Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
ABSTRACT: Results from numerical simulations are presented that investigate the behavior of concrete samples under standard
laboratory strength tests. Samples include cylinder and cube specimens in compression and cylinder specimens for the splitting
tension test. Each of these tests is commonly used to derive fundamental material properties for concrete, i.e. compressive and
tensile strengths. Numerical models are developed for each of these tests using the finite element method and a recent release of
the K&C concrete material model. Quasi-static solutions are then obtained using explicit time integration. The results indicate
that the strength and failure modes for the compression tests can be highly influenced by the specimen shape and boundary
conditions, in particular for the cube test. It is shown that ASTM C 1231 appears to provide the best estimate of compressive
strength as a material property. The splitting tensile strength was confirmed to be slightly higher than the input tensile strength,
suggesting that the proper material property input should be slightly smaller than the ASTM C 496 value.
KEY WORDS: ASTM C 39, ASTM C 1231, ASTM C 496, compression, splitting tension.
when the height of the test specimen is twice the least lateral stress paths in both dynamic and quasi-static load
dimension.” environments.
Indelicato and Paggi [6] specifically addressed the friction In Release III of the concrete model an automatic input
coefficient, and found a cube compressive strength ratio from capability was added to generate the data needed to specify a
1 for very low friction to 1.28 for a typical friction coefficient particular concrete, several coding bugs were fixed, and the
of 0.6, mostly due to the high sensitivity of the cube specimen strategy used in fitting the strain softening was modified [18,
to friction. 19]. Automatic data generation can provide a complete default
In a finite element setting, the concrete strength is input as a set of 72 input parameters with knowledge of only the
material property to each element. Those elements can then be concrete compressive strength and the system of units (this
assembled to reproduce the specimen used to derive the model is in various codes, including Sandia National
compressive strength, be it a cylinder or a cube. For the finite Laboratories’ PRONTO3D as material 35 and PRESTO as
element model to be consistent with itself, the resulting kc_concrete, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories’
strength of the cylinder or cube test modeled should be equal DYNA3D as materials 45 and 65, and Livermore Software’s
to the concrete strength which was input as a material LS-DYNA as material 72).
property. The main objective of the paper is to assess the In the model, the maximum failure surface for concrete
consistency of each test. (normalized with respect to the concrete compressive strength
Another example is the splitting tension (or Brazilian) test, f c′ ) is expressed as:
where compression is used to generate failure by indirect
tensile stresses, and which is known to result in values that p / f c′
exceed the direct tensile strength. CEB-FIP reports the ratio of ∆σ / f c′ =+
b0
splitting to direct tensile strength as 1.11 [5]. Rocco et al. b1 + b2 p / f c′
report this ratio between about 1.05 and 1.25 depending on (1)
specimen shape, aggregate size, concrete strength, and where
plywood strip width [15]. For 25-mm (1-inch) aggregates, bi = parameters defining the three-parameters failure
cylindrical specimens, and increasing strengths from 30 to 80 surfaces
MPa (4350 to 11600 psi) the ratio decreases from about 1.16 p = (σ1+σ2+σ3)/3 = pressure (positive in compression)
to 1.08, similar to the CEB-FIP value. σ1, σ2, σ3 = principal stresses (positive in compression)
3 NUMERICAL APPROACH ∆σ = 3J 2 = failure surface for the deviatoric stresses
3.1 Concrete Material Model J2 = (s12 + s22 + s32)/2 = second invariant of the deviatoric
stress tensor
The K&C concrete material model was first released in 1994 s1, s2, s3 = principal deviatoric stresses
[16]. This first version represented a significant overhaul of This equation captures failure for a variety of stress paths, for
concrete material model 16 in the Lawrence Livermore example, on the compression side for the uniaxial unconfined
National Laboratory’s (LLNL) DYNA3D finite element compression test and compression tests with various amounts
program. The upgrade maintained the decoupling of the of lateral confinement. Similarly on the tension side, tensile
volumetric and deviatoric responses, with an equation of state test paths are captured (e.g. for the uniaxial tension or triaxial
relating the current pressure to current and previous most tension tests). However, only 3 stress path failures can be used
compressive volumetric strain, and a pressure-dependent to define the 3 parameters in the formulation, and the other
failure surface limiting the second invariant of the deviatoric failures will only be approximately satisfied. For example, if
stress tensor. However, this upgrade (1) added a third, the 3 following failure conditions are used:
independent failure surface based on a Willam-Warnke three- • at p/ƒc' = 1/3, ∆σ/ƒc' = 1 (unconfined uniaxial
invariant formulation (replacing the original two-invariant compression test)
formulation), (2) introduced a radial stress path for the strain • at p/ƒc' = 0, ∆σ/ƒc' = 3ƒt/ƒc' for pure shear (Malvar et al.,
rate enhancement algorithm, (3) added a fracture energy 1997)
dependent strain in tension, and (4) fixed several
• at p/ƒc' = 2.02, ∆σ/ƒc' = 3.68 (data point at high
shortcomings in the original model. This first model release
confinement)
also kept the original Prandtl-Reuss (volume preserving) flow
then (b0, b1, b2) can be taken as (0.3, 0.452, 0.072). On the
rule formulation, but this was later found inadequate for the
tension side, this equation is supplemented by the ratio of the
case of blast loading of reinforced concrete walls subjected to
tensile to compressive meridian, which has been shown
significant in-plane restraints, since the absence of shear
experimentally to vary from 0.5 under tension to 1 at high
dilation prevented the development of significant compressive
compression.
membrane stresses.
For axisymmetrical lateral confinement ƒℓ = σ2 = σ3 and the
The second release of the K&C concrete model was
pressure is
extended to include shear dilation (i.e., increase in volume due
to shearing) [17]. The associativity was specified by an input p = (σ1+2σ3)/3 (2)
variable, which allowed the model to be partially associative,
fully associative, or non-associative, and allowed for a more and the failure surface for the deviatoric stresses
accurate representation of the behavior of walls subjected to ∆σ = σ1-σ3 (3)
in-plane constraints and out-of-plane blast loads. Release II
was extensively verified for uniaxial, biaxial, and triaxial
Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Structural Dynamics, EURODYN 2011 3325
Equations (1) to (3) can be combined to give a parametric the radial direction of the cylinder as shown in Figure 1c. The
relation between σ1 and σ3 DIN 1048 and ASTM C 496 [24] specifications for this test
are nearly identical in the overall dimensions of the specimen,
σ3 p 1 p / f c′ although the dimensions of the plywood bearing strips are
= − b0 + (4)
f c′ f c′ 3 b1 + b2 p / f c′
somewhat different (ASTM C 496 specifies 3.2 mm thick by
25 mm wide strips while DIN 1048 specifies 5 mm thick by
′ 10 mm wide plywood strips), as is the applied loading rate
σ1 p 2
= + b0 +
p / fc (0.70-1.40 MPa/min for the DIN standard to ASTM C 496’s
′ ′ 3 ′ 1.8-4.2 MPa/min). For this model, a higher element
fc fc b1 + b2 p / f c
(5) discretization is used in the finite element mesh, consisting of
This relation gives the maximum possible strength 6.35 mm elements on average, in part to help resolve the
localized stress distribution near the loading points. The
enhancement σ1/ƒc' due to a normalized constant confinement
splitting tension loading is represented by prescribing a
σ3/ƒc'.
velocity boundary condition to an elastic steel platen located
3.2 Finite Element Models at the top of the cylinder, while another elastic steel platen
Finite element models developed for each of the tests are located at the bottom of the cylinder is held fixed. Two ASTM
shown in Figure 1. The LS-DYNA commercial software [20] C 496 shims were given elastic properties of plywood (Elastic
was used. An unconfined compressive strength of 40 MPa Modulus, E = 1,300 MPa; Poisson’s Ratio, ν = 0.10), which
(5,800 psi) was used as input to the constitutive model. The directly contact the cylinder and the lower and upper platens.
K&C concrete model internally determined the tensile The orientation of the cylinder was selected so that one
strength of the concrete to be 3.52 MPa (510 psi), based on a concrete element would contact the wood shims using a
relationship similar to that proposed by CEB-FIP [5]. In the segment-based contact algorithm; this avoided numerical
numerical model, the elements are integrated at a single point problems observed in earlier mesh designs which occurred
for each element with viscous or stiffness-based stresses from contact surface “chatter” and excessive hourglass
introduced to control hourglass deformation while dissipating energies in the concrete element immediately in contact with
little to negligible hourglass energy. For the compression the wood shims.
tests, a viscous-based hourglass was used, while a stiffness- 4 NUMERICAL RESULTS
based hourglass was needed to minimize spurious hourglass
deformation in the split tension model. 4.1 Cylinder Compression Results
The cylinder compression model (Figure 1a) uses a cylinder If the cylinder is compressed using platens at the top and
that is 152 mm (6 in.) in diameter, and 305 mm (12 in.) tall. bottom ends that do not impart any lateral restraint (e.g. by
The model is discretized using elements that are on average following ASTM C 1231), the vertical compressive stress in
10 mm cubed. The top and bottom faces of the cylinder are the cylinder is uniform within the whole cylinder, at least until
prescribed boundary conditions that are either unrestrained the peak stress is reached. This is shown in Figure 2a, which
(i.e., allowed to translate freely in the plane of the cross shows the cylinder model with a uniform fringe of vertical
section) or restrained (i.e., not allowed to translate in the plane stress near the time the peak strength is reached. The average
of the cross section). The unrestrained condition is calculated stress-strain response is shown in Figure 3, which
representative of ASTM C 1231 [21], where neoprene caps shows that the unrestrained model achieved its 40 MPa
prevent friction, while the restrained case is an upper bound of compressive strength. This model (and the test it represents) is
ASTM C 39 [22], where some restraint is usually present. therefore consistent: the compressive strength used as input
Compression is applied to the model by applying a constant material property for each element is reproduced in the
downward velocity along the axis of the cylinder to the top cylinder structural test. To assess the radial variation of stress,
nodes of the model at a rate of 1.27 mm/s (0.05 inch/s). Initial 4 integration points are chosen on a horizontal plane near mid-
simulations indicated that the results obtained using this height, at 4 normalized radial distances r/R (radial distance r
model were not sensitive to this applied loading rate, which is from the center divided by the radius R) of 0.10, 0.44, 0.70,
faster than those specified in the ASTM standards, nor were and 0.95. Figure 4a shows a uniform (normalized) stress-
they sensitive to the chosen range of hourglass coefficients, at strain response for all 4 points, at least while the cylinder is
least early into the post-peak response. stable (until just past peak load). Under compression, the
The cube compression model (Figure 1b) follows DIN 1048 cylinder expands laterally but retains its cylindrical shape.
[23], using a 150 mm cube specimen. The model, shown in However, this unrestrained form of testing cylinders for
Figure 1b, has element dimensions that are 12.7 mm cubed. compressive strength is relatively recent (ASTM C 1231 was
Identical boundary conditions applied to the cylinder first established in 1993). Typically, specimens are capped
compression model are applied to this cube compression (following ASTM C 617 [25]) and placed between grooved
model, including the downward loading rate of 1.27 mm/s. As platens with various amounts of friction that result in
for the cylinder, initial simulations confirmed that the results transverse confinement at the top and bottom. This lateral
from this model were not significantly affected by the applied confinement at the ends results in the center of the cylinder
loading rate or the coefficient for hourglass control chosen, at becoming stronger, a non-uniform stress distribution
least until failure takes place. (Figure 2b), and a deformed barrel shape. Figure 3 also shows
The model for the splitting tension test uses a similar the calculated average stress-strain response for the perfectly
152 mm diameter by 305 mm finite element mesh loaded in restrained case. A compressive strength of 41.5 MPa is
Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Structural Dynamics, EURODYN 2011 3326
reached, which is about 3.65% higher than in the unrestrained prevent such deformation without using a significant amount
case. While this is slightly higher than the input material of the total energy. Figure 10a shows the normalized splitting
property (40 MPa), the model is still mostly consistent, stress obtained from the model as a function of total
indicating that the specimen shape had little effect in the displacement of the steel platen for four selected coefficients
determination of a value that can be considered a material of hourglass control (0.02, 0.14, 0.22, and 0.24). The
property. However, Figure 4b shows that the stress-strain normalized splitting stress was obtained by normalizing the
response at the same 4 points along a radius near mid-height is splitting stress, fst, by the input tensile strength, ft, where:
very non-uniform. The location near the center (r/R=0.10)
2⋅P
reaches a strength about 40% higher than the measured f st =
compressive strength, whereas the location near the free edge π ⋅l ⋅d (6)
(r/R=0.95) started decaying long before the compressive
and
strength was reached. So, although both ASTM C 39 and C
P = Total computed load
1231 yield similar results, ASTM C 1231 appears to generate
L = Cylinder length = 152 mm
a value slightly closer to an actual material property.
d = Cylinder diameter = 305 mm
4.2 Cube Compression Results As is indicated in Figure 10a, crack formation is initiated
Similar behaviors are observed in the cube specimens under around 90% of the normalized splitting stress, depending on
compression. If the platens at the top and bottom of the cube the coefficient used for the hourglass control (note from
do not impart any lateral restraint, the vertical stress is Figure 10a that the curves obtained using each hourglass
effectively uniform (Figure 5a). The average stress-strain coefficient have been offset from each other so that the
response is shown in Figure 6, which indicates a peak strength features of each response may be scrutinized individually.)
of 40.04 MPa for this unrestrained case. This test is consistent For the largest three coefficients, a brief unloading phase is
and does yield a material property. observed after crack formation that is followed by increasing
The DIN 1048 standard, however, does not prevent friction resistance to the applied loading. A peak normalized splitting
at the top and bottom of the cube specimen, which can also stress of 1.07 and 1.09 is computed with the largest two
impart transverse end confinement. For a perfectly restrained coefficients, which provided very similar responses. As
boundary condition, the numerical model shows sharp indicated earlier the expected range would be around 1.08 to
gradients in vertical stress throughout the body of the cube 1.16.
(Figure 5b). The average stress-strain response for this Figure 10b shows the ratio of hourglass to total energy,
restrained case is also shown in Figure 6, which indicates a EHG/ETotal. This figure shows that as the initial crack develops,
peak strength of 61.6 MPa, which is 54% higher than the there is an increase in spurious hourglass energy while the
compressive strength input to the material model. This test is stresses are redistributed. At failure there is a large but
not consistent, as its results are affected by the coefficient of transient spike in the ratios, but this is of less interest as the
friction and can be very different from the material property peak strength has already been reached. The lowest hourglass
sought. This high calculated ratio is the same as the upper energy yields a normalized splitting stress of 1.07.
bound of 1.54 for the experimental ratios indicated earlier. Prior to crack formation, the horizontal stresses allow for
Figure 7 shows the variation of stress radially at four wide distribution of the vertical compressive stresses. After
integration points selected on a horizontal plane near cracking, the vertical stresses become more concentrated on
midheight, at 4 normalized radial distances r/R (radial either side of the vertical crack. Figure 11 shows stress
distance r from the center divided by the distance R to the contours in the horizontal (perpendicular to the applied
corner of the cube, or 106 mm) of 0.08, 0.42, 0.75, and 0.92. loading) and vertical (parallel to the applied loading) radial
For the unrestrained case, the stresses were all uniform. For directions of the cylinder just prior to the crack formation; the
the restrained case, the location near the center (r/R=0.08) horizontal stresses are primarily tensile while the vertical
reaches a strength nearly 300% higher than the input stresses are compressive. Figure 12 shows stress contours
compressive strength. Similar to the results from the prior to failure, which indicate that loads redistribute around
restrained cylinder, the location near the free edge (r/R=0.95) the cracked material and little if any portion of the cylinder
started decaying long before failure was reached. exhibits horizontal tensile stresses after the crack forms.
DIN 1048, the friction coefficient will be somewhere in approximated as 90% of the splitting tensile strength [5].
between the unrestrained and fully restrained case, e.g. as Better correlations including effect of concrete compressive
evidenced by the deformed shape and failure patterns, i.e. a strength and maximum aggregate size were presented by
barrel shape for the cylinder samples (Figure 13), or corner Rocco et al. [15].
cracking for the cube samples (Figure 14). For the cylinder
specimens, the limited variation in the final strength and its
consistency with the material property input, make it a reliable
test for the determination of compressive strength. For the
cube specimens, the high variation in the final strength due to
end friction, and its potentially significant difference with the
input value for strength indicate that the strength value
measured may not be a characteristic material property.
5.2 Split Tension Tests
The results from the splitting tension model show that stress
distributions within the sample body are complex and change
after initial crack formation. It also appears from these results
that final failure of the splitting tension cylinder is induced by
compressive rather than tensile mean normal stresses. To (a) (b)
illustrate this, 4 integration points are chosen on a vertical
plane near the center of the cylinder, at 4 normalized radial
distances r/R (radial distance r from the center divided by the
radius R) of 0.00, 0.30, 0.60, and 0.95. The point at r/R of
0.00 is located at the center of the cylinder, where the crack
initiates, while the point at r/R of 0.95 is located at the
element immediately in contact with the wood shim; this latter
point does not crack (Figure 8). Figure 15 shows the
calculated stress paths in terms of normalized pressure (p/ƒc')
versus normalized von Mises stress (the von Mises stress
normalized by ƒc'). The failure surface for the K&C concrete
material model is also shown in the figure, which shows that
the three points closest to the center of the cylinder intersect
the failure surface under compressive (i.e. positive) mean
normal stresses. As reference, an ideal unconfined tensile
stress path is also illustrated in the figure. Consequently, the (c)
splitting tension test does not explicitly measure the direct
tensile strength of concrete, but instead, induces a biaxial Figure 1. Finite element models.
stress field that ultimately lead to failure of the sample.
6 CONCLUSIONS
Numerical analyses of compression tests indicated that
measurements using ATM C 1231 on cylinder specimens
reported the best measurement of compressive strength as a
material property. While testing using ASTM C 39 resulted in
a very non-uniform stress field within the specimens, the
strength value obtained can still be accepted a measure of
compressive strength (within 3.65%, which is itself in the
range of the reported within-test precision). Measurements
using cube specimens without end restraints (without friction)
would similarly yield an acceptable measure of the
compressive strength. However, measurements following
standard tests on cubes with possible end friction could result
in highly variable results that are likely not representative of
the actual compressive strength.
Splitting tension tests on cylinders appeared to yield a
tensile strength slightly higher than the input tensile strength.
This appears to match experimental data, whereby the (a) Unrestrained. (b) Restrained
splitting tensile strength is similarly higher than the direct
tensile strength. For numerical analyses the direct tensile Figure 2. Vertical stress contours in cylinders.
strength can be used as a material property, and can be
Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Structural Dynamics, EURODYN 2011 3328
61.56 MPa
41.51 MPa
1.07 1.09
[10] Elwell, D.J., Fu, G., “Compression Testing of Concrete: Cylinders vs.
Cubes,” Report FHWA/NY/SR-95/119, New York State Department of
Transportation Special Report 119, March 1995.
[11] Malaikah, A.S., “Effect of Specimen Size and Shape on the
Compressive Strength of High Strength Concrete,” Pertanika Journal of
Science and Technology, Universiti Putra Malaysia Press, Malaysia,
Volume 13, No. 1, January 2005, (also available at
http://faculty.ksu.edu.sa/malaikah/Papers/Specimen%20size%20and%2
0shape%20effect.pdf).
[12] L’Hermite, R., “La Résistance du Béton et sa Mesure,” Annales de
l’Institut Technique du Batiment et des Travaux Publics, Vol. 114, 1950
pp. 1-19 (in French).
[13] Hansen, H., Kielland, A., Nielsen, K.E.C., Thaulow, S., “Compressive
Strength of Concrete – Cube or Cylinder,” RILEM Bulletin 17, 1962,
pp. 23-30.
[14] Thaulow, S., “Apparent Compressive Strength of Concrete as Affected
by Height of Test Specimen and Friction between Loading Surfaces,”
RILEM Bulletin 17, 1962, pp. 31-33.
[15] Rocco, C., Guinea, G.V., Planas, J., Elices M., "Review of the Splitting
Test Standards from a Fracture Mechanics Point of View," Cement and
Concrete Research, Vol. 31, 2000, pp. 73-82.
[16] Malvar, L.J., Crawford, J.E., Wesevich, J.W., Simons, D., "A Plasticity
Concrete Material Model for DYNA3D," International Journal of
Figure 14. Damage contours in restrained cube. Impact Engineering, Vol. 19, No. 9/10, 1997, pp. 847-873.
[17] Malvar, L.J., Simons, D., “Concrete Material Modeling in Explicit
Computations,” Workshop on Recent Advances in Computational
Structural Dynamics and High Performance Computing, USAE
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, 1996, pp. 165-194.
[18] Malvar, L.J., Crawford J.E., Morrill, K.B., “K&C Concrete Material
Model, Release III: Automated Generation of Material Model Input,”
TR-99-24, K&C Structural Engineers, Burbank, CA, 1999.
[19] Magallanes, J.M., Wu, Y.W., Malvar, L.J., Crawford, J.E., “Recent
Improvements to Release III of the K&C Concrete Model,” 11th Intl.
LS-DYNA User’s Conference, Dearborn, MI, June 6-8, 2010.
[20] Livermore Software Technology Center, LS-DYNA, 2002.
[21] ASTM C 1231, “Standard Practice for Use of Unbonded Caps in
Determinating Compressive Strength of Hardened Concrete Cylinders,”
Annual Book of Standards, American Society for Testing and Materials,
2000.
[22] ASTM C 39, “Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of
Cylindrical Concrete Specimens,” Annual Book of ASTM Standards,
American Society for Testing and Materials, 2001.
[23] DIN 1048 Part 5, Testing of Hardened Concrete, Deutsche Norm, 1991.
[24] ASTM C 496, “Standard Test Method for Splitting Tensile Strength of
Cylindrical Concrete Specimens,” Annual Book of ASTM Standards,
Figure 15. American Society for Testing and Materials, 2004.
[25] ASTM C 617, “Standard Practice for Capping Cylindrical Concrete
Specimens,” Annual Book of ASTM Standards, American Society for
Testing and Materials, 1998.
REFERENCES
[1] Bazant, Z.P., Xiang, Y., “Size Effect in Compression Fracture, Splitting
Crack Band Propagation,” Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE,
Vol. 123, No. 2, 1997, pp. 162-172.
[2] Yi, S-T., Yang, E-I., Choi, J-C., “Effect of Specimen Sizes, Specimen
Shapes, and Placement Directions on the Compressive Strength of
Concrete,” Nuclear Engineering and Design, Vol. 236, 2006, pp. 115-
127.
[3] Del Viso, J.R., Carmona, J.R., Ruiz, G., “Shape and Size Effects on the
Compressive Strength of High-Strength Concrete,” Cement and
Concrete Research, Vol. 38, 2008, pp. 386-395.
[4] Kim, J.K., Eo, S.H., “Size Effects in Concrete Specimens with
Dissimilar Initial Cracks,” Magazine of Concrete Research, Vol. 42, No.
153, 1990, pp. 233-238.
[5] CEB-FIP Model Code 1990, Comité Euro-International du Béton,
Thomas Telford House, 1993.
[6] Indelicato, F., Paggi, M., “Specimen Shape and the Problem of Contact
in the Assessment of Concrete Compressive Strength,” Materials and
Structures, Vol. 41, 2008, pp.431-441.
[7] EN 1992-1-1, Eurocode 2, “Design of Concrete Structures - Part 1.1:
General Rules and Rules for Buildings,” 2003, pp 27–37.
[8] EN 13791, “Assessment of In-situ Compressive Strength in Structures
and Precast Concrete Components,” 2005, pp. 7-8.
[9] Tokyay, M., Ozdemir, M., “Specimen Size and Shape Effect on the
Compressive Strength of Higher Strength Concrete,” Cement and
Concrete Research, Vol. 27, No., 8, 1997, pp. 1281-1289.