Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 3597–3609

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

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

Shear failure analysis on ultra-high performance concrete beams reinforced with

high strength steel
Jun Xia a , Kevin R. Mackie a,∗ , Muhammad A. Saleem b , Amir Mirmiran b
a
University of Central Florida, The Department of Civil, Environmental, and Construction Engineering, 4000 Central Florida Blvd. Orlando, FL, 32816-2450, USA
b
Florida International University, The Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, 10555 West Flagler Street, Miami, FL, 33174, USA

article info abstract

Article history: A new deck system for moveable bridges was developed that makes use of ultra-high performance
Received 18 March 2010 concrete (UHPC) reinforced with high strength steel (HSS) rebar to achieve the light weight and high
Received in revised form strength requirements in moveable bridge applications. However, the typical deck strips of this deck
7 March 2011
system failed predominantly due to shear cracks in simply supported beam proof tests. This paper
Accepted 27 June 2011
Available online 20 August 2011
investigates the mechanism of the deck strip shear failure experimentally and analytically. Experimental
studies were performed at several scales, including material characterization, bond strength tests, small-
Keywords:
scale prism tests, and full-scale beam tests. Specimens with traditional shear strengthening techniques
Bond strength were also tested. Several existing formulas were utilized to predict the shear strength, and the results
Passive reinforcement were compared to the experimental results. The accuracy and limitations of these formulas are discussed.
Shear reinforcement The shear failure of UHPC–HSS beams is not characterized by brittle response or catastrophic load
Dowel action reduction as with normal reinforced concrete. Therefore, this particular shear failure mode is regarded
Moment–shear interaction as acceptable. However, the additional shear resistance caused by the localized deformation of the
longitudinal reinforcement is not recommended to be considered for design capacity formulas.
© 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Ultra-high performance concrete (UHPC) is a fiber-reinforced
concrete (FRC) with high compressive strength cement matrix and
high tensile strength fibers. It exhibits the strain hardening effect
in uniaxial tension tests due to the existence of the fibers with vol-
ume fraction at about 2%. According to the classification method
introduced by Naaman and Reinhardt [1], UHPC can be regarded
as one kind of high performance fiber-reinforced cement compos-
ite (HPFRCC). Several UHPC products are commercially available
worldwide, and Ductal⃝ r
is one widely available in the US. The ma-
terial properties of Ductal⃝r
were fully investigated by Graybeal [2].
The high strength and good durability were confirmed based on the
experimental results. Compressive strengths as high as 221 MPa
are ensured by applying a heat treatment process, which is recom-
mended by Lafarge, the manufacturer of the UHPC material used
in this paper; otherwise, lower strengths will result. The benefits
of this recommended heat treatment process were also confirmed
by Graybeal [2]. The tensile strength was experimentally investi-
gated by Chanvillard and Rigaud [3] using both uniaxial and four-
point bending tests. The ultimate tensile strength from the direct
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 407 823 2857.
E-mail address: kmackie@mail.ucf.edu (K.R. Mackie).
0141-0296/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2011.06.023
tension test was found to be around 10.8 MPa, while the equiva-
lent strength obtain from the flexural test was usually higher due
to the scale effect. The fibers blended in the UHPC matrix provide a
bridging effect across the micro cracks and thus increase the tensile
strength and ductility. The punching shear resistance of the UHPC
slab was investigated by Harris and Roberts-Wollmann [4], and the
minimum deck thickness to prevent the punching shear failure un-
der the factored wheel load (165 kN) for a 200 mm by 500 mm
patch is predicted to be 25 mm. In Europe, Ductal⃝ r
has been in-
vestigated by Toutlemonde [5] to build a full depth waffle shape
bridge deck system. In US, the Pi-girder and two-way waffle shape
full depth deck system are currently being investigated in Iowa
state [6–9] under the research projects sponsored by the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA).
The term high strength steel (HSS) used in this paper refers to
structural steel material that has a minimum yielding stress over
517 MPa (75 ksi). Several types of Grade 75 stainless steel rebar are
commercially available [10] that meet the requirement of ASTM
A955 [11]. Although the superior corrosion resistance of stainless
steel rebars makes them the best choice for deck applications, the
material cost is usually several times higher than that of normal
Grade 60 carbon steel rebar. High strength microcomposite steel
rebar (MMFX2) is an uncoated, high strength rebar made from
a low carbon, chromium alloy steel. It meets the requirement
of ASTM A1035 [12] for Grade 100 rebar with yielding stress of
690 MPa and ultimate strength as high as 1200 MPa. Although
3598 J. Xia et al. / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 3597–3609
the corrosion resistance of MMFX2 rebar is not as good as that of
stainless steel rebar according to Clemeña [13], it is much better
than that of carbon steel rebar. MMFX2 rebars were used in this
research for their superior strength and ductility.
The structural behavior of UHPC beams reinforced with passive
HSS rebar is affected by the bond strength between the two
materials. Although no exact information was found in the
literature on this topic, several related works are mentioned here
to give a lower bound estimation of the bond strength between the
two. Holschemacher [14] investigated the bond strength between a
pure UHPC matrix and ribbed Grade 60 carbon steel rebar by using
pull-out specimens. The local bond stress was around 40–70 MPa
for US #3 rebars with 45 mm concrete cover. Some of the
specimens with 25 mm cover failed in concrete splitting. The UHPC
used in the test had no fibers in the mix design, and none of the
specimens were subjected to heat treatment. Lubbers performed
anchorage tests on UHPC (Ductal⃝ r
) [15]. Low relaxation, 12 mm
diameter, 1862 MPa prestressing strands were embedded in UHPC
with a minimum bond length of 305 mm and no prestress force
applied. All strands that fractured during the pullout test showed
the existence of the high bond strength. Normal strength concrete
beam splice tests performed by Ansley [16] on US #6 and US #8
MMFX2 rebars show that the bond length required to yield the
rebar is 45 times the rebar diameter. After yielding, the nonlinear
ductile response of the rebar material reduced the bond strength
and changed the commonly brittle splice failure to a gradual and
more ductile failure.
Advanced construction materials, such as UHPC and HSS,
provide an opportunity to help rehabilitate infrastructure systems
that are either structurally deficient or obsolete. In particular,
a deck system utilizing ultra-high performance concrete (UHPC)
with only passive HSS longitudinal reinforcement was proposed
for use on moveable bridges [17] to replace the existing open
grid steel deck system. The original grid deck system has several
shortcomings: the riding surface is less skid resistant when wet;
traffic-induced vibration causes noise and sensations of poor
ridership [18]; and the steel deck is corrosion and damage prone,
and costly to maintain. The replacement deck system has stringent
acceptance criteria on the overall depth, self weight, and capability
to meet the AASHTO LRFD code [19] requirements, which prevent
the use of conventional reinforced concrete. Several light-weight
deck systems made of fiber-reinforced plastic (FRP) [20] or
aluminum [21] were proposed, while their application in the
field are still under investigation. The combination of UHPC and
HSS rebar provides a solution with a light-weight, high strength
deck system that was experimentally proven to meet the crucial
requirements [17]. However, one of the remaining concerns about
the new UHPC–HSS deck system is its shear type failure mode.
Although the ultimate load of all the simply supported T-section
deck strips, which were originally designed based on the flexural
strength criterion [17], exceeded the expected load demand, the
specimens all failed with widened shear cracks similar to normal
strength reinforced concrete. However, the shear failure of the
UHPC–HSS beam was not abrupt or catastrophic. It was observed
from the experiment that along with the widening of the shear
cracks, the longitudinal rebar at the crack location bent locally
while the concrete in the compression zone either stayed intact
or gradually crushed. The high ductility of this failure mode is
attributed to the high strength, high ductility, and self-compacting
property of the UHPC material, which causes the considerable bond
strength between the HSS rebar and UHPC. More investigation of
this type of shear failure is necessary to determine if it should be
avoided or be accepted in design practice.
The objective of this paper is to further investigate the
mechanism of the shear failure mode of UHPC beams with passive
HSS rebars via both experimental and analytical investigations.
Experimentally, mechanical tests at different scale levels were
performed. The material level tests were performed to confirm the
material properties. A series of bond tests based on a compression
mechanism were performed to obtain the estimate of the bond
strength between HSS rebar and UHPC blocks with concrete cover
approximately equal to the rebar diameter. Small-scale beams
with different end anchorage types were tested. The full-scale T-
section beam tests had similar specimen geometry and loading
configurations as in the previous research [17]. For the purpose
of this study, additional specimens were tested with transverse
reinforcement either by adding single-leg stirrups or by bending
up the longitudinal rebar. Another two specimens were tested
with different longitudinal reinforcement in an attempt to achieve
flexural failure. Analytically, although there are quite a few shear
strength design formulas [22–27] in the literature, for most of
them, UHPC is out of the applicable range due to the ultra-high
compressive strength. The only off-the-shelf equation for shear
design with UHPC is from the ‘‘Ultra-High Performance Fibre-
Reinforced Concretes—Interim Recommendations’’ published by
Association Franccaise de Génie Civil (AFGC) [27]. It has been used
to predict the shear strength of prestressed bridge girders [28].
Dowel action contribution is not included in the French code
formula but is believed by Reineck [25] and He and Kwan [26]
to be an important shear transfer mechanism in beams without
shear reinforcement. Their ‘tooth model’ is used to check the shear
capacity controlled by the interfacial bond strength. A deformable
strut and tie model was also proposed based on the observed
deformation shape of the specimens. The predictions based on the
three analytical methods were compared with the experimental
results and their accuracy and limitations were discussed. In
addition, moment and shear interaction is discussed in this study
and the difference between UHPC and normal strength concrete
were presented. The analytical approaches used by Choi et al. [29]
and Choi and Park [30] were adopted to investigate the maximum
shear capacity under the influence of external moment.
Shear-induced deformation and failure is very important in the
design of reinforced concrete flexural members without transverse
reinforcement. Modified compression field theory (MCFT) was
used by Vecchio to predict the shear responses of reinforced
concrete [31]. The moment–shear interaction was considered at
the material level under the principal stress domain. It was found
that although the shear resistance generally decreases with the
increase of the moment, for T-sections, the shear resistance may
increase with slightly increased external moment. Application of
MCFT to UHPC members is dependent on the further investigation
on the material responses under multi-dimensional stress states,
and this limits its application in this paper. Equation 11-5 in
the ACI 318-08 code [22] reflects the fact that shear strength
decreases when the moment capacity is fully utilized. The same
conclusion was drawn by Muttoni and Ruiz [23] for rectangular
sections based on the assumptions that the shear failure was
directly related to the critical shear crack width. Choi et al. [29]
and Choi and Park [30] claimed that only the top concrete portion
in compression provides the shear resistance of the section without
shear reinforcement. In addition, the allowable shear contribution
is dependent on the normal stress caused by the external axial
load and the moment. By checking the principal tensile and
compressive stresses, the maximum allowable shear stress of all
section layers can be obtained. Therefore, the maximum allowable
shear force of the section can be estimated with respect to the
external moment level and the resisting stresses distributed along
the section height. Although shear–moment interaction always
exists at the section level, the impact may not be significant at the
component level. By comparing the load capacity of the flexural
member to its plastic load capacity calculated based on the ideal
flexural failure, Imam et al. [32] found that the influence of shear
 J. Xia et al. / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 3597–3609 3599

Table 1
Matrix of experimental program.
Test category Description Quantities Concrete batch

Material UHPC cylinder compression test 3 each 1

characterization batch
UHPC uniaxial tension test 3 each 1
batch
MMFX2 rebar uniaxial tension test 2 each N/A
size
Bond test Compression bond test 13 1
Small-scale beam test Rectangular prism reinforced with MMFX2 rebar 2 1
Full-scale beam test T-beam reinforced with various types and sizes of rebar, some with different shear strengthening 6 2 and 3
reinforcement

was only significant at medium span-to-depth ratios (a/d) for

fiber-reinforced concrete, which is true also for normal strength
reinforced concrete according to Kani [33]. When the span-to-
depth ratio is small, the arch effect will be activated and the load
can be directly transferred to the supports. On the other hand, the
larger the span-to-depth ratio is, the less critical the shear demand
will be when compared to the moment demand.

2. Experimental investigation

2.1. Methods
Fig. 1. Specimen sketch of the compression bond test.

Experimental investigations were performed in four categories:

material characterization, bond strength, small-scale prisms, and
full-scale T-section beams to quantify the factors that can influence
the shear capacity of the beams and to obtain the shear failure
mode and capacities directly. The specimen matrix is summarized
in Table 1. None of the specimens mentioned in the table were
heat treated after casting; however, the influence of lack of heat
treatment is discussed with the experimental results.
The cylinder compression tests were based on ASTM C39 [34]
using a universal testing machine (UTM). The cylinders from
batch 2 and batch 3 were tested at the Florida Department of
Transportation’s Structural Materials Laboratory with fine end
grinding, while those from batch 1 were tested in the University of
Central Florida laboratory with limited end surface treatment. The
uniaxial tension test of UHPC using dog-bone coupon specimens
was carried out on an MTS 50 kN UTM machine. The rebar
uniaxial test was carried out following the ASTM E8 [35] procedure.
Detailed procedures and results of these material characterization
tests were reported elsewhere [17], and the corresponding
properties are summarized in this paper.
The compression bond specimens were made by casting UHPC
around MMFX2 rebar in a PVC pipe. Rigid foam was used to stop the
UHPC flow and small diameter PVC tubes were used to maintain
the designated bond length and cover size. The specimen sketch
is shown in Fig. 1. The specimens were loaded in the UTM with a
steel cap and neoprene pad on top of the rebar portion extending
out from the specimens. The surrounding PVC pipes were removed
before the loading to avoid potential confinement effects. The bond
length and the cover size are summarized in Table 2. The test is
designated as a compression bond test because the concrete is in
compression (as well as portions of the rebar); therefore, it is not
a true representation of the stress state in a reinforced flexural
member.
Two small-scale reinforced prisms were cast for preliminary
experimentation. Both of them were reinforced with one US #3
MMFX2 rebar. In the first specimen, the rebar was bent to form
a 90° hook at both ends (Prism-H) while the other one was cast
with a straight bar protruding from the specimen ends (Prism-U).
The bottom and side covers for both specimens were set equal to
the diameter of the rebar itself, which is approximately 10 mm.
Three strain gauges were attached to each prism with the locations
Table 2
Bond length and cover for each test group.
MMFX2 rebar Bond length Cover size Quantities
size (×db ) (mm)
2 13.2 3
US #3 4 13.2 3
8 13.2 3
US #4 2 11.7 2
US #6 2 14.2 2
shown in Fig. 2. Two strain gauges were used on the rebar to
capture the strain variation along the prism, while the third gage
was mounted on the top surface of the concrete in the mid-span.
Deflections on both sides of the prisms were measured by linear
potential meters that were mounted to an aluminum reference
frame fixed between the supports. The third-point bending fixture
is shown in Fig. 2. The specimens were measured before the tests
and the average height and width of specimen Prism-U is 63.8 and
39.4 mm, respectively; for specimen Prism-H, the values are 69.0
and 40.6 mm. The cover for both specimens was approximately
9.5 mm, which equals the diameter of the rebar.
The full-scale beam specimen design drawings are shown in
Fig. 3 with specific section dimensions. This full-scale beam was a
typical deck strip portion of a continuous deck panel. The deck strip
was tested as a simply supported beam reacting on the steel girders
that are typically spaced 1219 mm apart on moveable bridges. The
total length of the beam is 1372 mm, allowing for construction
of the end anchorage. The test results for the single-span single-
unit deck strip without any end anchorage (1T1S-U) and with the
180° hook anchorage (1T1S-H2) were reported elsewhere [17].
Four more deck strips were cast: the specimen with normal Grade
60 single-leg US #2 shear stirrups (1T1S-S), the specimen with
tapered section and normal US #7 rebar (1T1S-T), the specimen
with reduced reinforcement ratio by using two US #4 MMFX2
rebars (1T1S-R), and the specimen with multiple longitudinal
reinforcement with two of them bent up at the shear critical
locations (1T1S-B). To allow for comparison, the details for all six
specimens are summarized in Table 3. The loading configuration
and the instrumentation plan were similar for all specimens, and
are shown in Fig. 4. Special rebar layouts for those using multiple
3600 J. Xia et al. / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 3597–3609

a b

Fig. 2. The small reinforced prism and loading configuration. (a) Setup sketch, (b) instrumentation.

a b c

Fig. 3. The T-section beam dimensions. (a) Transverse direction normal section, (b) transverse direction taper section, and (c) longitudinal direction section.

a b

c d

Fig. 4. The T-section beam instrumentation plan. (a) Front view without bent bar, (b) front view with bent bar, (c) top view, and (d) bottom view.

Table 3
T-section beam configuration summary.
Specimen Flexural reinforcement Rebar end anchorage Rebar area (mm2 ) Shear reinforcement

1T1S-H2 1 US #7, MMFX2 180 hook 387 No

1T1S-U 1 US #7, MMFX2 N/A 387 No
1T1S-T 1 US #7, Grade 60 180 hook 387 No
1T1S-S 1 US #7, MMFX2 180 hook 387 1 leg US #2 Grade 60 stirrups
1T1S-R 2 US #4, MMFX2 180 hook 258 No
1T1S-B 1 US #4 and 2 US #3, MMFX2 180 hook 271 Bend up the 2 US #3 rebar at shear crack locations

longitudinal rebars are shown in Fig. 4. All full-scale experiments
were conducted at the Titan America Structures and Construction
Testing Laboratory at Florida International University.
2.2. Results
The concrete properties of UHPC for three separate batches are
shown in Table 4. The relatively low compressive strength for batch
1 was due to the fact that the specimens were tested without
perfect end grinding. The bond test results are summarized in
Table 5. Although the load and table movement were recorded
during the test, only the maximum load capacities were of interest.
All of the specimens failed due to longitudinal concrete splitting.
A single specimen contained a casting imperfection, as shown
in Fig. 5, with smaller cover width along the specimen length
that caused failure with lower than average bond strength. The
rebar stress exceeded the 690 MPa yielding stress for the US #3
rebar with bond length as low as eight times the bar diameter.
 J. Xia et al. / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 3597–3609 3601

curves in Fig. 6. The rebar portions near the supports were

Fig. 5. The failure mode and weakening of the full section.
Table 4
Tested UHPC properties.
Batch Average 28 Average first crack Average ultimate tensile
days fcu (MPa) strength (MPa) strength (MPa)
1 124 7.9 10
2 193 – –
3 193 – –
Meanwhile the average bond strengths for different bond lengths
were very close. Some of the specimens were cut in half vertically
after testing for inspection purposes, and it was found that some
portions of the UHPC contact surface still matched the ribs of the
deformed MMFX2 rebar. This implies that the self-consolidating
concrete and rebar were tightly bonded due to the dense UHPC
matrix [36], and the bond failure is not due to the crushing of
the concrete between the ribs. The compression bond test caused
compressive stress in the UHPC, as well as in portions of the rebar,
and this may overestimate the bond strength in a flexural member
in which the bottom UHPC portion was in tension. Although more
experiments are needed to obtain the complete understanding of
the bond behavior between the two materials, the tests performed
in this study provide an easy and economic way for bond strength
estimation when a small concrete cover is used.
The test results on the two small-scale reinforced prisms are
shown in Fig. 6. The slight difference in the specimen dimensions
explains the different initial slopes of the load versus deflection
significantly engaged after reaching a load level around 12 kN for
both specimens, as shown in the load versus rebar strain (SG1)
curves in Fig. 6. Prism-U failed at around 26 kN due to bond failure,
and thus the shear crack completely opened, as shown in Fig. 7a.
It was observed that the rebar bent locally at the crack location,
which caused compression in the rebar as measured in SG1. The
specimen Prism-H failed at a load level around 39 kN and did not
have one primary shear crack, but rather several distributed small
shear cracks developed, as shown in Fig. 7b. The strain reading
(SG1) for this specimen kept increasing with degraded stiffness
due to the existence of the end hooks. However, the steel hook
at one end of the prism failed due to concrete splitting, as shown
in Fig. 8a, and caused the load drop. In order to check the bond
condition after testing, the prisms were cut transversely along the
length. One typical section that was 25 mm away from the shear
crack tip is shown in Fig. 8b. The rebar was tightly bonded with the
concrete, and no sign of bond failure exists. Because the middle
portion of Prism-H still remained intact, a 140 mm long middle
portion (Prism-S) was cut from Prism-H and tested with a smaller
shear span of 127 mm. Prism-S failed of shear at around 55 kN
with higher compressive strain on the top UHPC portion and lower
tensile strain on the rebar, as shown in Fig. 9. Therefore, it was
concluded that the moment in the longer-span specimen did affect
the ultimate shear strength.
All full-scale specimens failed with diagonal shear cracks that
propagated to the support region. The crack widths and strain re-
sponses were different for each specimen. Therefore, for compar-
ison, the test results were divided into two groups with specimen
1T1S-H2 as the benchmark. Test results for the specimens utiliz-
ing US #7 rebar as longitudinal reinforcement (1T1S-H2/U/T/S) are
shown in Figs. 10 and 11. Meanwhile, test results for specimens
1T1S-H2/R/B are shown in Figs. 12 and 13.
The load versus displacement curves in Fig. 10 have similar
initial slopes due to the same longitudinal rebar size. However, the
curves diverge at higher load levels due to the different rebar type
and end anchorage conditions. All three specimens with MMFX2
rebar showed a gradual stiffness transition point on the load versus
strain (SG1) plot in Fig. 10, while the transition is more abrupt
for the specimen with normal Grade 60 rebar. Strain readings
from SG1 (mounted on the top surface of the concrete between
the support and the loading region) reflect how much load was
being transferred by the concrete compression zone. The slope
change of the load versus SG1 curve is indicative of a change in
load distribution. This transition point occurred much earlier in
specimen 1T1S-R and was not clearly exhibited in specimen 1T1S-
S. The shear cracks were observed to appear initially at load levels
that correspond directly to these transition points (zone) during

Table 5
Bond test results.
Rebar Bond length Ultimate Bond area Average bond Rebar Statistics
size ×db load (kN) (mm2 ) strength (MPa) stress (MPa)
µ (MPa) σ (MPa)
US #3 2 12.94 570 22.69 182.36 26.6 2.5
2 15.11 26.5 212.91
2 17.53 30.74 247.11
4 27.95 1140 24.52 393.83
4 28.49 24.99 401.55
4 32.6 28.6 459.39
8 62.75 2280 27.52 884.25
8 61.34 26.9 864.39
8 47.13 20.67a 664.17
US #4 2 24.28 1014 23.96 188.23 23.5 –
2 23.32 23.01 180.78
US #6 2 43.28 2280 18.98 152.44 18.4 –
2 40.78 17.89 143.69
a
Specimen shown in Fig. 5.
3602 J. Xia et al. / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 3597–3609

a a

b b

Fig. 7. Failure modes for the two small-scale prisms. (a) Failure mode for Prism-U
c and (b) failure mode for Prism-H.

mode, and was only achieved by specimen 1T1S-S due to the

Fig. 6. Load–strain and load–displacement results from the small-scale prisms.
(a) Load versus displacement for both specimens, (b) load versus strain plot for
Prism-U, and (c) load versus strain plot for Prism-H.
the experiments. The behaviors after the transition point were
different for specimen 1T1S-H2/T/S depending on the existence of
transverse reinforcement. While stiffness degradation of the SG1
curve was observed for specimens 1R1S-H2 and 1T1S-T in Fig. 10,
the curve for specimen 1T1S-S continued with approximately the
same slope.
From the experiment, it was seen that, after the shear crack
opened, the rebar portion at the crack location was forced to bend
and then the two portions beside the diagonal cracks rotated along
with the pullout of the rebar. The structural responses for all six
specimens at transition and ultimate load level are summarized
in Table 6 with the failure mode categorized based on the load
versus SG1 responses. Type I failure is defined as failure due to the
crushing of top concrete between the support and loading edge.
Specimens 1T1S-H2/T/B belong to this type as their SG1 values at
failure were all close to the crushing strain of UHPC of −0.0035.
Type II failure is defined as failure due to crushing of top concrete
in the mid-span. This failure mode is actually the flexural failure
existence of the shear reinforcement. Type III failure is defined as
shear-bond failure for which the crushing of the concrete between
the support and loading edge does not lead to the ultimate failure
state. Specimens 1T1S-U and 1T1S-R belong to this failure mode
due to the lack of end anchorage and the closely placed end hooks
for the two US #4 rebars, respectively. Regarding the influence
due to the lack of heat treatment, it is believed that the increased
compressive strength of UHPC will help increase the shear strength
for those specimens that failed due to concrete crushing (Type I
and II). For a failure Type III specimen, the positive impact from the
heat treatment is primarily on helping increase the bond strength
between the UHPC and the MMFX2 rebar.
Reducing the flexural reinforcement ratio as presented in this
paper did not change the ultimate shear failure mode. Specimens
with small flexural reinforcement ratio (1T1S-B/R) still failed with
widened shear cracks. The high bond strength and the relatively
small cover ensured that the flexural crack could not widen
without total interfacial bond failure. At the mid-span of the
beam, where the interfacial stress is small, this failure is only
achievable if the rebar experiences significant radial contraction
when approaching the ultimate tensile strength. The opening of
flexural cracks was observed during the experiment on specimen
1T1S-T, which is reinforced with normal Grade 60 rebar that
yielded during the test. However, even under these circumstances,
the flexural cracks closed after the longitudinal rebar began strain
hardening. This was followed by the same opening of the diagonal
shear cracks as seen in the other specimens. For the specific
specimen configurations presented in this paper, the addition of
shear stirrups will avoid the opening of shear cracks; however,
this is cumbersome for precast decks consisting of hundreds of
typical deck strips. Therefore, the ductile shear failure assured by
the sufficient end anchorages was regarded as an acceptable failure
mode for UHPC beams with passive HSS reinforcement.
 J. Xia et al. / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 3597–3609 3603

Table 6
Corresponding responses at the transition point and ultimate point.
Transition point Ultimate point
Load (kN) SG0 (µε) Load (kN) SG1 (µε) SG0 (µε) Failure type

1T1S-H2 133 5000 209 Around −3500 9600 Type I

1T1S-U 67 N/A 147 <−3500 N/A Type III
1T1S-S 133 4500 213 −2000 11000 Type II
1T1S-T 111 3000 156 Around −3500 >20000 Type I
1T1S-R 62 2500 156 <−3500 8190 Type III
1T1S-B N/A N/A 156 −3000 9770 Type I

a b

Fig. 8. Failure modes for Prism-H. (a) Splitting at the anchorage end block and (b) good bond after failure.

a b

Fig. 9. Test results of specimen with small shear span. (a) Load versus strain plot and (b) failure mode with slippage of rebar.

3. Analytical work 3.1.1. French code formula

3.1. Methods
For conventional concrete, the shear failure is prevented by
choosing an adequate section size and by providing enough trans-
verse shear reinforcement. Therefore, the ultimate load capacity of
the beam is determined by the flexural response with rebar yield-
ing criteria. For UHPC beams with passive reinforcement, if the
shear failure was regarding as the acceptable failure mode, spec-
ifying the design equation to estimate the ultimate shear capacity
is essential. Due to the ultra-high compressive strength of UHPC,
most of the widely used shear design equations cannot be applied
directly without experimental verification. In this paper, three de-
sign methods were chosen that were either proposed for use on
UHPC or do not directly involve the compressive strength of the
concrete material. Two of them were obtained from the literature
and the third one was proposed by the authors. The details of each
method are discussed as follows.
The equation from French code [27] is very similar to the
conventional shear design equations, which contains the shear
resistance contributions from concrete, transverse reinforcement,
and fibers, as shown in Eq. (1):
Vu = VRb + Va + Vf . (1)
The contribution from the concrete portion can be expressed as
1 0.21 
VRb = k fc b0 d. (2)
γE γb
Here, fc is the compressive strength of UHPC, and k is a factor
that considers the prestressing effects within the concrete and is
equal to 1 for beams without prestressing or post-stressing. Term
γE γb = 1.5 was introduced to consider the uncertainty associated
with UHPC. Parameters d and b0 are the structural depth and
width of the web, respectively. The final form of Eq. (2) without
consideration of the resistance factor is similar to its counterpart
in the ACI concrete design code, Equation 11-3 [22]. The only
3604 J. Xia et al. / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 3597–3609

a b

c d

Fig. 10. Test results of 1T1S specimen with US #7 rebar. (a) Load versus displacement, (b) load versus rebar strain, (c) load versus concrete strain at loading edge, and
(d) load versus rebar strain at mid-span.

a b

c d

Fig. 11. Failure mode of the four 1T1S specimens. (a) 1T1S-S, (b) 1T1S-H2, (c) 1T1S-T, and (d) 1T1S-U.

difference is the coefficient, which equals 0.17 in the ACI equation The contribution from the reinforcing fibers can be expressed as
when MPa and mm units are adopted. All formulas in this paper S σP
Vf = . (3)
adopt these two basic units except those terms specified explicitly. γbf tan(βu )
 J. Xia et al. / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 3597–3609 3605

a b

c d

Fig. 12. Test results of 1T1S specimens compared to shear strengthened specimens. (a) Load versus displacement, (b) load versus rebar strain, (c) load versus strain at
loading edge, and (d) load versus strain at mid-span.

a b

Fig. 13. Failure mode of the two strengthened 1T1S specimens. (a) 1T1S-B and (b) 1T1S-R.

Here, S = b0 z is the resistance area of fibers calculated by
multiplying the width of web b0 by the lever arm z between the
tensile and compressive resultant forces. It is assumed that z =
0.9d for rectangular sections [27], and that this is a conservative
assumption for T-sections. Parameter βu represents the angle of
the struts of compressed concrete from the neutral fiber of the
beam. Partial safety factor γbf was introduced to account for any
manufacturer defects that influence the tensile property of UHPC.
It equals 1.3 for the case of fundamental combinations and 1.05 for
the case of accidental combinations.
The average post-crack residual tensile strength σP can be
calculated as
∫ wlim
1 1
σP = σ (w)dw.
K wlim 0 moment equilibrium of the segment results in the following
Variable σP is determined by the maximum crack width wlim
and the stress versus crack width relation σ (w). The maximum
crack width limit of 0.3 mm is recommended in the French code.
If it is assumed that the stress versus crack width relation is lin-
ear up to the maximum crack width of 0.3 mm, then σP can be
approximately estimated as the average of the stress level corre-
sponding to zero crack width and a crack width limit of 0.3 mm.
The anisotropy of fiber orientation distribution is not considered
(K = 1).
3.1.2. Ultimate shear stress limited by the interfacial shear strength
The ‘tooth model’ summarized by Reineck [25] allows the
estimation of the shear strength based on the interfacial bond
strength between the concrete and the rebar. It is assumed
that the beam can be divided into segments that are connected
(4) only at the top compression region, as shown in Fig. 14a. The
equation:
∆T · z = V · Scr . (5)
3606 J. Xia et al. / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 3597–3609

a b

Fig. 14. ‘Tooth’ model and load transfer through struts and ties [25]: (a) Tooth Model, (b) Strut and tie model.

Here, V is the nominal shear resistance including all the a

contributions from concrete, fibers, and the dowel action of the
longitudinal rebar. Scr is the width of the segments, determined by
the crack spacing. The net tensile force ∆T accumulated from the
interfacial stress for individual segments can be expressed as
1T = τ π ds Scr . (6)
Here, τ is the interfacial bond stress and π ds Scr is the calculated
bond area. By inserting Eq. (6) into Eq. (5) as proposed by Reineck,
an equation capable of predicting the ultimate shear strength
based on the bond strength was obtained as b
Vu,τ = τu π ds z . (7)
Eq. (7) is suitable to use on UHPC because concrete crushing is
not the intended failure mode; therefore there is no term directly
related to the compressive strength of the concrete material.
Although the average flexural crack spacing of UHPC is much
smaller than that of normal concrete, the crack spacing term Scr
cancels out in the derivation process and does not affect the results
in Eq. (7). By obtaining the interfacial bond strength from the
compression out specimens, the ultimate shear strength when
the bond failure happens can be predicted. Reineck also pointed
out that the shear force contribution from the uncracked concrete c
potion can be estimated as
2 2c
Vcu = c τ π ds = Vu . (8)
3 3z
Here, c is the height of the uncracked portion, and z is the lever
arm between the tensile and compressive resultant forces. For
UHPC, the ratio c /z is usually even smaller due to the high modu-
lus of elasticity of UHPC when compared to normal concrete, which Fig. 15. Deformable strut and tie model. (a) Struts and ties, (b) deformation and
means that the shear strength contribution from the concrete com- geometry, and (c) internal force equilibrium at nodes.
pression zone is only a small portion of the total shear resistance.
In other words, the concrete in the compression zone only experi- the contribution of the bridging fibers and causes a gradually
ences very small shear effects before the interfacial bond fails. weakened tension tie between points B and C, thus preventing
the abrupt and catastrophic failure. Furthermore, the rebar at
3.1.3. Deformable strut and tie model for ultimate shear capacity the cracking location was not only deformed in shear, but also
estimations bent significantly. The interaction between rebar and concrete can
Reineck [25] also proposed a strut and tie model for a beam with increase the shear resistance even after the opening of the shear
no shear reinforcement, as shown in Fig. 14b. Based on that, the cracks under the combined contribution from bridging fibers and
authors proposed a deformable strut and tie model as shown in the secondary load transfer mechanism. The following equations,
Fig. 15 to consider the load transfer after the failure of the tension based on the force equilibrium, demonstrate the relationship
tie between points B and C. This tensile force can be provided by between the ultimate shear force that is transferred by the concrete
the concrete due to the existence of the interfacial bond strength compression region and by the concrete–rebar interaction when all
or can be provided by the transverse reinforcement (shear stirrups the fibers have pulled out at the shear cracks.
or bent up rebars). The absence or break of the tension tie between
V = Fc2 + Fc sin(θc )

points B and C will cause the collapse of the primary strut and
tie model and activate other secondary load transfer mechanisms, Fc2 = Fs sin(θd ) (9)
such as the dowel action of the longitudinal rebar in the case Fc cos(θc ) − Fs cos(θd ) = NL .
of normal concrete. However, for normal strength concrete, the
Here, θc and θd are two angles related to the deformation shape
secondary load transfer mechanism is usually not sufficient to hold
with the relationship
the existing load and thus the sudden load drop takes place. In the
case of UHPC–HSS beams, the opening of the shear cracks triggers tan(θc ) + tan(θd ) = d/L1. (10)
 J. Xia et al. / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 3597–3609 3607

Parameters NL and NV are the external forces provided by a

the support. Parameters Fci and Fsi are the internal forces of the
concrete struts and steel ties at different regions. The external
shear force V is of interest. Two extreme cases can be represented
by the same model. When the angle θd equals zero, force Fc2
equals zero as well, and all load is transferred through the concrete
compression zone. When the angle θc equals zero, dowel force
Fc2 equals the full external shear force V , and only a portion
of the load is transferred through the top compression region
(technically, load transferred equals Fc3 , which is the horizontal
compression force transfer by the top portion of UHPC at the mid-
span). Between the two extreme cases, the load is distributed
between the two mechanisms. If it is assumed the support cannot
provide any lateral resistance (NL = 0), then the ultimate shear
force Vu limited by the maximum steel tie force when Fs = Fs,u is b
d
Vu = Fs,u cos(θd ) . (11)
L1
Eq. (11) can be used to predict the ultimate shear strength based
on the longitudinal rebar stress being close to the support without
considering how the load is being transferred.

3.1.4. Ultimate shear strength equations considering moment–shear

interaction
The investigation approach of Choi et al. [29] and Choi and
Park [30] was adopted in this paper to investigate the moment–
shear interaction of UHPC–HSS beams. However, due to the lack of
authoritative information on the biaxial principal stress interaction
for UHPC material, four σ1 , σ2 interaction models were introduced,
as shown in Eq. (12). Of these, Eq. (12a) is the numerical expression
of the model adopted by Choi and the rest are the assumed possible
interactions. By specifying material properties of Ec = 55 GPa, fc =
−193 MPa, and ft = 10.4 MPa, the corresponding normal stress
versus maximum shear stress relations based on the four
assumptions are shown in Fig. 16a.
σ1 ≤ ft and σ2 ≥ fc
σ1 fc + σ2 ft − ft fc = 0
σ1 2
σ2 2
+ =1
ft 2 fc 2
(σ1 − ft ) 2
(σ2 − fc ) 2
+ = 1.
ft 2
fc 2
To predict the ultimate shear strength of the T-sections
discussed in this paper, a moment-curvature analysis was first
performed. An elastic–plastic stress–strain relation with yielding
stress of 10.3 MPa was used for the tensile behavior of UHPC,
and the linear stress versus strain relation was used for the
compression side up to the crushing strain of −0.0035. After
reaching the crushing strain, the stress of UHPC was set to decrease
linearly until reaching zero at a strain level of −0.01. A nonlinear
stress–strain relation was adopted based on the experimental
results of MMFX2 steel rebar. The normal stresses for all layers
were recorded during the analysis for each curvature increment,
and the maximum allowable shear stress distribution was obtained
based on the four principal stress interaction assumptions. The
ultimate shear force for the section was obtained by accumulating
the shear resistance contribution from all layers. Theoretically, this
curvature-dependent shear resistance would be checked against
the external shear demand at all locations along the simply
supported beam. However, the section at the edge of the loading
pad was determined to be the critical section, and the shear span
length of 356 mm was used to convert the moment-curvature
relation derived previously to the curvature versus flexural load
capacity curve. By plotting the converted demand curve along with
Fig. 16. Biaxial stresses relationship. (a) Normal and maximum shear stresses and
(b) distribution of maximum shear stress along the section height.
the shear strength curves, the intersections of the curves were
interpreted as when the shear begins to interfere with the moment
capacity for the critical section. While the full flange width of the
T-section was included in the flexural analysis, only the portion
equal to the web thickness plus two times the flange thickness
was taken into account in the shear strength calculation. Similar
analysis procedures were repeated for the rectangular section for
(12a) the small prisms.
(12b)
3.2. Results
(12c)
The shear resistances for the small-scale and full-scale beam
specimens were estimated based on Eqs. (2) and (3). The results
are summarized in Table 7, based on the following assumptions.
(12d)
The design safety factors γE , γb , and γbf were set to 1.0, and the
angle βu was assumed to be 45°. A linear stress versus crack width
response was assumed for crack widths up to 0.3 mm. Therefore,
the average post-crack strength can be estimated as σP = 9 MPa,
based on the material characterization tests.
The shear strength prediction from the French code at a
maximum crack width equal to 0.3 mm matches the test result
for the small prism, while the predictions for the T-section beam
were significantly lower than the test results. The reason for
the underestimation is because the predicted shear strength was
actually corresponding to the shear crack width of 0.3 mm and
thus it cannot consider the secondary contribution. The shear
resistance contribution from this secondary effect is considerable
for a UHPC beam with passive high strength reinforcement. The
equation may also neglect the contribution of the flanges of
the T-section specimen by using only the width of the web in
calculating the shear resistance area after cracking. This equation
also neglected the shear–moment interaction. The existence of
moment is believed to have an adverse effect on the shear capacity,
and thus a reduction factor is usually introduced, such as those
proposed by Muttoni and Ruiz [23].
Shear strength estimation based on the interfacial stress limits
was obtained from Eqs. (7) and (8). The maximum bond strengths
from the compression test were used as the interfacial stress
3608 J. Xia et al. / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 3597–3609

Table 7
Estimated shear strength using Eqs. (2) and (3).
fcj (MPa) b0 (mm) d (mm) VRb (kN) S (mm2 ) σP (MPa) Vf (kN) Vu (kN) Pu (kN) Ptest (kN)

Prism-H 124.1 38.1 50.8 4.5 1742 9 15.7 20.2 40.4 40

1T1S-H2 193.1 50.8 101.6 15.1 4645 9 41.8 56.9 113.7 209

limits. Assuming that parameter z equals 0.9d, the estimated shear a

strengths were 36 and 117 kN, respectively, for the small-scale
prism and the full-scale T-section beam specimens. Both values are
lower than the experimental results, but close to those estimated
based on the French code. The shear strength predicted under this
method corresponds to the state when the interfacial bond failed at
the shear crack location. The method also underestimated the post-
crack shear resistance due to the neglect of the secondary effects.
The shear strength based on Eq. (11), assuming that θc angle
equals zero, is listed in Table 8. For the small-scale prism
specimens, the rebar stresses were calculated based on the rebar
strain measured close to the support during the test. For the
full-scale T-section beam specimens, the rebar stresses were
estimated based on the strain results of the rebar at mid-span. For
those specimens without any recorded rebar strain (1T1S-U), the b
yielding stress of the specific longitudinal reinforcement was used
in the calculation. Most of the estimated shear strengths are close
to the test results, except for Prism-S, due to the small shear span.
The comparisons show the strut and tie model can account for load
transfer at the final stage of the specimens with large shear spans
(L1 /d > 2) if the stress within the longitudinal rebar is available.
If the end anchorage of the longitudinal reinforcement is ensured,
using a rebar yielding stress of 690 MPa in Eq. (11) can lead to a
conservative estimation of the ultimate shear strength of a UHPC
beam with passive longitudinal HSS rebar.
The results for the moment–shear interaction are presented as
follows. For T-sections, the distribution of maximum shear stress
along the section height are shown in Fig. 16b at several curvature Fig. 17. Shear strength versus load capacity based on the flexural strength for
levels (different κ value) for assumption equation (12c). The shear critical section: (a) T-section, full-scale beam and (b) rectangular section small-scale
prism.
forces versus curvature for all assumptions are shown in Fig. 17a.
It was seen that the intersections of the curves lay between 40 and
70 kN, which is much lower than the flexural load capacity. The
interactions explain the existence of the transition point/zone on
the experimental load versus displacement curves. Plastic hinges
were developed at the critical sections after the concrete portion
reached the ultimate shear strength. The fiber contribution and
the secondary load transfer mechanism were activated thereafter.
The parabolic model in Eq. (12c) introduced the interaction in the
principal stress domain, and its prediction of the shear capacity
was close to the model used by Choi. The parabolic model is
easier to implement without explicit checking of the tensile or
compressive failure modes. The linear and hyperbolic assumptions
overestimated the impact of the moment, and thus caused a
lower sectional ultimate shear resistance. A similar conclusion was Fig. 18. The moment and shear interaction curves compared to the existing
interaction rules for normal strength concrete.
also found for the small-scale prisms, as shown in Fig. 17b. By
plotting the moment and shear resistance, the moment and shear
HSS rebar, shear failure is more critical if there is no transverse
interaction curve can be obtained for the particular T-section, as
reinforcement. The actual flexural load capacity based on the
shown in Fig. 18. When compared to the corresponding curves for
ultimate tensile strength of HSS rebar is much higher than the
normal strength concrete, it was found that the shear strength ratio
design value which was predicted on the nominal yielding stress
for UHPC was higher, and the increase of moment can be beneficial
of HSS based on the 0.2% offset rule. To avoid the domination
to the shear strength. It should be noticed that because only
of shear failure in UHPC–HSS beams, a considerable amount
the influence of moment on the shear strength was considered,
of shear reinforcement was required to increase the shear
the curves derived in this study were more in the sense of an
resistance to be higher than the actual flexural capacity. However,
interaction envelope. adding transverse reinforcement may not be practical and is not
economical.
4. Conclusion Ductile shear failure with higher post-crack shear resistance
was recommended as an acceptable failure mode due to the ex-
Based on the experimental and analytical work presented, it istence of bridging fibers and the secondary load transfer mech-
was concluded that, for UHPC beams reinforced with passive anism due to concrete and rebar interaction. From experimental
 J. Xia et al. / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 3597–3609
Table 8
Shear resistance based on deformable strut and tie model.
Specimens fs (MPa) As (mm2 ) Fs (kN)
Prism-U 414 71 29
Prism-H 690 71 49
Prism-S 240 71 17
1T1S-U 690 387 267
1T1S-T 621 387 240
1T1S-R 897 258 231
1T1S-H2 1000 387 387
observations, this shear failure is not abrupt or catastrophic. If
there was no transverse reinforcement, the additional post-crack
shear resistance was provided by the bending and shear defor-
mation of the rebar along with the opening of the shear cracks. If
transverse reinforcement existed, the shear crack was restrained
and parallel shear cracks developed until the concrete on the top
face crushed. For either case, there were noticeable deformations
and frequent noise of cracking before the final load drop. How-
ever, for beams without transverse reinforcement, only a portion
of the post-crack shear resistance contributed by the fibers is rec-
ommended to be considered by the French code. The purpose of
this practice is to make sure that the maximum shear crack width
is less than 0.3 mm. Based on the comparison in this paper, if reli-
able end anchorage of the longitudinal reinforcement exists, the
actual ultimate load capacity of UHPC–HSS beams can be much
higher than the prediction based on the French code. In case of pre-
cast UHPC–HSS bridge decks developed based on the research pre-
sented, the 180° beam end anchorage was used in the system-level
deck panel specimens. Experimental results show the new deck
system as a viable alternative to the open grid steel deck system
from a load capacity point of view with acceptable shear failure
mode.
Acknowledgments
This study was sponsored by Florida Departmenrt of Trans-
portation (FDOT) under the contract No. BD015 RPWO # 22 with
Mr. Marcus Ansley as the project manager. The authors are pleased
to acknowledge the support of Mr. Charles Ishee at the FDOT
Structural Materials Laboratory for testing the UHPC cylinders. La-
farge North American and MMFX Technologies Corporation are ac-
knowledged for providing the materials tested in this research. The
authors acknowledge Dr. Lei Zhao for his contribution on initiating
this research project. The views and findings reported here, how-
ever, are those of the writers alone, and not necessarily the views
of the sponsoring agency.
References
[1] Naaman AE, Reinhardt HW. Proposed classification of HPFRC composites based
on their tensile response. Mater Struct 2006;39(289):547–55.
[2] Graybeal BA. Material property characterization of ultra-high performance
concrete. Tech rep FHWA-HRT-06-103. Federal Highway Administration;
2006.
[3] Chanvillard G, Rigaud S. Complete characterization of tensile properties of
Ductal⃝ r
UHPFRC according to the French recommendation. In: 4th Int. RILEM
workshop on high performance fiber reinforced cement composites. 2003.
p. 14.
[4] Harris DK, Roberts-Wollmann CL. Characterization of the punching shear
capacity of thin ultra-high performance concrete slabs. Tech rep VTRC 05-
CR26. Virginia Department of Transportation; 2005.
[5] Toutlemonde F. Fatigue performance of UHPFRC ribbed slab applied as a road
bridge deck verified according to the eurocodes. In: 5th int conf on concrete
under severe conditions CONSEC 07. 2007. p. 11.
[6] Graybeal BA. Deployment of ultra-high-performance concrete technology.
ASPIRE 2010; Summer:50–1.
[7] Abu-Hawash A, McDonald N, Olson K, Dunker K. Advances in concrete bridges
in Iowa. ASPIRE 2010; Summer:52–4.
[8] Keierleber B, Bierwagen D, Wipf T, Abu-Hawash A. Design of Buchanan County,
Iowa, bridge, using ultra high-performance concrete and PI beam cross section.
In: PCI national bridge conference. 2008. p. 1–14.
3609
L1 /d 2Vu (kN) Pu_test (kN) Error (%)
2.5 23.2 27 −12.00
2.27 43.1 39 10.13
1.14 29.9 55 −45.73
3.5 152.7 147 3.94
3.5 137.3 158 −13.20
3.5 132.1 156 −15.63
3.5 221.4 208 6.41
[9] Aaleti S, Sritharan S, Beirwagen D, Wipf TJ. Experimental evaluation
of structural behavior of precast UHPC waffle bridge deck panels and
connections. Transportation Research Record: J Transportation Research
Board (2011) [in press], http://pubsindex.trb.org/view.aspx?id=1092619.
[10] Magee JH, Schnell RE. Stainless steel rebar. Adv Mater Process 2002;160(10):
43–5.
[11] ASTM A 955 2004, standard specification for deformed and plain stainless-
steel bars for concrete reinforcement. West Conshohocken (PA, USA);
American Society for Testing and Materials, ASTM International; 2004.
[12] ASTM A 1035 2006, standard specification for deformed and plain, low-carbon,
chromium, steel bars for concrete reinforcement. West Conshohocken (PA,
USA): American Society for Testing and Materials, ASTM International; 2006.
[13] Clemeña GG. Investigation of the resistance of several new metallic reinforcing
bars to chloride-induced corrosion in concrete—interim report. Tech rep
report VTRC 04-R7. Virginia Transportation Research Council; 2003.
[14] Holschemacher K, Weibe D, Klotz S. Bond of reinforcement in ultra
high strength concrete. In: First international symposium on ultra high
performance concrete. 2004, p. 375–87.
[15] Lubbers AR. Bond performance between ultra-high performance concrete and
prestressing strands. Master’s thesis. Ohio University; 2003.
[16] Ansley MH. Investigation into the structural performance of MMFX reinforc-
ing. Tech rep. Florida Department of Transportation, Structures Research Cen-
ter; 2002.
[17] Saleem MA, Mirmiran A, Xia J, Mackie K, Ansley MH. Ultra-high performance
concrete bridge deck reinforced with high strength steel. ACI Struct J 2011;
108(5):601–9.
[18] Reddy DV, Cuschieri JM. Open grid bridge deck noise mitigation and skid
resistance study. Tech rep report WPI 0510621. Florida Department of
Transportation; 1996.
[19] Bridge design specifications and commentary. Washington (DC): American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials AASHTO; 2007.
[20] Vyas JS, Zhao L, Ansley MH, Xia J. Characterization of a low-profile fiber-
reinforced polymer deck system for moveable bridges. J Bridge Eng 2009;
14(1):55–65.
[21] Saleem MA, Mirmiran A, Xia J, Mackie K. Experimental evaluation of
aluminum bridge deck system. ASCE Bridge Eng. (2010) [in press],
http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000204.
[22] Building code requirements for structural concrete ACI 318-08 and commen-
tary ACI 318R-08. Farmington Hills (MI): American Concrete Institute; 2008.
[23] Muttoni A, Ruiz MF. Shear strength of members without transverse
reinforcement as function of critical shear crack width. ACI Struct J 2008;
105(2):163–72.
[24] Bentz EC, Vecchio FJ, Collins MP. Simplified modified compression field theory
for calculating shear strength of reinforced concrete elements. ACI Struct J
2006;103(4):614–24.
[25] Reineck KH. Ultimate shear force of structural concrete members without
transverse reinforcement derived from a mechanical model. ACI Struct J 1991;
88(5):592–602.
[26] He XG, Kwan AKH. Modeling dowel action of reinforcement bars for finite
element analysis of concrete structures. Comput Struct 2001;79(6):595–604.
[27] Ultra high performance fibre-reinforced concretes—interim recommenda-
tions. Paris (France): Association Française de Génie Civil; 2002.
[28] Graybeal BA. Structural behavior of ultra-high performance concrete pre-
stressed I-girders. Tech rep FHWA-HRT-06-115. Federal Highway Administra-
tion; 2005.
[29] Choi KK, Park HG, Wight JK. Unified shear strength model for reinforced
concrete beams: part I: development. ACI Struct J 2007;104(2):142–52.
[30] Choi KK, Park HG. Unified shear strength model for reinforced concrete beams:
part II: verification and simplified method. ACI Struct J 2007;104(2):153–61.
[31] Vecchio FJ, Collins MP. Predicting the response of reinforced concrete beams
subjected to shear using the modified compression field theory. ACI Struct J
1988;85(3):258–68.
[32] Imam M, Vandewalle L, Mortelmans F, Van Gemert D. Shear domain of fibre-
reinforced high-strength concrete beams. Eng Struct 1997;19(9):738–47.
[33] Kani GNJ. Basic facts concerning shear failure. ACI J Proc 1966;63(6):675–92.
[34] ASTM C 39 2005. Standard test method for compressive strength of cylindrical
concrete specimens. West Conshohocken (PA, USA): American Society for
Testing and Materials, ASTM International; 2005.
[35] ASTM E 8 2004. Standard test methods for tension testing of metallic materials.
West Conshohocken (PA, USA): American Society for Testing and Materials,
ASTM International; 2003.
[36] Sorelli L, Constantinides G, Ulm FJ, Toutlemonde F. The nano-mechanical
signature of ultra high performance concrete by statistical nanoindentation
techniques. Cem Concr Res 2008;38(12):1447–56.