 75 Rebar: φ13 Rebar: φ13
Ratio: 1.64 % Ratio: 0.92 % 90 Ratio: 0.59 %
60 60
Load P (kN)

Load P (kN)

Load P (kN)
45 Steel bar
45 60
Test
30 Simulation 30
Steel bar 30 Steel bar
15 15 Test Test
Simulation Simulation
0 0 0
0.00 0.15 0.30 0.45 0.60 0.75 0.00 0.15 0.30 0.45 0.60 0.75 0.00 0.15 0.30 0.45 0.60 0.75
Strain ε (%) Strain ε (%) Strain ε (%)
(a) (b) (c)
150 200 150
ECC: 150 mm square ECC: 150 mm square ECC: 127 mm square
Rebar: φ20 Rebar: φ16
120 Rebar: φ16 160 120
Ratio: 0.89 % Ratio: 1.40 % Ratio: 1.25 %

Load P (kN)
Load P (kN)
Load P (kN)

90 120 90

60 80 60
Steel bar Steel bar #5 bar
30 Test 40 Test 30 Test
Simulation Simulation Simulation
0 0 0
0.00 0.15 0.30 0.45 0.60 0.75 0.00 0.15 0.30 0.45 0.60 0.75 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Strain ε (%) Strain ε (%) Strain ε (%)
(d) (e) (f)
Fig. 19. Verification of the proposed R/ECC tension model with test results by (a)–(e) Kang et al. [25] and (f) Moreno et al. [23].

4.2.3. Steel–ECC composite beams 200

When analysing the stiffness and flexural strength of a normal
steel–concrete composite beam, the current method usually neglects the
tensile strength of concrete. This traditional method shows good ac-
150
curacy in concrete specimens. In steel–ECC composite beams, however,
stiffness is underestimated. As can be seen from Fig. 19, ECC can sig-
Load P (kN)

SCB-1 test result

nificantly improve the tension behaviour of R/ECC members. This
100 SCB-1 simulation
tension enhancement will lead to a certain increase in the structural
SEB-1 test result
stiffness.
SEB-1 simulation
Specimens SEB-1 and SEB-2 with ECC slabs are employed to verify
the calculation method of the steel–ECC composite beams. The fibre
SEB-1 simu-no ECC
50 SEB-2 test result
beam model is calculated by the software Matlab. In the model, the
composite beam is divided into 150 beam elements along the long- SEB-2 simulation
itudinal direction. The moment–curvature relationship of the beam SEB-2 simu-no ECC
section can be derived according to the basic theory of the fibre model. 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
By integrating the curvature of each element, the macro deflection of Displacement δ (mm)
the composite beam can be obtained. Mesh sensitivity analysis is con-
ducted to verify the adequate accuracy of 150 beam elements. The Fig. 20. Comparison of measured and simulated load–displacement curves for
section of the fibre model consists of a concrete/ECC slab with one layer negative loading specimens.
and a steel beam with 108 layers. Since the measured slip between steel
beam and slab is less than 0.5 mm and the effect of the interface slip on predicted deflection is relatively higher during initial loading levels in
the beam mechanical performance is negligible, the slip is neglected in SEB-2. This error is attributed to the assumption of elasticity before
the fibre beam model. cracking of ECC materials. A more detailed constitutive law is needed to
Fig. 20 shows the load–displacement curves of SEB-1 and SEB-2. The further improve the accuracy.
simulated flexural strength is relatively higher than that of the test The corresponding crack width can also be derived from the ana-
results, which is attributed to the observed buckling in the bottom lytical model, and the simulated results are shown in Fig. 21. The
flange of the composite beams. As shown in Table 7, the calculated comparison indicates that the predicted developments of the crack
secant stiffness neglecting tension of ECC is lower than the test results width are in good agreement with the measured curves for both com-
by 26% at 0.5 Pp in specimen SEB-1. The disparity increased to 52% posite beams.
when the reinforcement ratio decreased to 1%. To consider the re-
sistance contribution of ECC, the proposed fibre model for steel–ECC 4.3. Analytical parametric study on steel–ECC composite beams
composite beams is adopted. The crack bridging parameters σc, σu, ωu,
and ω0 are 2.0 MPa, 3.7 MPa, 0.02 mm, and 0.15 mm, respectively. The 4.3.1. ECC material parameters
average crack spacing Lm equals 50 mm and 70 mm. As can be seen in ECC is known to be a family of materials with a range of tensile
Table 7, the simulations of deflection in specimens SEB-1 and SEB-2 strengths and ductilities. A variety of material properties can be
exhibit satisfactory accuracy under serviceability limit states. The achieved through different micromechanical designs. The

11
J. Fan, et al. Engineering Structures 210 (2020) 110309

Table 7
Deflection comparison of SEB-1 and SEB-2 between current method and R/ECC tension model.
Load (kN) SEB-1, 8Φ12, 2% SEB-2, 8Φ8, 1%

Test (mm) Current method Simulation Test (mm) Current method Simulation

(mm) error (mm) error (mm) error (mm) error

0.3 Pp 3.36 5.14 53% 3.55 6% 2.91 5.66 94% 3.36 15%
0.4 Pp 4.88 6.86 41% 5.12 5% 4.38 7.54 72% 4.49 2%
0.5 Pp 6.79 8.57 26% 6.73 −1% 6.19 9.43 52% 5.77 −7%
0.6 Pp 8.55 10.31 21% 8.36 −2% 8.31 11.32 36% 7.38 −11%
0.7 Pp 10.97 12.06 10% 10.21 −7% 10.63 13.30 25% 9.96 −6%

160 Many researchers have observed the phenomenon of slip-dependent

interfacial shear stress between fibres and the matrix. For many syn-
thetic fibres, such as PVA, slip-hardening behaviour occurs due to
120 surface abrasion during the pull-out process. For short PVA fibres with
linear slip-hardening interfaces, the post-debonding crack bridging re-
Load P (kN)

lation is predicted by Lin [38] as follows:

80
SEB-1 test result
SEB-1 simulation
40 SEB-2 test result
SEB-2 simulation
SCB-1 test result
0 Fig. 23 (a). The corresponding load–displacement curves and crack
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Crack width ω (mm)
Fig. 21. Comparison of measured and simulated load–crack width curves for
negative loading specimens.
diversification of ECC materials provides the possibility to achieve the
integrated design of materials and structures. The key is to obtain the
influence of different material properties on the performance and crack
resistance of ECC infrastructures. In this section, several material
parameters are selected to study their effects on the mechanical beha-
viour in steel–ECC composite beams. Different ECC fibre–bridging
models can be obtained with different material parameters. By repla-
cing Eq. (16) with these fibre–bridging models, the mechanical per-
formance and crack propagation of ECC structures can be derived.
Specimen SEB-2 is employed in the parametric study. The effects of
fibre volume fraction, chemical bonding strength, and fibre slip-hard-
ening behaviour are studied.
Leung and Li [7] showed that the crack bridging relationship could
be predicted as follows:
4Vf 2 L f 2 cos
( )= P ( ) p ( ) p (z ) dz d
d f2 =0 z=0
where Lf and df denote the length and diameter of the fibre, respec-
tively; Vf denotes the fibre volume fraction; P ( ) denotes the fibre
pullout load; and z denote the orientation angle and centroidal dis-
tance of fibres from the crack plane, respectively; p ( ) and p (z ) denote
the corresponding probability-density functions, respectively. As shown
in the equation, the bridging stress is in linear relation with Vf.
Therefore, for ECC with low fracture toughness, the crack bridging
curves with different fibre volume fractions are shown in Fig. 22 (a).
The corresponding load–displacement curves and crack propagations
are shown in Fig. 22 (b) and (c), respectively. As can be seen in the
figure, the stiffening effect of ECC becomes stronger with the increase of
fibre content. As the fibre volume fraction increases from 0.33% to
2.00%, the secant stiffness of the composite beam increases from 7.03
to 9.23 kN/mm at a load level of 80 kN. The corresponding crack width
decreases from 0.07 to 0.04 mm. This result is consistent with experi-
mental observations.
Lf
= 1+ (1 )2
0 2d f (14)
where β denotes the nondimensional hardening parameter; denotes
the normalized crack opening; σ0 denotes the normalized critical
bridging stress determined by other fibre parameters. The crack brid-
ging relations with different slip-hardening strengths are shown in
0.4 developments are shown in Fig. 23 (b) and (c), respectively. As can be
seen from the figure, the flexural strength and ductility increase with
the hardening factor β. As β increases from 0.0 to 5.0, the ultimate
flexural strength increases from 140 to 159 kN. The corresponding ul-
timate displacement increases from 23 to 35 mm. Steel–ECC specimens
with higher hardening factors tend to have higher strength and ducti-
lity. The crack width is also relatively smaller compared to specimens
with lower β.
Although chemical bonding between fibre and matrix could increase
the bridging stress, excessive chemical bonding can lead to fibre rupture
and decrease of the ductility. There are several methods, such as oil
coating [8], to control the bonding strength. Lin et al. [29] proposed the
maximum embedded length of a single fibre which guarantees full pull-
out without rupture, and the critical embedded length is calculated as
follows:
lc = Lc0 e (f + f )
2 (15)
where γ denotes the chemical bonding parameter; Lc0 denotes the
normalized critical embedded length; f denotes the snubbing coefficient
between fibre and matrix; f’ denotes the strength reduction coefficient
considering the effect of fibre alignment; lc and denote the critical
(13) embedded length and the orientation angle of the single fibre, respec-
tively. By integrating the tension contribution of all unbroken fibres,
the crack bridging relationship can be obtained as shown in Fig. 24 (a).
The corresponding load–displacement curves and crack developments
are shown in Fig. 24 (b) and (c), respectively. As can be seen from the
figure, although the stiffness in steel–ECC composite beams increases
with high bonding strength, the corresponding ultimate displacement is
significantly reduced. As γ/Lc0 increases from 0.00 to 0.80, the secant
stiffness increases from 7.32 to 11.64 kN/mm at a load level of 80 kN.
However, the corresponding ultimate displacement drops from 30 to
22 mm. Beams with a high value of γ tend to have a smaller crack width
before failure. However, the ductility is significantly reduced. A ba-
lanced performance between ductility and crack opening should be
achieved in material design.
4.3.2. Structural parameters
Influences of more structural parameters are studied in this section

12
J. Fan, et al. Engineering Structures 210 (2020) 110309

Fig. 22. Influence of fibre volume fraction on (a) crack bridging relations of ECC material, (b) load–displacement curves and (c) crack propagations of steel–ECC
composite beams.

4 180 180
0.0 Steel-ECC beam
1.0 Ratio: 0.54 %
Bridging stress σ (MPa)

3 2.0
3.0 120 120
Load P (kN)

Load P (kN)
4.0 Rebar
2 5.0 0.0 0.0
1.0 Increase of fiber 1.0
60 2.0 60 slip-hardening 2.0
1 3.0 3.0
Increase of fiber
4.0 4.0
slip-hardening
5.0 5.0
0 0 0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 10 20 30 40 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Crack width ω (mm) Displacement δ (mm) Crack width ω (mm)
(a) (b) (c)
Fig. 23. Influence of fibre slip hardening on (a) crack bridging relations of ECC material, (b) load–displacement curves and (c) crack propagation of steel–ECC
composite beams.

including slab area, rebar strength, steel plate strength, slab re-
inforcement ratio, top flange thickness, bottom flange thickness, web
thickness, and crack spacing. Specimen SEB-2 is employed in the
parametric study. The analysis results provide valid references for the
design and crack control of steel–ECC composite beams.
The influence of these parameters on load–displacement curves are
shown in Fig. 25. As can be seen in the figure, increase of ECC slab area
and bottom flange thickness can significantly improve the initial stiff-
ness of the composite beams. Increase of steel plate thickness, steel
strength, and reinforcement ratio can help improve the negative ulti-
mate flexural strength. Decrease of crack spacing can delay ECC strain
hardening process, which can improve the negative flexural strength to
some extent. The effect of reinforcement strength on the
load–displacement curves is relatively small.
The influence of these parameters on crack propagation of
steel–ECC composite beams are shown in Fig. 26. As can be seen in the
figure, increase of ECC slab area can significantly reduce the crack
width development before yield of the composite beams. Increase of
slab reinforcement ratio, steel plate thickness and decreasing of crack
spacing can also help reduce the crack width at initial loading stage.
The effect of rebar strength, steel strength, and web thickness is rela-
tively small. After the composite beam yields, beams with higher flex-
ural strengths demonstrate stronger crack width control capability.
Beams with different slab areas show the same crack width develop-
ment at this stage.

4 160 160
0.00 Steel-ECC beam
0.16 Ratio: 0.54 %
Bridging stress σ (MPa)

3 0.32 120 120

0.48
Load P (kN)

Load P (kN)

0.64 Rebar
2 0.80 80 0.00 80 0.00
0.16 0.16
0.32 0.32
1 40 0.48 40 0.48
0.64 Increase of chemical bond 0.64
Increase of chemical bond 0.80 0.80
0 0 0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0 10 20 30 40 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Crack width ω (mm) Displacement δ (mm) Crack width ω (mm)
(a) (b) (c)
Fig. 24. Influence of chemical bonding on (a) post-debonding crack bridging relations of ECC material, (b) load–displacement curves and (c) crack propagation of
steel–ECC composite beams.

13
J. Fan, et al. Engineering Structures 210 (2020) 110309

160 160 160 160

Basic slab area： Rebar strength Steel strength Slab Reinforcement
420 cm2 ratio
120 120 Rebar strength 120 120
300MPa→400MPa Steel strength

Load P (kN)
Load P (kN)
Load P (kN)

Load P (kN)
350MPa→450MPa
40%
80 80 300 80 350 80 0.4%
ECC slab area 60%
320 370 0.6%
40%→140% 80%
340 390 0.8%
100%
40 40 360 40 410 40 Slab Reinforcement Ratio 1.0%
120%
380 430 0.4%→1.4% 1.2%
140%
400 450 1.4%
0 0 0 0
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
Displacement δ (mm) Displacement δ (mm) Displacement δ (mm) Displacement δ (mm)
(a) (b) (c) (d)
160 160 160 160
Basic top flange Basic bottom flange Basic web
Thickness: 8 mm Thickness: 8 mm thickness: 6 mm
120 120 120 120
Crack spacing

Load P (kN)
Load P (kN)
Load P (kN)
Load P (kN)

40%→140%
80 40% 80 40% 80 40% 80 40%
60% 60% 60% 60%
80% Bottom flange thickness 80% Web thickness 80% 80%
Top flange thickness
40 100% 40 40%→140% 100% 40 40%→140% 100% 40 100%
40%→140%
120% 120% 120% 120%
140% 140% 140% Basic crack spacing: 50mm 140%
0 0 0 0
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
Displacement δ (mm) Displacement δ (mm) Displacement δ (mm) Displacement δ (mm)
(e) (f) (g) (h)
Fig. 25. Influence of (a) slab area, (b) rebar strength, (c) steel plate strength, (d) slab reinforcement ratio, (e) top flange thickness, (f) bottom flange thickness, (g)
web thickness, and (h) crack spacing on the load–displacement curves of steel–ECC composite beams.

160 160 160 160

Basic slab area： Rebar strength Steel strength Slab Reinforcement
420 cm2 ratio
120 120 Rebar strength 120 120
300MPa→400MPa Steel strength
Load P (kN)

Load P (kN)

Load P (kN)
Load P (kN)

350MPa→450MPa
40% 300
80 80 80 350 80 0.4%
60% 320
370 Slab Reinforcement Ratio 0.6%
ECC slab area 80% 340
390 0.4%→1.4% 0.8%
40%→140% 100% 360
40 40 40 410 40 1.0%
120% 380
430 1.2%
140% 400
450 1.4%
0 0 0 0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Crack width ω (mm) Crack width ω (mm) Crack width ω (mm) Displacement δ (mm)
(a) (b) (c) (d)
160 160 160 160
Basic top flange Basic bottom flange Basic web
Thickness: 8 mm Thickness: 8 mm thickness: 6 mm
120 120 120 120
Load P (kN)

Load P (kN)

Load P (kN)

Load P (kN)

80 40% 80 40% 80 40% 80 40%

60% 60% Web thickness 60% Crack spacing 60%
Top flange thickness
80% Bottom flange thickness 80% 40%→140% 80% 40%→140% 80%
40%→140%
40 100% 40 40%→140% 100% 40 100% 40 100%
120% 120% 120% 120%
140% 140% 140% Basic crack spacing: 50mm 140%
0 0 0 0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Displacement δ (mm) Displacement δ (mm) Displacement δ (mm) Displacement δ (mm)
(e) (f) (g) (h)
Fig. 26. Influence of (a) slab area, (b) rebar strength, (c) steel plate strength, (d) slab reinforcement ratio, (e) top flange thickness, (f) bottom flange thickness, (g)
web thickness, and (h) crack spacing on the crack propagation of steel–ECC composite beams.

5. Conclusions demonstrated sufficient accuracy in structural calculations. The pro-

posed tension-stiffening model of R/ECC members showed good
In this paper, the flexural performance of steel–ECC composite agreement with test observations. The model can be further applied in a
beams under negative bending moments and the tension stiffening ef- fibre beam-column element model to predict the flexural behaviour of
fect of R/ECC flange slabs were investigated through analytical and steel–ECC composite beams in finite element analysis, which exhibited
experimental methods. One steel–concrete and two steel–ECC compo- satisfied accuracy in terms of the stiffness and crack propagation.
site beams were tested. A new model was established to simulate the The analytical parametric studies based on the new model demon-
tension stiffening effect and the cracking behaviour of R/ECC slabs. The strated that the increase of fibre volume fraction led to higher stiffness and
following conclusions were reached within the scope of this study. crack resistance of steel–ECC composite beams. Increase of fibre hardening
The application of ECC significantly improved the cracking load and factors led to higher strength and ductility. Increase of chemical bonding
reduced the crack width in flange slabs of composite beams under ne- resulted in better crack control capability before failure, but ductility de-
gative bending moment. Multiple fine cracks with crack width lower creased significantly. In addition, increase of ECC slab area, slab re-
than 0.2 mm were observed before yielding of beams. Increase in re- inforcement ratio, steel plate thickness, and decrease of crack spacing
inforcement ratio could further improve the crack resistance. could help reduce the initial crack width.
The proposed simplified four-parameter crack bridging model In order to fully understand the tension and cracking behaviour of

14
J. Fan, et al. Engineering Structures 210 (2020) 110309

R/ECC structures, more efforts should be made to experimentally study Declaration of Competing Interest
the crack spacing pattern of R/ECC members. Furthermore, experi-
mental study [42] showed that the shrinkage of concrete could affect The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
the tension behaviour of RC members. Thus more experimental and interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
theoretical studies should also be carried out to study the effect of ence the work reported in this paper.
shrinkage on ECC structures in the future.

CRediT authorship contribution statement Acknowledgments

Jiansheng Fan: Conceptualization, Methodology, Funding acqui- The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support provided
sition. Shuangke Gou: Data curation, Software, Writing - original draft. by the National Science Fund of China (Grant No. 51890901 and
Ran Ding: Validation, Writing - review & editing, Supervision, Funding 51978378).
acquisition. Jun Zhang: Resources. Zhengjie Shi: Investigation.

Appendix A

A.1. Derivation of the R/ECC tension model

The derivations of the theoretical solution are based on following assumptions. ECC is elastic before cracking. Ee represents the Young's modulus
of ECC.
For a certain crack width ω, according to crack bridging relationship of ECC, the nominal ECC stress at region C (σe0) is given by
2
c u 2 u u
2 ( u) + u for ( u) ( u
u 0 )( c u)
e0 = e1 = e( ) = 2
u( c u) 2 for ( u u
( 0) u) >
( u 2
0) ( c u) + u
2
u ( u 0 )( c u) (16)
After ECC cracks, the steel bar slips out of ECC. Assume that the steel bar slides the same distance from both sides of the crack. Then the slip
distance of the steel bar s is derived by

s=
2 (17)
According to the bond–slip behaviour for steel bar embedded in ECC, the average bond strength at region B is given by

1 2s1 for 2 s1
1 for s1 < 2 s2
= ( 2) =
2 +(1 2 )(s3 2) (s3 s2 ) for s2 < 2 s3
2 for s3 < 2 (18)
The bond strength at region C is given by
=0 (19)
The crack spacing Lm can be derived through defects and hardening curve analysis. The ECC stress distribution is shown in Fig. 16. ECC stress σe
(x) decreases as x increases because of the bond load τ, and the stress at the embedded end σe2 (x = 0) can be derived as
Lm
2 (x )·Cr ·n d r L m 2 r (L m )
e2 = e0 + dx = e0 + · = e( )+ ( 2)
0 Ae n dr2 2 dr
4 r (20)
where n denotes the number of reinforcement bars.
The average stress of ECC e is defined as the average value of ECC stress along Lm. e is given by
Lm
2 2 2 e1 + e2 Lm r (L m )2
¯e = e (x ) dx = e0· + · = e( )+ ( 2)
Lm 0 Lm 2 2 2 Lm dr (21)
The average ECC strain can be derived as
Lm Lm
2 2 2 2
e = e (x ) dx = e (x ) dx +
Lm 0 Lm 0 2 (22)
According to the elastic assumption, the average ECC strain can be rewritten as
Lm
2 e (x ) 2 e1 + e2 L m
¯e= Lm
+ Lm 0
2
Ee
dx = Lm
+ L m 2Ee 2
(L m ) r (L m )2
= + e( )+ ( 2)
Lm Ee Lm Ee L m dr (23)
According to the deformation compatibility of ECC and rebar, the average ECC strain is equal to the average reinforcement strain. The average
strain of rebar is given by
r = e = (24)
Assume the reinforcement stress at crack zone equals σr0. The stress distribution of reinforcement bar can be derived as:

15
J. Fan, et al. Engineering Structures 210 (2020) 110309

Lm Lm
2 (x )· Cr 2 (x )·n d r
r (x ) = r0 dx = r0 dx
x Ar x n dr 2
4 (25)
According to the shear stress distribution shown in Eq. (18) and Eq. (19), the stress distribution can be rewritten as
Lm
4 ( 2) Lm
r0 dr
x|x 2 for 0 x < 2
r (x ) =
Lm Lm
r0 for 2
x 2 (26)
Then the critical rebar stress σr1 and σr2 are derived as
r1 = r0 (27)

2(L m )
r2 = r0 ( 2)
dr (28)
The average rebar stress is given by
Lm
2 2 2 r1 + r2 Lm (L m )2
¯r = r (x ) dx = r0· + · = r0 ( 2)
Lm 0 Lm 2 2 2 Lm dr (29)
According to the constitutive law of the reinforcement bar and the stress distribution (Eq. (26)), the strain distribution of the rebar is given by
r = r ( r (x )) (30)
Then the average strain of the reinforcement bar can be derived as
Lm
2 2
r = r ( r (x )) dx
Lm 0 (31)
The critical rebar stress σr0 can be then derived through Eqs. (31) and (24). The solve process needs numerical iteration because the constitutive
law of the reinforcement uses an implicit expression. The stress and strain distribution of the reinforcement bar can be derived. Finally, the average
stress of the R/ECC specimen can be derived as:
Lm
2 2 e (x )· A e + r (x )· Ar ¯e + r ¯r
¯ = dx =
Lm 0 A e + Ar (1 + r) (32)
The average stress , the average strain , and the corresponding crack width ω are derived through equations above.

A.2. Derivation of the explicit expressions

Furthermore, if the reinforcement is ideally elastoplastic with a Young's modulus of Er and a yield strength of fr, explicit expressions of the
solution can be derived. During elastic stage of the rebar, Eq. (31) can be rewritten as
Lm Lm
2 r (x ) 2 ¯r (L m )2
¯r = 2
dx = 2
r (x ) dx = = r0 ( 2)
Lm 0 Er Er L m 0 Er Er Er L m d r (33)
Using Eqs. (23), (24) and (33), the expression of the critical rebar stress σr0 and σr1 are given by
Er E (L ) r Er (L m )2 (L m )2
r1 = r0 = + r m e( )+ ( 2) + ( 2)
Lm Ee L m Ee L m d r Lm dr (34)
The rebar stress at the embedded end is given by
Er E (L ) r Er ( L m )2 Lm2 2
r2 = + r m e( )+ ( 2) ( 2)
Lm Ee L m Ee L m d r Lm dr (35)
The average rebar stress is given by
Er E (L ) r Er (L m )2
¯r = + r m e( )+ ( 2) = Er ¯
Lm Ee L m Ee L m dr (36)
And the average stress of the R/ECC specimen is given by

r Er r Er (Lm ) + Ee Lm r ( r Er + Ee )(Lm )2
= + e( )+ ( 2)
(1 + r ) Lm (1 + r ) Ee Lm (1 + r ) Ee Lm dr (37)
Finally, when the rebar at crack zone yields, i.e. r1 fr , the critical rebar stress σr0 and σr1 can be derived as
r1 = r0 = fr (38)
The rebar stress at the embedded end is given by
2(L m ) *
r2 = fr ( 2)
dr (39)
where ω* denotes the critical crack width when r1 = fr . ω* can be derived from

16
J. Fan, et al. Engineering Structures 210 (2020) 110309

( r Er + Ee )(L m * )2
Er * E (L *)
r1 = + r m e(
*) + ( * 2) = fr
Lm Ee L m Ee L m dr (40)
The average rebar stress is given by
(L m )2 *
¯r = fr ( 2)
Lm dr (41)
And the average stress of the R/ECC specimen is given by
e( )+ r fr
¯ =
1+ r (42)
Explicit expressions of the average stress , the average strain , and the corresponding crack width ω are derived through equations above.

References HRECC beams. China Civil Eng J 2013;46(04):10–7. [in Chinese].

[1] Nie JG, Li YX, Tao MX, Nie X. Uplift-restricted and slip-permitted T-shape con-
nectors. J Bridge Eng 2014;20(4):04014073.
[2] Taranath BS, Bungale S. Structural analysis and design of tall buildings: steel and
composite construction. CRC Press; 2016.
[3] Nie JG, Wang YH, Cai CS. Elastic rigidity of composite beams with full width slab
openings. J Constr Steel Res 2012;73:43–54.
[4] Nie JG, Cai CS, Zhou TR, Li Y. Experimental and analytical study of prestressed
steel–concrete composite beams considering slip effect. J Struct Eng
2007;133(4):530–40.
[5] Abe H, Hidehiko T. Flexible shear connectors for railway composite girder bridges.
Compos Constr Steel Concr IV 2002:71–80.
[6] Li VC. Postcrack scaling relations for fibre reinforced cementitious composites. J
Mater Civ Eng 1992;4(1):41–57.
[7] Li VC, Leung CK. Steady-state and multiple cracking of short random fibre com-
posites. J Eng Mech 1992;118(11):2246–64.
[8] Li VC. Advances in ECC research. ACI Spec Publ 2002;206:373–400.
[9] Li VC. On engineered cementitious composites (ECC) - a review of the material and
its application. J Adv Concr Technol 2003;1(3):215–30.
[10] Li VC, Qian S. Suppression of fracture failure at steel/concrete interaction zones by
material ductility in ECC. ACEMRL: Dept. of CEE, University of Michigan; 2005.
[11] Gencturk B, Elnashai AS, Lepech MD, Billington S. Behaviour of concrete and ECC
structures under simulated earthquake motion. J Struct Eng 2012;139(3):389–99.
[12] Gou SK, Ding R, Fan JS, Nie X, Zhang J. Seismic performance of a novel precast
concrete beam-column connection using low-shrinkage engineered cementitious
composites. Constr Build Mater 2018;192:643–56.
[13] Fischer G, Li VC. Effect of fibre reinforcement on the response of structural mem-
bers. Eng Fract Mech 2007;74(1–2):258–72.
[14] Frank TE, Lepech MD, Billington S. Experimental testing of reinforced ECC beams
subjected to various cyclic deformation histories. J Struct Eng
2018;144(6):04018052.
[15] Kakuma K, Matsumoto T, Hayashikawa T, He X. Fatigue analysis of ECC-steel
composite deck under wheel trucking load. Procedia Eng 2011;14:1838–44.
[16] Sahmaran M, Anil O, Lachemi M, Yildirim G, Ashour AF, Acar F. Effect of corrosion
on shear behaviour of reinforced engineered cementitious composite beams. ACI
Struct J 2015;112(6):771.
[17] Lepech MD, Li VC. Application of ECC for bridge deck link slabs. Mater Struct
2009;42(9):1185.
[18] Li VC, Fischer G, Kim Y, Lepech MD, Qian S, Weimann M, et al. Durable link slabs
for jointless bridge decks based on strain-hardening cementitious composites.
Michigan Department Transport 2003.
[19] Afefy HM, Kassem N, Hussein M. Enhancement of flexural behaviour of CFRP-
strengthened reinforced concrete beams using engineered cementitious composites
transition layer. Struct Infrastruct Eng 2015;11(8):1042–53.
[20] Zhang J, Leung CK, Cheung YN. Flexural performance of layered ECC-concrete
composite beam. Compos Sci Technol 2006;66(11–12):1501–12.
[21] Zhang J, Wang ZB, Ju XC, Shi ZJ. Simulation of flexural performance of layered
ECC-concrete composite beam with fracture mechanics model. Eng Fract Mech
2014;131:419–38.
[22] Xue HQ, Deng ZC. Experimental and theoretical studies on bending performance of
[23] Moreno DM, Trono W, Jen G, Ostertag CP, Billington SL. Tension stiffening in re-
inforced high performance fibre reinforced cement-based composites. Cem Concr
Compos 2014;50:36–46.
[24] Fischer G, Li VC. Influence of matrix ductility on tension-stiffening behaviour of
steel reinforced engineered cementitious composites (ECC). Struct J
2002;99(1):104–11.
[25] Kang SB, Tan KH, Zhou XH, Yang B. Influence of reinforcement ratio on tension
stiffening of reinforced engineered cementitious composites. Eng Struct
2017;141:251–62.
[26] Bandelt MJ, Frank TE, Lepech MD, Billington SL. Bond behaviour and interface
modeling of reinforced high-performance fibre-reinforced cementitious composites.
Cem Concr Compos 2017;83:188–201.
[27] Deng MK, Pan JJ, Sun HZ. Bond behaviour of steel bar embedded in Engineered
Cementitious Composites under pullout load. Constr Build Mater 2018;168:705–14.
[28] Lee SW, Kang SB, Tan KH, Yang EH. Experimental and analytical investigation on
bond-slip behaviour of deformed bars embedded in engineered cementitious com-
posites. Constr Build Mater 2016;127:494–503.
[29] Lin Z, Kanda T, Li VC. On interface property characterization and performance of
fibre-reinforced cementitious composites. Concr Sci Eng 1999;1(1):173–84.
[30] Yang EH, Wang SX, Yang YZ, Li VC. Fibre-bridging constitutive law of engineered
cementitious composites. J Adv Concr Technol 2008;6(1):181–93.
[31] Huang T, Zhang YX, Su C, Lo SR. Effect of slip-hardening interface behaviour on
fibre rupture and crack bridging in fibre-reinforced cementitious composites. J Eng
Mech 2015;141(10):04015035.
[32] Yu J, Lu C, Chen YX, Leung CK. Experimental determination of crack-bridging
constitutive relations of hybrid-fibre strain-hardening cementitious composites
using digital image processing. Constr Build Mater 2018;173:359–67.
[33] Yu J, Chen YX, Leung CK. Micromechanical modeling of crack-bridging relations of
hybrid-fibre Strain-Hardening Cementitious Composites considering interaction
between different fibres. Constr Build Mater 2018 Sep;10(182):629–36.
[34] AISC. Specification for structural steel buildings. ANSI/AISC 360-10. American
Institute of Steel Construction; 2005.
[35] CSA. Canadian highway bridge design code. CAN/CSA-S6-14. Canadian Standards
Association; 2014.
[36] CEN. Eurocode 4: design of composite steel and concrete structures. BS EC 1994-1-
1. European Committee for Standardization; 1994.
[37] Maalej M, Li VC, Hashida T. Effect of fibre rupture on tensile properties of short
fibre composites. J Eng Mech 1995;121(8):903–13.
[38] Lin Z, Li VC. Crack bridging in fibre reinforced cementitious composites with slip-
hardening interfaces. J Mech Phys Solids 1997;45(5):763–87.
[39] Kanda T, Li VC. Effect of fibre strength and fibre-matrix interface on crack bridging
in cement composites. J Eng Mech 1999;125(3):290–9.
[40] Qiu JS, Yang EH. A micromechanics-based fatigue dependent fibre-bridging con-
stitutive model. Cem Concr Res 2016;90:117–26.
[41] Xu LY, Nie X, Zhou M, Tao MX. Whole-process crack width prediction of reinforced
concrete structures considering bonding deterioration. Eng Struct
2017;142:240–54.
[42] Bischoff PH. Effects of shrinkage on tension stiffening and cracking in reinforced
concrete. Can J Civ Eng 2001;28(3):363–74.

17