Construction and Building Materials 197 (2019) 548–558

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Loading rate effect on crack velocity in ultra-high-performance

fiber-reinforced concrete
Tri Thuong Ngo a,b, Jun Kil Park a, Dong Joo Kim a,⇑
a
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Sejong University, 98 Gunja-Dong, Gwangjin-Gu, Seoul 05006, South Korea
b
Department of Civil Engineering, Thuyloi University, 175 Tay Son, Dong Da, Ha Noi, Viet Nam

h i g h l i g h t s

The crack initiation and velocity at high speed were successfully tested by using the modified I-SEFIM.

The crack velocity increased as the applied strain rate increased.

The fiber reinforcement significantly affected on the crack velocity in the UHPFRCs at static rates, but it slightly did at high strain rates.

The strain-rate sensitivity of UHPFRC is strongly correlated with the dynamic crack growth mechanism.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Loading rate effect on crack propagation in ultra-high-performance fiber-reinforced concrete (UHPFRCs)
Received 9 August 2018 was investigated using a pre-notched three-point bending specimen in an improved-strain energy frame
Received in revised form 20 November 2018 impact machine (I-SEFIM) and image processing techniques. The crack velocity of up to 984 m/s and the
Accepted 25 November 2018
crack initiation strain rate of up to 271 s1 were observed. Crack velocity in UHPFRCs increased as
Available online 30 November 2018
the applied strain rate increased. Fiber reinforcements significantly affected on the crack velocity in
the UHPFRC at static rates, but slightly did at high strain rates. There is a strong correlation between
Keywords:
the strain-rate sensitivity and the dynamic crack growth characteristics of UHPFRCs.
UHPFRCs
Crack velocity
Ó 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Digital image correlation
Edge detection algorithms
Strain-rate sensitivity
High strain rates
Three-point bending test

1. Introduction Several methods have been [12–14], digital image correlation

Ultra-high-performance fiber-reinforced concretes (UHPFRCs)
is well known for their superior mechanical characteristics: high
compressive strength [1], tensile strength, strain capacity [2],
energy absorption capacity [3,4], and strain-rate sensitivity [5,6].
These properties are applied to investigate the formation and prop-
agation of the crack in plain concrete [11–19], using different tech-
niques such as acoustic emission [11], high-speed camera
favorable for enhancing the resistance of military infrastructure
and buildings to extreme loads, such as impact or blast loads
[5–10]. However, the formation and propagation of crack in
UHPFRCs at high strain rates, which is a complex process and a
key mechanism leading to failure of structures, is not fully
understood.
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: djkim75@sejong.ac.kr (D.J. Kim).
(DIC) [14], and a strain gauge or crack gauge [15–18]. Goszczynska
[11] analyzed the initiation and evolution of cracks and found that
it was possible to detect the creation of micro-cracks as well as the
growth of cracks in plain concrete by using the acoustic emission
technique. Mindess et al. [13] measured the crack velocity in plain
concrete, by using a high-speed camera system, and found that the
crack velocity in plain concrete was beyond 254 m/s under drop-
weight impact loading. Curbach et al. [16] also measured the crack
velocity in concrete under indirect impact tensile tests using the
crack gauges and they reported that the maximum value of crack
velocity was about 600 m/s. Zhang et al. [17] investigated the crack
velocity in high-strength concrete (HSC) under a wide range of
loading rates, from 104 to 103 mm/s, using the strain gauge tech-
nology with a servo-hydraulic testing machine and a drop-weight
impact system. They reported that the crack velocity in the HSCs
increased under the static rate but almost stayed constant under
the high strain rates.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.11.241
0950-0618/Ó 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 T.T. Ngo et al. / Construction and Building Materials 197 (2019) 548–558 549

However, there is still very limited information about the crack and ‘‘LT” indicate the short smooth fiber, long smooth fiber, and
velocity in the fiber reinforced concrete (FRCs), especially in long twisted fiber, respectively), the next two letters designate
UHPFRCs, in comparison with plain concrete. Zhang et al. [20] the fiber vol.-% in each series (‘‘15-” represents for the UHFRCs
investigated the effect of applied loading rates on the crack veloc- reinforced with 1.5 vol-% fiber) while the last characters after the
ity in steel fiber reinforced concrete (SFRC), using bonded strain hyphen designate the strain rate levels (‘‘S”, ‘‘h1”, and ‘‘h2” indi-
gauges, and revealed that the crack velocity almost keeps constant cates static rate, high strain rate level 1 and level 2, respectively).
about 104 m/s under the quasi-static loading condition of
3.33  103 mm/s, while the main crack propagated with decreas-
2.1. Material and specimen preparation
ing velocity at higher loading rates between 0.10 and
2.66  103 mm/s. They also insisted that the crack initiation strain
Table 1 shows the ultra-high-performance concrete (UHPC)
rates were proportional to the loading rates, varied from 106 to
matrix composition by weight ratio, while Table 2 lists the proper-
101 s1 when the loading rate was less than 1.77  103 mm/s.
ties of fibers. The average diameter of the silica sand is below
Recently, Pyo et al. [21] measured the crack propagation speed in
0.5 mm, while the average diameters of the silica fume and silica
UHPFRCs and indicated that the crack velocity of up to 514 m/s
powder are about 0.1 lm and 10 lm, respectively. The silica pow-
were achieved at the lower notch tip strain rates and up to
der and silica fume contain more than 98% SiO2. The entire ingre-
1454 m/s for the higher notch tip strain rates. The correlation
dients (silica fume, silica powder, cement (Type I), silica sand,
between the strain-rate sensitivity and the characteristic of
water, superplasticizer, and fiber) were carefully weighted accord-
dynamic crack growth of UHPFRCs was evaluated by using a
ing to the weight ratio listed in Table 1. The silica sand and the sil-
recently proposed crack-velocity dependent dynamic fracture
ica fume were first to dry mixed for 5 min. The cement and the
model [21]. However, Pyo et al. [21] have just investigated the
silica powder were then added and mixed in approximately five
UHPFRCs with 0.0, 0.5, and 1.0 vol-% short smooth fibers under
more minutes. The water and superplasticizer were slowly added
the crack initiation strain rates up to 41 s1.
with 2 min interval and mixed continuously until the mixture
In this research, an experimental program was undertaken to
showed adequate workability. Finally, the fibers were carefully
investigate the crack velocity in the UHPFRCs reinforced with dif-
poured by hand into the mixture while the mixer machine kept
ferent fiber vol.-%, steel fiber types, fiber aspect ratios under a wide
rotating for 2 min. Detail of the mixing procedure can be found
range of applied loading rates. Three-point bending tests was con-
in [22,23].
ducted on pre-notched specimens by using a universal test
The UHPFRC mixture was cast into plastic molds by a scoop
machine (UTM) and an improved strain energy frame impact
without vibration before storing in the laboratory temperature
machine (I-SEFIM) at static rates and high strain rates, respectively.
for 48 h. The specimen was demolded and cured in the hot water
The images of specimen during the tests were recorded by using a
tank at 90 ± 2 °C in 72 h. All specimens were tested at the ages of
high-speed camera system and then analyzed to investigate the
28 days.
formation and propagation of crack using the digital image corre-
The size of specimen is 50  50  210 mm. Before testing, a
lation (DIC) technique and edge detect algorithms (EDAs).
notch was made by saw at the bottom of specimen as shown in
This study aims to investigate the crack propagation in
Fig. 2. Depth of the notch is 10 mm while their width is about
UHPFRCs. The specific objectives are (1) to investigate the effects
2 mm. Stone powder or random speckle patterns were sprayed
of loading rate on the crack velocity in UHPFRCs, (2) to investigate
on the front surface of the UHPC specimen (SS00) for static test
the effect of fiber volume content, fiber geometry, and fiber aspect
and of the UHPFRC specimen for at static and high strain rate tests,
ratio on the crack velocity in UHPFRCs, and (3) to discover the cor-
respectively.
relation between the crack growth mechanism and the strain-rate
sensitivity of UHPFRCs at high strain rates.
2.2. Test setup and procedure
2. Experimental program
Fig. 3 shows the three-point bending test at static rates using a
Fig. 1 shows the experimental program of this study: fifteen ser- universal testing machine (UTM). The UTM was run at the dis-
ies of pre-notched three-point bending specimens placement control mode with a constant displacement speed of
(50  50  210 mm3) of UHPFRCs were tested. In the notation of 1 mm/min. The applied load was measured by a load cell installed
the series, two first letters indicate the type of fiber (‘‘SS”, ‘‘LS”, inside the machine.

Fig. 1. Experimental program.

550 T.T. Ngo et al. / Construction and Building Materials 197 (2019) 548–558

Table 1
The composition of UHPC matrix by weight ratio.

Cement (Type I) Silica fume Silica sand Silica powder Super-plasticizer Water
1 0.25 1.10 0.30 0.067 0.2

Table 2
Properties of fibers.

Fiber type Diameter, df (mm) Length, lf (mm) Density, q (g/cc) Tensile strength, ru (MPa) Elastic modulus, E (GPa)

Short smooth steel fiber 0.2 13 7.90 2788 200

Long smooth steel fiber 0.2 19 7.90 2580 200
Long twisted steel fiber 0.2a 20 7.90 2428b 200
a
Equivalent diameter.
b
Tensile strength of fiber after twisting.

Fig. 2. Schematic of the specimen.

The high-speed camera used to capture images runs at 2500

Fig. 3. Three-point bending test at static rates.
The I-SEFIM was modified for the three-point bending test at
high strain rates, as shown in Fig. 4. The detail of I-SEFIM can be
found in [6,8,24]. Two combinations of coupler and energy frame
were used to generate different ranges of high strain rates: an
800 and 400 kN using with a high strength steel energy frame,
which would generate the estimated theoretical impact velocity
of 13.83 and 6.94 m/s, respectively [8]. The applied load was mea-
sured by two dynamic strain gauges attached on the surface of a
transmitter bar, while the crack tip strain and crack velocity in
UHPFRC specimens were measured by a high-speed camera
system.
frames per second with a resolution of 320  240 pixels at static
test (in the UTM) for UHPC (SS00), while with a resolution of
128  88 pixels at same test for UHPFPC (SS05, SS15, LS15, and
LT15): Because UHPFRC take long time compared with UHPC dur-
ing the static test, capturing time of high-speed camera is not
enough with a resolution of 320  240 pixels. And those for high
strain rate tests (in the I-SEFIM) at 100,000 frames per second with
a resolution of 160  80 pixels, respectively. The images obtained
by the high-speed camera were analyzed to measure the formation
and propagation of cracks using the DIC technique and the EDAs.
The DIC technique is a non-contact and optical measurement
technique to measure displacements on the surface of an object
of interest. The DIC involves comparing a series of images taken
by the high-speed camera with specific resolution, in sequence
over a time interval. Two digital images, taken before and after
the deformations, represent the positions of an object at these
moments. A small subset in the target image (taken after deforma-
tion) is matched to a similar subset in the reference image (taken
before deformation). The area of interest should be painted with
the stone or random speckle pattern, as shown in Fig. 2, to be more
effective in the analyzing process. The underlying theory of DIC
technique can be referred in [25–27].
The EDAs is a process of identifying the sharp discontinuities on
the surface of an image. The sharp discontinuities are abrupt
changes in pixel intensity which characterize boundaries of objects
in a scene [28]. Details of the EDA techniques are more discussed in
Section 3.3.
 T.T. Ngo et al. / Construction and Building Materials 197 (2019) 548–558
Fig. 4. Three-point bending test at high strain rates.
Compressive tests following the ASTM C109/C109M [29] were
used to check the compressive strength of UHPFRCs, while the flow
test according to ASTM C1437 [30] was conducted to measure the
flowability of the mixtures. The slump flow of the mixtures was
about 225 mm and the compressive strength of the UHPC matrix
was 184 MPa as reported in [31].
3. Results
3.1. Failure pattern of specimen at different strain rates
The typical crack propagation in UHPFRC specimens under var-
ious applied loading rates was shown in Fig. 5. Generally, the spec-
imens failed with one major crack initiated from the tip of the
notch and propagated to the opposing side of specimens, although
the shape of crack was different according to the fiber vol.-%, fiber
types, and loading speed as shown in Fig. 5a. The UHPFRC speci-
mens without fiber failed with only one major crack, whereas
those with fibers exhibited multiple crack branches along the for-
mation of main crack. In addition, the main crack is straighter at
higher loading rates. All the fibers across the crack path were
pulled out at the static rate regardless of the fiber types and fiber
vol.-%. However, several long smooth and long twisted fibers were
observed to be broken at high strain rates h1 and h2 (Fig. 5b). In
addition, the portion of breakage fibers in the UHPFFRCs specimen
reinforced with the long twisted fiber was higher than those of the
long smooth fiber.
3.2. Peak load of UHPFRC specimen at different strain rates
Table 3 listed the peak load of UHPFRC specimens at different
strain rates. Generally, the peak load of UHPFRCs specimens with-
out fibers or containing smooth steel fibers increased as the con-
tent of fiber and the strain rate increased. The average peak load
values of UHPFRC specimen at the static rate, the high strain rate
551
h1, and the high strain rate h2 were: 2.34, 2.75, and 5.58 kN for
SS00; 5.78, 9.90, and 14.36 kN for SS05; 9.04, 14.49, and
18.88 kN for SS15; and 13.97, 14.16, and 22.37 kN for LS15,
respectively.
However, the UHPFRC reinforced with the twisted fiber exhib-
ited a different trend. The average peak value of UHPFRC speci-
mens (12.07 kN) at the high strain rate h2 was lower than the
peak load value at the high strain rate h1 (13.27 kN) and even
lower than 15.48 kN of UHPFRC specimen at static rate, as listed
in Table 3. The lower peak load of UHPFRC specimens containing
the twisted fiber at high strain rates, in comparison with static
rates, might be attributed to the breakage of fiber rather than pull-
out at high rates as mentioned in Section 3.1. The breakage of fibers
resulted in lower load resistance [5].
3.3. Crack velocity and crack initiation strain rates in UHPFRCs
Fig. 6 illustrates the method of calculating both crack initiation
strain rate and crack velocity in UHPFRC specimens by using the
DIC technique. The strain histories of virtual strain gauges attached
on the sequential images, captured by the high speed camera, were
shown in Fig. 6. Both crack initiation strain rate and crack initiation
point were defined in Fig. 6 based on the strain histories. The crack
velocity was calculated by Eq. (1):
Pn yGLi yGLi1
Crack v elocity ¼
1 ti t i1
ð1Þ
n1
where yGLi is the y-coordinate of a gauge i (GLi); ti is the time of
strain of the GLi increase continuously; n is the number of gauges.
The GL1 and GLn were placed at the tip of notch and above the
original neutral y-axis of the specimen, respectively. Notably, the
x-coordinate of each gauge was adjusted according to the propaga-
tion of the crack, but the distance between two points of each gauge
was maintained at 10 mm.
552 T.T. Ngo et al. / Construction and Building Materials 197 (2019) 548–558

SS00-S: 705 ms SS00-S: 707 ms SS00-S: 709 ms SS00-S: 712 ms

SS15-h1: 77 ms SS15-h1: 91 ms SS15-h1: 99 ms SS15-h1: 132 ms

SS15-h2: 11 ms SS15-h2: 30 ms SS15-h2: 39 ms SS15-h2: 49 ms

a) Failure of specimens

Twisted fiber Smooth fiber

b) Breakage fibers along the crack path

Fig. 5. Typical of crack propagation under various loading speed.

The crack velocity was also calculated by running several edge
detection algorithms in an image processing program using
MATLAB to compare with the crack velocity results using the DIC
technique, as shown in Fig. 7. Two common edge detection algo-
rithms (Canny and Prewit algorithms [28]) were used in this study.
The images captured by the high-speed camera system are firstly
post-processed to detect the boundary of the crack as well as the
crack tip. The crack length in term of pixels is measured by an
image reading technique and is then converted to the actual length
by using a scale factor correlating the measured pixels with the
known length on the specimen. The crack velocity was calculated
by dividing the difference between the crack lengths of two contin-
uous images with the increment time between them, correlated to
the frame rate.
The crack initiation strain rate and crack velocity in UHPFRCs at
different applied loading rates were listed in Table 3. The crack
velocity calculated by using the DIC technique was only listed in
Table 3 because the crack velocities using the EDAs were
significantly smaller. The lower values of crack velocities from
the EDAs were owing to the difficulty in detecting a very fine crack
boundary at the tip of the crack. As can be seen in Table 3, the aver-
age crack velocities of the UHPC matrix (SS00) are 8.01, 388.94, and
738.82 m/s, under the static rate, the high strain rate h1, and the
high strain rate h2, respectively. Those of the UHPFRCs containing
the smooth steel fibers (SS05, SS15, and LS15) are 0.014, 434.09,
and 894.05 m/s, 0.004, 366.69, and 754.54 m/s, 0.002, 294.18,
and 625.57 m/s, respectively. In addition, the UHPFRCs containing
the long twisted fiber (LT15) are 0.0019, 233.89, and 579.09 m/s.
4. Discussion
4.1. Effect of applied loading rates on the crack velocities in UHPFRCs
Fig. 8 shows the effects of applied strain rate on the crack veloc-
ity in UHPFRCs. Generally, the crack velocity increased as the
applied strain rates increased. The average crack velocity of UHPC
 T.T. Ngo et al. / Construction and Building Materials 197 (2019) 548–558 553

Table 3
Test results.

Test series Spe. No Loading Crack Crack Peak load, Test Spe. Loading Crack initiation Crack Peak load,
speed initiation velocity, v Pmax series No speed strain rate velocity, v Pmax
strain rate
m/s s1 m/s kN m/s s1 m/s kN
5 **
SS00-S SP1 1.67  10 6.93 4.14 2.06 SS15-h2 SP1 13.83 271.4 808.0 18.42
SP2 5.92 3.85 2.94 SP2 212.5 764.8 18.63
SP3 7.85 14.19 2.15 SP3 217.7 735.6 19.00
SP4 6.56 9.85 2.23 SP4 265.6 709.8 19.46
Average 6.82 8.01 2.34 Average 241.82 754.54 18.88
SD* 0.8 5.0 0.4 SD* 31.0 42.1 0.5
SS00-h1 SP1 6.94** 121.2 400.4 2.57 LS15-S SP1 1.67  105 0.00021 0.0016 13.23
SP2 116.6 335.2 2.74 SP2 0.00029 0.0029 13.52
SP3 185.7 431 2.94 SP3 0.00049 0.0023 14.41
SP4 0.00051 0.0011 14.70
Average 141.17 388.94 2.75 Average 0.0004 0.0020 13.97
SD* 38.6 49.0 0.2 SD* 0.0 0.0 0.7
SS00-h2 SP1 13.83** 213.7 638.1 5.92 LS15-h1 SP1 6.94** 143.5 394.2 14.64
SP2 195.0 736.0 5.63 SP2 114.3 263.8 13.05
SP3 266.7 857.5 5.33 SP3 91.1 303.1 14.52
SP4 211.1 723.7 5.45 SP4 103.2 215.7 14.41
Average 221.63 738.82 5.58 Average 113.01 294.18 14.16
SD* 31.1 90.3 0.3 SD* 22.4 75.6 0.7
SS05-S SP1 1.67  105 0.109 0.005 5.62 LS15-h2 SP1 13.83** 78.3 566.7 23.00
SP2 0.001 0.003 5.59 SP2 120.3 603.7 21.81
SP3 0.0001 0.046 6.12 SP3 127.7 706.3 22.30
SP4 0.014 0.002 5.79
Average 0.031 0.014 5.78 Average 108.75 625.57 22.37
SD* 0.052 0.021 0.2 SD* 26.7 72.4 0.6
SS05-h1 SP1 6.94** 113.28 380.21 10.74 LT15-S SP1 1.67  105 0.00087 0.0014 14.41
SP2 136.36 465.87 10.21 SP2 0.00033 0.0024 17.35
SP3 181.83 430.45 9.87 SP3 0.00019 0.0016 14.70
SP4 150.00 459.82 8.77
Average 145.37 434.09 9.90 Average 0.0006 0.0019 15.48
SD* 28.6 39.1 0.8 SD** 0.000 0.001 1.6
SS05-h2 SP1 13.83** 216.15 852.78 14.55 LT15-h1 SP1 6.94** 104.35 196.87 14.93
SP2 261.44 845.29 14.29 SP2 185.71 186.21 14.26
SP3 200.66 893.58 14.01 SP3 75.47 278.57 11.89
SP4 258.06 984.54 14.60 SP4 100.00 273.90 11.99
Average 234.08 894.05 14.36 Average 116.38 233.89 13.27
SD* 30.3 64.0 0.3 SD* 47.9 49.1 1.6
SS15-S SP1 1.67  105 0.0009 0.008 9.41 LT15-h2 SP1 13.83** 87.67 665.37 12.07
SP2 0.0005 0.002 9.70 SP2 92.00 577.78 11.97
SP3 0.0009 0.001 8.00 SP3 62.50 581.61 10.53
SP4 108.96 491.58 13.72
Average 0.0008 0.004 9.04 Average 87.78 579.09 12.07
SD* 0.000 0.004 0.91 SD* 19.2 71.0 1.3
**
SS15-h1 SP1 6.94 135.0 264.4 11.20
SP2 112.6 404.0 11.66
SP3 135.0 425.4 11.50
SP4 153.1 372.9 11.61
Average 133.92 366.69 11.49
SD* 16.6 71.5 0.2
*
SD: Standard deviation.
**
Theoretical speed [6].

matrix increased from the 8.01 m/s at the average crack initiation
strain rate of 6.82 s1 to 389 m/s at strain rate up to 141 s1 and to
739 s1 at strain rate up to 222 s1. Those of the SS05 increased
from 0.014 m/s at 0.031 s1 to 434 m/s at 145 s1, and 894 m/s at
234 s1, while those of the SS15 increased from 0.004 m/s at
0.0008 s1 to 367 m/s at 134 s1, and 755 m/s at 242 s1, respec-
tively. In addition, the UHPFRCs reinforced with 1.5 vol-% long
smooth fiber (LS15) and long twisted fiber (LT15) exhibited the
same tendency with the crack velocity increased from 0.002 m/s
at 0.0004 s1 to 294 m/s at 113 s1, and 626 m/s at 109 s1 for
the former and from 0.002 m/s at 0.0006 s1 to 234 m/s at
116 s1, and 579 m/s at 88 s1 for the latter. This tendency has
been reported by several researchers for FRCs [20] as well as
UHPFRCs [21].
The maximum crack velocity (894 m/s) of the SS05, in this
study, was found to be significantly lower than those reported
by Pyo et al. [21]. The average crack velocity of UHPFRC con-
taining 0.5 vol-% short smooth steel fibers was reported as
about 1190 m/s at the crack initiation strain rate of up to
41 s1 [21]. The lower crack velocity in UHPFRC, in comparison
with the previous research [21], might be explained by consid-
ering higher pull out resistance owing to the higher crack initi-
ation strain rates (up to 261 s1) in this study. The higher fiber
pull out resistance as well as the tensile resistance of UHPFRCs
at higher strain rates has been reported by other researchers
[5–7,32,33]; and the higher resistance at high rates was owing
to the potential delay in the formation and propagation of the
cracks. The difference in the frequency (frame rates) of the
554 T.T. Ngo et al. / Construction and Building Materials 197 (2019) 548–558

Fig. 6. Calculating the crack speed and crack initiation strain rates using DIC technique.

SS00-S SS00-S SS00-S

SS15-h2 SS15-h2 SS15-h2

a) Captured image b) Canny algorithm c) Prewit algorithm

Fig. 7. Calculating the crack speed using the different edge detection algorithms.

high-speed camera and different specimen size between the two
studies might be another reason for the different values of crack
velocity.
4.2. Effect of fiber volume content, fiber geometry, and fiber aspect
ratio on the crack velocity in UHPFRCs
The effect of fiber parameters on the crack velocity in UHPFRCs
is shown in Fig. 9. The fiber reinforcements significantly affected
on the crack velocity in UHPFRCs at static rate, as shown in
Fig. 9a: the crack velocity notably decreased as the fiber volume
content increased. The crack velocities of UHPFRC decreased from
8.01 to 0.004 m/s as the fiber volume content increased from 0 to
1.5 vol-%. However, no clear trend was found in the crack velocity
of UHPFRCs at high strain rates: the crack velocity (894 m/s) of
UHPFRC containing 0.5 vol-% fiber was higher than 755 m/s of
UHPFRC containing 1.5 vol-% fiber, even higher than those of
UHPFRC without fibers (739 m/s).
The UHPFRCs reinforced with higher aspect ratio of smooth
steel fibers produced lower crack velocity in UHPFRCs at both static
and high strain rates, as shown in Fig. 9b. By changing the aspect
ratio of smooth steel fibers from 65 (l/d = 13/0.2) to 95 (l/
d = 19/0.2), the crack velocities of UHPFRCs decreased from 0.004
to 0.002 m/s at static rates, from 367 to 294 m/s at high strain rates
h1, and from 754 to 625 m/s at high strain rates h2. In contrast, the
geometry of fiber reinforcement significantly affected on the crack
velocity of UHPFRC at high strain rates, but they slightly did at sta-
tic rates, as can be seen in Fig. 9c. The crack velocities of UHPFRC
reinforced with 1.5 vol-% long smooth and long twisted fibers were
approximately 0.002 m/s at static rate, while those values at high
strain rate h1 were 294 and 234 m/s, at high strain rate h2 were
626 and 579 m/s, respectively.
Based on the experimental results in this study, the correlation
between the crack initiation strain rates and crack velocity (t) in
UHPFRCs can be expressed by the empirical Eqs. ((2)–(6)), while
the fitting curves are shown in Fig. 10:
 T.T. Ngo et al. / Construction and Building Materials 197 (2019) 548–558 555

1000 t ¼ 0:531  ðe_ Þ1:339 ; R2 ¼ 0:979 for SS00 ð2Þ

894

755
739

626

579
434
389

367

294
t ¼ 0:908  ðe_ Þ1:227 ; R2 ¼ 0:958 for SS05

234
100 ð3Þ

10 t ¼ 3:238  ðe_ Þ0:985 ; R2 ¼ 0:995 for SS15 ð4Þ

8.01
Crack velocity (m/s)

t ¼ 4:169  ðe_ Þ0:971 ; R2 ¼ 0:993 for LS15 ð5Þ

1

t ¼ 4:056  ðe_ Þ0:976 ; R2 ¼ 0:983 for LT15 ð6Þ

0.1
0.014

Overall, the fiber reinforcements significantly affected on the

0.004

propagation of crack in UHPFRCs, even though their response

0.01
0.002

0.002
strongly depended on the fiber volume content, fiber geometry,
and fiber aspect ratios. Among the investigated UHPFRCs, those
Static rate
0.001 reinforced with 1.5 vol-% long twisted fibers exhibited the lowest
High strain rate - h1
crack velocity at both static and high strain rates.
High strain rate - h2
0.0001
SS00 SS05 SS15 LS15 LT15 4.3. Correlation between crack velocity and strain-rate sensitivity of
UHPFRCs
Fiber volume content
The strain-rate sensitivity of concrete-like material is strongly
Fig. 8. Effect of applied strain rates on the cracking velocity in UHPFRCs.
correlated with the characteristic of dynamic crack growth, as

1000 1000
894

755
755
739

625
367
434
389

294
367

100 100

10
Crack velocity (m/s)
Crack velocity (m/s)

10
8.01

1
1
0.1
0.014

0.004

0.1
0.01
Short smooth-SS00 Short smooth_SS15-l/d=65
0.0004
0.004

0.01 Short smooth-SS05 0.001 Long smooth_LS15-l/d=95

Short smooth-SS15
0.001 0.0001
Static rate High rate - h1 High rate- h2 Static rate High rate - h1 High rate- h2
Applied strain rates Applied strain rates
a) Fiber volume content b) Fiber aspect ratios
1000
626
579
294
234

100
Crack velocity (m/s)

10

0.1
0.0019
0.0020

0.01 Long smooth- LS15

Long twisted- LT15
0.001
Static rate High rate - h1 High rate- h2
Applied strain rates

c) Fiber geometry
Fig. 9. Effect of fiber vol.-%, fiber aspect ratio, and fiber geometry on the crack velocity in UHPFRCs.
556 T.T. Ngo et al. / Construction and Building Materials 197 (2019) 548–558

1000
1000
800
SS00
800 SS05 600
SS15
Cracking velocity (m/s) 400

200
600
0
10 100 1000
20
400
15

200 10

5
0
0.00010.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
0
-1 0.00010.0010.01 0.1 1 10
Crack initiation strain rate (s )

1000 800

LS15 600
800 LT15
400
Cracking velocity (m/s)

200
600
0
10 100 1000
400 0.004

200 0.002

0
0.00010.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 0
-1 0.0001 0.001 0.01
Crack initiation strain rate (s )
Fig. 10. Correlation between crack initiation strain rates and crack velocity in UHPFRCs.

reported in [19,21,34–36]. In this study, a dynamic increase factor Here, cR and cd are Rayleigh surface wave velocity and dilata-
(DIF) model, based on a crack-velocity dependent dynamic fracture tional wave velocity, can be expressed as Eqs. (9) and (10),
mechanics model, proposed by Pyo and El-Tawil [19,21] was used respectively:
to calculate the DIF (the ratio between dynamic and static
0:862 þ 1:14m
response) of UHPFRCs, as shown in Eq. (7). cR ¼ cs ð9Þ
1þm
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
rdc K d =fðtÞ pl=2 1 rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffirffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
DIF ¼ ¼ IC  pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ¼ ð7Þ
rc K IC = pl=2 fðtÞ 2ð1  mÞ E 2ð1  mÞ
cd ¼ c s ¼ ð10Þ
1  2m 2qð1 þ mÞ 1  2m
where rdc , rc and K dIc , K Ic
are the critical stresses and the critical
stress intensity factor in the dynamic and static cases, respectively; where the cs is shear wave velocity. m = 0.18, E = 50 GPa, and
The K dIC is assumed to be the same as the K IC following [19,21]; l is a
q = 2550 kg/m3 [38] are the Position’s ratio, Young’s modulus, and
mass density of the UHPFRCs. The DIF values calculated by the
crack length; fðtÞ ¼ K dI =K I is a function of crack speed (t), correlat- model for UHPFRCs are plotted in Fig. 11 in comparison with the
ing between the dynamic stress intensity factor and static (K dI ) DIF for the peak loads according to the experimental results in this
stress intensity factor (K I ). The Eq. (8) expressed Gao [37]’s approx- study. In which, the crack velocity (t) correlated with the crack ini-
imation for fðtÞ. tiation strain rates by the empirical Eqs. ((2)–(6)) in Section 4.2. As
 rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi can be seen in Fig. 11, there is a reasonable correlation between the
t t
fðtÞ ¼ 1  1 ð8Þ experimental strain-rate sensitivity of UHPFRCs and the model DIFs,
cR cd even though the values of experimental DIFs were significantly
 T.T. Ngo et al. / Construction and Building Materials 197 (2019) 548–558 557

3 3
Experiment_SS00 Experiment_SS15

Dynamic increase factor (DIF)

Dynamic increase factor (DIF)

Model_SS00 Model_SS15
2.5 2.5
Experiment_SS05 Experiment_LS15
Model_SS05 Model_LS15
2 2 Experiment_LT15
Model_LT15

1.5 1.5

1 1

0.5 0.5
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
-1 -1
Crack initiation strain rate (s ) Crack initiation strain rate (s )

Fig. 11. Correlation between strain-rate sensitivity and dynamic crack growth characteristic of UHPFRCs.

higher than those from the model. It indicates that, like conven- Acknowledgements
tional concrete [19], the dynamic crack growth mechanism is also
strongly correlated with the strain-rate sensitivity characteristic This research was supported by a grant from a Construction
of UHPFRCs. The reason for the experimental DIFs was significantly Technology Research Project (18SCIP-B128706-02) funded by the
higher than those of model DIFs are not clear but likely related to Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport. The opinions
the assumption that the critical stress intensity factor in the expressed in this paper are those of authors and do not necessarily
dynamic (K dIc ) and static cases (K Ic ) are the same, in Eq. (7). reflect the views of the sponsors.

References
5. Conclusions
[1] K. Wille, A.E. Naman, G.J. Parra-Montesinos, Ultra – High performance concrete
An extensive experimental program was conducted to investi- with compressive strength exceeding 150 MPa (22 ksi): a simpler way, ACI
Mater. J. 108 (2011) 46–53.
gate the effects of fiber parameters and applied strain rates on
[2] K. Wille, D.J. Kim, A.E. Naaman, Strain-hardening UHP-FRC with low fiber
the crack velocity in UHPFRCs. An UTM was used to do the contents, Mater. Struct. 44 (2011) 583–598, https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-
three-point bending test at static rate while the modified version 010-9650-4.
[3] S.-T. Kang, Y. Lee, Y.-D. Park, J.-K. Kim, Tensile fracture properties of an ultra
of I-SEFIM was used to test at high strain rates. The same test set-
high performance fiber reinforced concrete (UHPFRC) with steel fiber, Compos.
ups (i.e. boundary condition, size of specimen, depth and width of Struct. 92 (2010) 61–71, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2009.06.012.
notched, span length) were used at both static and high strain rate [4] N.T. Tran, T.K. Tran, J.K. Jeon, J.K. Park, D.J. Kim, Fracture energy of ultra-high-
tests to minimize the potential inertial effects on the test results. performance fiber-reinforced concrete at high strain rates, Cem. Concr. Res. 79
(2016) 169–184, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2015.09.011.
Based on the results of this study, the following conclusions can [5] N.T. Tran, T.K. Tran, D.J. Kim, High rate response of ultra-high-performance
be drawn: fiber-reinforced concretes under direct tension, Cem. Concr. Res. 69 (2015) 72–
87, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2014.12.008.
[6] S.H. Park, D.J. Kim, S.W. Kim, Investigating the impact resistance of ultra-high-

The modified I-SEFIM succeeds to perform the three-point performance fiber-reinforced concrete using an improved strain energy impact
bending test of UHPFRCs at high strain rates: the crack initiation test machine, Constr. Build. Mater. 125 (2016) 145–159, https://doi.org/
strain rate of up to 271 s1 and the crack velocity of up to 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.08.027.
[7] J.K. Park, S.-W. Kim, D.J. Kim, Matrix-strength-dependent strain-rate sensitivity
984 m/s were experimentally observed. of strain-hardening fiber-reinforced cementitious composites under tensile

The fiber reinforcement significantly affected on the crack impact, Compos. Struct. 162 (2016) 313–324, https://doi.org/10.1016/
velocity in UHPFRCs at static rate, but it slightly did at high j.compstruct.2016.12.022.
[8] T.T. Ngo, D.J. Kim, Shear stress versus strain responses of ultra-high-
strain rates.
performance fiber-reinforced concretes at high strain rates, Int. J. Impact

The UHPFRC containing 1.5 vol- % long twisted fibers exhibited Eng. 1–23 (2017).
the lowest crack velocity at both static and high strain rates. [9] T.T. Ngo, D.J. Kim, J.H. Moon, S.W. Kim, Strain rate dependent shear failure
surface of ultra-high-performance fiber-reinforced concretes, Constr. Build.

The correlation between the crack initiation strain rates and the
Mater. (2018).
crack velocity could be established: the crack velocity increased [10] S. Pyo, S. El-Tawil, A.E. Naaman, Direct tensile behavior of ultra high performance
as the crack initiation strain rate increased. fiber reinforced concrete (UHP-FRC) at high strain rates, Cem. Concr. Res. 88

The comparison between the DIF for peak loads experimentally (2016) 144–156, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2016.07.003.
[11] B. Goszczyńska, Analysis of the process of crack initiation and evolution in
investigated and the DIF model based on the crack-velocity concrete with acoustic emission testing, Arch. Civ. Mech. Eng. 14 (2014) 134–
dependent dynamic fracture mechanic indicated that the 143, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acme.2013.06.002.
strain-rate sensitivity of UHPFRC is strongly correlated with [12] S. Mindess, A. Bentur, A preliminary study of the fracture of concrete beams
under impact loading, using high speed photography, Cem. Concr. Res. 15
the dynamic crack growth mechanism. (1985) 474–484, https://doi.org/10.1016/0008-8846(85)90121-8.
[13] S. Mindess, Crack velocity in concrete subjected to impact loading, Can. J. Phys.
73 (1995) 310–314.
Conflict of interest [14] P. Forquin, An optical correlation technique for characterizing the crack
velocity in concrete, Eur. Phys. J. Spec. Top. 206 (2012) 89–95.
[15] S. John, R. Shah, Fracture of concrete subjected to impact loading, Cem. Concr.
None. Aggregates 8 (1986) 24–32.
558 T.T. Ngo et al. / Construction and Building Materials 197 (2019) 548–558
[16] M. Curbach, J. Eibl, Crack velocity in concrete, Eng. Fract. Mech. 35 (1990) 321–
326, https://doi.org/10.1016/0013-7944(90)90210-8.
[17] X.X. Zhang, R.C. Yu, G. Ruiz, M. Tarifa, M.A. Camara, Effect of loading rate on
crack velocities in HSC, Int. J. Impact Eng. 37 (2010) 359–370, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2009.10.002.
[18] M. Gurbach, K.-H. Hehn, J. Eibl, Measurement of crack velocity in concrete, Exp.
Tech. 13 (1989) 25–27.
[19] S. Pyo, S. El-Tawil, Crack velocity-dependent dynamic tensile behavior of
concrete, Int. J. Impact Eng. 55 (2013) 63–70, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijimpeng.2013.01.003.
[20] X. Zhang, G. Ruiz, A.M. Abd Elazim, Loading rate effect on crack velocities in
steel fiber-reinforced concrete, Int. J. Impact Eng. 76 (2015) 60–66, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2014.09.004.
[21] S. Pyo, M. Alkaysi, S. El-Tawil, Crack propagation speed in ultra high
performance concrete (UHPC), Constr. Build. Mater. 114 (2016) 109–118,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.03.148.
[22] J.J. Park, S.T. Kang, K.T. Koh, S.W. Kim, Influence of the ingredients on the
compressive strength of UHPC as a fundamental study to optimize the mixing
proportion, Proceeding Second Int. Symp. Ultra High Perform. Concr. Kassel,
Ger. (2008) 105–102.
[23] T.T. Ngo, J.K. Park, S. Pyo, D.J. Kim, Shear resistance of ultra-high-performance
fiber-reinforced concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 151 (2017) 246–257, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.06.079.
[24] T.K. Tran, D.J. Kim, Strain energy frame impact machine (SEFIM), J. Adv. Concr.
Technol. 10 (2012) 126–136, https://doi.org/10.3151/jact.10.126.
[25] S.G. Shah, J.M. Chandra Kishen, Fracture properties of concrete-concrete
interfaces using digital image correlation, Exp. Mech. 51 (2011) 303–313,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11340-010-9358-y.
[26] M. Mahal, T. Blanksvärd, B. Täljsten, G. Sas, Using digital image correlation to
evaluate fatigue behavior of strengthened reinforced concrete beams, Eng.
Struct. 105 (2015) 277–288, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2015.10.017.
[27] B. Gencturk, K. Hossain, A. Kapadia, E. Labib, Y.L. Mo, Use of digital image
correlation technique in full-scale testing of prestressed concrete structures,
Meas. J. Int. Meas. Confed. 47 (2014) 505–515, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
measurement.2013.09.018.
[28] R. Maini H. Aggarwal Study and comparison of various image edge detection
techniques Int. J. Image Process. 3 2009 1 11 http://www.doaj.org/doaj?func=
openurl&genre=article&issn=19852304&date=2009&volume=3&issue=1&
spage=1.
[29] ASTM C109/C109M-13e1, Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of
Hydraulic Cement Mortars (Using 2-in. or [50-mm] Cube Specimens), ASTM
International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2013, www.astm.org, n.d.
[30] ASTM International, ASTM C 1437 Standard Test Method for Flow of Hydraulic
Cement Mortar, (2001) 1–2.
[31] T.T. Ngo, D.-J. Kim, Synergy in shear response of ultra-high-performance
hybrid-fiber-reinforced concrete at high strain rates, Compos. Struct. 195
(2018) 276–287, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2018.04.075.
[32] Y.S. Tai, S. El-Tawil, T.H. Chung, Performance of deformed steel fibers
embedded in ultra-high performance concrete subjected to various pullout
rates, Cem. Concr. Res. 89 (2016) 1–13, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cemconres.2016.07.013.
[33] M. Xu, B. Hallinan, K. Wille, Effect of loading rates on pullout behavior of high
strength steel fibers embedded in ultra-high performance concrete, Cem.
Concr. Compos. 70 (2016) 98–109, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cemconcomp.2016.03.014.
[34] Y.B. Lu, Q.M. Li, About the dynamic uniaxial tensile strength of concrete-like
materials, Int. J. Impact Eng. 38 (2011) 171–180, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijimpeng.2010.10.028.
[35] G. Ravichandran, G. Subhash, A micromechanical model for high strain rate
behavior of ceramics, Int. J. Solids Struct. 32 (1995) 2627–2646, https://doi.
org/10.1016/0020-7683(94)00286-6.
[36] B. Paliwal, K.T. Ramesh, An interacting micro-crack damage model for failure
of brittle materials under compression, J. Mech. Phys. Solids. 56 (2008) 896–
923, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmps.2007.06.012.
[37] H. Gao, Surface roughening and branching instabilities in dynamic fracture, J.
Mech. Phys. Solids. 41 (1993) 457–486, https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-5096
(93)90044-G.
[38] G. Benjamin A., Material Property Characterization of Ultra-High Performance
Concrete Fhwa. 186 2006 doi:FHWA-HRT-06-103.