TECHBRIEF Development of Non-Proprietary 

Ultra-High Performance

Concrete for Use in the 

Highway Bridge Sector

FHWA Publication No.: FHWA-HRT-13-100

FHWA Contact: Ben Graybeal, HRDI-40, (202) 493-3122, benjamin.

graybeal@dot.gov.

This document is a technical summary of the unpublished 

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) report, Development 

of Non-Proprietary Ultra-High Performance Concrete for Use 

in the Highway Bridge Sector, available through the National 

Technical Information Service at www.ntis.gov. 

NTIS Accession No. of the report covered in this TechBrief: 

PB2013-110587

Objective

The long-term goals of this study are to facilitate the use of 

ultra-high performance concrete (UHPC) among U.S. suppliers 

and contractors, accelerate its application in U.S. construction, and promote a more resilient and sustainable future U.S. 

infrastructure. In pursuit of these goals, the objective of this 

research was to develop a non-proprietary cost effective 

UHPC characterized by compressive strength exceeding 20 ksi 

(138 MPa), pre- and post-cracking tensile strength above 

0.72 ksi (5 MPa), and sufficient durability properties. The mix 

designs were optimized in their efficiency considering workability, mechanical performance, and cost effectiveness. In 

support of cost effectiveness, locally available materials were 

used from selected areas in the United States. The results of 

the research effort are summarized herein, and mix designs 

are suggested for the following three regions: the Northeast 

area in the vicinity of New York, Connecticut, and New Jersey; 

the upper Midwest area in the vicinity of Iowa, Minnesota, and 

Michigan; and the Northwest area in the vicinity of Washington 

and Oregon.

Introduction

UHPC has attracted the growing interest of researchers in 

academia, engineers in the public and private sectors, and 

contractors across the world due to its highly enhanced mechanical and durability properties in comparison to conventional 

Research, Development, and 

Technology

Turner-Fairbank Highway 

Research Center

6300 Georgetown Pike

McLean, VA 22101-2296

 www.fhwa.dot.gov/research
2

concrete. It is generally understood that UHPC 

is a concrete that uses a relatively high binder 

ratio, has a water-to-cement (w/c) ratio of 0.24 

and lower, and has a compressive strength in 

excess of 22 ksi (150 MPa). Low matrix porosity and high particle packing density leads to 

significantly higher durability at a similar unit 

weight compared to conventional concrete. 

The addition of discontinuous fibers leads to 

significantly higher ductility and durability of the 

cracked matrix. Although there are many advantages of UHPC over conventional concrete, there 

is currently only one commercial supplier to 

the transportation infrastructure market in the 

United States. The commercially available product is a proprietary blend and is sold for about 

$2,000/yd3 ($2,600/m3). This price includes the 

material costs of the proprietary blend and the 

fiber reinforcement, as well as costs associated with the development and delivery of said 

material. Commercially available UHPC is about 

20 times more expensive than conventional 

concrete, which is about $100/yd3 ($130/m3). 

The proprietary nature, increased quality 

control, and high material costs are some 

factors that have limited the wide spread use 

of UHPC in the U.S. infrastructure.

Previous research efforts by Wille et al. show 

that non-proprietary UHPC can be designed to 

achieve a compressive strength in excess of 

29 ksi (200 MPa) by using materials available 

in the United States under ambient curing 

conditions without the need of special treatment 

such as heat, steam, or pressure. (See references 1–4.) The basic principles of UHPC design 

include high particle packing density, highquality materials, cement hydration, pozzolanic

reactions and filler effect of supplemental 

materials, high particle dispersion quality, and 

optimized particle to high-range water reducer 

interaction. Based on these principles and on 

the experimental results of prior research, the 

material constituents for designing UHPC are 

predefined, and their approximated median particle size (50 percent) as well as their range of 

particle size distribution (10 and 90 percent) are 

recommended in table 1. (See references 1–4.)

Prior research results suggest the following 

mix proportions for designing UHPC by weight 

ratios as follows: 

•	 Cement : silica fume : supplemental 

material = 1.0 : 0.25 : 0.25. 

•	 w/c ratio = 0.2–0.3. 

•	 Aggregate : cement ratio = 1.0–2.0. 

•	 Fiber volume fraction = 1.0–2.0 percent.

Research Approach

Based on prior experimental UHPC material development, the material constituents 

Table 1. Recommended material constituents for UHPC matrix design.

Type

Particle Size

Median 10 Percent 90 Percent Comments

Water N/A N/A N/A N/A

High-range water 

reducer (HRWR)

N/A N/A N/A Best in workability and air release

Silica fume 0.2–1 μm 0.1 μm 2 μm Low carbon content

Supplemental 

material

2–5 μm 1 μm 10 μm Filler effect, spherical shape, and 

pozzolanic reaction preferred

Cement

10–20 μm 3 μm 40 μm Low tricalcium aluminate and high 

combination of tri- and dicalcium 

silicate

Fine aggregate 1 100 μm > 50 μm < 300 μm High quality, high strength, low 

water absorption, and optimized 

particle packing Fine aggregate 2 500 μm > 300 μm < 1,000 μm 

Coarse aggregate N/A > 1,000 μm < 9 mm

1 inch = 25,400 μm

1 inch = 25.4 mm

N/A = Not applicable.
3

necessary for UHPC were defined, and lists of 

locally available materials in the three regions 

previously specified were created. This included 

a list of cements, silica fumes, supplemental 

materials, HRWRs, aggregates, and fibers. Next, 

these materials were preselected based on 

availability, cost, region, particle size distribution, and chemical and physical composition. 

Finally, 12 types of cement, 5 silica fumes, 

13 supplemental materials, 8 high-range 

water reducers, 10 aggregate variations, and 

5 different fiber reinforcements were ordered 

for experimental investigation and included in 

the research program.

UHPC material development is based on a multilevel material approach that emphasizes the 

optimization of the cementitious paste (phase 

I), the optimization of the cementitious matrix 

(phase II), and the optimization of the cementitious composite (phase III).The progressive 

development of paste, matrix, and composite 

was chosen to reduce the effort in developing a 

cost effective UHPC over a short time frame.

The most critical component in UHPC design 

is developing an ultra-high strength paste to 

bind aggregates and fibers together. This can 

be achieved by optimizing the paste’s particle 

packing density. The optimization of the paste 

is typically focused on its flow characteristic 

and its compressive strength to expedite the 

development process. By optimizing the two 

material properties, it is hypothesized that a 

basic material will be developed, which will lead 

to sufficient strength and durability of the UHPC.

In this study, first a reference mix was created. 

Then, other mixtures were created by replacing only the material in question by volume 

(e.g., the type of cement). Air content of each 

specimen, differences in the w/c ratio, and variation in the testing age were taken into account 

to satisfy comparability between the mixtures 

and to be able to draw adequate conclusions 

about the effect of the investigated parameter.

Based on the workability, the compressive 

strengths, and the material costs, the efficiency 

parameter E can be calculated, which determines performance versus cost. Each component of the paste is evaluated in this regard, and

the component with the best efficiency out of 

each series is chosen to form the optimized 

paste, which is used for the UHPC matrix design 

in phase II and the fiber-reinforced UHPC composite design in phase III.

The efficiency parameter E is unitless and is 

defined as shown in figure 1.

Where:

f ‘c,N = 28-day compressive strength normalized 

at w/c ratio = 0.25 and at an air content = 

3 percent.

f ‘c,N,Φ = Average normalized 28-day compressive strength over all pastes of one series. 

spreadN = Spread value normalized at w/c ratio 

= 0.25. 

spreadN,Φ = Average normalized spread value 

over all pastes of one series.

costp = Cost of the paste per yd3 (m3).

costp,Φ = Average cost over all pastes of one 

series per yd3 (m3). 

The factors 0.7 and 0.3 were chosen to consider 

strength with higher priority over workability.

Phase II focused on the effect of incorporating different types of aggregates into the mix 

design. Aggregates were primarily selected 

based on locality, type of material, size, and cost. 

Four types of aggregates were selected including quartz (Q), basalt (B), limestone (L), and 

volcanic rock (VR). High-purity Q was selected 

from a major supplier and can be ordered in 

different regions of the United States. B was 

chosen from the Northeast, L was chosen from 

the upper Midwest, and VR was chosen from 

the Northwest. At least one type of fine aggregate (smaller than 0.047 inch (1.2 mm)) and one 

type of coarse aggregate (smaller than 0.5 inch 

(12.5 mm)) was selected for each material based 

on gradation tables. Particle packing density 

of the aggregates is an important parameter 

E = 

0.7 ×

f '

c,N

f '

c,N,∅

+ 0.3 ×

spreadN

spreadN,∅

costp

costp,∅

Figure 1. Efficiency parameter E.
4

to control workability, strength, and durability. 

Optimization in particle size distribution leads 

to high particle packing density. 

In this study, the selected particle size distribution 

follows the modified Andreasen and Andersen 

curve.(5) The optimization of the UHPC matrix is 

focused on compressive strength, workability, 

and cost effectiveness in accordance to the paste 

development. Optimization parameters include 

the type and form of aggregate, the maximum 

aggregate size, the particle size distribution, 

and the aggregate-to-cement ratio. 

Phase III focused on the effect of fiber reinforcement to enhance ductility and achieve a 

sufficient tensile strength. Since the types 

of fiber commonly used in UHPC design are 

primarily supplied by companies outside the 

United States, special emphasis is placed on 

the selection of appropriate types of fibers available in the United States.

Mixing, Preparing, and Testing

Aside from a well-graded particle distribution, 

particle dispersion is important in creating a 

high particle packing density. Because UHPC 

has particles much smaller than those in conventional concrete, the mixing procedure has to 

be adjusted to ensure that agglomerations of 

these small particles are being broken and that 

the particles will be homogenously dispersed. 

In pursuit of this goal, the materials are first 

mixed dry according to the mixing proportions 

and procedure in Wille et al.(1) Depending on 

the materials being used, the mixture becomes 

fluid within 5 to 10 min. An open, 1⁄2 horsepower

rotary bench top mixer with a 3-gal (11-L) bowl 

was used at low to medium speeds for dry 

mixing and at a high speed once turnover 

was achieved. 

Each mix was evaluated for workability by 

testing the spread value in accordance with 

ASTM C230/C230M.(6) After mixing the paste, 

the UHPC matrix or the fiber-reinforced UHPC 

material was filled into three cylinders 3 inches 

(76.2 mm) in diameter and 6 inches (152.4 mm) 

in nominal length for compression testing 

and into the spread cone for workability testing. Special emphasis was placed on keeping 

the spread cone and the base plate at similar humidity prior to testing. After mixing and 

casting the specimens on a vibration table, the 

specimens were covered with plastic sheets for 

one day, de-molded, and placed in a temperature-controlled water bath of ambient temperature for 28 days until compression testing. No 

heat, steam, or pressure treatment was applied. 

In addition to consistency in curing conditions, 

special emphasis was placed on achieving 

planeness and perpendicularity of the loadfaced cylinder ends by using a combination of a 

cylinder end grinder, a rotary grinding/polishing

machine, and a dilatometer to achieve high 

consistency in compressive strength testing.

Once the specimens were prepared for testing, 

they were centrically placed in a deformationcontrolled hydraulic compression load frame 

with a capacity of 400,000 lbf (1780 kN). The 

load platen of the machine displaced at a rate 

of 0.02 inch/min (0.5 mm/min) to load the specimen leading to failure within 3 to 5 min, which 

equates to an approximate load rate of 150 psi/s 

(1.0 MPa/s).

In addition to compression tests, fiber-reinforced UHPC was tested in direct tension. For 

each series, three prism-shaped specimens 

with a geometry of 2 × 1 × 14 inches (51 × 25 × 

356 mm) were cast and tested at 28 days. Once 

the specimens had been prepared for testing, 

they were centrically placed in a displacement 

controlled hydraulic tensile load frame with a 

capacity of 60,000 lbf (267 kN). The specimens’ 

ends were gripped with self-aligning, self-tightening mechanical jaws. Two displacement transducers were attached to the specimens’ side 

with a gage length of 5.5 inches (140 mm).

The degradation of UHPC to freezing and 

thawing cycles was quantified according to 

ASTM C666.(7) UHPC prisms with a geometry of 

3 × 4 × 16 inches (76 × 102 × 406 mm) were 

cast for this test. After 7 days of curing in a 

temperature-controlled water bath of 68 °F 

(20 °C), the specimens were subjected to freezing

and thawing while submerged in a water bath. 

The apparatus used was set for four freezethaw cycles per day. The lower and upper temperature values were set to -9 and 37 °F (-23 and 

3 °C), respectively.
5

Results

Table 2 summarizes the costs for each material 

used in this research. The cost ranges highlight 

the potential of successfully developing a cost 

effective UHPC.

Based on the material efficiency and availability, seven mix proportions are recommended in 

the following section, including their workability, strengths, and costs.

The results of workability and strength of the 

pastes with the selected cements led to the 

conclusion that all investigated white cements 

type I (~$250/T (~$275/Mg)), oil well cements 

(~$130/T (~$140/Mg)), and portland cements 

type II/V (~$110/T (~$120/Mg)) performed suitably 

for UHPC design with compressive strength in 

excess of 23 ksi (160 MPa). Pastes with portland 

cement type III (~$100/T (~$110/Mg)) performed 

somewhat less suitably. The highest efficiency 

was achieved by portland cements type II/V. 

The preferable silica fume ($550/T ($605/Mg)) 

is a silica fume of light grey color, low carbon 

content (< 0.7 percent), and a median particle 

size of about 0.000016 inch (0.4 micrometer). 

The group of supplemental materials consisted 

of silica powder, fly ash, metakaolin, ground 

granulated blast furnace slag, and lime stone 

powder. All selected supplemental materials 

performed suitably for UHPC design with 

compressive strengths from 23 to 29 ksi (160 

to 200 MPa). The most efficient supplemental 

material was fly ash due to its low cost of about 

$50 to $60/T ($55 to $65/Mg), spherical particle 

shape for enhanced flowability of the paste, 

acceptable median particle size of about 

0.0004 inch (10 micrometers), potential to pozzolanicly react with the byproducts of the cement 

hydration, its availability, and positive environmental impact. All selected HRWR performed 

suitably in terms of compressive strength. 

HRWR with best workability and air release was 

chosen for final consideration.

Adding aggregates to the paste led to the 

development of the UHPC matrix. The following 

two types of UHPC matrices were defined: 

•	 UHPC with fine aggregates only up to 

a maximum particle size of 0.047 inch 

(1.2 mm). 

•	 UHPC with fine and coarse aggregates 

up to a maximum particle size of 0.37 inch 

(9.5 mm). 

Each UHPC matrix consisted of the constituents 

of the chosen paste and different type of aggregates optimized in their particle size distribution. 

An aggregate-to-cement ratio of 1.5 was selected 

for all fine and all coarse UHPC. All matrices 

were characterized by excellent workability by 

using a w/c ratio in the range of 0.21 to 0.24. 

All matrices with coarse aggregates demanded 

less water to achieve comparable spread values 

in comparison to matrices with only fine aggregates. Despite a slightly increased w/c ratio, all 

fine UHPC matrices achieved higher compressive strengths than the coarse UHPC matrices 

with the same type of aggregate (see table 3 and 

table 4).

In terms of type of aggregates, the highest 

compressive strength values were achieved 

by matrices with Q, followed by B, VR, and L. 

Based on availability, performance, and costs, it 

is recommended to use fine B and fine L in the 

Northeast and the upper Midwest, respectively. 

Both matrices with fine B and fine L achieved 

compressive strength above the minimum of 

20 ksi (138 MPa), and both type of aggregates are 

low cost (< $14/T ($15/Mg)). Fine VR can be used 

as fine aggregates in UHPC in the Northwest. 

The matrix with fine VR had a compressive 

strength of 23.5 ksi (162 MPa), which exceeded 

the minimum required compressive strength 

of 20 ksi (138 MPa). Coarse L is a suitable option 

to be used as coarse aggregate in the UHPC 

Table 2. Costs of materials used in the research.

Material Cost

Cement $92–$250/T 

Silica fume $350–$1100/T

Supplemental material $46–$879/T 

HRWR $13–$20/gal 

Fine aggregate $8.5–$162.5/T

Coarse aggregate $8.25–$19/T

Fibers $2,800–$13,300/T

1 T = 0.907 Mg

1 gal = 3.785 L
6

matrix design for the upper Midwest. L is 

reasonably priced ($8.25/T ($9.10/Mg)), and 

the matrix had a compressive strength of 

22.5 ksi (155 MPa), which exceeded the required 

compressive strength of 20 ksi (138 MPa). 

Coarse B and coarse VR are the most suitable aggregates for the Northeast and the 

Northwest, respectively. Q is more expensive

($163/T ($179/Mg)) than the local aggregates 

discussed, but it is widely available in the 

United States and outperformed all other 

aggregates in workability and strength.

By using portland cement type II/V and less 

expensive silica fume, the costs for UHPC with 

acceptable performance can be decreased to 

$260/yd3

 (340/m3).

Table 3. UHPC mixtures with fine aggregates only and no fibers.

Material/Topic

UHPC-1 

(B; 

Northeast)

UHPC-2 

(L; Upper 

Midwest)

UHPC-3 

(VR; 

Northwest)

UHPC-4 

(Q; United 

States)

White cement (lb/yd3

) 1,311 1,268 1,256 1,248

Silica fume (lb/yd3

) 328 317 314 312

Fly ash (lb/yd3) 318 308 305 303

HRWR (lb/yd3) 48 46 45 45

Fine aggregate (75μm–1.2 mm) (lb/yd3

) 1,966 1,903 1,884 1,871

Aggregate-to-cement ratio 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5

w/c ratio 0.23 0.24 0.23 0.23

Spread (inch) 11.4 10.4 11.3 12.4 

Average compressive strength at 28 days (ksi) 26.9 24.1 23.5 29.0

Cost ($/yd3) 494 472 496 652

1 lb/yd3 = 0.593 kg/m3

1 inch = 25,400 μm

1 inch = 25.4 mm

1 ksi = 6.89 MPa

1 yd3 = 0.765 m3

Table 4. UHPC mixtures with fine and coarse aggregates and no fibers.

Material/Topic

UHPC-5 

(B; Northeast)

UHPC-6 

(L; Upper Midwest)

UHPC-7 

(VR; Northwest)

White cement (lb/yd3

) 1,311 1,278 1,256

Silica fume (lb/yd3) 328 320 314

Fly ash (lb/yd3) 318 310 305

HRWR (lb/yd3) 47 46 45

Fine aggregate (75μm–9.5 mm) (lb/yd3

) 1,966 1,917 1,884

Aggregate-to-cement ratio 1.5 1.5 1.5

w/c ratio 0.23 0.22 0.23

Spread (inch) 10.8 10.4 10.9

Average compressive strength at 28 days (ksi) 26.3 22.5 23.1

Cost ($/yd3) 494 475 463

1 lb/yd3 = 0.593 kg/m3

1 inch = 25,400 μm

1 inch = 25.4 mm

1 ksi = 6.89 MPa

1 yd3 = 0.765 m3
7

In order to exceed the required sustained 

tensile strength of 0.72 ksi (5 MPa), fibers were 

added by 1.5 volume percent and replaced 

by the same volumetric amount of aggregate. 

The best performance was achieved by straight 

high-strength steel fibers (0.0078 inch (0.2 mm) 

in diameter and 0.51 inch (13 mm) in length). 

Table 5 shows that the cost of fiber reinforcement represents about half the cost of the 

UHPC fiber composite.

UHPC-4 and UHPC-5 (see table 3 and table 4) 

with and without fibers were further investigated in their freeze-thaw resistance. All four 

specimens showed no indication of damage 

after more than 100 freeze-thaw cycles. This 

was evaluated visually as well as by measuring 

the resonance frequency. 

Conclusions

This research project emphasized the development of non-proprietary cost effective UHPC 

using locally available materials in the United 

States. Based on a progressive UHPC development, the paste, the matrix, and the fiber-reinforced concrete composite were analyzed and 

optimized in their performance. An efficiency 

factor E was defined to consider the performance in workability, compressive strength, and 

costs in order to facilitate the selection of the 

most effective materials. Based on the research, 

the following conclusions were made:

•	 Four UHPC matrices with fine aggregates 

only and three UHPC matrices including 

coarse aggregates were recommended 

using locally available materials from 

three different regions. The three regions 

included the Northeast, the upper 

Midwest, and the Northwest. Their material costs without fiber reinforcement 

ranged between about $360 and $500/yd3

($470 and $650/m3) and $355 to $380/yd3

($460 and $500/m3) for fine and course 

UHPC, respectively. The workability of 

these mixes can facilitate the use of these 

UHPCs in many structural applications. 

The compressive strength of the recommended UHPC matrix mixes ranged 

from 22.5 to 29 ksi (155 to 200 MPa) 

and exceeded the minimum required 

compressive strength of 20 ksi (138 MPa).

•	 Future research efforts are suggested 

to tailor the weight ratio of cement to 

silica fume to supplemental material of 

1:0.25:0.25 in terms of performance versus 

cost ratio. A reduction in the amount of the 

most expensive material and an increase 

in the amount of the least expensive material might lead to a further improvement 

in performance versus cost. This optimization was not the scope of this research 

project and has been left for future 

research efforts.

•	 Adding fiber reinforcement of 1.5 percent 

by volume to the UHPC matrix increases 

the costs by about $470/yd3 ($615/m3). This 

value, when combined with the cost of 

the cementitious matrix, results in a total 

material cost for a fiber-reinforced UHPC of 

about $850/yd3

 ($1,110/m3). More research 

effort is needed to find an alternative cost 

effective solution to provide sustained 

tensile strength and enhanced ductility 

due to the high costs of fiber reinforcement. This can be achieved by finding an 

alternative fiber reinforcement of lower 

cost and by reducing the required amount 

of fiber reinforcement through improved 

material utilization. A more effective fiber 

material utilization could be obtained 

by tailored matrix fiber bond and by 

combining continuous reinforcement with 

discontinuous fiber reinforcement.

Table 5. Cost of material per volume of low cost 

UHPC.

Material Cost ($/yd3

)

Portland cement II/V 73.66

Silica fume 82.57

Fly ash 7.54

HRWR 103.60

Fine aggregate 12.82

Fibers 472.39

Total 751.59

1 yd3 = 0.765 m3
8

Researchers—This study was completed by Kay Wille at the University of Connecticut as a subcontractor to 

Professional Service Industries, Inc. through the Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center laboratory support 

contract DTFH61-10-D-00017. Ben Graybeal initiated and oversaw the completion of this research. For additional 

information, contact Ben at (202) 493-3122 or in the FHWA Office of Infrastructure Research and Development 

located at 6300 Georgetown Pike, McLean, VA, 22101-2296.

Distribution—The unpublished report covered in this TechBrief is being distributed through the National Technical 

Information Service at www.ntis.gov.

Availability—This TechBrief may be obtained from the FHWA Product Distribution Center by email to report.

center@dot.gov, fax to (814) 239-2156, phone to (814) 239-1160, or online at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/research.

Key Words—Ultra-high performance concrete, UHPC, Fiber-reinforced concrete, Non-proprietary, Performance cost 

efficiency, Mix design development.

Notice—This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation in the 

interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the use of the information contained 

in this document. The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or manufacturers’ 

names appear in this TechBrief only because they are considered essential to the objective of the document.

Quality Assurance Statement—The Federal Highway Administration provides high-quality information to serve 

Government, industry, and the public in a manner that promotes public understanding. Standards and policies are 

used to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of its information. FHWA periodically 

reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs and processes to ensure continuous quality improvement.

october 2013 FHWA-HRT-13-100

HRDi-40/10-13(250)E

•	 Durability properties, such as chloride ion 

penetration, scaling resistance to deicing 

chemicals, and other tests, such as strength 

development, early age strength, early 

age high-stress creep and long-term creep 

behavior, shrinkage behavior, abrasion 

resistance, alkali-silica reaction, and bond 

behavior between reinforcement bars 

and composite should be completed so 

as to facilitate the consideration of nonproprietary UHPC in the U.S. highway 

bridge sector.

References

1. Wille, K., Naaman, A.E., and ParraMontesinos, G. (2011). “Ultra High 

Performance Concrete with Compressive 

Strength Exceeding 150 MPa (22 ksi): A 

Simpler Way,” ACI Structural and Materials 

Journal, 108(1), 46–54.

2. Wille, K., Naaman, A.E., El-Tawil, S., and 

Parra-Montesinos, G. (2012). “Ultra-High 

Performance Concrete and Fiber Reinforced 

Concrete: Achieving Strength and Ductility 

Without Heat Treatment,” RILEM Materials 

and Structures, 45(3), 309–324.

3. Wille, K., Naaman, A.E., and El-Tawil, S. 

(2011). “Ultra-High Performance Fiber 

Reinforced Concrete (UHP-FRC) Record 

Performance under Tensile Loading,” 

Concrete International, 33(9), 35–41.

4. Wille, K., Kim, D., and Naaman, A.E. (2011). 

“Strain-Hardening UHP-FRC with Low Fiber 

Contents,” Materials and Structures, 44(3), 

583–598.

5. Brouwers, H.J.H. and Radix, H.J. (2005). 

Self-Compacting Concrete: The Role of 

the Particle Size Distribution, 109–118, 

First International Symposium on Design, 

Performance and Use of Self-Consolidating 

Concrete (SCC’2005), Changsha, Hunan, 

China.

6. ASTM C230/C230M-08. (2008). “Standard 

Specification for Flow Table for Use in Tests 

of Hydraulic Cement,” ASTM Book of Standards Volume 04.01, ASTM International, 

West Conshohocken, PA.

7. ASTM C666-03. (2008) “Standard Test 

Method for Resistance of Concrete to Rapid 

Freezing and Thawing,” ASTM Book of Standards Volume 04.02, ASTM International, 

West Conshohocken, PA.