KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering (0000) 00(0):1-8 Structural Engineering

Copyright ⓒ2017 Korean Society of Civil Engineers

DOI 10.1007/s12205-017-1678-3 pISSN 1226-7988, eISSN 1976-3808
www.springer.com/12205
TECHNICAL NOTE

Comparative Experimental and Analytical Modeling of Impact Energy

Dissipation of Ultra-High Performance Fibre Reinforced Concrete
Murali G.*, Venkatesh J.**, Lokesh N.***, Nava Teja Reddy****, and Karthikeyan K.*****
Received May 27, 2017/Revised August 9, 2017/Accepted September 5, 2017/Published Online November 15, 2017

··································································································································································································································

Abstract

This study examines the impact energy dissipation capacity of Ultra High Performance Fibre Reinforced Concrete (UHPFRC). For
this purpose, nine different mixes were fabricated with hooked end and crimped steel fibres at a dosage of 0.5, 1.0, 1.5 and 2.0
percentage and tested under pendulum impact test. The impact energy dissipation capacity is assessed based on test (Charpy U-notch)
procedure suggested by ASTM E23. Also, an analytical model was adopted to predict the impact energy dissipation value of
UHPFRC and its performance is verified against experimental results. Based on the test results, the impact energy dissipation
capacity of the mixtures containing crimped and hooked end steel fibres were significantly higher than that of Plain Concrete (PC).
The hooked end steel fibres had an increased impact energy dissipation capacity compared to crimped steel fibres, which implies that
hooked end steel fibre is more appropriate for enhancing the impact energy dissipation of UHPFRC. Also, the modelling data
compared well with experimental data for the fibre volume fraction beyond 0.5%.
Keywords: fibres, UHPFRC, impact energy, modelling, failure
··································································································································································································································

1. Introduction The fabrication of high strength and ultra-high strength

Impact loads can pose a serious threat to our civilian and
military infrastructure with perilous consequence (Ranade et al.,
2017). For instance, vehicular impact on transportation structures
and road pavement (Murali et al., 2017-a; Agostinacchio et al.,
2013), impact owing to airplane attack and missiles (Heckotter et
al., 2013), explosions (Ona et al., 2016), water vehicles impact
on bridge pillars (Yu et al., 2016), natural hazards such as strong
winds and earthquakes (Anil et al., 2016), impact load on airport
runway owing to airplanes and other flying objects take-off and
landing (Murali et al., 2014; 2016: 2017-b) etc, are some of the
major impact scenarios. The concrete structures when exposed to
impact loads has often experienced severe damage in its
structural stability and integrity (Ranade et al., 2017), causing
substantial economic and human life losses (Alemdar et al.,
2010). Therefore, designing concrete structures to resist impact
loading effectively has turned out to be major challenge for
modern engineers. Hence, a new material that can improve the
impact resistance capacity is highly sought after and such an
enhanced performance was achieved by UHPFRC, which
possess superior strength, toughness and ductility when compared to
plain concrete and FRC (Verma et al., 2016; Rong et al., 2010).
mixtures involves huge amount of binder around 1000 kg/m3)
(El-Dieb et al., 2009; Park et al., 2012) and this binder quantity
can be reduced partially by utilising cement substituents that
include industrial by-products such as fly ash, micro silica,
metakaolin and ground granulated blast-furnace slag (El-Dieb et
al., 2009; Tayeh et al., 2012; Rossi, 2013; Yu et al., 2016). These
partial cement substituents yield an economical UHPFRC as it
includes waste and recycled materials like rice husk ash (Tuan et
al., 2011-a; 2011-b), recycled glass cullet (Yang et al., 2009),
palm oil fuel ash (Aldahdooh et al., 2013) and waste ceramics
(Vejmelková et al., 2012) for the manufacture of UHPC and
UHPFRC. In addition, when compared with normal strength
concrete, the UHPFRC provides significantly better resistance to
structures under severe loading conditions due to the presence of
fibres.
Several researchers have reported the significance of various
fibres on mechanical properties of UHPFRC (Yang et al., 2010;
Kang et al., 2011; Kang and Kim, 2012; Hassan et al., 2012).
The effect of external impact loading on UHPFRC has also been
investigated by few researchers. For instance, Millard et al.
(2009), Mao et al. (2013), Wu et al. (2009), and Yi et al. (2012)
studied the blast resistance features of UHPFRC. Rong et al.

*Assistant Professor-III, School of Civil Engineering, SASTRA University, Thanjavur, India (Corresponding Author, E-mail: murali_220984@yahoo.co.in)
**B. Tech Students, School of Civil Engineering, SASTRA University, Thanjavur, India (E-mail: venkusa2@gmail.com)
***B. Tech Students, School of Civil Engineering, SASTRA University, Thanjavur, India (E-mail: lokilokesh789@gmail.com)
****M. Tech Student, School of Civil Engineering, SASTRA University, Thanjavur, India (E-mail: navatejareddya@gmail.com)
*****Assistant Professor (Senior), SMBS, VIT University, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India (E-mail: karthikeyank_vit@yahoo.co.in)

−1−
 Murali G., Venkatesh J., Lokesh N., Nava Teja Reddy, and Karthikeyan K.

(2010) (2012), Bragov et al. (2013), Caverzan et al. (2013), Tran Table 1. Properties of LS and MS
et al. (2014) and Wang et al. (2012) examined the mechanical CaO SiO2 Al2O3 Fe2O3 MgO Na2O LOI
Constituents
properties of UHPFRC under high strain rate loading. However, (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
from the view of economy, none of these investigations are cost- LS 51.53 0.43 - - 3.64 - 42.46
effective as the price of 1% fibre dosage in UHPFRC exceeds the MS 0.001 99.886 0.043 0.040 0.000 0.003 0.015
overall cost of the total matrix (Kim et al., 2011). Furthermore, it
becomes significant to reduce the volume fractions of fibres in
UHPFRC substantially without decreasing its efficiency in order sulphonated naphthalene polymer based Conplast 430 was used as
to accomplish the aim of “green” UHPFRC. Yu et al. (2014) superplasticizer (SP) to adjust the workability of concrete and the
compared the experimental and modelling data of impact resistance slump value was maintained for all the mixtures as 50 mm ± 5
of the ‘‘green’’ UHPFRC subjected to pendulum impact test. mm. Along with this, the Lime Sludge (LS) obtained from
Limestone powder and nano-silica were used to produce green “CETPs tirupur” and the commercially available micro silica
UHPFRC by incorporating two types of fibres (hybrid) namely (MS) flour obtained from “astra chemicals” were used as cement
long and short steel fibres in different proportions at a total substituents and its properties are summarised in Table 1. Two
dosage of 2% volume. Results suggested that the long steel fibres different types of steel fibre used were: hooked end steel fibre and
plays a major role in enhancing the impact strength of UHPFRC. crimped steel fibre of length, diameter and tensile strength of 20
Also, the difference between experimental and modelling results mm, 0.6 mm and 1050 MPa respectively. The recipes of
was observed to be 9.3%. Working in this direction, the present developed UHPFRC examined in this study is shown in Table 2.
study aims to compare the experimental and modeling data of
impact energy dissipation of UHPFRC with hooked end and 2.2 Sample Preparation
crimped steel fibres at a dosage of 0.5, 1.0, 1.5 and 2.0 percentage. For producing the UHPFRC specimens, cement, LS, MS and
fine aggregate were initially dry mixed for 2 minutes followed
2. Experimental Program by 1 minute of mixing with SP mixed with water. The mixing
process was continued by 2 minutes of rest and again 1 minute of
2.1 Materials mixing until the mixture reached a homogenous consistency.
The binder used was ordinary portland cement of 53 grade, Thereafter, the fibres were spread out with hand to avoid fibre
normal and micro river sand with the size range of 0-2 mm and balling and again mixing process was done for another 2
0-1 mm respectively were used as fine aggregates. Coarse minutes. The casting of UHPFRC specimens were done using
aggregates were omitted from the UHPFRC mixture to avoid wooden moulds and compaction was done using vibration table.
degradation of the flexural failure (Collepardi et al., 1997). A The schematic diagram of the specimen dimension and its

Table 2. Mix Proportions of Developed UHPFRC in kg/m3

Mix Id Cement Lime Sludge Micro Sand Normal-Sand Micro Silica W/c ratio Fibre Vol. (%) SP Fibre type
PC 594 265 221 1061 24.8 0.2 0 3.3 -
HF-0.5 594 265 221 1061 24.8 0.2 0.5 4.2
HF-1.0 594 265 221 1061 24.8 0.2 1.0 5.2
Hooked end
HF-1.5 594 265 221 1061 24.8 0.2 1.5 6.1
HF-2.0 594 265 221 1061 24.8 0.2 2.0 7.0
CF-0.5 594 265 221 1061 24.8 0.2 0.5 4.2
CF-1.0 594 265 221 1061 24.8 0.2 1.0 5.2
Crimped
CF-1.5 594 265 221 1061 24.8 0.2 1.5 6.1
CF-2.0 594 265 221 1061 24.8 0.2 2.0 7.0

Fig. 1. Schematic Diagram: (a) Specimen Dimension, (b) Loading Configuration

−2− KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

 Comparative Experimental and Analytical Modeling of Impact Energy Dissipation of Ultra-High Performance Fibre Reinforced Concrete

Fig. 2. Impact Testing Device Front and Schematic Back View

loading configuration is shown in Fig. 1. 3. Results and Discussion

2.3 Experimental Procedure
The rectangular specimens were subjected to charpy impact
test as per ASTM E23. After placing the specimen on the base
plate attachment, a pendulum of 20 kg was freed at an angle of
140o on to the specimen with the velocity of 5.35 m/s, thus
making the height H1, which moves back and forth over the
specimen upto a height of H2 as illustrated in Fig. 2. By
considering the friction to be negligible, the impact energy
dissipation capacity of the specimen under single impact is
determined by using Eq. (1):
U = m g (H1 − H2)
Where, m; mass of the pendulum, g; is acceleration due to
gravity.
The average compressive strength of three UHPFRC cube
(100 mm) specimens at 28 days are displayed in Table 3 and
Fig. 3(a). It can be observed that the compressive strength of
UHPFRC increases with an increasing volume fraction fibre
when compared to PC. The UHPFRC encompassing hooked end
steel fibres exhibited an increase in compressive strength by
11%, 18%, 28%, and 37% respectively for the fibre dosage of
0.5%, 1.0%, 1.5% and 2.0%. This enhancement could be due to
the presence of a strong interfacial bonds between the fibres and
cement matrix (Yu et al., 2016). Similarly, the increase in
compressive strength observed in the case of UHPFRC containing
(1)
crimped steel fibres were 9%, 17%, 26%, and 35% respectively
for the fibre dosage of 0.5%, 1.0%, 1.5%, and 2.0%. The results
indicate that the hooked end fibres delivers better performance

Fig. 3. Compressive Strength and Impact Energy of UHPFRC

Vol. 00, No. 0 / 000 0000 −3−

 Murali G., Venkatesh J., Lokesh N., Nava Teja Reddy, and Karthikeyan K.

Table 3. Compression Strength and Impact Strength Test Results

Compressive strength Impact energy U Interfacial bond
Mix ID H1 H2 % Difference
MPa Experimental value Predicted value strength MPa
PC 98.40 1.1 0.9895 22.10 - - -
HF-0.5 108.80 1.1 0.9429 31.42 46.99 49.56
HF-1.0 116.20 1.1 0.8766 44.68 50.64 13.35
2.62
HF-1.5 125.80 1.1 0.8502 49.96 54.28 8.66
HF-2.0 134.50 1.1 0.8102 57.96 57.93 -0.05
CF-0.5 107.50 1.1 0.9474 30.52 46.84 53.47
CF-1.0 114.80 1.1 0.8789 44.22 50.35 13.85
2.52
CF-1.5 124.20 1.1 0.8573 48.54 53.85 10.93
CF-2.0 132.80 1.1 0.8164 56.72 57.36 1.12

by increasing the compressive strength of UHPFRC compared to
crimped steel fibres (Murali et al., 2014; 2016).
Also, the average impact energy dissipation capacity of
UHPFRC containing steel fibres at different dosages are shown
in Table 3 and Fig. 3(b). Results revealed that the impact
energy dissipation capacity of PC specimens was 22.11 J. The
increase in impact energy dissipation capacity of UHPFRC
containing 0.5%, 1.0%, 1.5% and 2.0% of hooked end steel
fibres was found to be 42%, 102%, 126% and 162%
respectively, when compared to PC. Similarly, the increase in
impact energy dissipation of UHPFRC with crimped steel
fibres at a dosage of 0.5%, 1.0%, 1.5% and 2.0% was 38%,
100%, 120% and 157% respectively, as compared to PC. As
the results suggest, there is an increase in impact energy
dissipation of all UHPFRC specimens when compared to PC
and the greatest percentage of increase was observed in 2.0%
fibre dosage of hooked end fibres followed by 2.0% fibre
dosage of crimped fibres. Therefore, it could be understood that
hooked end fibres plays a significant role in enhancing the
impact energy dissipation of UHPFRC over the crimped steel
fibres. The highest increase in impact energy dissipation of
UHPFRC at 2.0% fibre dosage could be attributed to the fact
that several cracks are developed at the cross section instead of
a single large crack and thus greater surface energy is
dissipated (Yu et al., 2014).
Figure 4 illustrates the failure pattern of specimens after
impact testing. Fig. 4(a) shows that the PC specimen is broken
into three pieces and the portions of broken specimen are uneven
and smaller. In case of UHPFRC specimens, the embedded steel
fibres are pulled out along with the damage in concrete matrix as
shown in Fig. 4(b & c) indicating that the impact energy
dissipation of UHPFRC is utilised in two portions: the energy for
breaking down the concrete matrix and the energy for pulling out
the fibres embedded in the broken cross sections (Yu et al.,
2014). In general, the mechanism of fracture in concrete subjected to
impact loading involves cracking, shearing and compaction, as
shown in Fig. 4. Initially the concrete is broken along the forces
direction, such as compaction, tension or confining pressures.
Nevertheless, the concrete primarily depends on the basic
properties of concrete, the addition of fibres during the final
cracks development. Even after the development of first crack,
the fibres would still possess the ability to bridge further cracks
and disperse the energy to other places in the concrete. As soon
as the fibres cannot limit the propagation of cracks, they will be
pulled out, leading to the damage of concrete during the impact
(Fig. 4). The present study reveals that, the concrete is
predominantly broken into three pieces during the impact test
following the stress distribution. However, the absence of fibres
in PC makes it susceptible for crack propagation along the
weakest interface thus leading to small and irregular broken
fractions of concrete.
4. Modeling of the Impact Failure Strength
The impact energy dissipation capacity of UHPFRC mainly
depends upon energy absorption during matrix crack, debonding
of fibre/matrix and fibre sliding (Favre et al., 1997; Kanda et al.,
1998). In the beginning, both the matrix and fibres take upon the
stress developed due to impact load and when the loading
increases, the matrix crack occurs letting the fibre alone to take

Fig. 4. Failure Pattern of Specimens Under Impact Load: (a) Plain concrete, (b) HF-1.0, (c) CF-1.0

−4− KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

 Comparative Experimental and Analytical Modeling of Impact Energy Dissipation of Ultra-High Performance Fibre Reinforced Concrete

upon the stress further. Debonding of fibre/matrix and sliding

τi l C a V f
2

occurs when the difference between axial strain of fibre and
matrix reaches a critical value (Hsueh, 1996). The continuous
deformation produced by the sliding of fibres out of the matrix
leads to the failure of specimen. By considering the equivalent
shear bond strength to be the same as that of fibre/matrix
interfacial shear strength (Favre et al., 1997; Kanda et al., 1998)
in the present study, the total impact energy dissipation (U) of the
UHPFRC specimen when subjected to impact loading can be
expressed as (Xu et al., 2010):
U = Um V m + Nf U f
U = Um Vm + -----------------
- (7)
6d
The UHPFRC specimen is broken into three pieces when
subjected to impact loading as shown in Fig. 4, which implies
that high amount of energy would be required for pulling out
fibres as the broken specimen consist of two broken cross
sections. Also, considering that the fibres are evenly dispersed
within the specimen, the total impact energy dissipation of
UHPFRC in the Charpy test is given by Eq. (8) as follows:
(2) τi l Ca V f
2

where Um corresponds to the impact energy dissipation of PC, Vm
is the matrix volume fraction, Nf denotes the number of fibres
present across the broken surface of the specimen and Uf is the
pull-out energy required for each fibre.
The number of fibres present across the broken surface of the
specimen is determined by using Eq. (3) as follows:
Ca Vf 4Ca Vf
Nf = ---------- = --------------
πr πd
2 2
U = Um Vm + 2 -----------------
- (8)
6d
The interfacial bond strength (τi) between the fibres and the
matrix is defined as friction between them (Xu et al., 2010), and
it needs to be calculated to assess the total impact energy
dissipation. The flexural stress in concrete is generally denoted
as algebraic sum of flexural stress of matrix and fibres. Thus, the
interfacial bond strength can be defined as (Xu et al., 2010;
(3) Kanda and Li, 2006):

where Ca; area of cross-section of the broken surface of the
specimen, Vf; fibre dosage in concrete, r; radius of fibres and d;
diameter of fibres.
Various researchers have presented different methods to
evaluate the energy required for fibre pull out (Leung and Geng,
1995; Alwan et al., 1991; Soetens et al., 2013). Based on the
investigation carried out by Chawla (Chawla, 1997), the total
resisting force across the surface of the deboned fibre against its
pull-off is τi π d (k–x), assuming that a fibre of diameter d is
pulled off for a length x against an interfacial frictional shear
stress (τi), where, k corresponds to the embedded length of the
fibre. Also, when the pull-off distance is further increased
through a length dx, the work done by this force is τi π d (k–x)
dx. Thus, the total work Uf done to pull-off a fibre through the
distance k is given by (Xu et al., 2010):
k τi πdk
2
1 L
σ = --- Vf G τi ⎛ ----f ⎞ + σm ( 1 – Vf ) (9)
2 ⎝ df ⎠
σ or σm = 0.7 fck (10)
where ‘σ’ and ‘σm’ are the flexural stress of UHPFRC and the
reference sample respectively which is obtained from Eq. (10)
IS: 456-2000, g = 1.5 (Kanda and Li, 2006) and fck is the
compressive strength of PC and UHPFRC.
4.1 Experimental Values Versus Predicted Value
Table 3 and displays the comparison between impact energy
absorption results in experiment and modelling. It could be noted
from Fig. 5, the modelling data compared well with experimental
data for the fibre volume fraction beyond 0.5% of UHPFRC
specimens (HF-0.5 and CF-0.5). Linear law indicated in the
model is being followed at this stage by the matrix and fibre

Uf = ∫ τi π d( k – x )dx = --------------
- (4) systems. Also, the model predicts a greater impact energy
0 2
dissipation capacity value for UHPFRC specimens (HF-2.0 and
By taking that the fibre does not get broken throughout the CF-2.0) with 2.0% fibre volume fraction. This may be due to the
pull-out process, the pull-out length is supposed to differ from 0
to l/2, where l is the length of fibre. Therefore, the average work
for each fibre’s pull out is given by (Xu et al., 2010):
1 l τi πdk τi πdl
2 2
2

Uf = Wfp = -------- ∫ --------------

- dk = -------------
-
⁄

(5)
1⁄2 02 24

where Wfp denotes the average work for each fibre’s pull out.
Thus,
τi πdl
2

Uf = Wfp = -------------
- (6)
24

Now, by substituting Eq. (6) and Eq. (3) into Eq. (2), the total
impact energy dissipation of the UHPFRC subjected to impact Fig. 5. Experimental Versus Modeling Values of the Impact Energy
loading is as follows: Dissipation of UHPFRC

Vol. 00, No. 0 / 000 0000 −5−

 Murali G., Venkatesh J., Lokesh N., Nava Teja Reddy, and Karthikeyan K.
increase in fibre volume as well as interfacial bond strength
leading to the development of multiple cracks instead of single
large crack and thus larger energy being dissipated. However,
there are few elements that influence the variations in test results,
which include friction between the surfaces of specimen and
instrument, absorption of energy during vibration of instrument,
etc. Moreover, a certain amount of energy is dispersed within the
instrument owing to its vibrations, for the concrete with higher
impact failure strength.
5. Conclusions
Based on the experimental test results, an analytical modeling
was employed and associated conclusions are drawn as follows
1. The UHPFRC comprising hooked end steel fibres (2.0
vol.%) and crimped steel fibres (2.0 vol.%) shows the high-
est percentage increase in compressive strength of 37% and
35% respectively as compared with PC. Thus,
2. The impact energy dissipation capacity of UHPFRC con-
taining 0.5%, 1.0%, 1.5% and 2.0% of hooked end steel fibres
was increased by 42%, 102%, 126% and 162% respectively,
when compared to PC. Similarly, the increase in impact
energy dissipation of UHPFRC with crimped steel fibres at a
dosage of 0.5%, 1.0%, 1.5% and 2.0% was 38%, 100%, 120%
and 157% respectively, as compared to PC. By adding steel
fibres to the matrix at a higher dosage, an enhanced impact
energy dissipating was achieved in UHPFRC. Moreover, the
hooked end steel fibre is more appropriate for enhancing the
impact energy dissipation of UHPFRC compared to crimped
steel fibre.
3. The failure of UHPFRC specimens involves, destruction of
concrete matrix and pull out of embedded steel fibres. Also,
the cuboid-like fractions in the failure of UHPFRC speci-
mens implies its high impact energy absorption, while the
broken PC specimens are smaller and more irregular.
4. The modelling data compared well with experimental data
for the fibre volume fraction beyond 0.5%. When the impact
energy dissipation capacity of UHPFRC is comparatively
high, the modeling results slightly overestimate the experi-
mental results (about 13.85%), which may be due to the
increase in fibre volume as well as interfacial bond strength
leading to the development of multiple cracks instead of sin-
gle large crack and thus larger energy being dissipated.
References
Agostinacchio, M., Ciampa, D., and Olita, S. (2013). “The vibrations
induced by surface irregularities in road pavements – a Matlab
approach.” European Transport Research Review, Vol. 6, No. 3,
pp. 267-275, DOI: 10.1007/s12544-013-0127-8.
Aldahdooh, M. A. A., Bunnori, N. M., and Johari, M. A. M. (2013).
“Development of green ultra-high performance fiber reinforced concrete
containing ultrafine palm oil fuel ash.” Construction and Building
Materials, Vol. 48, pp. 379-389, DOI: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.07.
−6−
007.
Alemdar, F. and Sezen, H. (2010). “Shear behaviour of exterior reinforced
concrete beam-column joints.” Structural Engineering and Mechanics,
Vol. 35, No. 1, pp. 123-126, DOI: 10.12989/sem.2010.35.1.123.
Alwan, J. M., Naaman, A. E., and Hansen, W. (1991). “Pull-out work of
steel fibers from cementitious composites: Analytical investigation.”
Cement Concrete Composites, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 247-255, DOI:
10.1016/0958-9465(91)90030-L.
Anil, O., Durucan, C., Tugrul Erdem, R., and Arif Yorgancilar, M.
(2016). “Experimental and numerical investigation of reinforced
concrete beams with variable material properties under impact
loading.” Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 125, pp. 94-
104, DOI: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.08.028.
ASTME23 (1992). Standard test methods for notched bar impact testing
of metallic materials, American Society for Testing and Materials.
Bragov, A. M., Petrov, Y. V., Karihaloo, B. L., Konstantinov, A. Y.,
Lamzin, D. A., Lomunov, A. K., and Smirnov, I. V. (2013). “Dynamic
strengths and toughness of an ultra-high performance fibre reinforced
concrete.” Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 110, pp. 477-488,
DOI: 10.1016/j.engfracmech.2012.12.019.
Caverzan, A., Cadoni, E., and Prisco, M. (2013). “Dynamic tensile
behaviour of high performance fibre reinforced cementitious composites
after high temperature exposure.” Mechanics of Materials, Vol. 59,
pp. 87-109.
Chawla, K. K. (1997). “Composite materials science and engineering.”
New York: Springer-Verlag, pp. 234-236.
Collepardi, S., Coppola, L., Troli, R., and Collepardi, M. (1997).
“Mechanical properties of modified reactive powder concrete.” ACI
Special Publication, Vol. 173, pp. 1-22.
El-Dieb, A. S. (2009). “Mechanical, durability and microstructural
characteristics of ultrahigh-strength self-compacting concrete
incorporating steel fibres.” Material Design, Vol. 30, pp. 4286-4292,
DOI: 10.1016/j.matdes.2009.04.024.
Favre, J. P, Desarmot, G., Sudre, O., and Vassel, A. (1997). “Were
McGarry or Shiriajeva right to measure glass–fiber adhesion?.”
Composite Interfaces, Vol. 4, pp. 313-326, DOI: 10.1163/
156855497X00064.
Hassan, A. M. T., Jones, S. W., and Mahmud, G. H. (2012). “Experimental
test methods to determine the uniaxial tensile and compressive
behaviour of Ultra-high Performance Fibre Reinforced Concrete
(UHPFRC).” Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 37,
pp. 874-882, DOI: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.04.030.
Heckotter, C. and Sievers, J. (2013). “Simulation of impact tests with
hard, soft and liquid filled missiles on reinforced concrete structures.”
Journal of Applied Mechanics, Vol. 80, No. 3, pp. 1-7, DOI:
10.1115/1.4023391.
Hsueh, C. H. (1996). “Crack-wake interfacial debonding criteria for
fiber-reinforced ceramic composites.” Acta Materialia, Vol. 44,
No. 6, pp. 2211-2216, DOI: 10.1016/1359-6454(95)00369-X.
IS: 456-2000, Indian Standard Plain and reinforced concrete - Code of
practice (Fourth Revision).
Kanda, T. and Li, V. C. (1998). “Interface property and apparent strength
of high-strength hydrophilic fiber in cement matrix.” Journal of
Materials in Civil Engineering, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 5-13.
Kanda, T. and Li, V. C. (2006). “Practical design criteria for saturated
pseudo strain hardening behavior in ECC.” Japan Advanced Concrete
Technology, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 59-72.
Kang, S. T. and Kim, J. K. (2011). “The relation between fibre orientation
and tensile behavior in an Ultra-High Performance Fibre Reinforced
Cementitious Composites (UHPFRCC).” Cement Concrete Research,
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering
 Comparative Experimental and Analytical Modeling of Impact Energy Dissipation of Ultra-High Performance Fibre Reinforced Concrete
Vol. 41, pp. 1001-1014, DOI: 10.1016/j.cemconres.2011.05.009.
Kang, S. T. and Kim, J. K. (2012). “Numerical simulation of the
variation of fibre orientation distribution during flow molding of
Ultra-High Performance Cementitious Composites (UHPCC).”
Cement Concrete Composites, Vol. 34, pp. 208-17, DOI: 10.1016/
j.cemconcomp.2011.09.015.
Kim, D. J., Park, S. H., Ryu, G. S., and Koh, K. T. (2011). “Comparative
flexural behavior of Hybrid Ultra-High Performance Fibre Reinforced
Concrete with different macro fibres.” Construction and Building
Materials, Vol. 25, pp. 4144-4155, DOI: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.
2011.04.051.
Leung, C. K. Y. and Geng, Y. (1995). “Effect of lateral stresses on fiber
debonding/pull-out.” Composites Engineerng, Vol. 5, No. 10,
pp. 1331-1348, DOI: 10.1016/0961-9526(95)00064-T.
Mao, L., Barnett, S., Begg, D., Schleyer, G., and Wight, G. (2013).
“Numerical simulation of ultrahigh performance fibre reinforced
concrete panel subjected to blast loading.” International Journal of
Impact Engineering, Vol. 64, No. 2, pp. 91-100, DOI: 10.1016/
j.ijimpeng.2013.10.003.
Millard, S. G., Molyneaux, T. C. K., Barnett, S. J., and Gao, X. (2009).
“Dynamic enhancement of blast resistant ultra-high performance
fibre-reinforced concrete under flexural and shear loading.”
International Journal of Impact Engineering, Vol. 37, pp. 405-413,
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2009.09.004.
Murali, G. and Chandana, V. (2017-b). “Weibull reliability analysis of
impact resistance on self-compacting Concrete reinforced with
recycled CFRP pieces.” Romanian Journal of Materials, Vol. 47,
No. 2, pp. 196 -203.
Murali, G., Gayathri, R., Ramkumar, V. R., and Karthikeyan, K. (2017-
a). “Two statistical scrutinize of impact strength and strength
reliability of steel fibre-reinforced concrete.” KSCE Journal of Civil
Engineering, pp. 1-13, DOI: 10.1007/s12205-017-1554-1.
Murali, G., Santhi, A. S., and Mohan Ganesh, G. (2014). “Impact
resistance and strength reliability of Fiber-reinforced concrete in
bending under drop weight impact load.” International Journal of
Technology, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 111-120, DOI: 10.14716/ijtech.
v5i2.403.
Murali, G., Santhi, A. S., and Mohan Ganesh, G. (2016). “Loss of
mechanical properties of fiber-reinforced concrete exposed to impact
load.” Romanian Journal of Materials, Vol. 46, No. 4, pp. 491-496.
Ona, M., Morales-Alonso, G., Galvez, F., Sanchez-Galvez, V., and
Cendon, D. (2016). “Analysis of concrete targets with different
kinds of reinforcements subjected to blast loading.” The European
Physical Journal Special Topics, Vol. 225, pp. 265-282, DOI:
10.1140/epjst/e2016-02633-8.
Park, S. H., Kim, D. J., Ryu, G. S., and Koh, K. T. (2012). “Tensile
behaviour of ultra-high-performance hybrid fibre reinforced concrete.”
Cement Concrete Composites, Vol. 34, pp. 172-184, DOI: 10.1016/
j.cemconcomp.2011.09.009.
Ranade, R., Li, V. C., Heard, W. F., and Williams, B. A. (2017). “Impact
resistance of high strength-high ductility concrete.” Cement and
Concrete Research, Vol. 98, pp. 24-35, DOI: 10.1016/j.cemconres.
2017.03.013.
Rong, Z. and Sun, W. (2012). “Experimental and numerical investigation on
the dynamic tensile behavior of ultra-high performance cement
based composites.” Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 31,
pp. 168-173, DOI: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.12.058.
Rong, Z., Sun, W., and Zhang, Y. (2010). “Dynamic compression
behavior of ultra-high-performance cement based composites.”
International Journal of Impact Engineering, Vol. 37, pp. 515-520,
Vol. 00, No. 0 / 000 0000 −7−
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2009.11.005.
Rossi, P. (2013). “Influence of fibre geometry and matrix maturity on
the mechanical performance of ultra-high-performance cement-
based composites.” Cement Concrete Composites, Vol. 37, pp. 246-
248, DOI: 10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2012.08.005.
Soetens, T., Gysel, A. V., and Taerwe, M. L. (2013). “A semi-analytical
model to predict the pullout behaviour of inclined hooked-end steel
fibres.” Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 43, pp. 253-265,
DOI: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.01.034.
Tayeh, B. A., Abu Bakar, B. H., Megat Johari, M. A., and Voo, Y. L.
(2012). “Mechanical and permeability properties of the interface
between normal concrete substrate and Ultra-high Performance
Fibre concrete overlay.” Construction and Building Materials,
Vol. 36, pp. 538-548, DOI: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.06.013.
Tran, T. K. and Kim, D. J. (2014). “High strain rate effects on direct
tensile behavior of high performance fibre reinforced cementitious
composites.” Cement Concrete Composites, Vol. 45, pp. 186-200,
DOI: 10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2013.10.005.
Tuan, N. V., Ye, G., Breugel, K., and Copuroglu, O. (2011). “Hydration
and microstructure of ultrahigh performance concrete incorporating
rice husk ash.” Cement Concrete Research, Vol. 41, pp. 1104-1111,
DOI: 10.1016/j.cemconres.2011.06.009.
Tuan, N. V., Ye, G., Breugel, K., Fraaij, A. L. A., and Dai, B. D. (2011).
“The study of using rice husk ash to produce ultra-high performance
concrete.” Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 25, pp. 2030-
2035, DOI: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2010.11.046.
Vejmelková, E., Keppert, M., Rovnaníková, P., Ondrácek, M., Keršner,
Z., and Cerny, R. (2012). “Properties of high performance concrete
containing fine-ground ceramics as supplementary cementitious
material.” Cement and Concrete Composites, Vol. 34, pp. 55-61,
DOI: 10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2011.09.018.
Verma, M., Prem, P. R., Rajasankar, J., and Bharatkumar, B. H. (2016).
“On low-energy impact response of Ultra-high-performance Concrete
(UHPC) panels.” Materials and Design, Vol. 92, pp. 853-865, DOI:
10.1016/j.matdes.2015.12.065.
Wang, S., Zhang, M., and Quek, S. (2012). “Mechanical behavior of
fibre-reinforced high strength concrete subjected to high strain-rate
compressive loading.” Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 31,
pp. 1-11, DOI: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.12.083.
Wu, C., Oehlers, D. J., Rebentrost, M., Leach, J., and Whittaker, A.
(2009). “Blast testing of ultrahigh performance fibre and FRP-
retrofitted concrete slabs.” Engineering Structures, Vol. 31. No. 9,
pp. 2060-2069, DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2009.03.020.
Xu, B., Toutanji, H. A., and Gilbert, J. (2010). “Impact resistance of poly
(vinyl alcohol) fiber reinforced high-performance organic aggregate
cementitious material.” Cement Concrete Research, Vol. 40, pp. 347-
351, DOI: 10.1016/j.cemconres.2009.09.006.
Yang, I. H., Joh, C., and Kim, B. S. (2010). “Structural behavior of ultra-
high performance concrete beams subjected to bending.” Engineering
Structures, Vol. 32, pp. 3478-3487, DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2010.
07.017.
Yang, S. L., Millard, S. G., Soutsos, M. N., Barnett, S. J., and Le, T. T.
(2009). “Influence of aggregate and curing regime on the mechanical
properties of Ultra-high Performance Fibre Reinforced Concrete
(UHPFRC).” Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 23,
pp. 2291-2298, DOI: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2008.11.012.
Yi, N. H., Kim, J. H. J., Han, T. S., Cho, Y. G., and Lee, J. H. (2012).
“Blast-resistant characteristics of ultrahigh strength concrete and
reactive powder concrete.” Construction and Building Materials,
Vol. 28, pp. 694-707, DOI: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.09.014.
 Murali G., Venkatesh J., Lokesh N., Nava Teja Reddy, and Karthikeyan K.

Yu, R., Spiesz, P., and Brouwers, H. J. H. (2014). “Static properties and
impact resistance of a green Ultra-High-Performance Hybrid Fibre
Reinforced Concrete (UHPHFRC): Experiments and modeling.”
Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 68, pp. 158-171, DOI:
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.06.033.
Yu, R., Spiesz, P., and Brouwers, H. J. H. (2016). “Energy absorption
capacity of a sustainable Ultra-High Performance Fibre Reinforced
Concrete (UHPFRC) in quasi-static mode and under high velocity
projectile impact.” Cement and Concrete Composites, Vol. 68,
pp. 109-122, DOI: 10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2016.02.012.

−8− KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering