Materials 15 04131

materials
Article
Ultra-High-Performance Concrete (UHPC):
A State-of-the-Art Review
Rahat Ullah 1,2 , Yuan Qiang 1,2, *, Jawad Ahmad 3, * , Nikolai Ivanovich Vatin 4
and Mohammed A. El-Shorbagy 5
1 School of Civil Engineering, Central South University, Changsha 410075, China; [email protected]
2 National Engineering Research Center of High-Speed Railway Construction Technology,
Changsha 410075, China
3 Department of Civil Engineering, Swedish College of Engineering and Technology, Wah Cantt 47040, Pakistan
4 Peter the Great St. Petersburg Polytechnic University, 195251 St. Petersburg, Russia; [email protected]
5 Department of Mathematics, College of Science and Humanities in Al-Kharj,
Prince Sattam bin Abdulaziz University, Al-Kharj 11942, Saudi Arabia; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected] (Y.Q.); [email protected] (J.A.)
Abstract: The interest of researchers in UHPC has increased over the past decade. It is crucial
to understand the structural behavior of reinforced UHPC (R/UHPC) components under various
loading conditions before they can be used as a replacement for conventional concrete. Although
several studies on ultra-high-performance concrete (UHPC) have been conducted, the knowledge
is scattered, and no one can easily judge the performance and methodology of UPHC. Therefore,
the purpose of this study was to review the research studies already carried out on UHPC. The
review focuses on the materials’ physical and chemical composition, mechanical and durability
characteristics, fire resistance, and environmental benefits of UHPC. Design considerations for
effectively utilizing UHPC in structural elements are also presented. The best UHPFRC mixture is
obtainable with a steel fiber content of 2–3% and a water-to-cement ratio of 0.2–0.3. The review also
discusses the essentials recommendation for future research on UHPC.
Citation: Ullah, R.; Qiang, Y.; Ahmad,
J.; Vatin, N.I.; El-Shorbagy, M.A.
Ultra-High-Performance Concrete Keywords: ultra-high-performance concrete; fibers; secondary cementitious materials; mechanical
(UHPC): A State-of-the-Art Review. strength; durability aspects
Materials 2022, 15, 4131. https://
doi.org/10.3390/ma15124131
Academic Editors: Frank Collins

1. Introduction
and Gwenn Le Saout
Conventional concrete is strong in compression and weak in tension, and fails when
Received: 18 March 2022 brittle without any deformation. Ultra-high-performance concrete (UHPC), which is a
Accepted: 26 April 2022
cutting-edge concrete, may be able to resolve these problems. According to the Federal
Published: 10 June 2022
Highway Administration (FHWA) of the United States, UHP cement is a cementitious
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral material formulated by combining Portland cement, fine silica sand, silica fumes, quartz
with regard to jurisdictional claims in flour, high-range water reducers, and discontinuous internal combustion steel or organic
published maps and institutional affil- fibers, and a water-to-cement ratio less than 0.25. The strength of UHPC is greater than
iations. 21.7 ksi (150 MPa) compressive strength and greater than 0.72 ksi (5 MPa) tensile strength
sustained post-cracking [1]. Meng et al. [2] suggest that ultra-high-performance concrete
(UHPC) is a new type of cementitious composite made with extremely low water-to-binder
ratios. The water-to-binder ratio for UHPC ranges from 0.18 to 0.22. ACI 239 states
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
that the compressive strength of UHPC is more than 150 MPa after 28 days [3]. In post-
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
cracking testing, strain hardening behavior is observed in UHPC after being cracked
This article is an open access article
at tensile strengths of 7–15 MPa [4]. To achieve highly flowable, high mechanical, and
distributed under the terms and
excellent durability, ultra-high-performance concrete (UHPC) should be produced using
conditions of the Creative Commons
the optimum combination of cement and supplementary cementitious materials, adequate
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
sand gradation, low water-to-binder ratio (w/b = 0.25), fiber reinforcement, and high-range
4.0/).
Materials 2022, 15, 4131. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15124131 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/materials

Materials 2022, 15, 4131 2 of 27
water reducer (HRWR) [5]. UHPC offers better durability than conventional concrete
because of its discontinuous pore structure [6].
Fibers can also provide UHPC with strain-hardening properties in tension and convert
brittle failure to ductile failure [7]. Several studies have optimized composition, enhanced
performance, reduced cost, and saved energy in manufacturing UHPC [8]. It is possible
to transfer the stress between the fibers at the cracked section to the uncracked UHPC
matrix by using the fiber–matrix bond [9]. It is important to understand that the efficacy of
fiber–matrix bonds depends on the strength of the adhesive provided by the UHPC mortar
in the region around the fibers [10]. It is important to optimize the fiber distribution as
well. A higher degree of dispersion of the fibers by the UHPC mortar can lead to a higher
degree of encapsulation of the fibers by the mortar to achieve higher fiber–matrix interfacial
properties [11]. A recent study determined that even under four-point bending, the post-
cracking behavior of UHPC exhibits strain hardening when the content of micro steel fibers
exceeds 1% by volume of the UHPC. There was, however, a finding that the microfibers
were ineffective at delaying the initiation and propagation of microcracks, which may be
due to the relatively large spacing between the fibers [12]. A study observed that fibers
improved tensile capacity of concrete more effectively than compressive strength [13].
Therefore, secondary cementitious materials (SCMs) play an important role in UHPC.
Silica fume is a SCM that serves as a critical component in the production of UHPC. It
plays a significant role in affecting its overall performance because of its high amorphous
SiO2 content and the ability to increase the packing density of the matrix. It has small,
glassy, and spherical characteristics of a ball bearing that can create the ball-bearing effect
and help replace water entrapped between the fine and coarse particles [14]. There can
be a reduction in the mixture’s flow resistance (i.e., the viscosity), making it possible for
the mixture to be well dispersed into multiple phases with reduced porosity and a dense
microstructure [15]. As a consequence of SCMs’ consumption of calcium hydroxide (CH), it
forms a strength-contributing substance used in making C-S-H gel. In this case, a substance
was found to have similar behavior to that formed from Portland cement, thus improving
the mechanical properties of concrete [16].
Furthermore, it can also improve the interfacial transition zone (ITZ) between aggre-
gate/fiber and matrix to eliminate large preferentially oriented CH crystals, ultimately
leading to improved homogeneity [17]. The optimum dose of silica fume is also important
as the higher dose can cause alkali–silica reaction due to the dilution effect. Previous
investigations have indicated the typical silica fume content used in UHPC mixture is
approximately 20–30% by mass of cementitious materials [18,19].
As a result, UHPC is an ideal material to provide greater strength and durability to
components or structures at the same time as it increases their strength and durability.
However, knowledge is scattered and no one can easily judge the benefits of UHPC.
Therefore, this review paper examines the mechanical properties, durability properties,
and thermal properties of UHPCs. It also discusses the environmental and cost benefits
of UHPC.
2. Materials
2.1. Cement
The choice of a brand and type of cement is probably the most important factor in
selecting material for high-strength concrete mixtures. In the case of high-strength concrete,
cement variation causes the concrete compressive strength to fluctuate more than any other
single component. In fact, cement variation seemed to have a greater influence than any
other individual concrete component. The cement should be selected based on its water
demand; the normal consistency in the cement paste determines the water demand. It
is observed that the highest water demand results in the lowest compressive strength.
This cement also exhibits good workability and admixture compatibility, and does not
possess false setting characteristics. Good quality cement is required to produce uniform
high-strength concrete consistently [20].
Materials 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 27
does not possess false setting characteristics. Good quality cement is required to produce
Materials 2022, 15, 4131 uniform high-strength concrete consistently [20]. 3 of 27
2.2. Chemical Admixture

2.2. Chemical Admixture
Polycarboxylate-based high-range water-reducing agent was used since ul-
tra-high-strength concrete’s composition has a low water-binding
Polycarboxylate-based high-range water-reducing material
agent was used since ratio. Poly-
ultra-high-
carboxylate-based
strength concrete’s superplasticizers
composition has aarelowsuitable in the range
water-binding of 2.0–3.5
material ratio.wt.%, based on the
Polycarboxylate-
amount
based of the binding material.
superplasticizers are suitable in the range of 2.0–3.5 wt.%, based on the amount of
the binding material.
2.3. Aggregates
2.3. Aggregates
The shape, surface texture, and mineralogy composition of coarse aggregate must be
The shape,
considered whensurface texture,
designing and The
UHPC. mineralogy
shape and composition of coarse
surface texture aggregate
of the must
aggregate, to-
be considered
gether with thewhen designing
mineralogy UHPC.
of the The shape
aggregate, affectand surfacemixing
the overall texturewater
of therequired
aggregate,
for
together with Thus,
the concrete. the mineralogy
they play of the aggregate,
a greater affect
role in the the overall mixingqualities.
strength-producing water required for
the concrete. Thus, they play a greater role in the strength-producing qualities.
2.3.1. Coarse Aggregate
2.3.1. Coarse Aggregate
Cubical-shaped coarse aggregate is the preferred satisfying requirement of IS:383
Cubical-shaped coarse aggregate is the preferred satisfying requirement of IS:383 [21].
[21]. The grading should satisfy the IS:383 [21] limit. The mineralogy of coarse aggregate
The grading should satisfy the IS:383 [21] limit. The mineralogy of coarse aggregate granite,
granite, aplite, basalt, rhyolite, quartzite is recommended. Further, the crushing value
aplite, basalt, rhyolite, quartzite is recommended. Further, the crushing value should be
should be below 17%. According to research, a smaller size aggregate produces higher
below 17%. According to research, a smaller size aggregate produces higher compressive
compressive strength; the maximum particle size of the coarse aggregate should be set
strength; the maximum particle size of the coarse aggregate should be set between 20 mm
between
and 30 mm 20to
mm and 30
achieve mm to compressive
a higher achieve a higher compressive
strength [13]. strength [13].
2.3.2. Fine
2.3.2. Fine Aggregate
Aggregate
ItIt is
is strongly
strongly recommended
recommended that that the
thefine
fineaggregate
aggregatefineness
finenessmodulus
modulus is is
at at
2.8–3.0, as
2.8–3.0,
it assures the concrete’s derivable fluidity and reduces the viscosity of
as it assures the concrete’s derivable fluidity and reduces the viscosity of the final mix. the final mix. It
should satisfy the IS:383 [21] limit
It should satisfy the IS:383 [21] limit of the of the zone-II sands [22]. Natural sand produces aa
sand produces
higher strength
higher strength than
than the
the manufactured
manufactured sand sand produced
produced forfor either
either limestone
limestone or or traprock.
traprock.
The advantage
The advantage isis attributed
attributed to
to reduced
reduced mixing
mixing water
water demand
demand for for less
less angular
angular material.
material.
Further,aafineness
Further, finenessmodulus
modulusofof3.03.0is is desirable
desirable since
since increasing
increasing thethe fineness
fineness of either
of either type
type of
of sand
sand reduces reduces compressive
compressive strength.
strength. The Figure
The Figure 1 shows1 shows percentages
percentages of aggregate
of aggregate normal
normal strength
strength concrete concrete
(NHS) and(NHS)
UHPC.and UHPC.
Figure1.1.Aggregates
Figure Aggregatesfor
forNHS
NHSand
andUHPC
UHPC[23].
[23].
2.4.
2.4. Micro
MicroSilica/Silica
Silica/SilicaFume
Fume
Micro
Microsilica
silicaor
orsilica
silica fume
fume are
areexceptionally
exceptionally fine
fine micro
micro particles
particles of
of amorphous
amorphous silica,
silica,
which are included in concrete mixes. They are pozzolanic highly reactive silica,
which are included in concrete mixes. They are pozzolanic highly reactive silica, which which
increases the durability and strength of the concrete. The micro silica/silica fume should
satisfy the requirements of ASTM C-1240 [24] and BS EN- 13,263 [25]. Minimum SiO2
(silicon dioxide) should be 85%; maximum C (carbon) allowed = 2.5%.
increases the durability and strength of the concrete. The micro silica/silica fume should
Materials 2022, 15, 4131 satisfy the requirements of ASTM C-1240 [24] and BS EN- 13,263 [25]. Minimum4 SiO of 272
(silicon dioxide) should be 85%; maximum C (carbon) allowed = 2.5%.
2.5. Steel Fibers

2.5. Fibers
Dueto
Due toits
itsvery
veryhigh
high strength
strength andand homogeneity,
homogeneity, UHPCUHPC is very
is very brittle;
brittle; yet it yet
can it
becan be
made
made ductile
ductile by addingby adding steel[8].
steel fibers fibers [8]. provide
Fibers Fibers provide
greater greater resistance
resistance to crackto crack genera-
generation and
tion and propagation
propagation [13,26].
[13,26]. Figure Figurethe
2 shows 2 shows
shapethe shape of
of fibers, fibers,
while while
Table Tablethe
1 shows 1 shows the
different
differentaspects
physical physical ofaspects of fiber
fiber used used for
for UHPC UHPC
as per pastasstudies.
per past studies.
Figure 2.
Figure 2. Shapes
Shapes of
of fibers
fibers [23].
[23].
Table1.1.Physical
Table Physicalaspects
aspectsof
offibers.
fibers.
Diameter Tensile Strength Elastic Modulus
Reference Fiber Type Length (mm)
(mm)Tensile Strength
(MPa) Elastic Modulus
(GPa)
Reference Fiber Type Length (mm) Diameter (mm)
Straight (MPa) (GPa)
Wu et al. (a)
Straight Hooked-end 13 0.2 2800 300
Wu et al. (a) [27]
Hooked-end Corrugated
13 0.2 2800 300
[27] Shafieifar et al.
Corrugated Straight steel fiber 12.5 0.2 2600 278
[28]
Shafieifar et al.
StraightWu et al.
steel (b)
fiber Straight brass-coated
12.5 13 0.2 0.2 2600 1900 278
203
[28] [29] steel fibers
Wu et al. (b) Straight brass-coated Straight steel fiber 13 0.2 1900 203
13 50–200 ×0.2 190030,000 203
[29] steelMeng et al.
fibers Carbon nanofibers 103 100 240
[30] Graphite nanoplates 25 2–10 5000 1000
Straight steel fiber 13
Graphite nanoplates 30
0.2 2–10
1900 5000 203
1000
Meng et al. Carbon nanofibers 50–200 × 103 100 30,000 240
Kim et al. Brass-coated smooth
[30] Graphite nanoplates 25 19.52–10 0.2 5000 2450 203
1000
[31] steel fibers
Graphite nanoplates 30 2–10 5000 1000
Straight steel fiber
Azmee et al. 20 0.2 > 2300 >246
Kim et al. Brass-coated smooth Hooked-end steel
[32] 19.5 25 0.2 0.3 2450> 2300 203
>246
[31] steel fibers fiber
Park et al. Straight fiber 6 60 × 10−3 2000 206
Straight steel fiber
Azmee et al. [33] 20 fiber
Hooked-end 30 0.2 380 × 10−3 >23003000 >246
206
Hooked-end steel
[32] Meszoly et al. 25 0.3 >2300 >246
fiber Steel fibers 15 0.2 >2000 200
[34]
−3
Park et al. Straight fiber
Christ et al. Steel 6fibers 13 × 10
60 0.21 2000 2750 206
200
−3
[33] Hooked-end[35]fiber 30
Polypropylene 6 × 10
380 0.12 3000500–700 2065
Meszoly et al.
Steel fibers 15 0.2 >2000 200
[34] 2.6. Mix Design
Christ et al. The mix design of UHPC
Steel fibers 13 should be economical
0.21 and sustainable
2750 to achieve
200a denser
[35] Polypropylene
matrix, reduce porosity,6and improve the0.12 500–700
internal microstructure to produce5 superior
mechanical and durability properties. The mixture design should also promote econom-
ics. Mix
2.6. The Design
use of mixture designs for UHPC has been reported under various models. The
main parameters considered within the initial design process to achieve an improved
The mix design of UHPC should be economical and sustainable to achieve a denser
matrix, reduce porosity, and improve the internal microstructure to produce superior me-
chanical and durability properties. The mixture design should also promote economics. The
use of mixture designs for UHPC has been reported under various models. The main pa-
rameters considered within the initial design process to achieve an improved homogeneous
Materials 2022, 15, 4131 5 of 27
microstructure with dense and ductile properties are optimization of granular mixtures,
elimination of coarse aggregates, and proper integration of fibers with the granular mix-
tures [36]. Considering the shape, size, and density of particles, a researcher produces a
UHPC mixture. There was also a report claiming that by using fine-grained multi-grain
cement, particle sizes can be decreased [37]. UHPC mix design aims to eliminate the pore
spaces of the final matrix from the micro cracks by eliminating defects in the design. An
expanded particle packing model adapted from Andreasen and Andersen has been used to
develop a densely compacted UHP with a cement content lower than 675 kg/m3 [38].
Furthermore, a few statistical models were proposed that could simulate the mix-
ture design of UHPC. In the case of UHPC, an adaptive neuro-fuzzy interface system
(ANFIS) was used for proportioning the ingredients of the mixture [39] to calculate the
maximum flexural strength of self-compacting steel fiber-reinforced UHPC with varying
contents of steel fiber [40]. A researcher also used a RSM model for optimization concrete
properties [41–43]. Table 2 shows mix proportions of UHPC.
Table 2. Mix proportions.
Reference Material Utilization (Kg/m3 )

Cement 788
Silica fume 197
Quartz 315
Prem et al.
W/C 0.22
[44]
Steel fiber -----
13 mm × 0.16 Ø 2–2.5%
6 mm × 0.16 Ø 2–2.5%
Cement 642–662
Fly ash (Class-C) 401–413
Teng et al. Silica fume 41–42
[45] Welan gun powder 0.18–0.27%
Steel fiber 1–3%
W/C 0.2
Cement 712
Fine sand 1020
Silica fume 231
Ibrahim et al.
Ground silica 161.5
[46]
HRWRA 31
Steel fiber 0–2%
W/C 0.18–0.24
Cement 360–900
Silica fume 90 or (10%)
Azmee et al. Fly ash 270–450 or (30, 40, 50%)
[32] Sand 620
Steel fiber 1%
W/C 0.16
Cement 582.1–896.3
Fly ash 259.9–267.9
GGBS 266.1–274.5
Limestone powder 264.6–272.9
Yu et al.
Sand 1039.5–1106.6
[47]
Micro-sand 216.6–230.5
Nano-silica 24.3–25.8
Steel fiber 0
W/C 0.16–0.2
Materials 2022, 15, 4131 6 of 27
Table 2. Cont.
Reference Material Utilization (Kg/m3 )

Cement
750
Silica fume
90
Quartz powder
263
Quartz sand-I
306
He et al. Quartz sand-II
714
[48] W/C
0.255
Superplasticizers
12
Glass fiber
0–2
High-performance polypropylene
0–2
fiber
Cement 737–1005
Silica fume 0–191
Ultra-fine silica powder 0–31
Chen et al. Viscous agent 1
[49] Steel fiber 0–0.8
Polypropylene fiber 0–78
W/C 0.195
Superplasticizers 25
Cement 720 and 800
Metakaolin 80
Fadzil et al.
Nano metakaolin 0–72
[50]
Superplasticizers 16
W/C 0.2
3. Fresh Properties
Yu et al. [51] studied the behavior of flowability of UHPC. The UHPC was prepared
with a constant 2.50% steel fiber and varying percentages of nano-silica in the proportion of
1%, 2%, 3%, 4%, and 5%. Superplasticizer (polycarboxylic ether) 4.5% was also kept constant
to maintain workable concrete. Test results indicate that slump value decreased with the
increased nano-silica substitution ratio, as shown in Figure 3. Maximum slump value was
obtained at 0% substitution of nano-silica, while minimum slump was achieved at five
substitutions of nano-silica. The decrease of slump value may be due to the pozzolanic
reaction of nano-silica, which increased the viscosity of cement paste, leading to less slump.
Moreover, it may be attributed to the increase in the specific surface area associated with an
increase in fiber content [38]. The nano-SiO2 that is replaced with cement has a much higher
reaction capacity, so it is easier to attract surrounding water molecules to form chemical
bonds. The fast reaction of SiO2 can be attributed to its high specific surface area and
many unsaturated bonds. Therefore, there is no water separation or obvious exudation of
water from the nano-SiO2 mixture [52]. Further, the steel fibers were randomly distributed
throughout the matrix and acted as a skeleton, preventing new concrete from flowing
into the matrix [26]. A decrease in porosity was also observed with the substitution of
nano-silica. However, at 5% substitution of nano-silica shows a slightly increased porosity
due to lack of flowability, which increases the compaction afforded, leading to more voids
in hardened concrete. In contrast, Wang et al. [53] made UHPC with steel fiber, ground
granulated blast furnace slag, and silica fume. The water-to-binder ratio was kept constant
(0.18). Results indicate that the flowability of UHPC increased with the increase in the
substitution of ground granulated blast furnace slag. The shape of the fiber also affected
the flowability of fiber. In terms of flowability, samples with hook-end fibers exhibited the
lowest values compared to those with straight fibers and corrugated fibers. Compared to a
mixture with the same number of straight fibers, mixtures with 1%, 2%, and 3% hooked-end
steel fibers exhibited reduced flowability of 20.9%, 35.8%, and 51.2%, respectively. There
were reductions of 17.7%, 31.2%, and 45.1%, respectively, for the mixtures with 1%, 2%, and
3% corrugated fibers [27]. As a result, deformed fibers could increase the friction between
Materials 2022, 15, 4131 7 of 27
fibers and aggregates, thereby increasing cohesion with the matrix and, therefore, reducing
the flowability [26]. Besides, a change in fiber shape can lead to a strengthening effect
among fibers, which tends to make fibers bundle together more easily [38]. Table 3 shows a
summary of the fresh properties of UHPC.
Figure3.3.Slump
Figure Slumpflow
flow[51].
[51].
Table3.3.Summary
Table Summaryofoffresh
freshproperties
propertiesofofUHPC.
UHPC.
Air
Authors/ Fiber Slump Spread Air
Authors/ Material W/C SPSP Fiber Slump Spread Content
Reference Material W/C (%) (mm) (mm) Content
Reference (%) (mm) (mm)
(%)
(%)
Straight
Straight - - - -------
----
00 215215
11 190190
2 165
2 165
3 138
3
Corrugated - - - - -138
--
Wu et al.
Silica fume 0.18 Polycarboxylate Corrugated
1 178------- ------- -------
Wu
[27]et al. Polycarbox-
Silica fume 0.18 12 153178 ------- -------
[27] ylate
23 123
153
Hooked ------
31 179123
Hooked
2 139 ------
13 104179
SF 10% 2 139
GGBS 3 104
0 10%
SF 245 570
20 Amino 255 565
Wang et al. GGBS -------
40 0.18 sulfonic NA 210 490
[53]
LP 0 acid - - - -245
- - - - - 570
-
0 20 210255 445565
Wang et al. 2040 Amino 285210 685490
0.18 NA -------
[53] 40 sulfonic acid 287 690
LP ----- -----
0 210 445
20 285 685
40 287 690
Macro-steel
fiber 135 410
Hung et al. Polycarbox-
SF+QP 0.135 0 265 645 ----
[54] ylate
1 330 740
2
Materials 2022, 15, 4131 8 of 27
Table 3. Cont.
Air
Authors/ Fiber Slump Spread
Material W/C SP Content
(%)
Macro-steel
fiber 135 410
Hung et al.
SF + QP 0.135 Polycarboxylate 0 265 645 ----
[54]
1 330 740
2
%GNP’s/%CNF’s GNP’s/CNF’s
0/0 2.5/2.5
0.05/0.05 2.61/2.62
Meng et al.
GNPs, SF, FA 0.2 Polycarboxylate 0.1/0.1 ----- ----- 2.5/2.5
[30]
0.15/0.15 2.6/2.8
0.2/0.2 2.98/3.01
0.3/0.3 2.82/3.20
LS-30%
MK 296 7.89
0 287 7.57
Mo et al.
5 0.2 Polycarboxylate NA ----- 274 7.42
[55]
10 267 7.30
15 248 7.67
20
Mini
Class-C fly ash 40% WG 280 V-funnel 1
Silica fume 5% 0% 270 Flow 1.51
Teng et al. Air-detraining 0.18% 265 Tim-Sec 2.51
0.2 Polycarboxylate
[45] admixture, 0.22% 260 11 3.03
polyether, 0.8% 0.27% 20
32
60
(StF + PPF +
ID
SF + SFP) %
0+0+0+0
0.5 + 0.03 +
262 690
17.4 + 2.2
255 530
Silica fume-SF 1 + 0.06 + UHPC1
Chen et al. 257 540
Ultra-fine silicon 0.195 Polycarboxylate 18.7 + 2.2 UHPC2
[49] ---- ----
powder-SFP ------------ UHPC3
260 490
----- ---------
255 530
0.75 + 0.03 + UHPC4
250 510
18.7 + 3.2 UHPC5
0.75 + 0.09 + UHPC6
20 + 2.2
1 + 0.03 + 20
+ 2.7
Nano-silica (%)
337 2
0
331 2.1
1 Macro-steel
Yu et al. Polycarboxylic 315 2.3
2 0.4 fiber -----
[51] ether 284 2.4
3 (0–2.5)%
263 2.8
4
225 3.4
5
Materials 2022, 15, 4131 9 of 27
Table 3. Cont.
Air
Authors/ Fiber Slump Spread
Material W/C SP Content
(%)
St. F = 3% PPF = 3%
0% 100% 210
50% 50% 216
Christ et al. Fly ash (45%) 60% 40% 219 -----
0.45 Polycarboxylate
[35] silica fume (90%) 705 30% 218
80% 20% 220
90% 10% 221
100% 0% 240
-LS = 20%
and SF = 10%
-Steel slag Straight steel
powder (SSP) 0.16 fibers 2%
-Hybrid magnesia
expansive
agent (EA) 610
610
Li et al. SSP% EA% -----
Polycarboxylate 605
[56]
0 0 ----- 600
10 0 590
15 0 585
20 0 560
0 5
15 5
15 8
4. Mechanical Properties
4.1. Compressive Strength
Mo et al. [55] used 0–20% metakaolin (MT) in increments of 5% while keeping a con-
stant 30% limestone and 0.2 water-to-binder ratio to prepare UHPC. Test results indicated
that maximum compressive strength was achieved at 15% (optimum) substitution of MK
by weight of cement as compared to the reference concrete, as shown in Figure 4.
A study also reported that maximum compressive strength was obtained at 15% sub-
stitution of metakaolin [57]. This reduction is attributed to a clinker dilution effect that
is responsible for reducing the compressive strength of 20% metakaolin. This is because
the equivalent quantity of metakaolin replaces a part of the cement. The filler effect and
the pozzolanic reaction of metakaolin with calcium hydroxide result in an increase of the
compressive strength of concrete [58]. Because of this very reason, an optimum replace-
ment for metakaolin is recommended in concrete. It is expected that the differences in
compressive strength between the metakaolin mixtures and the OPC concrete will become
smaller with time. The possible explanation for this might be that all cementitious materials’
reactions had now finished or had stopped because the reactions between the metakaolin
and OPC mixtures had slowed down over time [59]. It was found that the compressive
strength of specimens containing metakaolin increased with time. Still, when specimens
containing 25% of metakaolin were examined, the strength characteristics did not match
those of standard mortar specimens. When metakaolin is incorporated into cement-based
composites, the result is an increase in compressive strength attributed to its filler effect in
the zone of interfacial transition between the cement paste and aggregate particles.
4.1. Compressive Strength
Mo et al. [55] used 0–20% metakaolin (MT) in increments of 5% while keeping a
constant 30% limestone and 0.2 water-to-binder ratio to prepare UHPC. Test results in-
dicated that maximum compressive strength was achieved at 15% (optimum) substitu-
Materials 2022, 15, 4131 tion of MK by weight of cement as compared to the reference concrete, as shown in
10 Fig-
of 27
ure 4.
Figure 4. Compressive strength [55].

Figure 4. Compressive strength [55].
A study also CH
Additionally, reported that
gels are maximum
removed during compressive
the hydrationstrength was obtained
of cement at 15%
with metakaolin
substitution of metakaolin
and are actually responsible[57].
forThis reductionthe
accelerating is attributed to a clinker hydration
cement–cementitious dilution effect
pro-
that is responsible for reducing the compressive strength of 20% metakaolin.
cess [60]. Yu et al. [51] carried out research on UHPC concrete with 2.5% steel fibers This is be-
cause the equivalent quantity of metakaolin replaces a part of the cement.
and 4.5% superplasticizers with varying percentages of nano-silica. Results indicate that The filler effect
and the pozzolanic
a maximum reactionstrength
compressive of metakaolin
(91 MPa) with calcium
was achievedhydroxide result in an which
at 4% nano-silica, increase of
was
the compressive
17% strength
higher than that of concrete
of reference [58].(78
concrete Because
MPa). A ofmajor
this very reason,
factor an optimum
that improves re-
concrete
placement
compressive forstrength
metakaolin
is theispozzolanic
recommended in concrete.
reaction It is expected
between nano-SiO 2 andthat the
calcium differences
hydroxide,
which promotes the formation of hydrated calcium silicate. Concrete without nano-silica
can only hydrate to a very small amount of calcium silicate hydrate if the cement does
not contain nano-silica. Calcium silicate hydrate is one of the vital elements that provide
strength to concrete. Because of this, concrete without nano-SiO2 has a low compressive
strength [61]. According to a study, the early strength improvement effect of nano-silica-
modified concrete is more evident, and this is because of the higher pozzolan activity of
nano-SiO2 particles [62]. It is important to note that with the prolongation of the curing
time, the concentration of nano-silica particles used for the pozzolanic reaction gradually
declines, thus reducing the compression improvement effect of the later-stage of nano-silica
modified concrete [63]. Research was carried out on the compressive strength of UHPC
produced with fiber volumes ranging from 0–3% and waste glass concentrations ranging
from 0–0.27%. Increasing the fiber volume of UHPC enhanced the compressive strength of
the material over a 28-day period at a fixed waste glass content due to a rise in the elastic
modulus [64] as well as the steel fiber’s capacity to bridge tiny cracks [65]. The results of
the compressive strength tests improved when the quantity of silica fume was raised from
10% to 25% but there was no statistically significant difference between 25% and 30% re-
placement [46]. The 3-day compressive strength rose gradually in response to an increase
in temperature, reaching 181 and 229 MPa, respectively, at 140 and 200 degrees Celsius [46].
According to the findings of the research, ultra-fine fly ash with a mean particle size of
4.48 microns demonstrated its suitability for use in UHPC with a 20 weight percentage
cement replacement, resulting in a paste with a compressive strength of 153 MPa [66].
Table 4 shows a summary of the mechanical performance of UHPC.
Figure 5 shows the strength–age relationship of compressive strength in which 7 days’
control compressive strength of UHPC was considered as reference strength. The optimum
Materials 2022, 15, 4131 11 of 27
dose of metakaolin (15%) was considered for comparison with days of curing. At 3 days
of curing, compressive strength of 15% metakaolin is approximately equal to that of the
reference concrete (7 days’ control concrete compressive strength). Compressive strength at
7 days’ curing at 15% metakaolin is 28% more than that of reference concrete, while 14 days’
compressive strength of UHPC is 39% more than that of reference concrete. At 28 days of
curing, the compressive strength of UHPC is 47% more than that of reference concrete. At
Materials 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW
the same dose (optimum dose), the compressive strength of UHPC is 58% more than 11 of 27
that
of reference concrete at 56 days of curing.
Figure 5. Compressive strength–age relationship: data source [55].

Figure 5. Compressive strength–age relationship: data source [55].
4.2. Flexure Strength

The inclusion
inclusionofof metakaolin
metakaolin in cement-based
in cement-based composites
composites enhancesenhances compressive
compressive strength
strength
through the through the filler
filler effect in theeffect in thetransition
interfacial interfacialzone
transition
between zone betweenpaste
the cement the cement
and ag-
paste
gregate and aggregate
particles. particles.CH
In addition, In gels
addition, CH gels
are quickly are quickly
removed duringremoved during
the hydration of the hy-
cement
dration of cement with metakaolin and actually accelerate cementitious
with metakaolin and actually accelerate cementitious hydration [54]. Mo et al. [47] con- hydration [54].
Mo et al.
cluded that[47] concluded
similar that similarstrength,
to the compressive to the compressive
maximum flexure strength, maximum
strength flexure
was achieved
strength was achieved
at 15% substitution at 15% substitution
of metakaolin. of metakaolin.
In comparison, minimumInflexure
comparison,
strengthminimum flex-
was obtained
with 0% substitution
ure strength of metakaolin,
was obtained with 0%as shown in Figure
substitution 6. Based on
of metakaolin, as the results
shown in obtained,
Figure 6.
the 7-day
Based flexural
on the strength
results increases
obtained, as theflexural
the 7-day metakaolin content
strength increases,
increases which
as the can be
metakaolin
explained
content by the production
increases, which can of be C–S–H from
explained bypozzolanic reactions
the production and reduction
of C–S–H of chlo-
from pozzolanic
ride attackand
reactions through the development
reduction of Friedel’s
of chloride attack through salt
the[67]. In contrast,ofaFriedel’s
development study found that
salt [67].
MK incorporation decreases flexural strength. The decreased in
In contrast, a study found that MK incorporation decreases flexural strength. The de- flexure strength could
be attributed
creased to the
in flexure low w/b
strength could ratio used in addition
be attributed to the lowto the
w/bhigh
ratio absorption capacity
used in addition of
to the
metakaolin
high particles
absorption provided
capacity by the surface
of metakaolin roughness
particles provided [68].
byTable 4 showsroughness
the surface a summary of
[68].
the mechanical
Table 4 shows aperformance
summary of of theUHPC.
mechanical performance of UHPC.
Figure 7 shows the correlation between compressive and flexure strength at 3 and
7 days of curing. It can be noted that a strong correlation exists between compressive and
flexure strength having a R2 value approximately equal to 90% (83%).

Materials 2022, 15, 4131 12 of 27
Figure 6. Flexure strength [55].
Figure 7 shows the correlation between compressive and flexure strength at 3 and 7
days of curing. It can be noted that a strong correlation exists between compressive and
Figure 6. Flexure strength [55].
Figure Flexure strength
flexure6.strength having [55].
a R2 value approximately equal to 90% (83%).
Figure 7 shows the correlation between compressive and flexure strength at 3 and 7
days of curing. It can be noted that a strong correlation exists between compressive and
flexure strength having a R2 value approximately equal to 90% (83%).
Figure 7. Correlation between compressive and flexure strength: data source [55].
Figure 7. Correlation between compressive and flexure strength: data source [55].
Figure 88 shows
Figure shows the the strength–age
strength–age relationship
relationship of of flexure
flexure strength
strength in in which
which 77 days’
days’
control7.flexure
control
Figure
flexure strength
strength
Correlation ofofUHPC
between
UHPC waswas
compressive
considered
considered
and flexureas
as reference
reference
strength:
strength.
strength.
data
The optimum
The optimum
source [55]. dose
dose
of of metakaolin
metakaolin (15%)(15%) was considered
was considered for comparison
for comparison withwith
daysdays of curing.
of curing. At At 3 days
3 days of
of curing,
curing,
Figure flexure
flexure strength
strength
8 shows of 15%
theofstrength–age
15% metakaolin
metakaolin is approximately
is approximately
relationship of flexureequal equal
to that
strength to that
inof theofreference
which 7the ref-
days’
erence concrete
concrete
control flexure (7 days’concrete
(7 days’strength
control control
of UHPC concrete
compressive compressive
strength),
was considered strength),
similar similar
to the
as reference toThe
the optimum
compressive
strength. compres-
strength.
sive
dose strength.
Flexure Flexure
strength at (15%)
of metakaolin strength
7 days’was at
curing 7 days’ curing
at 15% for
considered at
metakaolin 15%
comparison metakaolin
is 44% more
with is
daysthan 44% more
that ofAt
of curing. than that
reference
3 days
concrete,
of curing, while
flexure14strength
days’ flexure
of 15%strength
metakaolinof UHPC is 23% moreequal
is approximately thantothatthatofofreference
the ref-
erence concrete (7 days’ control concrete compressive strength), similar tomore
concrete. At 28 days of curing, the compressive strength of UHPC is 45% than that
the compres-
sive strength. Flexure strength at 7 days’ curing at 15% metakaolin is 44% more than that
Materials 2022, 15, 4131 13 of 27

of reference concrete, while 14 days’ flexure strength of UHPC is 23% more than that of
reference concrete. At 28 days of curing, the compressive strength of UHPC is 45% more
of reference
than concrete. concrete.
that of reference It can be It
concluded that flexure
can be concluded thatofflexure
UHPCofisUHPC
much is
higher
muchthan its
higher
compressive
than strengthstrength
its compressive due to the
duepresence of fibers.of fibers.
to the presence
MT-0%
140.0%
120.0%
100.0%
80.0%
3-Days
60.0%
MT-20%
40.0% MT-5% 7-Days
20.0% 14-Days
0.0% 28-Days
56-Days
CON(7-Days)
MT-15% MT-10%
Figure
Figure 8.
8. Flexure
Flexure strength–age relationship: data
strength–age relationship: source [55].
data source [55].
Table 4.
Table 4. Summary
Summary of
of mechanical
mechanical performance
performance of
of UHPC.
UHPC.
Tensile
Authors/ Authors/ Fiber Type Fiber Type
Compressive Compressive FlexuralFlexural Tensile
MaterialReference
W/C Material W/C Strength
Reference % %
Strength Strength
(MPa) (MPa) Strength
Strength (MPa) (MPa)
Strength (MPa)
(MPa)
Straight Straight
----- ----- ---- ---- ------ ------
0 0 110 110 18 18 - - - -------
--
1 1 125 125 20 20 - - - -------
--
2 2 145 145 25 25 - - - -------
--
3 3 150 150 35 35 - - - -------
--
Corrugated Corrugated
------- ------- ---- ---- - - - -------
--
Wu et al. Wu et al.
Silica fume [27] 0.18 Silica fume1 0.18 1 135 135 23 23 - - - -------
--
[27] 2 145 145 28
2 28 - - - -------
--
3 3 155 155 37 37 - - - -------
--
Hooked Hooked
------ ------ ---- ---- - - - -------
--
1 1 140 140 25 25 - - - -------
--
2 155 32
2 155 32 - - - --------
---
3 165 40
3 165 40 - - - --------
---
Shafieifar et al. Straight -----
Straight 0.15 8.3 4.9
Shafieifar et al. (2017) Premix- (2017) Premix-ductal 0%- - - - - 40.4 8.3 4.921.9
37.6
[28] ductal [28] 0.15 0% 2% 40.4 138 37.6 21.9
2%
Silica fume 138 ----- ------ ------
Silica fume 0 ----- 81 ------ 13.06 - - - -4.53
--
0 Zemei et al. 5 81 98 13.06 14.38 4.535.23
5 10 0.18 2% 98 112 14.38 17.23 5.237.87
Zemei et al. [29]
10 0.18 15 2% 112 115 17.23 14.63 7.87 7.65
[29] 20 113 15.15
15 115 14.63 7.656.01
20 25 113 110 15.15 13.84 6.01 5.76
25 SF 10% 110 13.84 --- 5.76---
GGBS --- ---
Wang et al.
0 0.18 NA 138 --- ---
[53]
20 122 --- ---
40 110 --- ---
Materials 2022, 15, 4131 14 of 27
Table 4. Cont.
Authors/ Fiber Type Compressive Flexural Tensile

Material W/C
Reference % Strength (MPa) Strength (MPa) Strength (MPa)
SF 10%
GGBS --- ---
0 138 --- ---
20 122 --- ---
Wang et al.
40 0.18 NA 110 --- ---
[53]
LP --- ---
0 142 --- ---
20 150
40 130
%GNPs/%CN’s GNPs/CNFs GNPs/CNFs GNPs/CNFs
0/0 174/174 7.73/7.73 5.84/5.84
GNPs 0.05/0.05 174.5/16 8.17/8.49 7.01/6.49
W. Meng et al.
SF 0.2 0.1/0.1 177/177 8.28/8.94 7.65/6.99
[30]
FA 0.15/0.15 180/178 10.7/9.53 7.97/7.32
0.2/0.2 182/181 11.12/10.1 8.36/7.67
0.3/0.3 184/184 11.26/10.7 9.09/8.17
SF ----- ----- -----
P. R. Prem et al. SF 0 132 16 11.3
0.2
[44] QP 2 175.28 43 23.2
2.5 171.35 33.35 19.1
LS 30% ---- ---- ----
MK ---- ---- ----
0 72 11.5 ----
Mo et al.
5 0.2 NA 91 18.3 ----
[55]
10 93 17.8 ----
15 97 16.3 ----
20 82 17.8 ----
Macro-steel
---- --- ---
fiber
C.C. Hung et al. 150 --- 5.9
SF + QP 0.135 0
[54] 126 --- 6.1
1
132 --- 6.6
2
0.16/0.62 SF ---- ---- ---
0.62 0 38.8 3.95 2.97
Aziz and Ahmed
SF 0.16 0 131.4 22.24 11.03
[28]
0.16 0.12 125.2 18.45 8.91
0.2 0.26 126.8 19.63 13.76
SF + GS
159 104 ------
SF0 139 132 ------
SF (10%, 20%, ------
SF10 146 144
30%) ------
SF20 158 160
GGBS (10%, ------
SF30 ----- 159
M.A. Ibrahim et al. 20%) 0.18 to ------
GS 144 160
[46] FA (10%, 20%) 0.24 ------
0% 152 144
GS (0%, 5%, ------
5% 154 154
10%, 15%, ------
10% 155 147
20%, 25%) ------
15% 160 ----
20% 161 ---- ------
25%
Materials 2022, 15, 4131 15 of 27
Table 4. Cont.

Material W/C
(St.F + PPF +
St. fiber
SF + SFP)%
0+0+0+0
0.5 + 0.03 + 90 12.7
Silica fume-SF 0.5 17.4 + 2.2 128.1 6.6
Ultra-fine 0.75 1 + 0.06 + 127 12.6
H.J. Chen et al.
0.195 1 18.7 + 2.2 ------ ------
[49] silicon
powder-SFP PP-fibers ---------------- 121.6 14.7
0.03 0.75 + 0.03 + 123.6 12.2
0.06 18.7 + 3.2 125.8 12.7
0.09 0.75 + 0.09 +
20 + 2.2
1 + 0.03 + 20 + 2.7
----
---
Nano-silica ---
---
0 78
10.4
1 79.9
11.9
2 81.5
12.8
3
13.4
4 Macro-steel 89.2
14
Yu et al. 5 fiber 91.3 ---
0.4 13.2
[51] ---- 0% 86.9 ---
------
0 2.5% -----
18
1 113
21.2
2 120
22.5
3 129
24.4
4 136
25
5 138.4
24.1
136.4
Straight steel
fibers
0%
WG–0% 115 9
WG–0.18% 112 9
WG–0.22% 110 8
Welan Gun
WG–0.27% 105 7
Powder-WG
--- --
(0%, 0.18%, 1% 120 15
0.22%, 0.27%)
WG–0% 119.8 17
WG–0.18% 119.5 16
Class-c fly
WG–0.22% 117 15
Teng et al. ash- 40%
0.2 WG–0.27% --- ---
[45] Silica
128 16
fume 5% 2% 127 19
Air-
WG–0% 125 21
detraining
WG–0.18% 121 20
admixture,
WG–0.22% --- ---
polyether,
WG–0.27% 133 20
0.8%
132 23
3%
131.2 26
WG–0% 130 27
WG–0.18%
WG–0.22%
WG–0.27%
Materials 2022, 15, 4131 16 of 27
Table 4. Cont.

Material W/C
SF%–FA%
120 ------ ------
0–0
127 ------ ------
0–30
120 ------ ------
Azmee et al. 0–40
0.16 Steel fiber = 1% 9898 ------ ------
[32] 0–50
128 ------ ------
10–30
130 ------ ------
10–40
117 ------ ------
10–50
Micro SF
(const)-straight
= 1%
28-day avg 11.9 ------
SF Macro SF
Kwon et al. compressive 12.4 ------
Anti-foaming 0.22 (varying)
[69] strength = 16.1 ------
agent 0.5
182 MPa 20.1 ------
1
1.5
2
5. Durability
5.1. Water Absorption and Porosity
It is well known that concrete with high water permeability can become a barrier that
allows chemicals, such as chloride ions, to diffuse into it and eventually result in corrosion
of steel rebars and/or fibers. UHPC is characterized by much smaller porosity and a much
denser microstructure than both conventional concrete (CC) and high-performance concrete
(HPC). The low porosity makes UHPC a superior permeability-resistant material. The
water absorption capability of concrete can easily provide information on factors such as
the porosity and quantity of permeable pores and the interconnectedness of those pores [70].
The durability of concrete increases with a decrease in the water absorption capacity of
the concrete.
In comparison to HPC, UHPC’s potential absorption of water is about ten times lower,
and it is 60 times lower than NSC’s potential absorption of water [71]. The reduction of
pores in UHPC means UHPC has excellent durability [72]. A study found that the pores
have an average diameter less than 5 nm and the volume of the pores is between 1%
and 2% of the total volume of the pores in UHPC [73]. It has been found that the water
absorption coefficient of UHPC after 90 days is approximately five times lower than that
of control concrete [74]. An analysis of one study revealed an average water penetration
height and a relative seepage height of 7.2 and 2.2 × 10−8 mm, respectively, as determined
by a single pressure method [75]. Compared to the reference mixture, the UHPC-NSC made
with nanoparticles showed a 36% lower water absorption rate than the reference mixture.
The gas permeability coefficient of UHPC is less than 1.0 × 10−19 , which is three orders
of magnitude lower than the gas permeability coefficient of conventional concrete. When
the porosity of the pores is low, and the pore connectivity is restricted, water absorption is
greatly reduced. With the addition of mineral admixture to UHPC, the microstructure of
UHPC becomes more homogeneous, and the thickness of the ITZ is significantly reduced.
In such a case, it reduces the UHPC’s water absorption capacity because it partially blocks
its water transport pathway [76].
5.2. Chloride Penetration

It has been identified that chloride ion penetration resistance is one of the most critical
factors in concrete strength. It is known that concrete that has a higher tolerance to chloride
has a higher ductility. A series of variables such as the w/b ratio, exposure conditions,
Materials 2022, 15, 4131 17 of 27
curing regime, and exposure duration determine the degree of chloride penetration [77].
Chloride ions diffuse in the concrete’s pores or can be chemically and physically bound
to hydration products [78]. It is also possible to estimate the penetration of chloride ions
by using the rapid chloride ion penetrability test in terms of the number of coulombs
(electric current) passed through the specimens [79]. Chloride can be classified into free
chlorides and bound chlorides, depending on the binding method. Chloride ions are
chemically bound to cement compounds and can react with their compositions to form
salts. A penetration of free chloride ions into steel/fiber-reinforced concrete may result in
passivation of the steel rebar and/or fiber and the initiation of a corrosion process leading
to the degradation of concrete structures [80]. A high alkaline pore solution is used for
passivating steel reinforcements in concrete to protect against corrosion. It has been found
that the passive layer on the steel surface can be damaged by aggressive chloride ions
and/or the neutralization of the environment near the reinforcements. This corrosion leads
to the deterioration of steel reinforcements and eventually to the deterioration of concrete
structures, reducing their service life [81]. It has been concluded from research that the
distribution and the interconnection of pores and cracks are important factors contributing
to the water transport and distribution in cement-based materials, which have a significant
impact on their permeability. Based on previous studies, it has been shown that the filling
effect and the nucleation effect of NS can significantly improve the compactness of concrete
by boosting cement hydration [82]. A study noted that the chloride ion diffusion coefficients
of UHPC were less than 1.4 × 10–13 m2 /s [83]. A study noted that the addition of steel
fibers to UHPC did not cause any electrical short-circuiting during the rapid chloride ion
penetration test because they were shorter in length and randomly distributed throughout
the material [84]. It was also found that the total value of charges passed through thermally
treated UHPC specimens was 22 coulombs, which is much lower than the values for HPC
(216 coulombs) and NSC (1736 coulombs) [85].
5.3. Freezing and Thawing

The damage caused by freezing–thawing occurs in concrete when water molecules
freeze and expand beyond the volume limitations of the concrete. As a result, concrete
becomes distressed, especially when the pressure develops higher than its tensile strength,
eventually resulting in dilation and rupture of the cavities within. In most cases, concrete
deterioration is caused by freeze–thaw action, including random cracking, surface scaling,
and joint deterioration due to cracking [86]. It has a negative effect on both the mechanical
and permeability properties of the concrete and the other durability properties of the
concrete. It is especially difficult for the UHPC to deal with freezing and thawing. This
factor is essential for achieving a microstructure with an improved degree of homogeneity,
a lower permeability, and a reduced porosity [87]. It is generally possible to maintain
400–500 freezing–thawing cycles and 4500 wetting–drying cycles without deteriorating
the material [88]. The reduced porosity and permeability of UHPC allow it to resist
freezing and thawing more effectively [89]. A freeze–thaw degradation was not observed
in UHPC specimens after 800 freezing–thawing cycles, which was attributed to fewer
interconnected pores between the specimens [90]. Concrete frost resistance is generally
thought to be impacted by a number of pore structure parameters, particularly the amount
of porosity, the average diameter of air voids, the distribution of pore size, air content, and
the spacing coefficient between air voids [91]. A study found no considerable deterioration
on UHPC after 500 freezing–thawing cycles along with 4500 wetting–drying cycles. A
further observation was made to show that the addition of steel fibers appears to decrease
the degradation of the material inside by freezing and thawing [92]. With just 10% more fly
ash and 10% more silica fume, the UHPC’s resistance capacity is significantly improved [93].
5.4. Dry Shrinkage

Concrete shrinks when it dries out, which leads to cracking, which is caused by the loss
of water due to evaporation. The low w/c ratio facilitates the self-desiccation of UHPFRCs.
Materials 2022, 15, 4131 18 of 27
In the self-desiccation process of concrete, the internal relative humidity of the concrete
decreases during the hydration process, thus reducing the size of the pores and resulting in
increased capillary tension inside each individual pore. The presence of self-desiccation
condition induces the rapid development of the autogenous shrinkage of UHPFRC at
an early stage. However, only a very small amount of moisture exchange occurs in the
environment due to this condition. As a result, no shrinkage occurs after drying. However,
a substantial part of shrinkage occurs within the first few minutes after setting [94]. There
are several types of shrinkage in concrete, including chemical, carbonation, mechanical,
autogenous, and thermal shrinkage. According to a researcher, these types (autogenous
and thermal) of shrinkage are common in concrete. In addition, UHPC’s low porosity
and the evaporation of internal water are low, which minimizes drying shrinkage [8].
However, the autogenous shrinkage of UHPC is a problem due to the high amount of
cement consumption and the relatively low weight-to-volume ratio (w/b). Autogenous
shrinkage is a term used to describe a decrease in the volume of cement components at
the macroscopic level due to cement hydration after the first environment of setting [8].
A primary cause of this problem is the development of surface tension in the very fine
capillaries of the concrete matrix, which is caused by an insufficient amount of water in
the concrete matrix for the binder material to fully hydrate [95]. A study found that the
shrinkage in the mixture of UHPC without steel fibers was approximately 135% more than
that of the mixture with 2% steel fibers. Shrinkage reduction is explained by the fact that as
the cementitious matrix shrinks, shear stresses appear along the fiber matrix interface [96].
In response to these stresses, fibers are compressed, causing them to resist the tensile strains
in the matrix because of shrinkage. Table 5 shows a summary of the durability performance
of UHPC.
5.5. Creep of UHPC

Creep is the propensity of a substance to permanently distort under sustain load.
Concrete produces an instantaneous elastic strain when compressed [96]. A lower strain
rate allows for increased creep and crucial crack propagation, leading to greater defects. In
addition to the loading situation, concrete’s sensitivity to strain rate varies. Concrete creep
is influenced by several factors such loading rate, specimen size and shape, humidity, and
sustain stress [97]. UHPC exhibit high immediate and time-dependent deformations under
compression and tension when loaded at early ages. This is due to the comparatively low
stiffness of the material at an early age [98]. In the case of UHPC, the viscous character of
the cement matrix is consolidated over time as a result of the lower water/cement ratio,
while the water migrates into the concrete structure. In addition, the creep in the case of
UHPC is greatly reduced once heat treatment is applied [99]. A researcher investigates
the tensile and compression creep of ultra-high-performance concrete (UHPC), with and
without steel fiber reinforcing. One of the most important findings of his research was that
the tensile creep coefficient was equal to the compressive creep coefficient when cylindrical
and prismatic samples were loaded at 50% of their strength [98]. A study found that
thermally treated UHPC samples that were then subjected to long-term compression or
tensile efforts had less creep (about 40%) than samples that were not thermally treated [96].
Another study found that raising the load had no effect on creep. The creep coefficient
increased on cylinders exposed to long-term compression, even while the applied load was
doubled [100]. According to the results of research, the steel fibers enhance the stiffness of
the cross-sectional area. The steel fibers greatly shorten the amount of time required for the
stresses to stabilize [101].
5.6. Density
The density of concrete also plays a vital role in its durability. A higher density of
concrete results in more durable concrete as the water or harmful chemicals cannot pene-
trate into the concrete. Generally, UHPC has a higher density as compared to conventional
concrete. The typical range of UHPC density is 2400 to 2500 kg/m3 . Figure 9 shows the
greatly shorten the amount of time required for the stresses to stabilize [101].
5.6. Density
The density of concrete also plays a vital role in its durability. A higher density of
Materials 2022, 15, 4131 concrete results in more durable concrete as the water or harmful chemicals cannot 19 pen-
of 27
etrate into the concrete. Generally, UHPC has a higher density as compared to conven-
tional concrete. The typical range of UHPC density is 2400 to 2500 kg/m3. Figure 9 shows
density of UHPC
the density concrete.
of UHPC It can
concrete. It be
cannoted that that
be noted the density of UHPC
the density increases
of UHPC withwith
increases silica
fume.
silica fume.
Figure9.
Figure 9. Density
Density of
of UHPC
UHPC [102].
[102].
The increase in
The in density
densityforforthe
the15%
15%silica fume
silica fumemix is about
mix is about1% 1%larger thanthan
larger that of theof
that
0% 0%
the mix.mix.
TheThe
increase
increasein density withwith
in density silicasilica
is due to micro
is due filling
to micro and and
filling the pozzolanic
the pozzolanicre-
action; micro
reaction; microfilling thethe
filling voids in concrete
voids ingredients
in concrete leads leads
ingredients to more to dense
more concrete while
dense concrete
the pozzolanic
while reaction
the pozzolanic of silica
reaction fume fume
of silica form form
secondary cementitious
secondary materials,
cementitious i.e., cal-
materials, i.e.,
calcium silicate hydrate, improves the binding properties of cement paste, leadingtotomore
cium silicate hydrate, improves the binding properties of cement paste, leading more
dense concrete.
dense concrete. Furthermore,
Furthermore, UHPC UHPC concrete
concrete typical
typicalcontains
containsfibers,
fibers,which
whichalso
alsoplay
playan an
important role in the density of concrete. A study reported that the density of concrete
increased with fiber. The increase in density of concrete due to addition of fibers can be
attributed to crack prevention. Fiber prevents the propagation of cracks, resulting in more
dense concrete [26]. Another study also reported that fibers restrict the development of
dry shrinkage cracks, which improves the density of concrete. However, a further study
claims that a higher proportion of fibers causes a decrease in density of concrete due to
lack of flowability, which increases compaction, leading to more voids in concrete [13].
Therefore, the optimum amount of fiber is an important aspect of high-density concrete.
Most researchers report 1–2% fiber as the optimum proportion.
6. Thermal Properties of UHPC

A major problem for ultra-high-performance concrete is the presence of fire or high
temperatures (UHPC). After being exposed to 800 degrees Celsius, UHPCs may suffer a
strength loss of up to 80% [103]. UHPC structures are more vulnerable to fire and elevated
temperature due to the dense and compacted microstructure, low water-to-binder ratio,
and reduced porosity. As a result, these structures can be damaged and harmed easily by
the action of high temperatures and fire [104]. By exposing UHPC to a temperature ranging
from 1000–1200 ◦ C, physical and chemical changes occurred in the UHPC matrix, resulting
in disintegration mainly due to these alterations. The main reason for disintegration in
UHPC structures is exposure to final elevated temperature, blasting, and previous exposure
to fire [105]. The literature shows that the addition of polypropylene (PP) fibers may help in
controlling this problem and has the ability to lessen this issue. The fire resistance capacity
of UHPC can be enhanced by the addition of 0.6% polypropylene fibers, which also results
in preventing the spalling of concrete [72]. When the polypropylene fiber melts down at
high temperature, it produces spaces to evacuate the accumulated pressure and so the
fire resistance of the UHPC matrix is increased. Similarly, elevated temperature can also
affect the compressive strength of UHPC. Studies showed that when the UHPC specimens
Materials 2022, 15, 4131 20 of 27
were exposed to a temperature of 300 ◦ C, the compressive strength increased but beyond
300 ◦ C the strength was reduced [106]. This decrease in compressive strength is due to the
weakened internal microstructure of UHPC because of high temperature [107]. According
to the findings of the study, when compared to standard normal strength concrete beams,
UHPC beams may have a poorer fire resistance [108]. Steel slag has a critical role in
increasing the fire resistance of the UHPC structure [103]. UHPC is much denser than
conventional concrete (due to its lower water/powder ratio and the absence of entrained
air), so its thermal conductivity is higher than that of conventional concrete. This means
that a high temperature in the concrete will be reached much sooner in UHPC than in
conventional concrete. A study also observed that the thermal conductivity of UHPC
is higher than that of conventional concrete [109]. The specific heat capacity of UHPCs
is often lower than that of conventional PCs (again a denser material and with lower
moisture content). Due to the fact that UHPC is often used in extremely thin elements, the
thermal capacity of the element is reduced even more since there is less mass to absorb
the heat. UHPC is not recommended for use in high-temperature applications. Similarly,
another study reported that the specific heat capacity of UHPC is slightly lower than that
of conventional concrete [109].
Table 5. Summary of durability performance of UHPC.
Chloride Freezing and

Water
Authors/ Fiber Type Penetra- Thawing- Porosity
Material W/C Absorption
Reference (%) tion 28-Cycle (%)
(%)
(Coulombs) (g/m2 )
SF = 25%
White cement 637 17.7
0 295 20.7
15 89 98.8
25 --- ----
Silica powder 57 42.2
Alkaysi et al.
0 0.22 1.5% ----- 488.5 18 -----
[110]
15 939.5 18.2
25 ----- ----
GGBS 137.5 44.7
0 229 24.2
15 137.5 20.5
25
SF = 27%
Nano-silica 1.2 6.35 6.35
0% 1.1 4.74 4.74
Ghafari et al.
1% 0.2 NA 0.95 4.66 ----- 4.66
[111]
2% 0.80 4.30 4.30
3% 0.85 4.80 4.80
4%
Steel fibers
3.7
8 mm 0.0589 71
3.3
1% 0.0540 60
3
Silica fume 3% 0.0477 45
Abbas et al. 1.4
Quartz sand 0.23 6% -------- ----
[73] ----
Quartz powder 12 mm 0.0591 60
3.4
1% 0.0544 47
3.1
3% 0.0479 38
3.5
6%
Silica fume SF = 2%
8.9
Scheydt et al. quartz sand 0
0.21 10.9
[112] Quartz powder 2%-(N-Tem)
5.4
Basalt 2%-(90 ◦ C)
Materials 2022, 15, 4131 21 of 27
Table 5. Cont.
Chloride Freezing and

Water
Authors/ Fiber Type Penetra- Thawing- Porosity
Material W/C Absorption
Reference (%) tion 28-Cycle (%)
(%)
(Coulombs) (g/m2 )
SF OPC-
% kg/m3
0.5 15
Silica fume
Teichmann et al. 0.33 0 350 8.3
Quartz powder
[113] 0.24 0 450 6.2
Quartz sand
0.17 0 733 2
2 1000
Q-Powder
Steel fiber
SF-kg/m3 0
Piérard et al. 0
100 0.23 6
[114] 1
166 5
0
156
SF RHA
Kg/m3 Kg/m3
18 3.75
276 0
8 ----- ----
230 46
Huang et al. 3.7 ----- 3.55
184 92 0.2 NA
[115] 6 ----- -----
138 138
6.8 3.41
92 184
7.5 3.61
46 230
0 276
Silica fume
2349.3
0%
464.3
10%
Coutinho et al. ------
Rice husk ash 0.43 NA
[116] 435
10%
322
15%
260
20%
Total shrinkage under initially air dried (AD), 3-day moist curing
-Lightweight
(3MC), and 7-day moist curing conditions
sand-(LWS)
(− reduction and + increased)
-CaO-based
expansive 28 days 91 days
agent (EXC) AD 3MC 7MC AD 3MC 7MC
- MgO-based
expansive −728
agent (EXM) −580
shrinkage −350
reducing −460
Valipour et al. agent-SRA −289
0.4 SF = 2% −273
[117] GGBS-50% −782 −780 −810 −820 −730
LWS-50% −371
−780 −698 −830 −750 −630
EXC-7.5% +254
−517 −413 −580 −465 −410
EXC7.5%LWS25% −560
−623 −519 −680 −575 −470
EXC7.5%LWS40% −480
−430 −333 −465 −370 −350
EXC7.5%LWS60% −468
−513 −400 −535 −453 −321
EXC5%LWS60% −250
−570 −500 −600 −551 −415
EXC10%LWS60% −94 −26 −110 −30 +105
EXM5%LWS60% −730 −690 −815 −750 −600
EXM7%LWS60% −690 −528 −756 −610 −520
SRA1.5%LWS60% −565 −550 −680 −750 −550
SRA3%LWS60% −318 −280 −455 −366 −310
Materials 2022, 15, 4131 22 of 27
7. Environmental and Cost Estimations of UHPC

Generally, the preliminary material cost of UHPC is greater than that of normal
strength concrete and high-strength concrete because of its extremely high cement content
and steel fiber addition. As a consequence of the use of UHPC, more sustainable building
may be achieved, with potentially superior economic, social, and environmental benefits.
Construction costs are closely related to the cross-sectional dimensions of structural parts.
The usage of UHPC structural parts aids in the reduction of cross-sectional dimensions,
hence allowing for the creation of more usable space in structures [118]. As a consequence of
UHPC’s high strength, it is possible to build more thin structures, which results in a decrease
in the building’s self-weight as fewer materials are used to form the structure. This may
result in a reduction in demolition trash, which in turn reduces the need for transportation
services; also, the transportation and labor cost of concrete decreases due to a lower quantity
of materials used even if the cement content needed in UHPC is more than that required in
conventional concrete. The cross-section size is bigger in the case of conventional concrete,
which increases its cost. Therefore, the material cost of UHPC may be lower when compared
to that of conventional concrete due to the larger cross-section. An investigation has shown
that the usage of UHPC results in a 50% reduction in energy consumption when compared
to the use of normal concrete construction methods [119]. Furthermore, the amount of
fine particles can be reduced to 30%, while no coarse materials are used in UHPC [120].
Furthermore, the use of by-products such as fly ash and silica fume in place of cement
makes UHPC more environmentally friendly and sustainable [84]. Because of the better
durability of UHPC, UHPC needs less maintenance and as a result, life-cycle costs may be
decreased [121]. Overall, because of its enhanced durability, environmental concerns and
economic advantages, UHPC has the potential to be an environmentally friendly material.
8. Conclusions
One of the most important factors in producing UHPC is to improve mechanical
and durability performance. A detailed review of the literature regarding the distinctive
features of UHPC was conducted in this study. The following conclusions can be drawn
based on the summary and discussion.
• UHPC should contain only fine aggregates like natural sand, silica sand, recycled glass
cullet, quartz sand, etc., and not coarse aggregates because they will weaken the ITZ.
• UHPC normally exhibits lower workability as compared to normal strength con-
crete. UHPC normally contains fiber, increasing the internal friction between concrete
ingredients, leading to lower workability.
• The best mechanical characteristics were obtained for UHPFRC mixtures when the
water-to-binder ratio was less than 0.20.
• Maximum mechanical and durability performance was achieved at 2.0% addition
of steel fiber by volume and hook-type fiber, further enhancing the performance
of UHPC.
• Low water absorption, porosity, carbonation depth, freezing and thawing action, and
dry shrinkage of UHPC make it usable in all types of aggressive environments.
• Thermal conductivity of UHPC is higher than that of conventional concrete due to
higher density.
• UHPC is not recommended for use in high-temperature applications due to its low
heat absorption capacity.
Finally, the overall performance of UHPC depends on the optimum percentages of
each ingredient. Most researchers focus on the quality of UHPC ingredients, while a
limited number of researchers have focused on optimization by performing statistical
analysis such as using the response surface methodology or artificial neural networks for
optimization of UHPC ingredients. Therefore, further study is recommended to optimize
UHPC ingredients using statistical tools. Furthermore, limited studies are available on the
durability aspects of UHPC.
Materials 2022, 15, 4131 23 of 27
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, R.U. and J.A.; methodology, Y.Q.; software, R.U.; valida-
tion, J.A., N.I.V. and M.A.E.-S.; formal analysis, R.U.; investigation, M.A.E.-S.; resources, Y.Q.; data
curation, M.A.E.-S.; writing—original draft preparation, R.U.; writing—review and editing, Y.Q.;
visualization, J.A.; supervision, Y.Q.; project administration, Y.Q.; funding acquisition, N.I.V. All
authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: The research is partially funded by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the
Russian Federation under the strategic academic leadership program ‘Priority 2030’ (Agreement
075-15-2021-1333 dated 30 September 2021).
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: All the data available in manuscript.
Conflicts of Interest: No conflicts interest is present among authors.
References
1. Russell, H.G.; Graybeal, B.A.; Russell, H.G. Ultra-High Performance Concrete: A State-of-the-Art Report for the Bridge Community; Fed-
eral Highway Administration Office of Infrastructure Research and Development: McLean, VA, USA, 2013. Available online: https:
//scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=1.%09Russell%2C+H.G.%3B+Graybeal%2C+B.A.%3B+Russell%
2C+H.G.+Ultra-High+Performance+Concrete%3A+A+State-of-the-Art+Report+for+the+Bridge+Community%3B+United+
States%2C+Federal+Highway+Administration.+Office+of+Infrastructure+Research+and+Development+%3A+2013.&btnG=
(accessed on 17 March 2022).
2. Meng, W.; Valipour, M.; Khayat, K.H. Optimization and Performance of Cost-Effective Ultra-High Performance Concrete. Mater.
Struct. 2017, 50, 29. [CrossRef]
3. Graybeal, B.; Crane, C.K.; Perry, V.; Corvez, D.; Ahlborn, T.M. Advancing Ultra-High-Performance Concrete. Concr. Int. 2019,
41, 41–45.
4. Kusumawardaningsih, Y.; Fehling, E.; Ismail, M.; Aboubakr, A.A.M. Tensile Strength Behavior of UHPC and UHPFRC. Procedia
Eng. 2015, 125, 1081–1086. [CrossRef]
5. de Larrard, F.; Sedran, T. Optimization of Ultra-High-Performance Concrete by the Use of a Packing Model. Cem. Concr. Res.
1994, 24, 997–1009. [CrossRef]
6. Graybeal, B. Ultra-High Performance Concrete (FHWA-HRT-11-038); Federal Highway Administration: Washington, DC, USA, 2011.
7. Wille, K.; Naaman, A.E.; El-Tawil, S.; Parra-Montesinos, G.J. Ultra-High Performance Concrete and Fiber Reinforced Concrete:
Achieving Strength and Ductility without Heat Curing. Mater. Struct. 2012, 45, 309–324. [CrossRef]
8. Wang, D.; Shi, C.; Wu, Z.; Xiao, J.; Huang, Z.; Fang, Z. A Review on Ultra High Performance Concrete: Part II. Hydration,
Microstructure and Properties. Constr. Build. Mater. 2015, 96, 368–377. [CrossRef]
9. Zollo, R.F. Fiber-Reinforced Concrete: An Overview after 30 Years of Development. Cem. Concr. Compos. 1997, 19, 107–122.
[CrossRef]
10. Chan, Y.-W.; Chu, S.-H. Effect of Silica Fume on Steel Fiber Bond Characteristics in Reactive Powder Concrete. Cem. Concr. Res.
2004, 34, 1167–1172. [CrossRef]
11. Kang, S.T.; Lee, B.Y.; Kim, J.-K.; Kim, Y.Y. The Effect of Fibre Distribution Characteristics on the Flexural Strength of Steel
Fibre-Reinforced Ultra High Strength Concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2011, 25, 2450–2457. [CrossRef]
12. Sbia, L.A.; Peyvandi, A.; Soroushian, P.; Lu, J.; Balachandra, A.M. Enhancement of Ultrahigh Performance Concrete Material
Properties with Carbon Nanofiber. Adv. Civ. Eng. 2014, 2014, 854729.
13. Ahmad, J.; Manan, A.; Ali, A.; Khan, M.W.; Asim, M.; Zaid, O. A Study on Mechanical and Durability Aspects of Concrete
Modified with Steel Fibers (SFs). Civ. Eng. Archit. 2020, 8, 814–823. [CrossRef]
14. Rao, G.A. Investigations on the Performance of Silica Fume-Incorporated Cement Pastes and Mortars. Cem. Concr. Res. 2003, 33,
1765–1770. [CrossRef]
15. Vikan, H.; Justnes, H. Rheology of Cementitious Paste with Silica Fume or Limestone. Cem. Concr. Res. 2007, 37, 1512–1517. [CrossRef]
16. Yan, H.; Sun, W.; Chen, H. The Effect of Silica Fume and Steel Fiber on the Dynamic Mechanical Performance of High-Strength
Concrete. Cem. Concr. Res. 1999, 29, 423–426. [CrossRef]
17. Si, R.; Dai, Q.; Guo, S.; Wang, J. Mechanical Property, Nanopore Structure and Drying Shrinkage of Metakaolin-Based Geopolymer
with Waste Glass Powder. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 242, 118502. [CrossRef]
18. Williams, E.M.; Graham, S.S.; Reed, P.A.; Rushing, T.S. Laboratory Characterization of Cor-Tuf Concrete with and without Steel
Fibers; Engineer Research and Development Center Vicksburg Ms Geotechnical and Structures Lab.: Vicksburg, MS, USA, 2009;
Available online: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=18.%09Williams%2C+E.M.%3B+Graham%2C+
S.S.%3B+Reed%2C+P.A.%3B+Rushing%2C+T.S.+Laboratory+Characterization+of+Cor-Tuf+Concrete+with+and+without+
Steel+Fibers%3B+Engineer+Research+and+Development+Center+Vicksburg+Ms+Geotechnical+and+Structures+Lab+.%3A+
2009.&btnG= (accessed on 17 March 2022).
Materials 2022, 15, 4131 24 of 27
19. Zhang, D.; Dasari, A.; Tan, K.H. On the Mechanism of Prevention of Explosive Spalling in Ultra-High Performance Concrete with
Polymer Fibers. Cem. Concr. Res. 2018, 113, 169–177. [CrossRef]
20. Ahmad, J.; Zaid, O.; Shahzaib, M.; Abdullah, M.U.; Ullah, A.; Ullah, R. Mechanical Properties of Sustainable Concrete Modified
by Adding Marble Slurry as Cement Substitution. AIMS Mater. Sci. 2021, 8, 343–358. [CrossRef]
21. IS 383. Specification for Coarse and Fine Aggregates from Natural Sources for Concrete. Bureau for Indian Standards: New Delhi,
India, 1970.
22. Rajput, S.P.S.; Chauhan, M.S. Suitability of Crushed Stone Dust as Fine Aggregate in Mortars. Micron 2014, 89, 35–59.
23. Sidodikromo, E.P.; Chen, Z.; Habib, M. Review of the Cement-Based Composite Ultra-High-Performance Concrete (UHPC). Open
Civ. Eng. J. 2019, 13, 147–162. [CrossRef]
24. C 1240-2005. Standard Specification for Silica Fume Used in Cementitious Mixtures. ASTM International: West Conshohocken,
PA, USA, 2005.
25. Harrison, T. Standards for Fresh Concrete; BSI British Standards Institution: London, UK, 2004; ISBN 0580421155.
26. Ahmad, J.; Zaid, O.; Siddique, M.S.; Aslam, F.; Alabduljabbar, H.; Khedher, K.M. Mechanical and Durability Characteristics
of Sustainable Coconut Fibers Reinforced Concrete with Incorporation of Marble Powder. Mater. Res. Express 2021, 8, 075505.
[CrossRef]
27. Wu, Z.; Shi, C.; He, W.; Wu, L. Effects of Steel Fiber Content and Shape on Mechanical Properties of Ultra High Performance
Concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2016, 103, 8–14. [CrossRef]
28. Shafieifar, M.; Farzad, M.; Azizinamini, A. Experimental and Numerical Study on Mechanical Properties of Ultra High Perfor-
mance Concrete (UHPC). Constr. Build. Mater. 2017, 156, 402–411. [CrossRef]
29. Wu, Z.; Khayat, K.H.; Shi, C. Changes in Rheology and Mechanical Properties of Ultra-High Performance Concrete with Silica
Fume Content. Cem. Concr. Res. 2019, 123, 105786. [CrossRef]
30. Meng, W.; Khayat, K.H. Mechanical Properties of Ultra-High-Performance Concrete Enhanced with Graphite Nanoplatelets and
Carbon Nanofibers. Compos. Part B Eng. 2016, 107, 113–122. [CrossRef]
31. Kim, H.; Koh, T.; Pyo, S. Enhancing Flowability and Sustainability of Ultra High Performance Concrete Incorporating High
Replacement Levels of Industrial Slags. Constr. Build. Mater. 2016, 123, 153–160. [CrossRef]
32. Azmee, N.M.; Nuruddin, M.F. Impact Performance of Low Cement Ultra-High-Performance Concrete. WIT Trans. Ecol. Environ.
2017, 223, 481–488.
33. Park, S.H.; Kim, D.J.; Ryu, G.S.; Koh, K.T. Tensile Behavior of Ultra High Performance Hybrid Fiber Reinforced Concrete. Cem.
Concr. Compos. 2012, 34, 172–184. [CrossRef]
34. Mészöly, T.; Ofner, S.; Randl, N. Effect of Combining Fiber and Textile Reinforcement on the Flexural Behavior of UHPC Plates.
Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2020, 2020, 9891619. [CrossRef]
35. Christ, R.; Pacheco, F.; Ehrenbring, H.; Quinino, U.; Mancio, M.; Muñoz, Y.; Tutikian, B. Study of Mechanical Behavior of
Ultra-High Performance Concrete (UHPC) Reinforced with Hybrid Fibers and with Reduced Cement Consumption. Rev. Ing.
Construcción 2019, 34. [CrossRef]
36. Abbas, S.; Nehdi, M.L.; Saleem, M.A. Ultra-High Performance Concrete: Mechanical Performance, Durability, Sustainability and
Implementation Challenges. Int. J. Concr. Struct. Mater. 2016, 10, 271–295. [CrossRef]
37. Fennis, S.A.A.M.; Walraven, J.C.; Den Uijl, J.A. The Use of Particle Packing Models to Design Ecological Concrete. Heron 2009,
54, 185–204.
38. Yu, R.; Spiesz, P.; Brouwers, H.J.H. Mix Design and Properties Assessment of Ultra-High Performance Fibre Reinforced Concrete
(UHPFRC). Cem. Concr. Res. 2014, 56, 29–39. [CrossRef]
39. Taghaddos, H.; Mahmoudzadeh, F.; Pourmoghaddam, A.; Shekarchizadeh, M. Prediction of Compressive Strength Behaviour in
RPC with Applying an Adaptive Network-Based Fuzzy Interface System. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on
Ultra High Performance Concrete, Kassel, Germany, 13–15 September 2004; pp. 273–284.
40. Ghafari, E.; Costa, H.; Júlio, E. RSM-Based Model to Predict the Performance of Self-Compacting UHPC Reinforced with Hybrid
Steel Micro-Fibers. Constr. Build. Mater. 2014, 66, 375–383. [CrossRef]
41. Ahmad, J.; Aslam, F.; Martinez-Garcia, R.; De-Prado-Gil, J.; Qaidi, S.M.A.; Brahmia, A. Effects of Waste Glass and Waste Marble
on Mechanical and Durability Performance of Concrete. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 21525. [CrossRef]
42. Ahmad, J.; Zaid, O.; Aslam, F.; Shahzaib, M.; Ullah, R.; Alabduljabbar, H.; Khedher, K.M. A Study on the Mechanical Characteris-
tics of Glass and Nylon Fiber Reinforced Peach Shell Lightweight Concrete. Materials 2021, 14, 4488. [CrossRef]
43. Ahmad, J.; Tufail, R.F.; Aslam, F.; Mosavi, A.; Alyousef, R.; Faisal Javed, M.; Zaid, O.; Khan Niazi, M.S. A Step towards Sustainable
Self-Compacting Concrete by Using Partial Substitution of Wheat Straw Ash and Bentonite Clay Instead of Cement. Sustainability
2021, 13, 824. [CrossRef]
44. Prem, P.R.; Bharatkumar, B.H.; Iyer, N.R. Mechanical Properties of Ultra High Performance Concrete. World Acad. Sci. Eng.
Technol. 2012, 68, 1969–1978.
45. Teng, L.; Meng, W.; Khayat, K.H. Rheology Control of Ultra-High-Performance Concrete Made with Different Fiber Contents.
Cem. Concr. Res. 2020, 138, 106222. [CrossRef]
46. Ibrahim, M.A.; Farhat, M.; Issa, M.A.; Hasse, J.A. Effect of Material Constituents on Mechanical and Fracture Mechanics Properties
of Ultra-High-Performance Concrete. ACI Mater. J. 2017, 114, 453. [CrossRef]
Materials 2022, 15, 4131 25 of 27
47. Yu, R.; Spiesz, P.; Brouwers, H.J.H. Development of an Eco-Friendly Ultra-High Performance Concrete (UHPC) with Efficient
Cement and Mineral Admixtures Uses. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2015, 55, 383–394. [CrossRef]
48. He, J.; Chen, W.; Zhang, B.; Yu, J.; Liu, H. The Mechanical Properties and Damage Evolution of UHPC Reinforced with Glass
Fibers and High-Performance Polypropylene Fibers. Materials 2021, 14, 2455. [CrossRef]
49. Chen, H.-J.; Yu, Y.-L.; Tang, C.-W. Mechanical Properties of Ultra-High Performance Concrete before and after Exposure to High
Temperatures. Materials 2020, 13, 770. [CrossRef]
50. Fadzil, A.M.; Norhasri, M.; Hamidah, M.S.; Zaidi, M.R.; Mohd Faizal, J. Alteration of Nano Metakaolin for Ultra High Performance
Concrete. In InCIEC 2013; Springer: Singapore, 2014; pp. 887–894.
51. Yu, R.; Spiesz, P.; Brouwers, H.J.H. Effect of Nano-Silica on the Hydration and Microstructure Development of Ultra-High
Performance Concrete (UHPC) with a Low Binder Amount. Constr. Build. Mater. 2014, 65, 140–150. [CrossRef]
52. Rezania, M.; Panahandeh, M.; Razavi, S.M.J.; Berto, F. Experimental Study of the Simultaneous Effect of Nano-Silica and
Nano-Carbon Black on Permeability and Mechanical Properties of the Concrete. Theor. Appl. Fract. Mech. 2019, 104, 102391.
[CrossRef]
53. Wang, C.; Yang, C.; Liu, F.; Wan, C.; Pu, X. Preparation of Ultra-High Performance Concrete with Common Technology and
Materials. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2012, 34, 538–544. [CrossRef]
54. Hung, C.-C.; Chen, Y.-T.; Yen, C.-H. Workability, Fiber Distribution, and Mechanical Properties of UHPC with Hooked End Steel
Macro-Fibers. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 260, 119944. [CrossRef]
55. Mo, Z.; Wang, R.; Gao, X. Hydration and Mechanical Properties of UHPC Matrix Containing Limestone and Different Levels of
Metakaolin. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 256, 119454. [CrossRef]
56. Li, S.; Cheng, S.; Mo, L.; Deng, M. Effects of Steel Slag Powder and Expansive Agent on the Properties of Ultra-High Performance
Concrete (UHPC): Based on a Case Study. Materials 2020, 13, 683. [CrossRef]
57. Khatib, J.M. Metakaolin Concrete at a Low Water to Binder Ratio. Constr. Build. Mater. 2008, 22, 1691–1700. [CrossRef]
58. Parande, A.K.; Babu, B.R.; Karthik, M.A.; Kumaar, K.K.D.; Palaniswamy, N. Study on Strength and Corrosion Performance for
Steel Embedded in Metakaolin Blended Concrete/Mortar. Constr. Build. Mater. 2008, 22, 127–134. [CrossRef]
59. Wild, S.; Khatib, J.M. Portlandite Consumption in Metakaolin Cement Pastes and Mortars. Cem. Concr. Res. 1997, 27, 137–146.
[CrossRef]
60. Weng, T.-L.; Lin, W.-T.; Cheng, A. Effect of Metakaolin on Strength and Efflorescence Quantity of Cement-Based Composites. Sci.
World J. 2013, 2013, 606524. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
61. Givi, A.N.; Rashid, S.A.; Aziz, F.N.A.; Salleh, M.A.M. Experimental Investigation of the Size Effects of SiO2 Nano-Particles on the
Mechanical Properties of Binary Blended Concrete. Compos. Part B Eng. 2010, 41, 673–677. [CrossRef]
62. Horszczaruk, E.; Sikora, P.; Cendrowski, K.; Mijowska, E. The Effect of Elevated Temperature on the Properties of Cement Mortars
Containing Nanosilica and Heavyweight Aggregates. Constr. Build. Mater. 2017, 137, 420–431. [CrossRef]
63. Behfarnia, K.; Rostami, M. Effects of Micro and Nanoparticles of SiO2 on the Permeability of Alkali Activated Slag Concrete.
Constr. Build. Mater. 2017, 131, 205–213. [CrossRef]
64. Wu, Z.; Shi, C.; He, W.; Wang, D. Uniaxial Compression Behavior of Ultra-High Performance Concrete with Hybrid Steel Fiber. J.
Mater. Civ. Eng. 2016, 28, 6016017. [CrossRef]
65. Hamiruddin, N.A.; Abd Razak, R.; Muhammad, K. Effect of Steel Fibre Contents with High Strength Fibre Reinforced Concrete. J.
Impact Factor 2018, 3, 113.
66. Ferdosian, I.; Camões, A.; Ribeiro, M. High-Volume Fly Ash Paste for Developing Ultra-High Performance Concrete (UHPC).
Ciência Tecnol. dos Mater. 2017, 29, e157–e161. [CrossRef]
67. Li, Q.; Geng, H.; Huang, Y.; Shui, Z. Chloride Resistance of Concrete with Metakaolin Addition and Seawater Mixing: A
Comparative Study. Constr. Build. Mater. 2015, 101, 184–192. [CrossRef]
68. Abdelmelek, N.; Lubloy, E. Flexural Strength of Silica Fume, Fly Ash, and Metakaolin of Hardened Cement Paste after Exposure
to Elevated Temperatures. J. Therm. Anal. Calorim. 2021, 11, 1–11. [CrossRef]
69. Kwon, S.; Nishiwaki, T.; Kikuta, T.; Mihashi, H. Tensile Behavior of Ultra High Performance Hybrid Fiber Reinforced Cement-
Based Composites. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Fracture Mechanics of Concrete and Concrete Structures
(FraMCoS-8), Toledo, Spain, 10–14 March 2013; pp. 1309–1314.
70. Sabet, F.A.; Libre, N.A.; Shekarchi, M. Mechanical and Durability Properties of Self Consolidating High Performance Concrete
Incorporating Natural Zeolite, Silica Fume and Fly Ash. Constr. Build. Mater. 2013, 44, 175–184. [CrossRef]
71. Rossi, P. Influence of Fibre Geometry and Matrix Maturity on the Mechanical Performance of Ultra High-Performance Cement-
Based Composites. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2013, 37, 246–248. [CrossRef]
72. Heinz, D.; Ludwig, H.-M. Heat Treatment and the Risk of DEF Delayed Ettringite Formation in UHPC. In Proceedings of the
International Symposium on UHPC, Kassel, Germany, 13–15 September 2004; pp. 717–730.
73. Abbas, S.; Soliman, A.M.; Nehdi, M.L. Exploring Mechanical and Durability Properties of Ultra-High Performance Concrete
Incorporating Various Steel Fiber Lengths and Dosages. Constr. Build. Mater. 2015, 75, 429–441. [CrossRef]
74. Dobias, D.; Pernicova, R.; Mandlik, T. Water Transport Properties and Depth of Chloride Penetration in Ultra High Performance
Concrete. Key Eng. Mater. 2016, 711, 137–142.
75. Ahmad, J.; Aslam, F.; Zaid, O.; Alyousef, R.; Alabduljabbar, H. Mechanical and Durability Characteristics of Sustainable Concrete
Modified with Partial Substitution of Waste Foundry Sand. Struct. Concr. 2021, 22, 2775–2790. [CrossRef]
Materials 2022, 15, 4131 26 of 27
76. Du, H.; Du, S.; Liu, X. Durability Performances of Concrete with Nano-Silica. Constr. Build. Mater. 2014, 73, 705–712. [CrossRef]
77. Thomas, M.; Green, B.; O’Neal, E.; Perry, V.; Hayman, S.; Hossack, A. Marine Performance of UHPC at Treat Island. In
Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on UHPC and Nanotechnology for High Performance Construction Materials,
Kassel, Germany, 7–9 March 2012; pp. 365–370.
78. Yuan, Q.; Shi, C.; De Schutter, G.; Audenaert, K.; Deng, D. Chloride Binding of Cement-Based Materials Subjected to External
Chloride Environment—A Review. Constr. Build. Mater. 2009, 23, 1–13. [CrossRef]
79. Joshi, R.C.; Chatterji, S.; Achari, G.; Mackie, P. Reexamination of ASTM C 1202—Standard Test Method for Electrical Indication of
Concrete’s Ability to Resist Chloride Ion Penetration. J. Test. Eval. 2000, 28, 59–61.
80. Chen, Y.; Yu, R.; Wang, X.; Chen, J.; Shui, Z. Evaluation and Optimization of Ultra-High Performance Concrete (UHPC) Subjected
to Harsh Ocean Environment: Towards an Application of Layered Double Hydroxides (LDHs). Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 177,
51–62. [CrossRef]
81. Angst, U.M.; Elsener, B.; Larsen, C.K.; Vennesland, Ø. Chloride Induced Reinforcement Corrosion: Electrochemical Monitoring of
Initiation Stage and Chloride Threshold Values. Corros. Sci. 2011, 53, 1451–1464. [CrossRef]
82. Li, G.; Zhou, J.; Yue, J.; Gao, X.; Wang, K. Effects of Nano-SiO2 and Secondary Water Curing on the Carbonation and Chloride
Resistance of Autoclaved Concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 235, 117465. [CrossRef]
83. Voo, Y.L.; Foster, S.J. Characteristics of Ultra-High Performance ‘Ductile’Concrete and Its Impact on Sustainable Construction. IES
J. Part A Civ. Struct. Eng. 2010, 3, 168–187. [CrossRef]
84. AÏtcin, P.-C. Cements of Yesterday and Today: Concrete of Tomorrow. Cem. Concr. Res. 2000, 30, 1349–1359. [CrossRef]
85. Schmidt, M.; Fehling, E.; Bornemann, R.; Bunje, K.; Teichmann, T. Ultra-High Performance Concrete: Perspective for the Precast
Concrete Industry. Betonw. UND Fert. 2003, 69, 16–29.
86. Mu, R.; Miao, C.; Luo, X.; Sun, W. Interaction between Loading, Freeze–Thaw Cycles, and Chloride Salt Attack of Concrete with
and without Steel Fiber Reinforcement. Cem. Concr. Res. 2002, 32, 1061–1066. [CrossRef]
87. Graybeal, B.A. Material Property Characterization of Ultra-High Performance Concrete; Federal Highway Administration Office of
Infrastructure Research and Development: McLean, VA, USA, 2006. Available online: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?
hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=87.%09Graybeal%2C+B.A.+Material+Property+Characterization+of+Ultra-High+Performance+
Concrete%3B+United+States.+Federal+Highway+Admin-istration.+Office+of+Infrastructure+Research+and+Development+
%3A+2006.&btnG= (accessed on 17 March 2022).
88. Vernet, C.P. Ultra-Durable Concretes: Structure at the Micro-and Nanoscale. MRS Bull. 2004, 29, 324–327. [CrossRef]
89. Bonneau, O.; Vernet, C.; Moranville, M.; AÏtcin, P.-C. Characterization of the Granular Packing and Percolation Threshold of
Reactive Powder Concrete. Cem. Concr. Res. 2000, 30, 1861–1867. [CrossRef]
90. Liu, J.; Song, S.; Wang, L. Durability and Micro-Structure of Reactive Powder Concrete. J. Wuhan Univ. Technol. Sci. Ed. 2009, 24,
506–509. [CrossRef]
91. Wang, L.; Guo, F.; Yang, H.; Wang, Y.A.N.; Tang, S. Comparison of Fly Ash, PVA Fiber, MgO and Shrinkage-Reducing Admixture
on the Frost Resistance of Face Slab Concrete via Pore Structural and Fractal Analysis. Fractals 2021, 29, 2140002. [CrossRef]
92. Dowd, W.M.; Dauriac, C.E. Reactive Powder Concrete: A French Engineering Company Has Developed a Concrete with a
Compressive Strength Two to Four Times Greater than That of HPC. Constr. Specif. 1996, 49, 47–53.
93. Yazıcı, H. The Effect of Silica Fume and High-Volume Class C Fly Ash on Mechanical Properties, Chloride Penetration and
Freeze–Thaw Resistance of Self-Compacting Concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2008, 22, 456–462. [CrossRef]
94. Kamen, A. Time Dependent Behaviour of Ultra High Performance Fibre Reinforced Concrete (UHPFRC). In Proceedings of the
6th International PhD Symposium in Civil Engineering, Zurich, Switzerland, 23–26 August 2006.
95. Shen, P.; Lu, L.; He, Y.; Rao, M.; Fu, Z.; Wang, F.; Hu, S. Experimental Investigation on the Autogenous Shrinkage of Steam Cured
Ultra-High Performance Concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 162, 512–522. [CrossRef]
96. Garas, V.Y.; Kahn, L.F.; Kurtis, K.E. Short-Term Tensile Creep and Shrinkage of Ultra-High Performance Concrete. Cem. Concr.
Compos. 2009, 31, 147–152. [CrossRef]
97. Burkart, I.; Müller, H.S. Creep and Shrinkage Characteristics of Ultra High Strength Concrete (UHPC). In Proceedings of the
Second International Symposium on Ultra High Performance Concrete, Kassel, Germany, 5–7 March 2008; pp. 469–476.
98. Kamen, A.; Denarié, E.; Sadouki, H.; Brühwiler, E. UHPFRC Tensile Creep at Early Age. Mater. Struct. 2009, 42, 113–122.
[CrossRef]
99. Graybeal, B.A. Characterization of the Behavior of Ultra-High Performance Concrete; University of Maryland: College Park, MD, USA,
2005; ISBN 0542183056.
100. Fanourakis, G.C.; Ballim, Y. Predicting Creep Deformation of Concrete: A Comparison of Results from Different Investigations.
In Proceedings of the 11th FIG Symposium on Deformation Measurements, Santorini, Greece, 25–28 May 2003; Volume 11.
101. Bărbos, G. Long-Term Behavior of Ultra–High Performance Concrete (UHPC) Bended Beams. Procedia Technol. 2016, 22, 203–210.
[CrossRef]
102. Shihada, S.; Arafa, M. Effects of Silica Fume, Ultrafine and Mixing Sequences on Properties of Ultra High Performance Concrete.
Asian J. Mater. Sci. 2010, 2, 137–146. [CrossRef]
103. Liang, X.; Wu, C.; Su, Y.; Chen, Z.; Li, Z. Development of Ultra-High Performance Concrete with High Fire Resistance. Constr.
Build. Mater. 2018, 179, 400–412. [CrossRef]
Materials 2022, 15, 4131 27 of 27
104. Way, R.; Wille, K. Material Characterization of an Ultra-High Performance Fibre-Reinforced Concrete under Elevated Temperature.
In Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on UHPC and Nanotechnology for High Performance Construction Materials,
105. Buttignol, T.E.T.; Sousa, J.; Bittencourt, T.N. Ultra High-Performance Fiber-Reinforced Concrete (UHPFRC): A Review of Material
Properties and Design Procedures. Rev. IBRACON Estruturas e Mater. 2017, 10, 957–971. [CrossRef]
106. Tai, Y.-S.; Pan, H.-H.; Kung, Y.-N. Mechanical Properties of Steel Fiber Reinforced Reactive Powder Concrete Following Exposure
to High Temperature Reaching 800 ◦ C. Nucl. Eng. Des. 2011, 241, 2416–2424. [CrossRef]
107. Li, H.; Liu, G. Tensile Properties of Hybrid Fiber-Reinforced Reactive Powder Concrete after Exposure to Elevated Temperatures.
Int. J. Concr. Struct. Mater. 2016, 10, 29–37. [CrossRef]
108. Banerji, S.; Solhmirzaei, R.; Kodur, V.K.R. Fire Response of Ultra High Performance Concrete Beams. Proc. Int. Interact. Sympos.
Ultra-High Perform. Concr. 2019, 2. [CrossRef]
109. Kodur, V.; Banerji, S.; Solhmirzaei, R. Effect of Temperature on Thermal Properties of Ultrahigh-Performance Concrete. J. Mater.
Civ. Eng. 2020, 32, 4020210. [CrossRef]
110. Alkaysi, M.; El-Tawil, S.; Liu, Z.; Hansen, W. Effects of Silica Powder and Cement Type on Durability of Ultra High Performance
Concrete (UHPC). Cem. Concr. Compos. 2016, 66, 47–56. [CrossRef]
111. Ghafari, E.; Costa, H.; Júlio, E.; Portugal, A.; Durães, L. The Effect of Nanosilica Addition on Flowability, Strength and Transport
Properties of Ultra High Performance Concrete. Mater. Des. 2014, 59, 1–9. [CrossRef]
112. Scheydt, J.C.; Müller, H.S. Microstructure of Ultra High Performance Concrete (UHPC) and Its Impact on Durability. In
Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on UHPC and Nanotechnology for High Performance Construction Materials,
113. Teichmann, T.; Schmidt, M. Influence of the Packing Density of Fine Particles on Structure, Strength and Durability of UHPC.
In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Ultra High Performance Concrete, Kassel, Germany, 13–15 September 2004;
pp. 313–323.
114. Piérard, J.; Dooms, B.; Cauberg, N. Durability Evaluation of Different Types of UHPC. In Proceedings of the RILEM-fib-
AFGC International Symposium on Ultra-High Performance Fiber-Reinforced Concrete, Marseille, France, 1–3 October 2013;
pp. 275–284.
115. Huang, H.; Gao, X.; Wang, H.; Ye, H. Influence of Rice Husk Ash on Strength and Permeability of Ultra-High Performance
Concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2017, 149, 621–628. [CrossRef]
116. Coutinho, J.S. The Combined Benefits of CPF and RHA in Improving the Durability of Concrete Structures. Cem. Concr. Compos.
2003, 25, 51–59. [CrossRef]
117. Valipour, M.; Khayat, K.H. Coupled Effect of Shrinkage-Mitigating Admixtures and Saturated Lightweight Sand on Shrinkage of
UHPC for Overlay Applications. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 184, 320–329. [CrossRef]
118. Hájek, P.; Fiala, C. Environmentally Optimized Floor Slabs Using UHPC-Contribution to Sustainable Building. In Proceedings of
the 2nd International Symposium on Ultra-High Performance Concrete, Kassel, Germany, 5–7 March 2008; pp. 879–886.
119. Racky, P. Cost-Effectiveness and Sustainability of UHPC. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Ultra High Perfor-
mance Concrete, Kassel, Germany, 13–15 September 2004; pp. 797–805.
120. Walraven, J. On the Way to Design Recommendations for UHPFRC. In Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on
UHPC, Kassel, Germany, 5–7 March 2008; pp. 45–56.
121. Blais, P.Y.; Couture, M. Precast, Prestressed Pedestrian Bridge—World’s First Reactive Powder Concrete Structure. PCI J. 1999, 44,
60–71. [CrossRef]

Materials 15 04131

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Materials 15 04131

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Materials 15 04131

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

materials

Academic Editors: Frank Collins

Materials 2022, 15, 4131. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15124131 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/materials

2.2. Chemical Admixture

2.5. Steel Fibers

Table 2. Mix proportions.

Reference Material Utilization (Kg/m3 )

Reference Material Utilization (Kg/m3 )

Figure 4. Compressive strength [55].

Figure 5. Compressive strength–age relationship: data source [55].

4.2. Flexure Strength

Materials 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 27

Figure 6. Flexure strength [55].

Materials 2022, 15, 4131 13 of 27

Authors/ Fiber Type Compressive Flexural Tensile

Authors/ Fiber Type Compressive Flexural Tensile

Authors/ Fiber Type Compressive Flexural Tensile

5.2. Chloride Penetration

5.3. Freezing and Thawing

5.4. Dry Shrinkage

5.5. Creep of UHPC

6. Thermal Properties of UHPC

Table 5. Summary of durability performance of UHPC.

Chloride Freezing and

Chloride Freezing and

7. Environmental and Cost Estimations of UHPC

You might also like