Construction and Building Materials 96 (2015) 368–377

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

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

Review

A review on ultra high performance concrete: Part II. Hydration,

microstructure and properties
Dehui Wang, Caijun Shi ⇑, Zemei Wu, Jianfan Xiao, Zhengyu Huang, Zhi Fang
College of Civil Engineering, Hunan University, Changsha 410082, China

h i g h l i g h t s

The hydration process of binders in UHPC is similar to that in ordinary concrete.

UHPC has a very low porosity.

The mechanical properties of UHPC are much better than that of ordinary concrete.

UHPC has a character of superior durability.

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

Article history: Ultra high performance (UHPC) is a new cement based material, and it has aroused interest around the
Received 17 September 2014 world since it was introduced in the early 1990s. Part I reviewed the theoretical principles, raw materials
Received in revised form 5 August 2015 selection, mixture design and preparation techniques for UHPC. This part II reviewed the hydration,
Accepted 10 August 2015
microstructure, mechanical properties, dimensional stability and durability of UHPC. Finally, some needs
for future studies of UHPC are suggested. The portlandite of UHPC is much lower than that in the normal
concrete. Heat curing could promote secondary hydration between mineral admixtures and Ca(OH)2, and
Keywords:
xonolite was formed when the temperature was over 250 °C. UHPC has a very low porosity, especially
Ultra high performance concrete
Hydration
under heat curing. UHPC has a character of high strength, stiffness and superior durability, etc.
Microstructure Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Mechanical property
Dimensional stability
Durability

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 369
2. Hydration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 369
3. Microstructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 370
4. Properties of UHPC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 370
4.1. Workability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 370
4.2. Mechanical properties. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 371
4.2.1. Strength. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 371
4.2.2. Stress–strain relationship. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 372
4.2.3. Toughness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 373
4.2.4. Impact resistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 373
4.3. Dimensional stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 373
4.3.1. Shrinkage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 373
4.3.2. Cracking resistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 374
4.4. Durability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 374
4.4.1. Water permeability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 374
4.4.2. Chloride penetration resistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 375

⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: cshi@hnu.edu.cn (C. Shi).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.08.095
0950-0618/Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 D. Wang et al. / Construction and Building Materials 96 (2015) 368–377 369

4.4.3. Carbonation resistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 375

4.4.4. Freezing-thawing resistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 375
4.4.5. Fire resistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 376
5. Conclusions and future needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 376
Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 376
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 376

1. Introduction and properties of UHPC. The purpose of this review is to summa-

Ultra high performance concrete (UHPC) could show compres-
sive strength from 150 to 810 MPa [1], approximately 3–16 times
as that of conventional concrete. With incorporation of steel fiber,
the ductility and energy absorption of UHPC is typical 300 times
greater than that of high performance concrete (HPC). UHPC is
nearly impermeable to carbon dioxide, chlorides and sulfates. Its
superior durability leads to long service life with reduced mainte-
nance. The enhanced abrasion resistance provides extended life for
bridge decks and industrial floors, while the enhanced corrosion
resistance provides protection to areas with bad or harsh climate
conditions [2]. A significant amount of unhydrated cement in the
finished product provides a self-healing potential under cracking
conditions. Due to ultra high compressive strength, UHPC struc-
tures weigh only one-third or one-half of the corresponding con-
ventional concrete structures under the same load. This weight
reduction has benefit in producing more slender structures,
increasing usable floor space in high-rise buildings and reducing
overall costs. Elimination of steel reinforcement bars reduces labor
costs and provides greater architectural freedom, allowing nearly
limitless structural member shapes and forms for architects and
designers [2]. Though UHPC possesses many outstanding proper-
ties, they have certain weaknesses. High binder content of about
800–1000 kg/m3 affects not only the production costs, but also
high heat of hydration, causing shrinkage problems [3]. UHPC is
generally costly and cannot replace the conventional concrete in
most applications where the conventional mixtures can economi-
cally meet the performance criteria.
Many researchers have conducted studies on UHPC, but infor-
mation on materials and structural property of UHPC is still lim-
ited. Heat curing makes UHPC mainly suitable for precast
elements other than ready-mix concrete. Moreover, the high cost
of UHPC restricts its applications. This review includes two parts;
the first part reviewed the theoretical principles, raw materials
selection, mixture design and preparation techniques for UHPC.
This second part reviews the hydration process, microstructure
rize previous progress and to suggest some needs for future
researches.
2. Hydration
The hydration of cementitious materials in UHPC is similar to
that in ordinary concrete (OC). First, Portland cement hydrates to
form calcium silicate hydrate and calcium hydroxide, then mineral
admixtures (such as silica fume) react with calcium hydroxide to
form calcium silicate hydrate (C–S–H). Fig. 1 shows the time
dependent phase development in OC and UHPC at room tempera-
ture [4]. It can be seen that the content of crystalline phases was
considerably higher in OC, whereas less amorphous phases in the
UHPC were measured. The difference arises from the pozzolanic
reactions associated with the relatively high amounts of silica
fume and fly ash. The consumption of portlandite becomes remark-
able after the second hydration day, and is much lower than that in
normal concrete after 28 days, which indicates pozzolanic reac-
tions are still incomplete. The fact that no calcite was detected
by X-rays in UHPC even after 28 days may be interpreted as indica-
tion of no considerable phase carbonation in this specimen. The
variations of ettringite content development between the first
and second hydration day indicate that some conversion of ettrin-
gite to monosulfate phase is possible, and that significant amount
of aluminate may enter the X-ray amorphous C–S–H phases [4].
The increase of curing temperature accelerates the hydration of
cement and promotes secondary hydration between mineral
admixtures and Ca(OH)2 [5]. Hydration products at 90 °C remain
amorphous. Under the autoclave curing, the hydration of C3S and
C2S leads to the formation of crystalline a-dicalcium silicate
hydrate in the absence of an external SiO2 source. Tricalcium alu-
minate (C3A) and tetracalcium alumino-ferrite (C4AF) yield a
hydrogarnet phase. The bonding characteristics of these two
phases are rather unfavorable. In the presence of finely ground
quartz and/or other SiO2 sources, a pozzolanic reaction takes place,
yielding crystalline 1.1 nm tobermorite (C5S5H5) as the main

Fig. 1. Time dependent phase development in OC and UHPC [4].

370 D. Wang et al. / Construction and Building Materials 96 (2015) 368–377
Fig. 2. Q0 to Q4 percentages for samples with heat treatment at 90 °C, 200 °C, 250 °C for 8 h [10].
Fig. 3. SEM image of hardened paste in UHPC [17].
production of reaction at temperatures between about 150 and
200 °C. Xonolite C–S–H (I), C–S–H (II) and a-C2SH may also be
formed at even higher temperature [6]. It was also found that at
150 °C, Crystalline Ca(OH)2 and some unidentified hydration prod-
ucts appeared in 1-day Portland cement (PC) paste. Crystalline
C2SH (A) could be detected in 5-day PC paste. Only Ca(OH)2 and
C2SH(A) could be detected in the 15-day PC paste. The main hydra-
tion products for alkali-blast furnace slag cement (ABSC) paste
were CSH (B) and xonotlite. The 3CaOMgO2SiO2 in the slag disap-
peared after 5 days. Only CSH (B) and tobermorite could be
detected in APSC paste [7]. The formation of both 1.1 nm tober-
morite and xonolite is favorable for strength development of auto-
claved material [8]. Xonotlite formed with a Q3 peak at 250 °C, as
shown in Fig. 2 [9,10]. The H/C (H2O to CaO) ratio of C–S–H of
OC is approximately one, while the H/C of xonotlite is 1/6, and
the xonotlite is only formed in the inner part of concrete specimen
[11]. The formation of xonotlite in heat-cured UHPC was due to
Fig. 4. SEM image of ITZ structure in UHPC [17].
local, large water vapor pressures. However, lower (3 Pa) dynamic
equilibrium vapor pressures could totally suppress the formation
of crystalline hydration products, even no xonotlite or other crys-
talline hydration products formed even at 250 °C [12].
3. Microstructure
UHPC is designed by close packing density and use of poz-
zolanic mineral admixtures. Therefore, it has a very low porosity,
especially continuous porosity. For UHPC at W/C = 0.20, its capil-
lary pores become discontinuous when only 26% of cement has
hydrated, instead of 54% for HPC (W/C = 0.33) [13]. The pore size
of UHPC basically concentrates between 2 and 3 nm, the most
probable pore diameter is 2.0 nm, and its total porosity is 2.23%
[14]. It is nil in the range of 3.75 nm to 100 lm for UHPC when it
is cured between 150 and 200 °C [11].
UHPC is composed of aggregates and compact matrix phase
including hydration products, unhydrated cement clinker particles
and powder particles. A reactive interface is formed between
incompletely hydrated core and hydration products. The core plays
a role in skeleton to matrix, and enhances the properties of matrix
phase greatly [15]. Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) observa-
tion, as shown in Fig. 3, indicated that the structure of hardened
paste was very dense due to very low W/B, hydration of cement
and the pozzolanic effect of SF and GGBS. The main hydration pro-
duct was homogeneous C–S–H gel, no Ca(OH)2 and ettringite could
be found [16,17]. It can be seen from Fig. 4 that UHPC had a very
compact interfacial transitional zone without obvious pores [17].
Use of rice husk ash (RHA) increased the degree of cement
hydration at later ages, which was even higher than that samples
containing silica fume (SF) at 91 days. The total porosity of the
RHA modified sample was higher than that of the SF modified sam-
ple, but lower than that of the control sample because both filler
effect and pozzolanic reaction of RHA were less significant than
those of SF. Both RHA and SF strongly reduced the calcium hydrox-
ide content where the effect of SF was greater than that of RHA at
later ages [18].
4. Properties of UHPC
4.1. Workability
Workability is a key parameter for placement and consolidation
of fresh concrete. Flowable UHPC should be prepared by cement
with a good combination of C3A specific surface, SO3-content and
amount of alkalis (K2O and Na2O) [19]. The effect of silica fume
on the workability of UHPC was relatively complicated. In previous
studies, some researchers found that silica fume could improve the
workability of UHPC [1,18,20] and the optimal replacement of sil-
ica fume was 10% and 20% for the workability of UHPC [21].
 D. Wang et al. / Construction and Building Materials 96 (2015) 368–377
Fig. 5. SEM observation of fiber surface in various conditions [33].
Fig. 6. Effect of curing regimes on compressive strength of UHPC [36].
However some researchers concluded that silica fume decreased
the workability of UHPC [22]. The different conclusions might
come from different characteristics of raw materials. The addition
of rice husk ash, with its angular particle shape and porous struc-
ture, absorbed a certain amount of mixing water and thus
decreased the workability of UHPC [18]. The combination of rice
husk ash and silica fume could improve the workability of UHPC
mixtures [21]. The replacement of cement by limestone filler min-
imized cement-superplasticiser incompatibility, which is often the
most problematic issue for UHPC with a very low water/binder
ratio [23]. Due to lower amount of loss on ignition and carbon con-
tent, ultrafine palm oil fuel ash could enhance the workability of
UHPC [24]. The presence of nano-silica decreased the amount of
lubricating water available within the interparticle voids and
increase the yield stress and plastic viscosity of concrete. Thus,
the addition of nano-silica decreased the slump flow of fresh
UHPC linearly [25].
371
Fig. 7. Effect of autoclave curing period on compressive strength of UHPC [37].
Due to the high cohesive forces between the fibers and concrete
matrix, with the addition of steel fibers, the relative slump flow
ability of all the UHPC linearly decreases [26]. When UHPC was
prepared by hybrid fibers, with an increase of the hybrid fiber coef-
ficient, the slump flow ability of UHPC first linearly increases, and
then sharply decreases [27]. Polypropylene fiber and wollastonite
microfiber negatively affected the workability of UHPC [28,29].
4.2. Mechanical properties
4.2.1. Strength
Strength is one of the most important properties of cement-
based materials. The compressive, tensile and flexural strengths
of UHPC could vary from 200 to 800 MPa, 25 to 150 MPa and 30
to 141 MPa respectively, depending on compositions, casting and
curing conditions [1,30–32]. As expected, the application of pre-
setting pressure could increase the strength of UHPC [6,32].
The bond strength of UHPC with fiber ranged between 4.8 and
5.5 MPa, and increased with the increasing of silica fume content
to 30%. The enhancement in pullout energy due to silica fume
was far more significant than that in bond strength. Compared to
372 D. Wang et al. / Construction and Building Materials 96 (2015) 368–377
the matrix without silica fume, the increase in pullout energy was
nearly 100% larger than that with 30% silica fume. Fibers pulled out
from matrix with substantial silica fume content demonstrated a
dramatically different microstructure, as shown Fig. 5 [33]. The
pullout behavior of steel fiber in UHPC is influenced by matrix
strength and fiber configuration (smooth, flat end, or hooked).
Both maximum pull-out load and total pullout energy increased
as matrix strength increased [34].
The strength of UHPC of standard room temperature curing
after 28 days could be achieved in 24 h of autoclave curing [35].
Through 24 h of steam curing, about 15–30 MPa compressive
strength was further gained when compared to standard curing
at 28 days. 8-h of autoclave curing gave UHPC compressive
strength over 200 MPa, as shown in Fig. 6 [36]. Compressive
strength of autoclave cured concrete was higher than that of room
temperature water cured specimens. However, autoclave steam
curing beyond 8 h caused a reduction in compressive strength, as
shown in Fig. 7. The compressive strength of UHPC after 6 days
and 12 days of steam curing were higher than that after 28 days
of standard curing in water. Depending on the fly ash content,
strengths of UHPC after steam curing were between 89% and
126% of that of UHPC after autoclave curing [37]. The compressive
and flexural strengths reached 200 MPa and 30 MPa respectively
after 3 h of autoclaving curing at 180 °C [38]. Steam and autoclave
curing could decrease the flexural strength of UHPC, and steam
curing considerably resulted in lower flexural strength than auto-
clave curing did [3].
The curing regimes have a significant impact on the fiber–ma-
trix interfacial bonding strength. The interfacial bonding strength
follows the order: autoclave curing > steam curing > standard cur-
ing. UHPC cured under autoclave curing could gain the highest
interfacial bonding strength of 14.2 MPa [36]. However, the bond-
ing strength between prestressed reinforced steel and UHPC under
autoclaved curing was about 50% lower than that between pre-
stressed reinforced steel and OC [39].
4.2.2. Stress–strain relationship
The compressive stress–strain relationship of concrete is the
most basic constitutive relationships, and is necessary for nonlin-
ear analysis of concrete structure [40]. However, the study for uni-
axial compressive stress–strain constitutive relationship for UHPC
is still very limited. The failure modes of UHPC under uniaxial
Fig. 8. Effect of GGBFS and/or FA contents and curing regimes on toughness of UHPC [3].
compression were similar to steel fiber concrete [41]. The peak
strain of UHPC significantly increased with the increasing of con-
crete strength. The ultimate stress coincided with peak stress,
and ultimate strain coincides with peak strain [42]. For a given
water/binder ratio, the peak strain increased with the increasing
of steel fiber content. When the water/binder ratio is too high
(up to 0.24), increasing of steel fiber content had little effect on
the toughness of specimens. When the water/binder ratio is high,
it is easy to form a water film on the surface of fiber, resulting in
a more porous ITZ. Experimental results showed that the elastic
proportional limit of the ascending branch of stress–strain curve
of UHPC was approximately 83–95% of the peak stress attributed
to the dense and homogeneous internal structure of UHPC [43],
which was larger than that of OC (40–50%). It was found that the
ultimate strain of UHPC with a length of 13 mm steel fibers was
larger than that of a length of 6 mm. The failure form of the latter
was main pulling-off instead of pulling-out [44]. Based on the test
results of UHPC, Wee [45] evaluated the existing constitutive equa-
tions, and proposed the following equation:
A 1 x þ B 1 x2
y¼ ð1Þ
1 þ A2 x þ B2 x2
where, A1, B1, A2 and B2 are the coefficients. The coefficients of this
equation are difficult to determine. Their physical meanings are
unclear. Some researchers [41,46] proposed the following uniaxial
compression constitutive equation for UHPC200:
Ax  x2
y¼ ; 06x<1 ð2Þ
1 þ ðA  2Þx
Bx
y¼ ; xP1 ð3Þ
1 þ ðB  2Þx þ x2
where, A and B are undetermined coefficients, A = Ecec0/fc P 1, B > 0.
The equation fitted well with experimental results. However, the
raw materials and mixture proportions used were limited. Their
applicability and validation need to be further verified.
UHPC still has much higher flexural loading carrying capacity
after the peak load due to incorporation of steel fiber. The use of
blast furnace slag also increased the maximum bending loads
attributed to improvement of the bonding strength between the
matrix and the fibers [47]. The displacement at maximum load
 D. Wang et al. / Construction and Building Materials 96 (2015) 368–377 373

was between 0.42 and 0.49 mm for all mixtures, which was slightly
lower than that of mixtures incorporated with slag.
4.2.3. Toughness
The toughness of concrete is a synthesis of ductility and
strength. The most accepted evaluation methods of toughness for
conventional concrete are toughness index method ASTM C1018
[48], the flexural toughness coefficient method JSCE SF4 [49], and
RILEM TC 162-TDF [50]. The flexural toughness index method in
Chinese standard CECS 13-2009 is similar to ASTM C1018.
Currently, there is no standard method for measuring the
toughness of UHPC. Lai [5] evaluated the flexural toughness of
UHPC by the following equation:
G0:8
IG ¼
Gm
where, Gm is the work forced to samples from initial load to ulti-
mate load. G0.8 is the work forced to samples from initial load to
80% of ultimate load.
The content of steel fiber significantly affects the toughness of
UHPC due to the cracking resistance of steel fiber [51]. When the
volume content of steel fiber was 3%, the toughness index (gc30)
increased by more than 80%. When two steel fibers were blended
(2% 13 mm + 1% 6 mm), the ratio of ultimate strain to peak strain
was the least, or the toughness of samples was the best [44].
Mineral admixtures could increase toughness in all curing regimes
due to the improvement in bond strength between matrix and
fibers, increased 18–46% for standard room temperature curing,
24–44% for steam curing and 23–39% for autoclaved curing. The
other factor affects the toughness of UHPC is curing regime. The
toughness of UHPC after different curing regimes followed the
order: standard curing > autoclave curing > steam curing, as shown
in Fig. 8 [3]. It was found that 3D fabric significantly improved the
toughness of cement-based composites as much as 200 times
higher than the short fiber [52]. As expected, pre-setting pressure
could significantly improve the toughness of UHPC [53].
as well as by carbonation. It is the main reason for cracking of
concrete.
The microstructural evolution of UHPC identified five stage
[58]: (1) a settling period with short-range reorganization without
any cluster formation or shear resistance; (2) an aggregation per-
iod with unconnected clusters formation and growing leading to
the percolation of solid particles; (3) a postpercolation bond devel-
opment phase leading to a globally structured framework; (4) a
progressive reinforcement by multiplication of connections within
the framework leading to a fully hyperstatic state; (5) a hyperstatic
phase where all the particles are connected, with the consolidation
by pores filling.
In general, the drying shrinkage of UHPC after steam curing is
very little because of the incorporation of steel fiber [59]. Higher
ð4Þ shrinkage rates were developed from 1 day to 14 day for UHPC.
The shrinkage rate increased steadily from 14 day to 100 day,
and then gradually reduced from 100 day to 130 day. The shrink-
age of concrete with silica fume was larger than that of concrete
with slag. The incorporation of chemical admixtures is known to
affect the porosity of the hardened cement paste, both the total
porosity and the pore size distribution, which consequently affects
the shrinkage behavior of the concrete. Mixes with retardation or
high superplasticizers dosage, both autogenous shrinkage and
evaporation increased, drying shrinkage was increased and thus
the crack tendency, as shown in Fig. 9 [2]. The relationship
between shrinkage and relative humidity was linear. The higher
the water-to-binder ratios, the higher the shrinkage strains of
UHPC would be. Concrete with low water-to-binder ratios had
low drying shrinkage but high autogenous shrinkage, while

4.2.4. Impact resistance

UHPC without steel fiber is very fragile. Incorporation of steel
fibers could increase the split tensile strength and flexure strength
and reduced brittleness. Incorporation of 2% and 5% steel fibers
yielded split tensile strengths of 21.9 and 31.6 MPa respectively
[54]. The fracture energy of UHPC with fiber could be four times
higher than that of OC [55]. The penetration depth and crater
diameter in target specimens under impact load exhibited an over-
all reduction with an increase of compressive strength of UHPC.
However, the trend was nonlinear. Increase in steel fiber content Fig. 9. Drying shrinkage for UHPC with different SP dosages [2].
reduced the crater diameter and crack propagation, but did not
show a significant effect on penetration depth. Attributed to hinder
crack propagation, the presence of coarse granite aggregates
appeared to be beneficial to impact resistance. Heat-curing did
not alter the impact resistance of the concrete significantly [56].
Some researchers studied the dynamic axial tensile properties
and splitting tensile properties of UHPC. Compared to plain con-
crete, the impact splitting tensile strength of UHPC incorporating
fibers (3% and 4%) increased by one time, and the impact axial ten-
sile strength increased by nearly 1.5 times. It is found that the
fibers of fracture surface were pulled-out rather than pulled off.
Therefore, the destruction of specimen was caused by insufficient
bond strength between matrix and steel fibers [57].

4.3. Dimensional stability

4.3.1. Shrinkage
Shrinkage of concrete is caused by loss of water due to evapora- Fig. 10. Drying shrinkage of UHPC with different water-to-binder ratios under
tion or by chemical change resulted from the hydration of cement, various curing age [2].
374 D. Wang et al. / Construction and Building Materials 96 (2015) 368–377

Fig. 11. Free shrinkage of different UHPC mixes; drying started at 7 days of age [61].

Fig. 12. Water permeability of UHPC with different water-to-binder ratios at different ages [2].

concrete with high water-to-binder ratios had high drying shrink-
age but low autogenous shrinkage, as shown in Fig. 10. It was
found that the shrinkage strain rate linearly increased with cemen-
titious material content, paste-to-void ratio (by volume), and clay
content of fine aggregate [60].
Reducing water/binder ratio, incorporating steel fiber and using
heat-curing could decrease drying shrinkage of concrete [14].
Increasing the stress-to-strength ratio from 40% to 60% increased
the tensile creep coefficient by 44% and the specific creep by
11%, while the use of fibers and heat-curing could decrease drying
shrinkage by more than 57% and 82% respectively after 14 days of
loading, as shown in Fig. 11 [61]. Incorporation of coarse aggre-
gates could decrease the drying shrinkage of UHPC. In addition,
there was no swelling in the specimens produced from UHPC with
coarse aggregates after the initial shrinkage, while in the case of
UHPC without coarse aggregates swelling was observed [62]. The
addition of shrinkage reducing admixture (SRA) led to a significant
reduction in the drying shrinkage due to the decrease of surface
tension in the water at the pores, which resulted in lower capillary
stresses. However, these chemical admixtures might have poten-
tial negative side effects including the loss of early strength, and
a slight delay in setting time [2]. Incorporation of fly ash could
decrease the shrinkage of concrete, and it might because that
unhydrated cementitious material acted as aggregate restraining
shrinkage [63].
4.3.2. Cracking resistance
Cracking of concrete affects the integrity and durability of con-
crete structures. Therefore, it is important to evaluate the cracking
resistance of concrete. A low water to binder ratio and a high bin-
der content in UHPC could lead to a large early autogenous shrink-
age and cracking. Experimental investigation using factorial design
showed that steel fiber content had the most significant effect on
the cracking resistant behavior of UHPC, but the influence of
sand-to-binder ratio and water to binder ratio on the cracking
behavior of UHPC was not obvious [64]. The cracking resistance
of specimens with steel fiber was better than those without steel
fiber.
4.4. Durability
4.4.1. Water permeability
Permeability is used for assessing the overall movement of flu-
ids into and through concrete. Due to very low porosity, the typical
permeability coefficient of UHPC was about 0.0005 at 98 days;
whereas the typical permeability coefficient of ordinary concrete
was about 0.0015 at 98 days, which differs by an order of magni-
tude, as shown in Fig. 12. In hydrated cement paste, the size and
continuity of the pores at any point during the hydration process
would control the permeability coefficient. Therefore, the low per-
meability of UHPC might be explained by the small and
 D. Wang et al. / Construction and Building Materials 96 (2015) 368–377
Fig. 13. Ratio of compressive strength of RPC in comparison with RC and HSM [70].
Fig. 14. Ratio of steel bonding strength of RPC in comparison with RC and HSM [70].
discontinuous pores that presented in the very homogenous, com-
pacted and dense pastes. As hydration proceeds, the capillary net-
work became increasingly tortuous as interconnected pores were
blocked by the formation of C–S–H, which could lead to continuous
decrease in permeability coefficient [2]. Use of superplasticizer
could reduce the macro porosity as they made concrete more flow-
able and compaction easier. Insufficient superplasticizer dosage
would make UHPC compaction difficult and lead to high level of
Fig. 15. The variations of residual compressive strengths with respect to different fire durations of 0, 30, 60, 90 and 120 min for RPC, HPC and OC specimens at a constant
temperature of 500 ± 50 °C [71].
375
porosity [65]. However, there existed an optimal superplasticizer
dosage which resulted in the lowest permeability [2]. Excessive
superplasticizer dosage could lead to chemical incompatibility
problems and segregation, resulting in higher porosity and conse-
quently higher water permeability.
4.4.2. Chloride penetration resistance
The chloride penetration resistance is one of the important
durability degradation indexes of concrete. Mineral admixtures
could improve the chloride penetration resistance of UHPC [66].
The permeability coefficient and diffusion coefficient of chloride
ion in HPC and UHPC were much lower than that of OC, and the dif-
fusion coefficient of chloride ion in UHPC was much lower than
that of HPC [67].
4.4.3. Carbonation resistance
Carbonation of concrete can reduce the alkaline of concrete and
destruct passive film of surface of reinforcing steel, and as a result,
make the reinforcing steel easy to rust. The water to binder ratio of
UHPC is very low, and the internal structure of UHPC is very dense,
which is difficult for CO2 to penetrate into concrete. Therefore,
UHPC has an excellent carbonation resistance. Other study [15]
found that the carbonation could not happen on UHPC, no matter
after sealed, standard and heat-curing condition. Another one
found that the 28-d mean depth of the carbonation of UHPC was
less than 0.30 mm [68].
4.4.4. Freezing-thawing resistance
Freezing-thawing is the main reason for the deterioration of
concrete structure in cold regions. The internal structure of UHPC
is so dense that it is difficult for external water to penetrate into
UHPC. In addition, the incorporation of steel fibers could inhibit
propagation of cracking [69]. After 600 freeze–thaw cycles, the
durability coefficient of UHPC was larger than or equal to 100,
and the mass loss was almost zero [68]. After 1000 freeze–thaw
cycles, the relative dynamic modulus of regular concrete (RC), high
strength mortar (HSM) and reactive powder concrete (RPC)
reduced by 61%, 22% and 10% respectively; their compressive
strengths reduced by 57%, 16% and 6% respectively, as shown in
Fig. 13; the bond strength between steel and the matrixes
decreased by 35%, 23% and 5% respectively, as shown in Fig. 14;
the bond strength between RC and them decreased by 69%, 44%
and 3% respectively. Therefore, the freezing-thawing resistance of
RPC was better than that of RC and HSM [70]. However, RPC incor-
porating steel fibers revealed an increased surface scaling espe-
cially in the vicinity of the fibers.
376 D. Wang et al. / Construction and Building Materials 96 (2015) 368–377
4.4.5. Fire resistance
Human safety in the event of fire is one of the considerations in
the design of residential, public and industrial buildings. It was
found that the explosive spalling of HPC, OC and UHPC specimens
occurred at around 600 °C, 690 °C and 790 °C [71]. The compres-
sive strength of UHPC gradually increased when heated to 200–
300 °C, but started to decrease as temperatures further increased
[72]. After fire duration test at a constant temperature of
500 ± 50 °C, the compressive strengths of UHPC, HPC and OC
dropped dramatically and their residual compressive strength after
60 min of fire reduced to 62.2%, 46.7% and 58.5% respectively. After
120 min fire, their residual compressive strengths maintained
55.6%, 34.6% and 52.7% of the original compressive strengths, as
shown in Fig. 15. It was also found that the inner temperatures
of UHPC specimens were consistently higher than those of HPC
and OC specimens when subjected to the same fire temperature
and duration. This means that the differential temperature
between the center and peripheral surface of UHPC was lower,
which could lead to a lower internal thermal stress. The total mass
losses of HPC and OC were consistently more than those of UHPC
when they were subjected to the same temperature and duration
of fire [71]. Hence, the fire resistances of UHPC and OC are better
than that of HPC.
5. Conclusions and future needs
Based on the above literature and discussions, the following
conclusions can be drawn:
(1) The hydration process of binders in UHPC is similar to that in
OC. When UHPC is cured under 90 °C, the average C–S–H
chain length from hydration of binder materials increases.
If the curing temperature is raised to 250 °C, C–S–H will be
dehydrated to form xonotlite. However, at low dynamic
equilibrium vapor pressures could totally suppress the for-
mation of crystalline hydration products. UHPC has a very
low porosity, especially after heat curing.
(2) The compressive, tensile and flexural strengths of UHPC
could reach from 200 to 800 MPa, 25 to 150 MPa and 30 to
141 MPa respectively depending on compositions, produc-
tion process and curing conditions. Pre-setting pressure
and heat curing could increase the compressive strength of
UHPC. The failure modes of UHPC under uniaxial compres-
sion are similar to steel fiber reinforced concrete. However,
the elastic proportional limit of the ascending branch of
stress–strain curve of UHPC is larger than that of OC. Pre-
setting pressure, heat-curing, and incorporation of mineral
admixtures can improve the toughness of UHPC. The highest
toughness are achieved after 28 days of standard room tem-
perature curing, steam curing gave the lowest. Use of min-
eral admixture could increase toughness after standard
room temperature curing. UHPC without steel fiber is very
fragile. Incorporation of steel fibers could increase the yield
split tensile strengths of UHPC.
(3) The application of heat-curing, incorporation of fibers, and
the use of coarse aggregates can decrease the drying shrink-
age of UHPC. The permeability coefficient and diffusion coef-
ficient of UHPC are much lower than that of OC. The 28d
carbonation depth of UHPC is very low. The freezing resis-
tance of UHPC is better than that of ordinary concrete and
high strength concrete. The fire resistance of UHPC is better
than that of ordinary concrete and HPC.
Compositions, production process and curing conditions may
have significant effect on the properties of UHPC. In order to apply
UHPC to practical engineering, some further researches need to
conduct, as follows:
(1) The binder of UHPC is commonly composed of Portland
cement and silica fume. Silica fume can be partially/com-
pletely replaced by fly ash, slag, or metakaolin, etc, so to
reduce the cost or even improve some properties of UHPC.
(2) It is essential to design and produce UHPC with ordinary
materials and room temperature curing conditions so to
facilitate the production and application of UHPC.
(3) Due to large amount of ultra-fine particles and high super-
plasticizer dosage, UHPC mixtures often show high viscosity
and rapid loss of workability, which may decrease their
pumpability. Thus, it is essential to reduce the viscosity
and slump loss of UHPC.
(4) The effect of fiber on toughness of UHPC needs to be studied
further so to establish guidelines for structural design so to
differentiate from fiber reinforced concrete.
(5) Due to large content of unhydrated cement in UHPC matrix,
the volume stability of UHPC under moist environment
needs to be studied further.
(6) The calcium hydroxide content in UHPC is little, thus, the
steel is easy to rust, and it is essential to study the chloride
penetration resistance of UHPC at ocean area.
Acknowledgement
Financial supports from National Science Foundation of China
under contract Nos. 51378196 and U1305243 are greatly
appreciated.
References
[1] M. Richard, Cheyrezy, Composition of reactive powder concretes, Cem. Concr.
Res. 25 (7) (1995) 1501–1511.
[2] C.M. Tam, W.Y. Tam Vivian, K.M. Ng, Assessing drying shrinkage and water
permeability of reactive powder concrete produced in Hong Kong, Constr.
Build. Mater. 26 (2012) 79–89.
[3] H. Yazici, M.Y. Yardimci, S. Aydin, A.S. Karabulut, Mechanical properties of
reactive powder concrete containing mineral admixtures under different
curing regimes, Constr. Build. Mater. 23 (3) (2009) 1223–1231.
[4] A. Korpa, T. Kowald, R. Trettin, Phase development in normal and ultra high
performance cementitious systems by quantitative X-ray analysis and
thermoanalytical methods, Cem. Concr. Res. 39 (2009) 69–76.
[5] J.Z. Lai, The studies of mechanical performances, durability, and micro-
mechanism of ecological reactive powder concrete, Ph.D. Thesis, Southeast
University, China, 2003.
[6] H. Yazıcı, H. Yiğiter, A.S. Karabulut, B. Baradan, Utilization of fly ash and ground
granulated blast furnace slag as an alternative silica source in reactive powder
concrete, Fuel 87 (2008) 2401–2407.
[7] C. Shi, X.Q. Wu, M.S. Tang, Hydration of alkali-slag cements at 150 °C, Cem.
Concr. Res. 21 (1) (1991) 91–100.
[8] I. Odler, Hydration, setting and hardening of Portland cement, in: P.C. Hewlett
(Ed.), Lea’s Chemistry of Cement and Concrete, Butterworth-Heinemann,
Oxford, 1997, pp. 288–289.
[9] S. Philippot, S. Masse, H. Zanni, et al., 29Si NMR Study of hydration and
pozzolanic reactions in reactive powder concrete (RPC), Magn. Reson. Imaging
14 (7/8) (1996) 891–893.
[10] H. Zanni, M. Cheyrezy, V. Maret, et al., Investigation of hydration and
pozzolanic reaction in reactive powder concrete (RPC) using 29Si NMR, Cem.
Concr. Res. 26 (1) (1996) 93–100.
[11] M. Cheyrezy, V. Maret, L. Frouin, Microstructural analysis of RPC (reactive
powder concrete), Cem. Concr. Res. 25 (7) (1995) 1491–1500.
[12] A. Feylessoufi, M. Crespin, P. Dion, et al., Controlled rate thermal treatment of
reactive powder concretes, Adv. Cement Based Mater. 6 (1997) 21–27.
[13] O. Bonneau, C. Vernet, M. Moranvill, P.C. Altcin, Characterization of the
granular packing and percolation threshold of reactive powder concrete, Cem.
Concr. Res. 30 (2000). 1861 ± 1867.
[14] G.C. Long, The composites, structures, and properties of reactive powder
concrete, Ph.D. Thesis, Tongji University, China, 2003.
[15] G.C. Long, Y.J. Xie, P.M. Wang, Z.W. Jiang, Properties and micro/mecrostructure
of reactive powder concrete, J. Chin. Ceram. Soc. 4 (2005) 456–461.
[16] F.J. Alaee, Retrofitting of concrete structures using high performance fiber
reinforced cementitious composite (HPFRCC), Ph.D. Thesis, University of
Wales, Cardiff, 2001, p. 220.
 D. Wang et al. / Construction and Building Materials 96 (2015) 368–377
[17] C. Wang, C.H. Yang, F. Liu, C.J. Wan, X.C. Pu, Preparation of ultra-high
performance concrete with common technology and materials, Cement Concr.
Compos. 34 (2012) 538–544.
[18] Nguyen Van Tuan, Guang Ye, Klaas van Breugel, Oguzhan Copuroglu,
Hydration and microstructure of ultra high performance concrete
incorporating rice husk ash, Cem. Concr. Res. 41 (2011) 1104–1111.
[19] J. Dils, V. Boel, G. De Schutter, Influence of cement type and mixing pressure on
air content, rheology and mechanical properties of UHPC, Constr. Build. Mater.
41 (2013) 455–463.
[20] J. Ma, H. Schneider, Properties of ultra-high performance concrete, Leipzig
Annual Civil Engineering Report (LACER) 7 (2002) 25–32.
[21] Nguyen Van Tuan, Guang Ye, Klaas Van Breugel, Alex L.A. Fraaij, Bui Danh Dai,
The study of using rice husk ash to produce ultra high performance concrete,
Constr. Build. Mater. 25 (2011) 2030–2035.
[22] M.A.A. Aldahdooh, N. Muhamad Bunnori, M.A. Megat Johari, Evaluation of
ultra-high-performance-fiber reinforced concrete binder content using the
response surface method, Mater. Des. 52 (2013) 957–965.
[23] G. Habert, E. Denarié, A. Šajna, P. Rossi, Lowering the global warming impact of
bridge rehabilitations by using ultra high performance fibre reinforced
concretes, Cement Concr. Compos. 38 (2013) 1–11.
[24] M.A.A. Aldahdooh, N. Muhamad Bunnori, M.A. Megat Johari, Development of
green ultra-high performance fiber reinforced concrete containing ultrafine
palm oil fuel ash, Constr. Build. Mater. 48 (2013) 379–389.
[25] R. Yu, P. Spiesz, H.J.H. Brouwers, Effect of nano-silica on the hydration and
microstructure development of ultra-high performance concrete (UHPC) with
a low binder amount, Constr. Build. Mater. 65 (2014) 140–150.
[26] R. Yu, P. Spiesz, H.J.H. Brouwers, Mix design and properties assessment of
ultra-high performance fibre reinforced concrete (UHPFRC), Cem. Concr. Res.
56 (2014) 29–39.
[27] R. Yu, P. Spiesz, H.J.H. Brouwers, Static properties and impact resistance of a
green ultra-high performance hybrid fibre reinforced concrete (UHPHFRC):
experiments and modeling, Constr. Build. Mater. 68 (2014) 158–171.
[28] Mehmet. Canbaz, The effect of high temperature on reactive powder concrete,
Constr. Build. Mater. 70 (2014) 508–513.
[29] A.M. Soliman, M.L. Nehdi, Effects of shrinkage reducing admixture and
wollastonite microfiber on early-age behavior of ultra-high performance
concrete, Cement Concr. Compos. 46 (2014) 81–89.
[30] O. Bonneau, M. Lachemi, E. Dallaire, et al., Mechanical properties and
durability of two industrial reactive powder concretes, ACI Mater. J. 94 (4)
(1997) 286–290.
[31] C. Marcei, Structural Application of RPC, Concrete 33 (1) (1999) 20–23.
[32] Metin Ipek, Kemalettin Yilmaz, Mansur Sümer, Mehmet Saribiyik, Effect of
pre-setting pressure applied to mechanical behaviours of reactive powder
concrete during setting phase, Constr. Build. Mater. 25 (2011) 61–68.
[33] Y.W. Chan, S.H. Chu, Effect of silica fume on steel fiber bond characteristics in
reactive powder concrete, Cem. Concr. Res. 34 (2004) 1167–1172.
[34] A.L. Taher, H. Sameer, H. William, Z. Brian, Effect of matrix strength on pullout
behavior of steel fiber reinforced very-high strength concrete composites,
Constr. Build. Mater. 25 (2011) 39–46.
[35] A.M. Neville, Properties of Concrete, Longman, New York, 1995.
[36] Y.S. Zhang, W. Sun, S.F. Liu, C.J. Jiao, J.Z. Lai, Preparation of C200 green reactive
powder concrete and its static–dynamic behaviors, Cement Concr. Compos. 30
(2008) 831–838.
[37] H. Yazıcı, The effect of curing conditions on compressive strength of ultra high
strength concrete with high volume mineral admixtures, Build. Environ. 42
(2007) 2083–2089.
[38] L. Massidda, U. Sanna, E. Cocco, P. Meloni, High pressure steam curing of
reactive-powder mortars, ACI SP200-27 200 (2001) 447–464.
[39] S. Mindess, J.F. Young, D. Darwin, Concrete, Pearson education, New Jersey,
2002.
[40] J. Yang, Flexural behavior of Ultra-high performance concrete beams
prestressed with CFRP tendons. Ph.D Thesis, Hunan University, China, 2007.
[41] G.J. Yan, A study on failure criterion and constitutive relationship of RPC200,
Ph.D Thesis, Beijing Jiaotong University, China, 2005.
[42] X.C. Pu, Z.J. Wang, C. Wang, W.N. Yan, Y.W. Wang, Mechanical properties of
super high strength and high performance concrete, J. Build. Struct. 23 (6)
(2002) 49–55.
[43] B. Tan, Research on stress–strain curves of reactive powder concrete under
uniaxial compression, Master thesis, Hunan University, China, 2007.
[44] S.L. Prabha, J.K. Dattatreya, M. Neelamegam, et al., Study on stress–strain
properties of reactive powder concrete under uniaxial compression, Int. J. Eng.
Sci. Technol. 2 (11) (2010) 6408–6416.
377
[45] T.H. Wee, M.S. Chin, M.A. Mansur, Stress–strain relationship of high-strength
concrete in compression, J. Mater. Civil Eng. 5 (1996) 70–76.
[46] Z.H. Guo, Reinforced Concrete Theory, Tsinghua University Press, Beijing, 1999,
p. 3.
[47] H. Yazıcı, M.Y. Yardımcı, H. Yiğiter, et al., Mechanical properties of reactive
powder concrete containing high volumes of ground granulated blast furnace
slag, Cement Concr. Compos. 32 (2010) 639–648.
[48] Designation C 1018-98, Standard Test Method for Flexural Toughness and
First-Crack Strength of Fiber Reinforced Concrete (Using Beam with Third
Point Loading)[S].
[49] JSCE Standard SF4, Method of test for flexural strength and flexural toughness
of fiber reinforced concrete[S].
[50] RILEM TC 162-TDF, Test and design methods of steel fiber reinforced concrete,
Bending TEST, Mater. Struct. 35 (11) (2002) 579–582.
[51] C.J. Jiao, W. Sun, Y. Zhou, Quasi-static mechanical properties of SFRC under
uni-axial compression, J. Chongqing Jianzhu Univ. 28 (2) (2006) 56–58.
[52] D.J. Zhu, M. Barzin, P. Alva, Experimental study of dynamic behavior of
cement-based composites, J. Sustain. Cement Based Mater. 2 (1) (2013) 1–12.
[53] Metin Ipek, Kemalettin Yilmaz, Mucteba Uysal, The effect of pre-setting
pressure applied flexural strength and fracture toughness of reactive powder
concrete during the setting phase, Constr. Build. Mater. 26 (2012) 459–465.
[54] Y.S. Tai, Flat ended projectile penetrating ultra-high strength concrete plate
target, Theoret. Appl. Fract. Mech. 51 (2009) 117–128.
[55] N. Banthian, C. Yanc, K. Saksk, Impact resistance of fiber reinforced concrete at
subnormal temperatures, Cement Concr. Compos. 20 (5) (1998) 393–404.
[56] M.H. Zhang, V.P.W. Shim, G. Lu, C.W. Chew, Resistance of high-strength
concrete to projectile impact, Int. J. Impact Eng. 31 (2005) 825–841.
[57] W. Sun, C.J. Jiao, Experimental study on impact tensile behavior of reactive
powder concrete, J. Guangzhou Univ. (Nat. Sci. Ed.) 10 (1) (2011) 42–47.
[58] A. Feylessoufi, F. Cohen Tenoudji, V. Morin, P. Richard, Early ages shrinkage
mechanisms of ultra-high-performance cement-based materials, Cem. Concr.
Res. 31 (2001) 1573–1579.
[59] P. Acker, M. Behloul, Ductal Technology: A Large Spectrum of Properties, A
Wide Range of Application (C), Proceedings of the International Symposium on
Ultra High Performance Concrete. Germany, 2004, pp. 11–23.
[60] X.H. Wang, K.J. Wang, B. Fatih, T. Peter, Drying shrinkage of ternary blend
concrete in transportation structures, J. Sustain. Cement Based Mater. 1 (1–2)
(2012) 56–66.
[61] V.Y. Garas, L.F. Kahn, K.E. Kurtis, Short-term tensile creep and shrinkage of
ultra-high performance concrete, Cement Concr. Compos. 31 (2009) 147–152.
[62] A. Cwirzen, V. Penttala, C. Vornanen, Reactive powder based concretes:
mechanical properties, durability and hybrid use with OPC, Cem. Concr. Res.
38 (2008) 1217–1226.
[63] Mahdi. Arezoumandia, Jeffery S. Volz, A comparative study of the mechanical
properties, fracture behavior, creep, and shrinkage of high-volume fly ash
concrete, J. Sustain. Cem. Based Mater. 2 (3–4) (2013) 173–185.
[64] T. Ji, C.Y. Chen, Y.Z. Zhuang, Evaluation method for cracking resistant behavior
of reactive powder concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 28 (2012) 45–49.
[65] M. Anwar, H. Soghair, M. Ahmed, M. Fujii, New aspects affecting the mutual
relation between strength and permeability of concrete, J. Ann. Thesis Rep. 15
(1) (1993) 1229–1234.
[66] R.D. Hooton, M.P. Titherington, Chloride resistance of high-performance
concretes accelerated curing, Cem. Concr. Res. 34 (2004) 1561–1567.
[67] M. Jooss, H.W. Reinhardt, Permeability and diffusivity of concrete as function
of temperature, Cem. Concr. Res. 32 (2002) 1497–1504.
[68] S.F. Liu, W. Sun, W. Lin, J.Z. Lai, Preparation and durability of a high
performance concrete with natural ultra-fine particles, J. Chin. Ceram. Soc.
11 (2003) 1080–1085.
[69] A. Cwirzen, V. Penttala. Effect of increased aggregate size on the mechanical
and rheological properties of RPC, Proceedings of Second International
Symposium on Advances in Concrete through Science and Engineering,
Quebec, Canada, 2006.
[70] M.G. Lee, Y.C. Wang, C.T. Chiu, A preliminary study of reactive powder concrete
as a new repair material, Constr. Build. Mater. 21 (2007) 182–189.
[71] C.T. Liu, J.S. Huang, Fire performance of highly flowable reactive powder
concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 23 (2009) 2072–2079.
[72] Y.S. Tai, H.H. Pan, Y.N. Kung, Mechanical properties of steel fiber reinforced
reactive powder concrete following exposure to high temperature reaching
800 °C, Nucl. Eng. Des. 241 (2011) 2416–2424.