Analytical review of the mix design of fiber reinforced high strength self-compacting concrete

Author’s Accepted Manuscript Analytical Review of the Mix Design of Fiber Reinforced High Strength Self-Compacting Concrete Behnam Vakhshouri, Zohreh Salari, Shami Nejadi www.elsevier.com/locate/jobe

PII: DOI: Reference:

S2352-7102(18)30004-4 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2018.07.025 JOBE549

To appear in: Journal of Building Engineering Received date: 2 January 2018 Revised date: 28 May 2018 Accepted date: 28 July 2018 Cite this article as: Behnam Vakhshouri, Zohreh Salari and Shami Nejadi, Analytical Review of the Mix Design of Fiber Reinforced High Strength SelfCompacting Concrete, Journal of Building Engineering, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2018.07.025 This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting galley proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

Analytical Review of the Mix Design of Fiber Reinforced High Strength Self-Compacting Concrete

Behnam Vakhshouri*, Zohreh Salari, Shami Nejadi 1

PhD, Center for Built Infrastructures (CBIR), School of civil and environmental engineering, University of Technology Sydney (UTS), Sydney, Australia Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]

[email protected] *Corresponding author, Tel: +6129547142

Abstract Despite application of fiber reinforced concrete, high strength concrete and self-compacting concrete in the construction industry in the last decades, the investigations about combination of these types of concrete in Fiber Reinforced High-Strength Self-Compacting Concrete (FRHSSCC) is very rare in the literature. This study reviews a wide range of experimental data of the mix design in terms of the components and their proportions and the compressive strength of FRHSSCC in the last 12 years. The applied coarse and fine aggregates, chemical and mineral admixtures, fibers, cement, water, powder components and the ratios of water to cement and water to binder are broadly analyzed and evaluated. In addition, the compressive strength of the FRHSSCC mixtures are evaluated. The relationship between the compressive strength with water to cement and water to binder ratios in the mixture, water content, fine and coarse aggregates and the powder content is also discussed and compared in the case studies. Considerable variety of the mix designs with different components and proportions to achieve FRHSSCC without the mixing problems is evident in the collected case studies.

Keywords: Fiber reinforced polymer (FRP); High strength self-compacting concrete (HSSCC); Compressive strength; Mix design

1

1. Introduction Due to huge demand for concrete in construction activities, it has become an essential material in construction industry in recent decades. In addition, the need for a type of concrete with high performance and durability (Reddy and Rao, 2013)that can meet a wide range of requirements has been increased. In this regard, the mixture components and their proportion would be crucial parameters. Workability of the fresh concrete, and strength and durability of the hardened concrete are the main interests in developing new concrete types (Sahmaran et al., 2005, El-Dieb, 2009). Self-Compacting Concrete (SCC) is a solution to enhance the workability requirements of fresh concrete. In addition, High-Strength Concrete (HSC) has been utilized widely in the construction projects with high-strength demands (Vakhshouri and Nejadi, 2014). Different types of fiber are used in Fiber Reinforced Concrete (FRC) to improve the mechanical and durability requirements of the concrete (Ragab and Eisa, 2015b). Considering the noticeable advantage of HSC, SCC and FRC, interests have increased to introduce an innovative construction material to contain these benefits in one package called Fiber Reinforced High Strength Self Compacting Concrete (FRHSSCC). It benefits from the properties of High-Strength SCC (HSSCC), which is a highly flowable and nonsegregating concrete vibrated without any mechanical vibration with high workability and performance (Aslani and Nejadi, 2012). While, adding fiber in the mixture improves the strength and ductility of concrete. Therefore, FRHSSCC it is a ductile composite because of Fiber Reinforced Polymers (FRP). High- strength concrete is a common construction material for decades. In addition, the publications on SCC and FRC are considerable in the literature. There are several empirical and approximate methods and design aids available for strength design of SCC, and just limited studies have proposed tests on Fiber Reinforced Self-Compacting Concrete (FRSCC) (Aslani and Nejadi, 2012). However, FRHSSCC is a new construction material in which, the mix components and proportions and the mechanical properties are not studied, sufficiently(Jansson et al., 2012b). FRHSSCC is a special type of concrete affected by the advantages and limitation of all FRC, HSC and SCC. SCC is characterized by high-shrinkage and low-coarse aggregate, while, HSC is known by 2

high-performance attributes such as high module, high strength to density ratio and high durability. HSC is characterized by higher brittleness in comparison with Normal-Strength Concrete (NSC) (Vakhshouri and Nejadi, 2014, Mashhadban et al., 2016). Since, Fiber Reinforced Polymers (FRP) delay concrete spalling and increase its deformation capacity, therefore, to guarantee a ductile behavior of HSSCC adding fiber to concrete mixture can be an acceptable solution (Ding et al., 2009). Khaloo et al. (2014) (Khaloo et al., 2014) conducted an experimental study on normal and highstrength SSC with different steel fiber volume fractions and found that the workability and compressive strength of specimens decreased by increasing the fiber content in mix designs. By applying both analytical and empirical procedures and using different type and volume fraction of fibers, Mashhadban et al. (2016) (Mashhadban et al., 2016) indicated a significant increment of the mechanical properties of HSSCC by increasing the fiber content in FRHSSCC mixtures. However, workability of FRHSSCC decreased by increasing the fiber content in the mixture. Phani et al. (2015) (Phani et al., 2015) investigated the effect of hybrid fibers (steel and glass fibers) on HSSCC and concluded the decreasing and increasing effect of the fiber content on workability and ductility of FRHSSCC, respectively. El-Dieb (2009) (El-Dieb, 2009) studied the effect of steel fibers on mechanical properties of ultrahigh strength self-compacting fiber reinforced concrete and found that increased steel fiber content in the mixture causes a significant improvement in ductility of concrete. In this study, a comprehensive database of FRHSSCC mixture proportions and their mechanical properties including powder components, aggregates, admixtures, water, fibers and compressive strength published in recent 12 years has been provided and then all data have been analyzed. These types of studies can show a pathway to future investigators to guide them in terms of selecting proper ranges of components for their planned mix designs and strength application.

2. Research significance It is crucial to study whether or not all the assumed theories used to design concrete, SCC and HSSCC and Fiber Reinforced Concrete (FRC) structures are also valid for FRHSSCC structures. Almost all the published case studies including detailed information to select the components, mix 3

proportions and the fresh and hardened properties of FRHSSCC have been presented in this study. Despite limited number of publications, the collected data gives the impression of being adequate for valid and useful systematic assessment of the variety of mix parameters and properties in statistical expressions. In particular, it develops the idea of what can be expected with SCLWC for prospective users and researchers. The main objectives of this study are: Assessment of the previously conducted experimental studies in different parts of the world; Considering the novelty of FRHSSCC in the construction industry, comprehensive collection of data to date, accompanied by analytical comparisons is a key point for upcoming investigations and the application of FRHSCC in real projects; Comparing the effect of different FRHSCC mix components in terms of the mechanical properties such as compressive strength.

3. Geographic distribution of case studies FRHSSCC is a new type of construction material which is increasingly investigated in different parts of the world. Figure (1) shows the geographic distribution of the case studies considering the publication year. According to Figure (1), Asia and Europe have been working continuously on FRHSSCC during the latest decade. However, Africa and Australia have started to study on FRHSSCC in recent years. Interestingly, based on the investigated data, USA has not been that much interested in this field.

4

15 14 13 12 11

Frequency (%)

10 9 8

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Asia Europe Africa Australia Asia Europe Africa Australia Asia Europe Africa Australia Asia Europe Africa Australia Asia Europe Africa Australia Asia Europe Africa Australia Asia Europe Africa Australia Asia Europe Africa Australia Asia Europe Africa Australia

0

2004

2008

2009

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

Publication date and place

Figure 1: Geographic distribution of the case studies on FRHSSCC

4. Database for mix designs of FRHSSCC A wide variety of data for 159 mix designs have been collected from 27 published investigation results. The collected experimental studies have been evaluated regarding the different mechanical properties and mix design of FRHSSCC. Summary of the collected data and presented information are presented in Tables (1) to (3). Table (1) reports some initial details about each study including the researchers, date and country of the research, type of chemical admixtures including the Super-Plasticizer (SP) and Viscosity Modifying Agent (VMA) and their volume in the mixture, test age of FRHSCCC samples (daily or hourly), number of investigated mixtures, aggregate type including fine and coarse aggregate and their size, cement type (mainly Portland cement), and mineral admixture (or filler) type respectively. Table (2) provides information about the fiber in the mixtures. The properties of fiber including type, volume fraction, content, length, diameter, aspect ratio, and cross section area, tensile strength, fiber quantity in the mixture, elastic modulus, density and yield strength of fiber are also included in Table (2). 5

Table (3) presents summary of the mechanical properties and components of the investigated mixtures. The components of mix designs including cement, water, mineral admixture, chemical admixture, fine and coarse aggregate, and density by weight in the unit volume of concrete mixtures, water to cement ratio and the 28-day compressive strength MPa are given in Table (3).

The symbols and abbreviations in Table (1) are as following: Chemical Admixture: Super Plasticizer (SP):Ether Carboxylate Based (ECB), Modified Poly Carboxylate Polymer (MPCP), Sulphonated Naphthalene Polymer (SNP), Modified Poly Carboxylate Ether based (MPCEB), Poly Carboxylate Ether Polymer (PCEP), Poly Carboxylate Based (PCB), Poly Carboxylate Ether Based (PCEB) Viscosity Modifying Agent (VMA) Fine Aggregate: Natural River Sand (NRS), Fine River Sand (FRS), Coarse River Sand (CRS) Coarse Aggregate: Crushed Angular Granite Metal (CAGM), Crushed Lime Stone (CLS), Crushed Stone Metal (CSM), Natural Crushed Stone (NCS) Cement: Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC), Portland Cement Type I and II (CEM I, CEM II), CEM II/A-LL 42,5 R (Portland cement with Lime Stone with high early strength) Filler: Lime Stone Powder (LSP), Lime Stone Filler (LSF), Fly Ash (FA), Silica Fume (SF), Micro Silica (MS), Quartz Powder (QP), ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS), Silica Powder (SP), Lime Stone (LS) Table 1: Database for mix design of FRHSSCC

N o Reference .

C ou ntr y

1

(Mashhad ban et al., 2016)

Ira n

2

(Abrisha mbaf et al., 2016)

3 4

(Salehian and Barros, 2015) (Boulekb

Po rtu ga l Po rtu ga l Al

Y e a r 2 0 1 6 2 0 1 6 2 0 1 5 2

Chemical Admixture S P VM Volume T A (kg/m3) yp Type e E C B M P C P M P C P N.

7

N.G.

Test age Volume (kg/m3)

N.G.

(hday)

No. of mixes (SCC )

28 d

9

Aggregate Cem ent

Min eral pow der (Fill er)

Crushed gravel < 12.5 mm

CE M II

LSP

Sand < 12 mm

N.G.

LSF

Fine

Coarse

NRS < 4.75 mm Fine sand

7.83

N.G.

N.G.

28 d

1

6.26

N.G.

N.G.

28 d

1

N.G.

N.G.

N.G.

28 d

8

6

Coarse sand FRS < 0.6 mm CRS < 4.8mm Sand 0-4

Crushed granite 513 mm Gravel 4-

CE M I 42.5 R CE

LSF FA LSF

N o Reference .

C ou ntr y

Y e a r

ache et al., 2015)

ge ria

0 1 5

Chemical Admixture S P VM Volume T A (kg/m3) yp Type e G.

Test age Volume (kg/m3)

(hday)

No. of mixes (SCC )

Aggregate

Fine

Coarse

mm

10 mm

Cem ent

Min eral pow der (Fill er)

M I 52.5 N SF

(Kumar et al., 2015)

In di a

2 0 1 5

(Phani et al., 2015)

In di a

2 0 1 5

M P C E B

(Ragab and Eisa, 2015a)

Eg yp t

2 0 1 5

P C E P

2.5% Cement content

N.G.

N.G.

28 d

5

Natural sand

(Zhang et al., 2015)

C hi na

N. G.

10,14,17

N.G.

N.G.

28 d

7

River sand

(Salehian et al., 2014)

Po rtu ga l

M P C P

7.7, 7.83

N.G.

N.G.

28 d

2

(Khaloo et al., 2014)

Ira n

5

(Deeb et al., 2014)

U K

1 2

(Golafsha ni et al., 2014)

Ira n

1 3

(Yu et al., 2013)

A us tra lia

1 4

(Reddy and Rao, 2013)

In di a

1 5

(Jatale and Mangulka r)

1 6

(Kumar and Putti, 2013)

5 6

S N P

2% of Cementit ious Material

11.2

N.G.

N.G.

7,28 d

N.G.

0.35

N.G.

6

4

Quartz sand

4.75-20 mm

River sand

CAGM < 10 mm

7

8

9

1 0 1 1

2 0 1 5 2 0 1 4 2 0 1 4 2 0 1 4 2 0 1 4 2 0 1 3

OPC (gra de 53) OPC (gra de 53)

MS QP FA MS

Crushed dolomite < 10 mm

CE MI (gra de 52.5 )

FA SF

Granite aggregate < 10 mm

OPC

FA SF

Crushed granite

N.G.

LSF

<12.5mm

CE M II

CLS < 10 mm

N.G.

FRS CRS

SF

P C B

7.5

PSB

4

7, 28, 91 d

N. G.

19.32,52 .64

N.G.

N.G.

28 d

2

P C E B

1% Cement Content

N.G.

N.G.

28 d

1

Natural sand

CLS < 12 mm

CE MI

SF SP

N. G.

16

N.G.

N.G.

28 d

1

River sand

Granite aggregate < 10 mm

OPC

FA SF

2 0 1 3

M P C E B

6,6.5

N.G.

0.420,0.4 55

28 d

2

Clean River Sand

Crushed granite 4.75-12.5 mm

OPC (gra de 53)

FA

In di a

2 0 1 3

P C E B

18 ml per kg of cement

N.G

N.G.

28 d

River sand < 4.75 mm

CSM <12.5 mm

OPC (gra de 53)

SF Met akao lin FA

In di a

2 0 1 3

P C E B

1.5% Cementit ious Material

Gleni um strea m2

0.25% Cementit ious Material

7, 28, 90 d

4.75-20 mm

OPC (gra de 53)

MS QP

NRS

Sand

7

30

Quartz sand

River sand 6

Quartz sand

N.G. MS GG BS

C ou ntr y

Y e a r

Chemical Admixture S P VM Volume T A (kg/m3) yp Type e

1 7

(Deeb and Karihaloo , 2013)

U K

2 0 1 3

P C E B

20 52.64

N.G.

N.G.

28 d

2

1 8

(Akcay and Tasdemir, 2012)

Tu rk ey

2 0 1 2

N. G.

N.G.

N.G.

N.G.

28 d

5

(Joshi and Rao, 2012)

In di a

2 0 1 2

P C E B

14.69 L

N.G.

0.816 L

28, 56, 90, 180 d

2 0

(Karihalo o and Ghanbari, 2012)

U K

N. G.

20-55

N.G.

N.G.

28 d

2 1

(Jansson et al., 2012a)

2 2

(Soltanza deh et al., 2012)

2 3

(Mendes et al., 2011)

2 4

(El-Dieb, 2009)

U A E

2 5

(Ding et al., 2009)

C hi na

2 6

(Pereira et al., 2008)

Po rtu ga l

2 7

(Sahmara n et al., 2005)

Tu rk ey

N o Reference .

1 9

S we de n Po rtu ga l Po rtu ga l

2 0 1 2 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 1 2 0 0 9 2 0 0 9 2 0 0 8 2 0 0 5

Test age Volume (kg/m3)

(hday)

Cem ent

CLS < 10 mm

N.G.

MS LS GG BS

4-16 mm

OPC

SF

4

Quartz sand 0.30.8 mm

Crushed basalt 25 mm

OPC (gra de 53)

MS, QP

25

Sand < 2 mm

< 10 mm

N.G.

MS

Gravel 516 mm

Fine

Sand < 2 mm Quartz sand 9-300, 250-600 micro m Natural sand 0.25-1 mm Crushed stone 0.5-8 mm

Coarse

CE M II / ALL CE MI 42.5 R

N. G.

1.3

N.G.

N.G.

28 d

5

Sand < 4 mm

P C E B

15.8, 15.9, 16 L

N.G.

N.G.

3, 28 d

5

River sand < 4.75 mm

Crushed stone < 12.5 mm

N. G.

6.09

N.G.

N.G.

1

Fine sand River sand

Crushed stone

N.G.

LSF

P C E B

N.G.

N.G.

N.G.

7,28, 56,9 1

4

Coarse sand , Dune sand

NCS

CE MI

SF

6

0-4 mm

4- 8 mm

N. G. P C E P P C E B

6.1

N.G.

N.G.

1, 7, 28 d

7.1

N.G.

N.G.

12 h, 28 d

1

FRS CRS

Crushed granite 512 mm

9.5

N.G.

N.G.

28, 56 d

4

Crushed sand < 4.75 mm

CLS 4.75-19 mm

Table 2: Properties of used fibers in the FRHSSCC mix designs Reference

Aggregate

Min eral pow der (Fill er)

No. of mixes (SCC )

Fiber Properties

8

CE MI B42. 5 CE MI 42.5 R CE MI

LS

FA

FA

LSF

LSP

N o .

1

2

3

4

5

fiber type

(Mashhad ban et al., 2016) (Abrisha mbaf et al., 2016) (Salehian and Barros, 2015) (Boulekb ache et al., 2015) (Kumar et al., 2015)

6

(Phani et al., 2015)

7

(Ragab and Eisa, 2015a)

8

(Zhang et al., 2015)

9 1 0 1 1

(Salehian et al., 2014) (Khaloo et al., 2014) (Deeb et al., 2014)

1 2

(Golafsha ni et al., 2014)

1 3

(Yu et al., 2013)

1 4 1 5 1 6

(Reddy and Rao, 2013) (Jatale and Mangulka r) (Kumar and Putti,

Steel PPS

fiber volume fraction (%)

fiber conten t (kg/m 3 )

dia met er (mm )

aspe ct ratio (l/d)

40

0.7

50

dens ity (g/c m3)

57

160

7.8

0.8

62

35

0.9

33

0.55

60

90

35

0.5

70

Steel

cross section area Af (mm2)

Tensile strengt h (MPa)

0.5,1

39,78

35

0.55

65

0.24

1100

Steel

0.5,1 0.251.50

39,78

60

0.75

80

0.44

1100

GFR P Steel GFR P Steel GFR P bar& stirru p

857

58.5, 117

30

0.6

50

steel tube GFR P tube 45, 60

33

Steel

0.5,1,1. 5,2

20. 6

steel

0.5,2.5

30

steel bar GFR P bar steel tube CFR P tube GFR P tube

850

490.6

Steel

1450 0 4600

60

0.75

0.75,1.5

yield stress (MPa )

1300

Steel

Steel

num ber of fiber s

elastic modul us (GPa)

0.1,0.2, 0.3,0.4 0.1,0.2, 0.3,0.4

Steel

len gth (m m)

0.55

60

20

0.7

Steel

0.5,1

WSF HES T FSF Steel GFR

0.5-4

25

0.55

45

0.5-4

30

2

15

0.5-4 0.75 0.75

25 30 6

0.55 0.5 0.01

45 60

9

200

360.3

1300

Fiber Properties N o .

1 7

1 8

1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2

Reference

fiber type

2013) (Deeb and Karihaloo , 2013)

P

(Akcay and Tasdemir, 2012) (Joshi and Rao, 2012) (Karihalo o and Ghanbari, 2012) (Jansson et al., 2012a) (Soltanza deh et al., 2012)

Tensile strengt h (MPa)

0.15

40

2200

0.25,0.5

30

0.55

55

1100

0.25,0.5

30

0.55

55

2200

NSH HSH Steel

0.5,1,1. 5

Steel

0.5,1,1. 5,2,2.5

Steel

0.25,0.5 ,1

Steel

steel fiber C PPfiber C PPfiber D PPfiber E Steel steel ZP 305 steel OL 6/16

num ber of fiber s

elastic modul us (GPa)

dens ity (g/c m3)

yield stress (MPa )

4

6

Steel

2 7

cross section area Af (mm2)

0.5,1

(El-Dieb, 2009)

(Sahmara n et al., 2005)

aspe ct ratio (l/d)

HSS

2 4

(Pereira et al., 2008)

dia met er (mm )

30

2 3

2 6

len gth (m m)

0.5, 2.5

Steel GFR P profi le

(Ding et al., 2009)

fiber conten t (kg/m 3 )

Steel

(Mendes et al., 2011)

2 5

fiber volume fraction (%)

40

90

30

0.85

45

35

0.55

25

0.5

30,50

30

0.6

1500 0/kg

7

5255

0.40.8

1600 00/k g

7

40

1.1

2900 0/kg

5,7

54

0.5

30

60

0.75

80

18,30, 42,60

30

0.55

55

18,30, 42,60

60

0.16

37.5

0.08,0.1 2,0.52

35

1100

1100

50

1100

Fiber: Poly Phenylene Sulfide (PPS), Glass Fiber Reinforced Polymer (GFRP), Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer (CFRP), Waved Steel Fiber (WSF), Hook Ended Steel Fiber (HESF), Flat Steel Fiber (FSF), Poly Propylene (PP), High Strength Straight Steel Fiber (HSS), Normal Strength Hooked-end Steel Fiber (NSH), High Strength Hooked-end Steel Fiber (HSH)

10

Table3: FRHSSCC Mix proportions of experimental studies

No.

Reference

Fiber Type

VoF (%)

Cement (kg/m3)

Water (kg/m3)

Mineral powder (kg/m3)

Chem. Admix. (kg/m3)

w/c

Aggregate (kg/m3) Fine Coarse

f’c (MPa)

1

(Mashhad ban et al., 2016)

Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel PPS PPS PPS PPS

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40

413 413 413 413 413 413 413 413 413

162 162 162 162 162 162 162 162 162

288.9 288.9 288.9 288.9 288.9 288.9 288.9 288.9 288.9

7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0

0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39

826 826 826 826 826 826 826 826 826

772 772 772 772 772 772 772 772 772

67.4 67.4 67.4 67.4 67.4 67.4 67.4 67.4 67.4

2

(Abrisham baf et al., 2016) (Salehian and Barros, 2015) (Boulekba che et al., 2015)

Steel

N.G.

413

124

353.0

7.8

0.30

947

590

72.0

Steel

90kg/m3

408

150

468.0

6.3

0.37

921

446

63.6

steel (35mm) steel (35mm) steel (65mm) steel (65mm) steel (35mm) steel (35mm) steel (65mm) steel (65mm) Steel GFRP Steel GFRP Steel GFRP Steel GFRP Steel GFRP Steel GFRP Steel GFRP Steel GFRP Steel GFRP Steel GFRP Steel(with GFRP bars) steel(with GFRP bars) Steel

0.50 1.00 0.50 1.00 0.50 1.00 0.50 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.75 0.50 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.00 0.75 1.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.03 1.00 0.03 1.50 0.03 0.00 0.75 0.00

425 425 425 425 425 425 425 425 640

192 192 192 192 161 161 161 161 173

200.0 200.0 200.0 200.0 132.5 132.5 132.5 132.5 224.0

N.G N.G N.G N.G N.G N.G N.G N.G 17.3

0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.27

740 740 740 740 740 740 740 740 887

814 814 814 814 814 814 814 814 798

57.1 53.6 56.7 54.6 79.1 78.8 73.9 72.2 109.2

640

181

224.0

17.3

0.28

887

798

110.2

640

181

224.0

17.3

0.28

887

798

116.2

640

181

224.0

17.3

0.28

887

798

118.4

640

181

224.0

17.3

0.28

887

798

123.8

640

181

224.0

17.3

0.28

887

798

120.7

500

154

200.0

11.6

0.31

766

775

N.G

500

154

200.0

11.6

0.31

766

775

N.G

500

154

200.0

11.6

0.31

766

775

N.G

500

154

200.0

11.6

0.31

766

775

N.G

350 350 500

172 183 180

87.5 87.5 125.0

10.0 11.0 14.0

0.49 0.52 0.36

950 950 850

950 950 850

54.0 50.0 72.0

0.75

500

198

125.0

14.0

0.40

850

850

75.0

1.50

500

187

125.0

16.0

0.37

850

850

79.0

-

300

175

200.0

10.0

0.58

812

845

56.0

3

4

5

6

7

(Kumar et al., 2015)

(Phani et al., 2015)

(Ragab and Eisa, 2015a)

(with GFRP bars)

Steel (with GFRP bars)

Steel (with GFRP bars)

8

(Zhang et

steel tube,

11

al., 2015)

9

10

11

12

13

(Salehian et al., 2014) (Khaloo et al., 2014)

(Deeb et al., 2014)

(Golafsha ni et al., 2014)

(Yu et al., 2013)

14

(Reddy and Rao, 2013)

15

(Jatale and Mangulka r)

GFRP tube steel tube, GFRP tube steel tube, GFRP tube steel tube, GFRP tube steel tube, GFRP tube steel tube, GFRP tube steel tube, GFRP tube Steel Steel

-

300

175

230.0

10.0

0.58

795

828

80.0

-

300

175

230.0

10.0

0.58

795

828

80.0

-

300

175

230.0

10.0

0.58

795

828

82.7

-

429

165

231.0

17.0

0.38

685

837

116.4

-

442

155

238.0

14.0

0.35

715

822

117.3

-

442

155

238.0

14.0

0.35

715

822

114.8

45 kg/m3 60 kg/m3

402 413

117 128

344.3 353.0

7.7 7.8

0.29 0.31

866 821

600 588

65.2 61.9

Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 0.50

500 500 500 500 500 500

209 209 209 209 209 138

250.0 250.0 250.0 250.0 250.0 275.0

11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 19.3

0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.28

861 861 861 861 861 700

574 574 574 574 574 833

59.5 59.1 58.2 57.0 55.2 100.0

Steel

2.50

544

188

525.5

52.6

0.35

940

0

160.0

steel (BAR)vertical, position1-4 steel (BAR)horizental, position 1-4 GFRP (BAR)vertical, position1-4 GFRP (BAR)horizental, position1-5 steel tube, CFRP tube(1ply) steel tube, CFRP tube(3plies) steel tube, CFRP tube(6plies) steel tube, GFRP tube(9plies) Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Stee WSF WSF WSF WSF WSF WSF WSF WSF WSF HESF HESF HESF HESF

-

450

173

195.0

4.5

0.38

895

597

59.8

-

450

173

195.0

4.5

0.38

895

597

59.8

0.70

450

173

195.0

4.5

0.38

895

597

59.8

0.70

450

173

195.0

4.5

0.38

895

597

59.8

-

420

166

252.2

16.0

0.40

750

778

105.0

-

420

166

252.2

16.0

0.40

750

778

105.0

-

420

166

252.2

16.0

0.40

750

778

105.0

-

420

166

252.2

16.0

0.40

750

778

105.0

0.00 0.50 1.00 0.00 0.50 1.00 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50

360 360 360 423 423 423 473 473 473 473 473 473 473 473 473 473 473 473 473

180 180 180 163 163 163 162 162 162 162 162 162 162 162 162 162 162 162 162

240.0 240.0 240.0 227.5 227.5 227.5 83.1 83.1 83.1 83.1 83.1 83.1 83.1 83.1 83.1 83.1 83.1 83.1 83.1

6.4 6.4 6.4 7.0 7.0 7.0 8.51 L 8.51 L 8.51 L 8.51 L 8.51 L 8.51 L 8.51 L 8.51 L 8.51 L 8.51 L 8.51 L 8.51 L 8.51 L

0.50 0.50 0.50 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34

670 670 670 671 671 671 702 702 702 702 702 702 702 702 702 702 702 702 702

755 755 755 757 757 757 1042 1042 1042 1042 1042 1042 1042 1042 1042 1042 1042 1042 1042

60.5 64.5 68.4 72.2 77.8 83.4 73.3 77.9 81.3 83.4 84.5 85.3 86.5 87.4 85.7 73.3 74.4 77.8 79.3

12

16

17

18

19

20

(Kumar and Putti, 2013)

(Deeb and Karihaloo, 2013) (Akcay and Tasdemir, 2012)

(Joshi and Rao, 2012)

(Karihalo o and Ghanbari, 2012)

HESF HESF HESF HESF HESF FSF FSF FSF FSF FSF FSF FSF FSF FSF Hybrid (steel & GFRP) Hybrid (steel & GFRP) Hybrid (steel & GFRP) Hybrid (steel & GFRP) Hybrid (steel& GFRP) Hybrid (steel & GFRP) Steel

2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 0.75

473 473 473 473 473 473 473 473 473 473 473 473 473 473 640

162 162 162 162 162 162 162 162 162 162 162 162 162 162 181

83.1 83.1 83.1 83.1 83.1 83.1 83.1 83.1 83.1 83.1 83.1 83.1 83.1 83.1 224.0

8.51 L 8.51 L 8.51 L 8.51 L 8.51 L 8.51 L 8.51 L 8.51 L 8.51 L 8.51 L 8.51 L 8.51 L 8.51 L 8.51 L 15.1

0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.28

702 702 702 702 702 702 702 702 702 702 702 702 702 702 887

1042 1042 1042 1042 1042 1042 1042 1042 1042 1042 1042 1042 1042 1042 798

80.8 81.4 83.5 84.9 82.8 73.3 74.5 75.9 77.4 77.9 78.9 79.6 81.6 80.2 54.0

0.75

640

181

224.0

15.1

0.28

887

798

61.0

0.75

640

181

224.0

15.1

0.28

887

798

64.3

0.75

640

181

224.0

15.1

0.28

887

798

75.4

0.75

640

181

224.0

15.1

0.28

887

798

83.8

0.75

640

181

224.0

15.1

0.28

887

798

123.8

0.50

500

138

275.0

19.3

0.28

700

833

100.0

Steel

2.50

544

188

525.5

52.6

0.35

940

-

160.0

Steel steel (0.5HHS+0.25NSH) steel (0.5HHS+0.25HSH) steel (1.0HSS+0.5NSH) steel (1.0HSS+0.5HSH)

0.00 0.75

700 700

154 154

105.0 105.0

N.G N.G

0.22 0.22

791 791

651 651

115.3 116.3

0.75

700

154

105.0

N.G

0.22

791

651

122.2

1.00

700

154

105.0

N.G

0.22

791

651

118.6

1.00

700

154

105.0

N.G

0.22

791

651

123.6

Steel

0.00

472

175 L

344.0

0.37

437

1022

N.G

Steel

0.50

472

175 L

344.0

0.37

437

1022

N.G

Steel

1.00

472

175 L

344.0

0.37

437

1022

N.G

Steel

1.50

472

175 L

344.0

0.37

437

1022

N.G

Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel

0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50

540 505 455 358 350 550 520 425 410 397 660 550 480 435 402

188 189 175 138 138 192 194 162 162 162 195 187 182 180 179

574.0 674.0 672.0 529.0 559.0 586.0 691.0 608.0 652.0 687.0 448.0 515.0 557.0 591.0 617.0

15.504 L 15.504 L 15.504 L 15.504 L 27.0 27.0 25.0 20.0 20.0 28.0 28.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 55.0 52.0 51.0 50.0 50.0

0.35 0.37 0.38 0.39 0.39 0.35 0.37 0.38 0.40 0.41 0.30 0.34 0.38 0.41 0.45

451 556 573 463 500 461 570 519 571 614 749 920 1044 1145 1233

590 753 796 654 716 603 772 720 806 880 -

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 162.0 162.0 162.0 162.0 162.0

13

21

(Jansson et al., 2012a)

22

(Soltanzad eh et al., 2012)

23

(Mendes et al., 2011) (El-Dieb, 2009)

24

25

(Ding et al., 2009)

26

(Pereira et al., 2008) (Sahmara n et al., 2005)

27



Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel

2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 0.00 0.25 0.50 1.00 1.00 90 kg/m3 90 kg/m3 90 kg/m3 90 kg/m3 90 kg/m3 45 kg/m3

650 535 480 435 400 630 550 480 435 400 359 361 362 368 357 465 465 465 468 470 381

195 185 184 182 180 190 189 184 182 180 197 195 197 202 189 196 L 206.2 L 208.9 L 208.8 L 208.8 L 127

457.0 520.0 567.0 601.0 627.0 449.0 524.0 566.0 600.0 625.0 182.0 207.0 182.0 172.0 182.0 278.0 278.0 278.0 280.0 282.0 326.2

55.0 52.0 52.0 51.0 51.0 53.0 53.0 52.0 51.0 50.0 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 15.8 L 15.8 L 15.8 L 15.9 L 16 L 6.1

0.30 0.35 0.38 0.42 0.45 0.30 0.34 0.38 0.42 0.45 0.55 0.54 0.54 0.55 0.53 0.42 0.44 0.45 0.45 0.44 0.33

745 909 1044 1147 1232 732 918 1042 1145 1229 910 894 969 853 829 811 796 791 789 786 937

746 688 608 735 763 512 502 500 498 497 510

162.0 162.0 162.0 162.0 162.0 162.0 162.0 162.0 162.0 162.0 59.0 59.0 58.0 59.0 50.0 67.0 67.0 67.0 67.0 67.0 59.9

Steel Steel Steel Steel PP fiber C PP fiber D PP fiber E Steel fiber C Steel fiber C Steel fiber C & PP fiber D Steel

0.00 0.08 0.12 0.52 7 kg/m3 7 kg/m3 7 kg/m3 30 kg/m3 50 kg/m3 30 kg/m3 5 kg/m3 30 kg/m3

900 900 900 900 400 400 400 400 400 400

243 243 243 243 200 200 200 200 200 200

157.5 157.5 157.5 157.5 210.0 210.0 210.0 210.0 210.0 210.0

N.G N.G N.G N.G 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1

0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50

540 540 540 540 776 776 776 776 776 776

360 360 360 360 660 660 660 660 660 660

100.0 112.0 114.0 123.0 70.0 76.0 72.2 75.2 81.2 74.3

359

97

308.1

7.1

0.27

1031

698

62.0

Steel ( ZP 305) Steel (OL 6/16) Steel ( ZP 305) Steel (OL 6/16) Steel ( ZP 305) Steel (OL 6/16) Steel ( ZP 305) Steel (OL 6/16)

0.00 0.00 30.00 30.00 18.00 42.00 0.00 60.00

500

200

70.0

9.5

0.40

990

586

50.9

500

200

70.0

9.5

0.40

977

578

56.3

500

200

70.0

9.5

0.40

977

578

55.2

500

200

70.0

9.5

0.40

977

578

58.9











0.5-8mm (Including natural sand & crushed stone)



Coarses & 0-8mm

Fiber: Steel Fiber Reinforced Polymer (SFRP), Glass Fiber Reinforced Polymer (GFRP), Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer (CFRP), Poly Phenylene Sulfide (PPS), Waved Steel Fiber (WSF), Hook Ended Steel Fiber (HESF), Flat Steel Fiber (FSF), Poly Propylene (PP), High Strength Straight Steel Fiber (HSS), Normal Strength Hooked-end Steel Fiber (NSH), High Strength Hooked-end Steel Fiber (HSH)

14

5. Analysis of the experimental data and discussion 5.1. Compressive strength

According to analysis of the FRHSCC mixtures in the collected experimental data, above 40% of the case studies show the compressive strength is in the range of 50-70 MPa. The mix designs with compressive strength varying from 75 to 100 MPa and 100- 125 MPa are 24% and 23% of the case studies, respectively. However, no FRHSCC mixture has been reported with compressive strength from 125 to 150 MPa. Accordingly, in 11% of the case studies, the compressive strength ranges from 150 to 175 MPa. Figure (2) presents the frequency of different ranges of compressive strength in the FRHSCC case studies.

45 40

Frequency (%)

35 30 25

20 15 10 5 0 50-75

75-100

100-125

125-150

150-175

Compressive strength (MPa) Figure 2: Ranges of compressive strength in FRHSSCC mix designs

5.2. Chemical admixtures

According to Table (1), different types and volumes of chemical admixture have been used in the FRHSCC mixture design in the case studies. Figure (3) shows the frequency of each type of the chemical admixtures in the case studies. According to Figure (3), two types of chemical admixtures, Super-Plasticizer (SP) and Viscosity Modifying Agent (VMA) have been used in the mix designs. In 30% of mix designs, the polycarboxylate ether based super-plasticizers is utilized. Other types of the

15

super-plasticizer are used in 4% to 11% of the case studies. However, super-plasticizer type is not mentioned in 33% of the mix designs. The type and content of viscosity modifying agent is not given in 93% of the collected mix designs. As the viscosity modifying agent, Glenium stream 2 and Polysaccharide based VMA are used in 4% of the FRHSSCC mix designs. Figure (4) presents the relationship between the content of chemical admixtures with the compressive strength of FRHSSCC mix designs. The best fitting relationship between the compressive strength and chemical admixture content is also given in Figure (4).

80

60 40 20

Superplasticizer

Viscosity Modifying Agent

Chemical admixture type Figure 3: Frequency of the used chemical admixture in FRHSSCC mix designs

16

N.G.

Polysaccharide based

Glenium stream 2

N.G.

Sulphonated napthalene polymer

Poly carboxylate based

Ether carboxylate based

Modified polycarboxylate polymer

Modified polycarboxylate ether based

Polycarboxylate ether polymer

0 Polycarboxylate ether based

Frequency (%)

100

Figure 4: Effect of chemical admixture content in mix designs on compressive strength of FRHSSCC

5.3. Mineral admixtures

According to Figure (5), various types of the mineral admixtures as fillers and cementitious materials are used in the FRHSSCC mixtures. In a considerable portion of the case studies (34%), the silica fume is the most popular filler among the mineral admixtures in FRHSSCC mix design. Limestone powder and fly ash are the second and third most common fillers utilized in 28% and 19% of the case studies, respectively. Both Quartz powder and Ground Granulated Blast furnace Slag (GGBS) are equally used in 6% of the mix designs. However, the other types of mineral admixtures including silica powder and metakaolin pose the lowest range of application in 2% of the mix designs. In addition, in 2% of the case studies, type and content of the mineral admixtures are not mentioned. Figure (6) presents the relationship between the filler content in the mixture and compressive strength of FRHSSCC. The best fitting relationship between the compressive strength of FRHSSCC and the mineral admixture content in the mixture is also given in Figure (6).

17

Figure 5: Frequency of used mineral admixtures in FRHSSCC mix designs

Figure 6: Effect of mineral admixture content in mix design on compressive strength of FRHSSCC

5.4. Powder components

The total powder in FRHSSCC mixtures includes cement and mineral admixtures. Figure (7) shows the cumulative distribution of powders in FRHSSCC mixtures. To have a comparative diagrams, cumulative distribution of the individual powder components (cement and mineral powders) and combined effect of the cement and mineral powders are presented on the diagrams in Figure (7).

18

Different types of mineral admixtures are used in the FRHSSCC mixtures. Figure (8) shows frequency of the total powder (different types of mineral powder and cement) used in the case studies. According to Figure (8), the cement in different mix designs have combined with one, two, three or more types of the mineral admixtures with particular properties. In spite of various types of mineral admixtures applied in mix designs, the majority of case studies (78%) have applied Portland cement (including Ordinary Portland Cement and Portland cement type I and II) in the FRHSSCC mix design. However, cement type in 22% of mix designs is not reported. The most common powders combination with 15% frequency, consist of Portland cement plus limestone powder and the Portland cement plus silica fume and fly ash as fillers in the mixtures. Figures (9) shows the relationships between cement content in the mix designs and the compressive strength of FRHSSCC. The relationship between powder (cement plus mineral admixture) content in FRHSSCC mixture and the compressive strength is also shown in Figure (10). In both Figures (9) and (10), the best fitting relationship between the parameters are given on each diagram.

Figure 7: Cumulative percentage of cement, mineral admixture and total powder distributions

19

Figure 8: Frequency of used combined powder types in FRHSSCC mix designs

Compressive strength (MPa)

140 y = 0.1804x - 4.6113 R² = 0.85

120 100 80 60 40 20 0 200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Cement content (kg/m3) Figure 9: Effect of cement content in mix designs on compressive strength of FRHSSCC

20

Compressive strength (MPa)

180

y = 0.1964x - 51.595 R² = 0.85

160 140 120 100 80

60 40 20 0 200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Powder content (kg/m3) Figure 10- Effect of powder content in mix design on compressive strength of FRHSSCC

5.5. Water-cement ratio and water-binder ratio

The water content in concrete mixture is a crucial component of all types of concrete mixtures, which highly affects the compressive strength and density of the concrete. Effect of the water content in mix design of concrete is considered in terms of the water to cement ratio (w/c) and water to binder (total cementitious powder) ratio (w/p). In design of ultra-high strength and performance concrete, a low water to binder ratio is required. In an experiment conducted by Wang et al. (2016) (Wang et al., 2016), the w/p ratio below 0.38 was an acceptable range to produce FRHSSCC. However, the upper limit of w/p equal to 0.46 can be used in mix design to produce FRHSSCC. The water to binder ratio over 0.94 is not a usual range in the mix design of FRHSSCC. In addition, the water to binder below 0.25 might cause some difficulties to the cement hydrating in the concrete mixture (Vakhshouri and Nejadi, 2016). Figure (11) shows the cumulative distribution of water-cement and water-powder ratios in the collected case studies. According to Figure (11), the w/p ratio in FRHSSCC mixtures varies in a wide range between 0.15 and 0.42. While, majority of the case studies have applied the w/p ratio in the range of 0.2 and 0.29.

21

Similar to variation of w/p ratio, a wide range of w/c ratio (0.22- 0.58) is applied in mix design of FRHSSCC. While, the w/c ratio in the range of 0.3 to 0.39 is the most common range in FRHSSCC mixture design. Figure (12) and (13) describe the effect of w/c and w/p ratios in the mixture on the compressive strength of hardened FRHSSCC. According to Figures (12) and (13), the compressive strength is affected inversely by w/c and consequently, w/p ratios in the mixture. The figures indicate a linear decrease of the compressive strength by increasing the w/c and w/p ratios.

Figure 11: Cumulative percentage of w/c and w/p distributions on FRHSSCC

Compressive strength (MPa)

140 120

100

y = -216.07x + 166.1 R² = 0.84

80 60 40 20 0 0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

Water to cement ratio (w/c) Figure 12: effect of w/c ratio in mix design on compressive strength of FRHSSCC

22

Compressive strength (MPa)

180 160 140

120

y = -561.07x + 243.1 R² = 0.84

100 80 60 40

20 0 0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

Water to binder ratio (w/p) Figure 13: Effect of w/p in mix design on compressive strength of FRHSSCC

The effect of water content in concrete is generally investigated in terms of the water to cement ratio and water to binder ratio. However, the water content in the mixture has strong effects on the mixing requirements, avoiding segregation problem and strength and workability requirements of the mixture. Figure (14) shows the relationship between water content in the mixture and resultant compressive strength of hardened FRHSSCC. The water content in the mixtures is in the range of 160 to 200 kg/m3 and the compressive strength varies between 50 to 160 MPa. The increasing effect of water content on compressive strength in Figure (14) in the above-mentioned range is not a valid conclusion for all types of concrete; and water effect must be evaluated in regards to proportions of the other mixture components.

23

200 y = 3.1795x - 442.39 R² = 0.81

Compressive strength (MPa)

180 160 140 120 100 80

60 40 20

0 150

160

170

180

190

200

Water content (kg/m3) Figure 14: Effect of water content in mix design on compressive strength for FRHSSCC

5.6. Frequency and distribution of aggregate types and content

According to Table (2), two types of aggregates as fine and coarse aggregates have been used in the FRHSSCC mixtures. The fine aggregates content in the mixtures vary between 437 kg/m3 and 1031 kg/m3. While, this range for coarse aggregates content is between 360 kg/m3 and 1042 kg/m3. Similarly, the main range of both fine and coarse aggregates content in FRHSS mixtures is 700 to 800 kg/m3. Figure (15) shows the cumulative distribution of fine and coarse aggregates in the case studies. The fine aggregates include natural river sand, fine river sand, coarse river sand, quartz sand and dune sand. While, the coarse aggregates consist of crushed limestone, crushed granite, crushed gravel, crushed stone, crushed basalt, and crushed dolomite.

24

Cumulative percent below (%)

100 90

fine aggregate

80

coarse aggregate

70 60 50 40 30

20 10 0 0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Fine and coarse aggregates content (kg/m3) Figure 15: Cumulative percentage of fine and coarse aggregate distributions in FRHSSCC mix designs

Figures (16) and (17) present the relationship between fine and coarse aggregates content in the mixture with the compressive strength of hardened FRHSSCC, respectively. The best fitting line between the experimental data in each diagram is presented, also.

Figure 16: Effect of fine aggregate content in mix designs on compressive strength of FRHSSCC

25

Figure 17: Effect of coarse aggregate content in mix design on compressive strength of FRHSSCC

5.7. Fiber Types

Different types of fiber are used to improve the mechanical properties of FRHSSCC mixture in the collected case studies. Steel Fiber Reinforced Polymer (SFRP), Glass Fiber Reinforced Polymer (GFRP), Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer (CFRP), Poly Propylene (PP) and Poly Phenylene Sulfide (PPS) are among the most commonly used fiber types in the FRHSSCC mixtures. In combination with other fiber types or individually, the steel fiber with 6 to 60 mm length and 0.2 to 2 mm diameter is used in 61% of the case studies. The hybrid fibers consisting of steel and glass fiber has been applied in 10% of the mix designs. Interestingly, all the other fiber types and combinations including Poly Propylene (PP) and Poly Phenylene Sulfide (PPS) are applied in just 3% of the mix designs. Figure (18) illustrate the frequency of used fiber types in FRHSSCC mix designs.

26

Figure 18: Frequency of used fiber types in FRHSSCC mix designs

6. Conclusion This study presents an investigation on FRHSSCC which benefits the advantages of both FRC and HSSCC. There are few investigations on all the aspects of FRHSSCC. This study aims to collect almost all the existing studies in literature by sufficient details of mix proportion and compressive strength. Based on 159 mix designs of 27 laboratory case studies published in recent 12 years, the mix proportions include cement, mineral and chemical admixture, water to cement ratio, fine and coarse aggregates, fiber. The following conclusion can be drawn from the analysis of the collected experimental data: -Cement As the main adhesive, Portland cement (mainly type I and II) has been applied in about 80% of mix designs. However, the type of cement in 20% of case studies has not been reported. -Admixtures Case studies have used both mineral and chemical admixtures in their mix designs to improve the mechanical and workability requirements. Super-plasticizers and viscosity modifying agents are categorized as chemical admixtures of different types, while, the majority of mineral admixtures or fillers include silica fume, limestone and fly ash. -Water to cement and water to powder ratio 27

Due to application of small size of fillers in the powder combination, water to cement ratio on the compressive strength of FRHSSCC, has greater values rather than those of water to powder ratio. While, most of the mix designs have applied water to powder ratio in a range between 0.2 and 0.3, this value in water to cement ratio varies from 0.3 to 0.4. -Aggregate Fine aggregate (mainly river sand and quartz sand) and coarse aggregate (mainly crushed limestone, crushed granite and crushed stone) have been applied in the mix designs. The fine aggregates are mostly smaller than 4 mm, while the maximum size of coarse aggregate is less than 19 mm. -Fiber type Various types of fibers and their combinations have been used in the mix designs. The majority of case studies apply steel fiber in their mix designs. However, the second and third popular fiber types are hybrid ones including SFRP with GFRP and steel tube with GFRP tube. -Compressive strength As high-strength concrete, the mix designs with the compressive strength higher than 50 MPa have been investigated in this study. While, the highest value for compressive strength among the mix designs is 162 Mpa, 11% of case studies give the compressive strength in excess of 150 Mpa. Interestingly, mix designs with the compressive strength between 125 MPa to 150 MPa haven’t been recognized. -Powder combination Powder consists of cementitious materials and filler. Majority of the case studies have applied Portland cement, a wide variety of fillers have been used in the mix designs. The most common powder components added to Portland cement include Portland are limestone powder and silica fume and fly ash. Curing condition and density The curing condition and density of FRHSSCC are not reported in most of case studies. The reported density values vary in the range of 2320 to 2500 kg/m3.

28

References: ABRISHAMBAF, A., CUNHA, V. M. C. F. & BARROS, J. A. O. 2016. A two-phase material approach to model steel fibre reinforced self-compacting concrete in panels. Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 162, 1-20. AKCAY, B. & TASDEMIR, M. A. 2012. Mechanical behaviour and fibre dispersion of hybrid steel fibre reinforced self-compacting concrete. Construction and Building Materials, 28, 287-293. ASLANI, F. & NEJADI, S. 2012. Mechanical properties of conventional and self-compacting concrete: An analytical study. Construction and Building Materials, 36, 330-347. BOULEKBACHE, B., HAMRAT, M., CHEMROUK, M. & AMZIANE, S. 2015. Failure mechanism of fibre reinforced concrete under splitting test using digital image correlation. Materials and Structures, 48, 2713-2726. DEEB, R. & KARIHALOO, B. L. 2013. Mix proportioning of self-compacting normal and highstrength concretes. Magazine of Concrete Research, 65, 546-556. DEEB, R., KARIHALOO, B. L. & KULASEGARAM, S. 2014. Reorientation of short steel fibres during the flow of self-compacting concrete mix and determination of the fibre orientation factor. Cement and Concrete Research, 56, 112-120. DING, Y., ZHANG, Y. & THOMAS, A. 2009. The investigation on strength and flexural toughness of fibre cocktail reinforced self-compacting high performance concrete. Construction and Building Materials, 23, 448-452. EL-DIEB, A. S. 2009. Mechanical, durability and microstructural characteristics of ultra-highstrength self-compacting concrete incorporating steel fibers. Materials & Design, 30, 42864292. GOLAFSHANI, E. M., RAHAI, A. & SEBT, M. H. 2014. Bond behavior of steel and GFRP bars in self-compacting concrete. Construction and Building Materials, 61, 230-240. JANSSON, A., FLANSBJER, M., LÖFGREN, I., LUNDGREN, K. & GYLLTOFT, K. 2012a. Experimental investigation of surface crack initiation, propagation and tension stiffening in self-compacting steel-fibre-reinforced concrete. Materials and Structures, 45, 1127-1143. JANSSON, A., FLANSBJER, M., LÖFGREN, I., LUNDGREN, K. & GYLLTOFT, K. 2012b. Experimental investigation of surface crack initiation, propagation and tension stiffening in self-compacting steel–fibre-reinforced concrete. Materials and structures, 45, 1127-1143. JATALE, V. B. & MANGULKAR, M. Flexural Behavior of Self Compacting High Strength Fiber Reinforced Concrete (SCHSFRC). International Journal of Engineering Research and Applications (IJERA) ISSN, 2248-9622. JOSHI, V. & RAO, P. S. 2012. Impact Strength Of Steel Fibre Reinforced High Strength Self Compacting Concrete. i-Manager's Journal on Civil Engineering, 2, 7. KARIHALOO, B. L. & GHANBARI, A. 2012. Mix proportioning of self-compacting high-and ultrahigh-performance concretes with and without steel fibres. Magazine of Concrete Research, 64, 1089-1100. KHALOO, A., MOLAEI RAISI, E., HOSSEINI, P. & TAHSIRI, H. 2014. Mechanical performance of self-compacting concrete reinforced with steel fibers. Construction and Building Materials, 51, 179-186. KUMAR, B. N. & PUTTI, S. R. 2013. Study on The Effect of Quartz Sand and Hybrid Fibers on The Properties of Fresh and Hardened High Strength Self Compacting Fiber Reinforced Concrete. i-Manager's Journal on Civil Engineering, 3, 22. KUMAR, B. N., RAO, P. S. & DEEPA, G. 2015. A Study On Structural Behavior Of Reinforced Cement Concrete Slabs Of High Strength Hybrid Fiber Reinforced Self Compacting Concrete. i-Manager's Journal on Structural Engineering, 4, 1-9. MASHHADBAN, H., KUTANAEI, S. S. & SAYARINEJAD, M. A. 2016. Prediction and modeling of mechanical properties in fiber reinforced self-compacting concrete using particle swarm optimization algorithm and artificial neural network. Construction and Building Materials, 119, 277-287. MENDES, P. J., BARROS, J. A., SENA-CRUZ, J. M. & TAHERI, M. 2011. Development of a pedestrian bridge with GFRP profiles and fiber reinforced self-compacting concrete deck. Composite Structures, 93, 2969-2982. 29

PEREIRA, E. N., BARROS, J. A. & CAMÕES, A. 2008. Steel fiber-reinforced self-compacting concrete: experimental research and numerical simulation. Journal of structural engineering, 134, 1310-1321. PHANI, S. S., SEKHAR, T. S. & RAO, P. S. 2015. High Strength Self Compacting Concrete Beams Under Flexure. i-Manager's Journal on Structural Engineering, 4, 10-14. RAGAB, K. S. & EISA, A. S. 2015a. Effect of Steel Fibers Reinforced High Strength SelfConsolidating Concrete (SFRHSCC) on axially loaded columns reinforced longitudinally and transversely by GFRP bars. International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering, 5, 227. RAGAB, K. S. & EISA, A. S. 2015b. Effect of Steel Fibers Reinforced High Strength SelfConsolidating Concrete (SFRHSCC) on axially loaded columns reinforced longitudinally and transversely by GFRP bars. International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering, 5, 227. REDDY, M. S. & RAO, P. S. 2013. Durability Studies On Steel Fiber-Reinforced Self-Compacting Concrete. i-Manager's Journal on Civil Engineering, 4, 20. SAHMARAN, M., YURTSEVEN, A. & YAMAN, I. O. 2005. Workability of hybrid fiber reinforced self-compacting concrete. Building and Environment, 40, 1672-1677. SALEHIAN, H. & BARROS, J. A. O. 2015. Assessment of the performance of steel fibre reinforced self-compacting concrete in elevated slabs. Cement and Concrete Composites, 55, 268-280. SALEHIAN, H., BARROS, J. A. O. & TAHERI, M. 2014. Evaluation of the influence of postcracking response of steel fibre reinforced concrete (SFRC) on load carrying capacity of SFRC panels. Construction and Building Materials, 73, 289-304. SOLTANZADEH, F., BARROS, J. A. & SANTOS, R. F. C. 2012. Steel fiber reinforced selfcompacting concrete: from material to mechanical behaviour. Technical Report No. 12DEC/E-19, University of Minho, 1-31. VAKHSHOURI, B. & NEJADI, S. 2014. Application of adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system in high strength concrete. International Journal of Computer Applications, 101. VAKHSHOURI, B. & NEJADI, S. 2016. Mix design of light-weight self-compacting concrete. Case Studies in Construction Materials, 4, 1-14. WANG, Y., AN, M., YU, Z. & HAN, S. 2016. Impacts of various factors on the rehydration of cement-based materials with a low water–binder ratio using mathematical models. Construction and Building Materials, 125, 160-167. YU, T., FANG, X. & TENG, J.-G. 2013. FRP-confined self-compacting concrete under axial compression. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 26, 04014082. ZHANG, B., TENG, J. G. & YU, T. 2015. Experimental behavior of hybrid FRP–concrete–steel double-skin tubular columns under combined axial compression and cyclic lateral loading. Engineering Structures, 99, 214-231.

Highlights -

FRHSSCC is a new construction materials and contains advantages of FRC, SCC and HSC Mix design and compressive strength of 159 mixtures in the last 12 years are studied So far, USA is not interested in this type of concrete Water to cement ratio is generally in the range of 0.2 to o.3 A wide range of single and hybrid fiber are used in FRHSSCC mix designs Density is mainly in the range of 2300 to 2500 kg/m3 Almost all range of high strength (50 to 160 MPa) is achievable in this type of concrete

30