Dams and Extreme Events —

Reducing Risk of Aging

Infrastructure under Extreme
Loading Conditions

34th Annual USSD Conference

San Francisco, California, April 7-11, 2014

Hosted by
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
 On the Cover
Aerial view of the Calaveras Dam Replacement Project taken on January 27, 2014. The San Francisco Public
Utilities Commission is building a new earth and rock fill dam immediately downstream of the existing dam. The
replacement Calaveras Dam will have a structural height of 220 feet. Upon completion, the Calaveras Reservoir will
be restored to its historical storage capacity of 96,850 acre-feet or 31 billion gallons of water. The project is the
largest project of the Water System Improvement Program to repair, replace and seismically upgrade key
components of the Hetch Hetchy Regional Water System, providing water to 2.6 million customers.

U.S. Society on Dams

Vision

To be the nation's leading organization of professionals dedicated to advancing the role of dams
for the benefit of society.

Mission — USSD is dedicated to:

• Advancing the knowledge of dam engineering, construction, planning, operation,

performance, rehabilitation, decommissioning, maintenance, security and safety;
• Fostering dam technology for socially, environmentally and financially sustainable water
resources systems;
• Providing public awareness of the role of dams in the management of the nation's water
resources;
• Enhancing practices to meet current and future challenges on dams; and
• Representing the United States as an active member of the International Commission on
Large Dams (ICOLD).

The information contained in this publication regarding commercial projects or firms may not be used for
advertising or promotional purposes and may not be construed as an endorsement of any product or
from by the United States Society on Dams. USSD accepts no responsibility for the statements made
or the opinions expressed in this publication.

Copyright © 2014 U.S. Society on Dams

Printed in the United States of America
Library of Congress Control Number: 2014934343
ISBN 978-1-884575-62-2

U.S. Society on Dams

1616 Seventeenth Street, #483
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: 303-628-5430
Fax: 303-628-5431
E-mail: stephens@ussdams.org
Internet: www.ussdams.org
 TENSILE STRENGTH OF MASS CONCRETE — IMPLICATION OF TEST
PROCEDURES AND SIZE EFFECTS ON STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF
CONCRETE DAMS

Timothy P. Dolen, PE1

David W. Harris, PhD PE2
Larry K. Nuss, PE3

ABSTRACT

The tensile strength of mass concrete is an important parameter used in structural analysis
of concrete dams. Two test procedures are commonly used to determine the tensile
strength of concrete cores, the direct test (DT); and the indirect, or splitting test (ST).
However, tensile strength is often estimated from the compressive strength. Thus,
conclusions drawn from the structural analysis are sometimes dependent on the assumed
tensile strength property. An assumed tensile strength of concrete used in structural
analysis was first developed from 1970’s and 1980’s data analysis put forth by Raphael
based on the splitting test. If no tension tests were available, Raphael estimated the
tensile strength from compressive strength as ST = 1.7 x (Comp) 2/3. This has significant
bearing on analysis as the relationship was derived from splitting data and is nearly twice
the results obtained from DT strength.

Work by Rocco, et al and by Bazant, et al using a fracture mechanics approach confirmed

the size effect law for the ST test. Rocco concluded that ST strength is not a materials
property of concrete. Data analysis of Bureau of Reclamation drilled cores also indicated
possible size effects for the splitting test of mass concrete, particularly for tests with large
aggregate size and smaller diameter cores. To compare the size effect law for mass
concrete, relationships determined by Rocca must be extrapolated from about 1.5 in
NMSA (or less) conventional concrete to 6 in NMSA mass concrete. The test data is
always subject to interpretation.

The authors will examine the implications of this size effect law on the assumed tensile
strength of mass concrete used in structural analysis. They will examine two critical
questions: (1) What is the true tensile strength of the concrete, and (2) should a dynamic
increase factor, typically ranging from 1.25to 1.5 times the static strength be used?

INTRODUCTION

The tensile strength of mass concrete dams is an important parameter used in structural
analysis of concrete dams. Structural analysis software analytically calculates tensile
stresses. These calculated stresses are compared to an assumed or tested tensile strength
of concrete to determine if the dam will crack, how deep the cracks will propagate, and
how extensive the cracking will be. The question that often arises is, “What is the true

1
Dolen and Associates, LLC, Loveland, CO USA, tpdolen@yahoo.com.
2
David Harris Engineering, LLC, Elizabeth, CO USA, davidwharris@comcast.net
3
Nuss Engineering, LLC, Highlands Ranch, CO USA Larry.K.Nuss@NussEngineering.com.

Tensile Strength of Mass Concrete 913

tensile strength of the concrete?” because typically direct and splitting tensile results are
different. Is the DT or ST test more representative of the “true” tensile strength of mass
concrete?

Testing of drilled cores is often specified to determine the tensile strength to be used in
the analysis. The scope and complexity of the analysis often impacts the resulting core
drilling program. ASTM C42 specifies the diameter of cores for strength should be at
least 3.7 in (ASTM, 2012). However, “for concrete with a NMSA of 1-1/2 in, the core
diameter shall be as directed by the specifier of the tests.” ASTM also notes that “the
preferred minimum core diameter is three times the nominal maximum size of the coarse
aggregate (NMSA), but should be at least two times the NMSA”. Due to economic
pressures, it is becoming more common for core testing programs from dams to specify
small diameter cores with respect to the NMSA, such as 6 in diameter cores, or less for
up to 6 in NMSA mixtures.

Two test procedures are commonly used to determine the tensile strength of mass
concrete cores, the direct test, such as USBR 4914 (DT); and the indirect, or splitting test
(ST), such as ASTM C496 (USBR, 1992, ASTM 2012); also termed the “Brazilian” test
(Carneiro and Barcellos, 1953). Even though the ST strength test has been subject to
early criticism, its use in estimating mass concrete tensile strength is becoming
increasingly accepted. This has significant bearing on analysis, as the ST strength of
concrete is about twice the DT strength (Dolen, 2011). In the absence of either direct or
splitting test information, the tensile strength of mass concrete is often estimated from
compressive strength using the equation put forth by Raphael ST = 1.7 x (Comp)2/3
(Raphael, 1984). Since this work was put forth, structural analysis of concrete dams has
generally followed this approach; test for strength or estimate from compressive strength
and use the calculation for estimating tensile strength.

The Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) Dam Safety Research Program funded analysis of
test data from concrete core investigations to evaluate the strength properties of mass
concrete and develop the Aging Concrete Information System (ASIS) database (Dolen,
2005). Originally, the objective was to evaluate the properties of aging dams compared
to those dams not suffering from obvious deterioration issues. Some of the results are
summarized in Dolen, 2011 and shown in table 1. Although the average ST strength is
nearly twice the DT strength, there is a wide variation from one dam to the next. A
more detailed analysis of tensile strength properties for mass concrete based primarily on
the results of core testing was initiated for the USBR data. One topic of discussion that
may help to explain the difference in test results is apparent size effects for the ST
strength of mass concrete, particularly for tests with smaller diameter cores and/or large
NMSA. It should be noted that this paper focuses on parent mass concrete strength. The
average direct tensile strength of bonded lift lines averages about 80 percent of parent
strength, and varies with state-of-the-art construction methods (Dolen, 2011).

Figure 1 shows the relationships between DT strength and ST strength of parent concrete
with respect to the specimen size to NMSA ratio. In addition to the USBR core data,
several viable laboratory studies were added to the database as representative of

914 Dams and Extreme Events

particular conditions pertinent to the size effect relationships. Some data represents
more tests than others; the trend line shown is weighted for the number of tests. It is
difficult to compare tensile strength from these tests due to the wide scatter of data in the
critical specimen to aggregate size range from 1 to 2. Is this data scatter, or size effects?
Table 1. Tensile and compressive strength of parent mass concrete (no AAR).
Average Tensile Strength
Direct Splitting Dynamic Compressive
Splitting Strength
lb/in2 lb/in2 lb/in2 lb/in2
Parent Mass 235 4 430 570 4550
Concrete
Percent
Average 5.2 9.6
Compression

Tensile Strength of Concrete - Effect of Specimen Size

Split Tension : Direct Tension Ratio vs Size : NMSA Ratio

4.0
Mass Concrete y = 2.26x-0.375
(vertical DT cores) R² = 0.6942
3.5
Split Tension to Direct Tension Ratio

3.0

WS mass concrete cylinders

2.5 (vertical cast DT)
USBR DT study
(horizontal cast DT, 1/8 in bearing strip ST)
2.0

1.5
Hanant, et al (horizontal cast DT)

1.0

0.5 Zheng
(horizontal cast DT)
Laboratory DT prisms and ST cylinders
0.0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0 22.0

Core Diameter / Prism Width - NMSA Ratio

Cores and Lab Results WEIGHTED Power (Cores and Lab Results WEIGHTED)

Figure 1. Ratio of splitting to direct tensile strength to test specimen and aggregate size
for drilled mass concrete cores and cast concrete cylinders and prisms.

Perhaps the first question is “is the splitting tensile strength increasing or is the DT
strength decreasing”. In fact, it may be that both tests reflect the “size effect” law
(Bazant and Pfeiffer, 1984). As the size of specimen increases, fracture energy is
independent of specimen type, size, and shape because “the fracture process zone in the
limit becomes vanishingly small compared to the specimen or structure dimensions

4
The value 235 lb/in2 for average parent concrete DT strength is used instead of 220 psi reported in the
2011 paper. However, 235 lb/in2 is the average parent strength for only those data sets with both DT and
ST strength data.

Tensile Strength of Mass Concrete 915

(Bazant and Pfeiffer, 1984). Figure 2 shows this relationship for DT and ST tensile
strength of cores and cast cylinders as a percent of compressive strength for the same
data. The DT strength increases as the specimen size to NMSA ratio increases. This may
be related to decreasing influence of surface defects due to drilling or the paste-aggregate
bonding in large NMSA concrete. Specimens under direct tension are likely more
influenced by paste-aggregate bond failure within the specimen cross section, and
particularly for smaller size specimens. Under these conditions of roughly uniform
tensile stress, failure is likely at the weakest plane. Increasing the specimen size relative
to NMSA should tend to lessen this tendency. The ST strength decreases as the size to
NMSA ratio increases. This is somewhat counterintuitive to the direct test and indicates
other factors may be involved, such as test methods. It is noted that the two trends
converge at a specimen size: NMSA ratio of 7.

Size Effects and Tensile Strength

Tensile Strength - % Compressive Strength

16%
Circled data points have data sets with most test specimens.

14%

12%
Splitting Tension
10%

8%

6%
Direct Tension
4%

2%
Cores ‐ Vertical cast Cast cylinders ‐ vertical and horizontal cast
0%
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0

Specimen Size - NMSA Ratio

Figure 2. Tensile strength as a percent of compressive strength for direct and splitting test
methods; drilled cores and cast laboratory specimens.

Because the diameter to NMSA ratio of the core tests rarely exceeds the preferred ratio of
3 to 1, or even 2 to 1, engineers are faced with interpreting the results of tests performed
on concretes in which the specimen sizes do not follow the original intent of the test
standards. There is agreement that splitting and direct tests differ on average by a factor
of two. And it is natural that if there is a preference for one test over the other, either the
higher or lower values of tensile strength may be assumed. However, there has not
necessarily been a critical examination of the test data to explain this difference between
the tests for mass concrete as being reasonable based on the materials properties of the
mass concrete or the test method, or both.

916 Dams and Extreme Events

Based on the observed trends, a detailed review of both tensile strength test methods was
initiated. This paper aims to clarify some of the discrepancy between tensile strength
methods with an objective to better estimate tensile strength properties. Included are the
following:
 A description of tensile strength test methods used for mass concrete,
 historical analysis on applicability of the ST strength test method for conventional
and mass concrete,
 a review of Raphael’s conclusions on tensile strength of mass concrete,
 a review of the ST test method using a fracture mechanics approach and
adjustments for size effects, and
 considerations for applying tensile strength criteria in structural analysis.

COMPARING CONCRETE TEST DATA SETS

Before discussing the evaluation of test data, it is necessary to first comment on the
difficulty of finding data sets that directly compare “apples to apples” for the tests
examined. Due to cost considerations, comprehensive sets of both large size and small
size specimen test data are scarce. The tested concretes have significant variations in
core diameter, NMSA, overall strength, and aggregate type, all of which may influence
tensile strength. Some programs have several ST tests and few DT tests, or visa versa.
Laboratory DT tests may be on either cylinders or prisms. The direction of casting
prisms may preferentially influence the tensile strength due to orientation of bleed water
under aggregate relative to the direction of tensile forces applied. Moisture conditioning
may also be different. The tests reported are from specimens normally maintained in a
saturated, surface-dried condition. In some cases, the purpose of testing may have been
to investigate deterioration or anomalous data, and thus the data may be biased.

Deteriorated concrete is filtered from the data sets examined in this paper. The number
of test specimens for all core testing programs can vary significantly. Testing small
diameter cores should be followed with a larger sample size. According to Mather and
Tynes for equal precision, the number of tests with smaller specimens should be
increased to the ratio of the areas of the specimen sizes (Mather and Tynes, 1961).
Sorting data to fit a particular hypothesis is always subject to interpretation. It is not the
objective to “cherry pick” data to fit a particular concept. This paper attempts to examine
the test data based on fracture mechanics theory to arrive at a better means of estimated
tensile strength of parent mass concrete for structural analysis.

SIZE EFFECTS IN CONCRETE TENSILE STRENGTH TESTING

The concept of a size effect dates back to Hillerborg, et al using a cohesive (or fictitious)
crack model and furthered by Bazant, et al, based on fracture mechanics (Hillerborg,
1976; Bazant, 1984). Fracture energy is the energy dissipated per unit area during the
formation of a crack. The energy is dissipated within the fracture process zone; the region
in front of a crack tip where the stress decreases as the crack opens. While the peak
stress establishes the tensile strength of the material, the fracture energy controls the ease
with which a crack will propagate. Fracture energy of concrete increases with an

Tensile Strength of Mass Concrete 917

increase in the nominal maximum size of aggregate. According to Bazant, determination
of a true tensile strength (for concretes of similar strength levels) of concrete is
influenced by both the size of test specimen and the size of the aggregate. However,
much of the research on determining the fracture properties is limited to smaller NMSA
concrete. Most of the laboratory testing cited is limited to NMSA less than 1 in; although
the same principles have been extended to “dam concrete” in a number of investigations
(Bazant, 2000). Rocco used this concept to evaluate several different splitting test
methods for tensile strength. The size effects become more pronounced the larger the
NMSA for the ASTM standard for the ST strength compared to British standards.

Several technical papers were published in the 1950’s and 1960’s after the ST test
method was introduced (Wright, 1955 and Hannant, et al, 1973). The authors essentially
agreed with the theory of the test method, but not on the assumptions and its applicability
to concrete, particularly with respect to specimen size and the effects of NMSA. These
questions can now logically be explained based on the theory of cohesive crack model
and size effect law. With respect to tensile strength test methods for concrete, two
concepts are considered; (1) the influence of the material property of “characteristic
length” and associated size effects, and (2) the statistical “weakest link” theory
(Hillerborg, 1985 and Weibbull, 1939).

TENSILE TEST METHODS

Three test methods are commonly used to determine the tensile strength of concrete. The
“direct tensile test” is a uniaxial test, essentially the strength of a concrete is determined
by pulling the specimen apart, figure 3. Steel end platens are epoxy glued onto each end
of a cylindrical (or occasionally prismatic) specimen affixed to a universal testing
machine under tensile loading until failure. This test is usually done at a “static” load
rate. Rapid-load tension tests were performed by Reclamation in the 1970’s and 1980’s
for the Auburn Dam Project. Most of this original test data is no longer readily available.

In the “splitting tension” test, a cylindrical (or cubical) test specimen is placed on its side
and compressed under loading platens until it “splits” into two pieces lengthwise. Tensile
strength is determined from the stress state according to the theory of a point load on a
circular disk specimen and that assumption that a condition of plane stress applies up to
failure. This test is increasingly popular as it can be more easily run under both static and
dynamic load rates to simulate static and dynamic loading conditions.

The modulus of rupture or flexural strength is run on beams with a length to depth ratio
of about 3 to 1. This test is most common for highway paving applications. However,
this test has been applied to dams, particularly arch dam cantilever stresses. The
assumption for a linear distribution of stress with beam depth is over simplistic without
some correction.

918 Dams and Extreme Events

Direct Tensile Test

The USBR first began testing the DT strength of mass concrete cores in the 1960’s
(USBR, 1969). In the 1970’s, laboratory DT tests conducted during the Auburn Dam
program focused on static and dynamic strength of mass concrete (Tarbox et al, 1979).
The current test method, USBR 4914, Direct Tensile Strength, Static Modulus of
Elasticity, and Poisson’s Ratio of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens in Tension was
published in 1992 (USBR, 1992). This method included both double-bolted end plates to
reduce platen stress concentrations and a ball and socket test fixture which replaced the
chain and eyebolt assembly to attach the end platens to the testing machine and minimize
eccentricity at the point of loading. The DT test method requires surface preparation of
the ends of the test specimen and loading platens and using epoxy resin as a bonding
agent. The end platens are also heavy and a universal testing machine equipped with
special end attachment fixtures is needed, making this a relatively expensive test. The
DT strength of parent (no lift lines) mass concrete cores tested by USBR averages about
5.2 percent of the static compressive strength and ranges from about 2.9 to 7 percent for
data with a minimum of four tests. DT tests have been performed on cores up to 18 in
diameter.

Double bolted end platens

bonded to ends of test specimen.

Ball and socket – end fixture to

attach plates to the universal
testing machine.

Figure 3. Direct tensile strength test of 18 in diameter drilled mass concrete core (Bureau
of Reclamation).

Tensile Strength of Mass Concrete 919

Several factors affect the DT strength of concrete. Increasing the compressive strength
similarly increases the DT strength of concrete. The direction of testing relative to the
direction the concrete was placed significantly impacts the DT strength of mass concrete.
Cores and cylinders (or prisms) cast vertically may be influenced by bleed water
collecting under large size coarse aggregate, the actual conditions existing in a dam. For
mass cores drilled and tested from Flaming Gorge Dam and Glen Canyon Dam at 10 and
20 years age, the average vertical core DT strength is about 75 to 80 percent of the
horizontal core strength (USBR, 1976, 1986).

There is little direct comparison between drilled cores versus cast cylinders for controlled
mass concrete placement conditions. The few large scale test programs using cast
cylinders shows higher DT strength for cast cylinders with small NMSA compared with
the average DT strength of drilled cores (Ore, 1983). When expressed as a percent of the
compressive strength the DT strength averaged 7.2 percent for some laboratory cast
specimens with an average NMSA of 1.2 in compared to 5.4 percent for drilled cores
with an average NMSA of 5 in. It is likely that exposed large aggregates may more
easily initiate a crack at the surface of a core than a smaller, embedded aggregate in a cast
specimen. Size effects may also play a role in the DT strength test for low core diameter
to NMSA ratios, although it is unclear if this would have a negative (more likely) or
positive effect.

Splitting Tensile Test

The splitting tensile strength test method originated in the late 1940’s. The test method
for concrete was proposed by Carneiro and Barcellos, and independently investigated by
Izzakowa in Japan. It became commonly known as the “Brazilian Method” in the 1970’s
and is currently cited by ASTM No. C 496 “Splitting Tensile Strength of Cylindrical
Concrete Specimens.”

The theory behind the ST strength test is based on the concept that two uniform (and
opposite) point loads acting on a “thin disk” give rise to compressive forces at the point
of load and a uniform tensile stress field through the diameter and perpendicular to the
applied load through the remaining portion of the section. If one assumes that a state of
plane stress exists and that stress is proportional to strain, the forces acting on the disk
can be calculated and the tensile stress can be calculated as 2P/π tD, where P is the
applied load, t is the thickness of the disk and D is the diameter. Assuming that a
cylinder is a series of thin disks, the tensile stress is 2P/π LD where L is the length of the
cylinder (Wright, 1955). In the case of the ASTM C496 ST test, the point load is
replaced with a uniform load over 1 inch bearing strips. No differentiation is made
relative to the width of the bearing strip relative to the diameter of the test specimen
although the method does specify specimens for drilled cores follow the
recommendations of C42 for a diameter of three times, but at least twice the NMSA.
However, ASTM leaves the selection of diameter up to the specifier for NMSA greater
than 1.5 in.

920 Dams and Extreme Events

The attractiveness of the ST strength is readily apparent based on the ease of testing, just
cut the cylinder or core to size and compress it in a standard concrete testing machine,
figure 4. For the most part, the ease and low cost of the splitting tension test is often
cited for its general acceptance as a measure of the tensile strength of concrete.

Figure 4. Splitting tensile strength of drilled mass concrete core with 1 in ASTM C496
bearing strip. In this test, the splitting tension test performed on “split” drilled mass
concrete core with D:NMSA ratio of about 1.6; the tested splitting tensile strength
calculated to more than 300 lb/in2 (Joy, 2010).

Modulus of Rupture Test

The flexural strength or modulus of rupture is determined in a beam bending test. The
beam is loaded at either the center point (ASTM C 293), or most often at third points
(ASTM C 78) to create a central zone of constant bending moment with the failure stress
in tension calculated assuming a linear stress distribution throughout the entire height of
the beam. The flexural test often specified for cast specimens of concrete for pavement,
not mass concrete. Insitu data in flexure requires exacting dimensions that cannot readily
be obtained from sampling mass concrete dams. The flexural strength is in the range of
about 10 to 15 percent of the compressive strength of concrete. This method will not be
discussed in this paper.

TENSILE STRENGTH OF MASS CONCRETE

One of the most widely cited references on tensile strength of mass concrete was
published by Raphael and it had significant implications on how dams are evaluated by
the dam engineering community (Raphael, 1984). Raphael evaluated thousands of tests
on laboratory cast specimens with smaller NMSA performed by others and compared the

Tensile Strength of Mass Concrete 921

results to concrete cores from mass concrete dams tested in the laboratories at the
University of California at Berkley. Based on his evaluation, he concluded that there was
a wide and confusing variety of results for tensile strength of mass concrete and he tried
to sort out this conundrum. He evaluated three test procedures, the DT test, the ST test,
and flexural (beam) strength test. The test data is normalized in charts of the tensile
strength versus corresponding compressive strength, Figures 1 and 2 of his paper.
Raphael’s conclusions have been widely used and are provided in their entirety:

1. “Tensile strength is a constant quantity that can be measured by three

types of tests if care is taken handling specimens and allowance is made in
the mode of failure.
2. Direct tension test is difficult to accomplish and subject to large errors if
the specimen is allowed to surface dry.
3. The splitting tension test is easiest to accomplish and gives the most
reliable results.
4. The modulus of rupture gives consistent results in a variety of laboratories
and gives the value that can be used directly with results of finite element
analysis.
5. Tensile strength can be computed from modulus of rupture by multiplying
by a factor which takes into account the shape of the specimen and the
mode of failure. The factor is ¾ for rectangular cross sections.
6. All values of tensile strength should be increased by 50 percent when used
in seismic loadings.
7. The apparent tensile strength of concrete under seismic loadings is twice
its splitting tensile strength under normal loadings.”

Raphael concluded the DT strength is about one half the ST strength and subject to wide
variations. He found the ST strength to be about half way between the DT strength and
the flexural beam strength, otherwise known as the modulus of rupture. One key factor
influencing his rationale was that both the DT strength and modulus of rupture may be
decreased by drying shrinkage stresses that would not affect the ST test. Raphael
concludes the reason for low DT strength of dam concrete is related to the curing history,
and specifically due to surface drying of cores prior to testing. The rationale for low DT
strength is that drying of concrete cores creates shrinkage stresses on the core surface
exceeding the tensile strength of concrete, perhaps penetrating up to one half inch beyond
the surface of the test specimen in one week to one month of exposure. The low DT test
values were attributed to testing cracked concrete. Figure 3 in the paper describes a
condition of the effects of drying on the moisture gradients in a six inch diameter test
cylinder in rather convincing fashion. However, the figure was derived from plots for
variation of temperature with time assuming a relationship between temperature and
drying diffusivity suggested by Carlson (USBR, 1949, Carlson, 1937). Based on these
observations, Raphael concluded “the splitting tension test will not be affected by surface
drying and should give the actual tensile strength of the concrete.” There is no mention
of specimen size effects for any of these tests.

922 Dams and Extreme Events

Wright commented on discrepancies in the ST test as early as 1955 (Wright, 1955).
According to Wright, “It has been shown by mathematical analysis that a compressive
load applied perpendicular to the axis of a cylinder and in a diametral plane gives rise to a
uniform tensile stress over that plane.” Notable deviations from theory are as follows.
(1) The concrete is not homogeneous as described by the theory. The effect of non-
homogeneous materials on the general distribution of stress cannot be determined. (2)
The theory assumes the material obeys Hooke’s law where strain is proportional to stress.
This does not hold in the case of concrete, the apparent value of Young’s modulus
decreasing as the stress increases in compression. A stress-strain curve of this form tends
to relieve the more highly stressed parts of the specimen through stress redistribution.
This factor would tend to increase the applied load required to break the specimen and
thus give a high value. (3) Deviation from conditions of plane stress. The theory
assumes a state of plane stress (as approximated in a disc) and is not developed for plain
strain which is present in a cylinder. (4) Distribution of applied load. The theory is
developed for a point load on a thin plate, whereas the actual load is distributed over a
band, perhaps as much as 1 to ½ in wide over the loading strip. The effect of distribution
of load in this zone could produce an apparent condition of high compressive stress
leading to failure. Since this does not necessarily occur, the specimen might carry
appreciable compressive stress under a triaxial stress condition, leading the test specimen
to carry substantial load before true tensile failure. (5) Test load orientation. Direct
tension tests are normally performed on vertically cast concretes. Splitting tension tests
from the same concretes are tested horizontally. The direct tension tests concrete normal
to potential flaws, whereas the splitting tension test avoids this condition. (6) The volume
of sample under test. The DT test stresses the entire specimen and failure likely takes
place in the weakest plane. This could be distributed anywhere in the test specimen.
Probability theory shows that the ST strength would approach the average concrete
strength, whereas the DT strength would be closer to the minimum tensile strength.

Hannant, et al investigated the effects of aggregate size and specimen diameter for the ST
test compared to DT tests (Hannant, et al, 1973). They performed ST tests on full, 104
mm diameter test cylinders and a pair of matching cast one-half cylinders of varying
NMSA. In other words, the tensile strength should be zero. They found that half
cylinders, with zero tensile strength across the mid-section, still carried substantial load
and yielded “tensile strengths” by calculation comparable to the DT strengths. This was
replicated by USBR as shown in figure 4. They concluded there is a complex stress state
that affects the ST strength of concrete. They postulated that the initial tensile crack upon
loading is restrained by biaxial compressive zones under the packing strip and failure
only occurs after the crack propagates around this zone or it fails as a wedge in shear of
diagonal tension. The research also concluded the NMSA affected the failure zone under
the packing strip.

FRACTURE MECHANICS APPROACH TO SPLITTING TENSION TEST

Rocco, et al examined the ST strength from a fracture mechanics point of view for six
different test methods (ASTM and British Standards) (Rocco, et al, 2000). The six test
methods differed in specimen size (4 to 6 in) and length (4 to 12 in); specimen geometry

Tensile Strength of Mass Concrete 923

(cube or cylinder), and load bearing strip width (0.16 in to 1 in). All tests used the same
equation to calculate the ST strength even though the theory is based on a point load (or
line load for a cylinder) and the different standards use finite, yet different load bearing
width. Thus, the test methods already conflict with theory even before considering size
effects. Their analysis found that neglecting size effects, this variation to be as much as 6
percent for the different test methods, tolerable for the simplified equation. If size effects
are considered using the fracture mechanics approach, the variation is as much as 35
percent, and the 1 in bearing strip in ASTM C496 method was cited as significantly
contributing to overestimating tensile strength. Based on this analysis, Rocco concluded
that due to size effects, the standardized ST strength should not be considered a material
property of concrete.

IMPACTS OF SIZE EFFECTS ON TENSILE STRENGTH

One significant conclusion by Rocco, et al is the ASTM C496 test may overestimate the
tensile strength of concrete without correction for size effects for both the NMSA and the
specimen diameter/size for the 1 in loading bearing width. Size effects can be estimated
from the fracture mechanics “characteristic length” of concrete. The characteristic length
is considered a material property of concrete and is related to the failure process zone
(cracking zone that still carries tensile load) ahead of a crack, and increases in concrete
with NMSA. Rocco related size effects to the “reduced characteristic length” (lchl) which
was derived knowing the NMSA and compressive strength from CEB Model Code
estimations, see figure 5. The splitting strength (fst) to “true/direct” tensile (ft) strength
ratio (fst/ft) is plotted against the bearing pad width (b) to diameter (D) ratio (b/D) for
different D/lchl ratios. The D/lchl ratio relates the specimen size to fracture properties of
mass concrete. For a given specimen D/lchl ratio, the necessary fst/ft correction factor can
be obtained knowing the b/D ratio, see figure 6. The b/D ratio impacts the zone of
compressive forces at the point of loading. Low b/D ratios result in little of no correction
factor. Increasing b/D ratios from 0.04 to 0.2 results in asymptotically increasing fst/ft
ratio and more correction factor. Implicit in this theory is that small b/D ratios are more
representative of the true point load on a cylinder, and that larger characteristic length
(larger NMSA) increases the zone of influence of aggregate acting under the load bearing
strip.

Figures 5 and 6 are replicated from Rocco, et al for a practical range based on his test
data and the CEB Model Code. Two characteristics can be observed in figure 5 for small
(less than 1.26 in (32 mm)) NMSA concrete: (1) increasing the NMSA increases lchl, and
(2) lchl increases asymptotically with decreasing compressive strength (Rocco, et al, Fig.
12a). It is reasonable to conclude that mass concrete mixtures with large NMSA and
generally lower compressive strength will have significantly larger lchl than conventional
concrete. Figure 6 shows the influence on the ST strength to “true” tensile strength ratio
for a variety of b/D ratios (Fig. 6a, Rocco, 2000). For example, the b/D ratio using a 1-
inch pad as specified in ASTM with a 6-inch diameter core is 0.17. From this graph, the
following can be observed: (1) large lchl (large NMSA) reduces the D/ lchl ratio and thus
increases the fst/ft ratio, [correction factor = 1/ fst/ft ratio], and (2) decreasing the
specimen size/diameter increases the b/D ratio and asymptotically increases the fst/ft ratio.

924 Dams and Extreme Events

For the ASTM C496 test method and 1 in bearing width, small diameter cores and large
NMSA can result in a large increase in fst/ft ratio; the ST strength would have to be
decreased significantly to approach a more realistic “true” tensile strength.

Compressive Strength vs. Reduced Characteristic Length (lchl)
500

32 mm 8 mm
y = 2179x‐0.55 16 mm
Estimated 25 mm

400 32 mm
Power (8 mm)
Power (16 mm)
Power (Estimated 25 mm)
Power (32 mm)
300
Practical Range

Est 25 mm
lchl ‐ mm

(Rocco, et al ‐ 2004)
y = 1918x‐0.551

200

16 mm
y = 697x‐0.444
100

8 mm
y = 341x‐0.405

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
f'c (MPa)

Figure 5. Empirical relation between, lchl, f’c, and dmax derived from CEB Model Code
estimations. (Rocco, et al, Fig. 12b, 2000).

Rocco  (2004) Fig 6a ‐ with scaled D/lchl ratio D‐lchl 0.4

1.4 0.5

0.7
b 1.4
D/lchl = 0.4
D
3

Expon. (D‐lchl 0.4)
1.3
Expon. (0.5)

y = 0.96e1.36x Expon. (0.7)

Expon. (1.4)
fst/ft ratio

Expon. (3)
1.2

y = 0.96e0.91x
(Rocco, 2000)

y = 0.9875e0.3971x

1.1
y = 0.95e1.78x

elastic solution

y = 0.99e0.28x
1
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
b/D ratio Rocco ‐ Practical Range

Figure 6. Variation of the splitting tensile strength with the relative width of the load-
bearing strips according to the cohesive crack model, cylindrical specimens (Rocco, et al,
Fig. 6a, 2000).

Tensile Strength of Mass Concrete 925

It is well established that size effects are present in testing normal concrete. Do the
projected “correction” factors also apply for mass concrete, and if so can the size effects
be estimated? Rocco did not comment on the applicability to large aggregate concrete,
and thus it can only be used as a general guide for applying “correction factors” to mass
concrete for the ASTM C496 ST test. However, reference to the early USBR tensile
strength studies may provide some clues to these apparent size effects.

Figure 7 shows the same data from figure 1 adjusted for size effects using this concept.
The relationship between direct tensile strength, splitting tensile strength, and “adjusted”
tensile strength is expressed as a function of compressive strength. The adjusted tensile
strength is about 6 percent of the compressive strength within the range of most mass
concrete tests. A detailed review of the proposed adjustment for estimating mass
concrete tensile strength based on fracture mechanics concepts follows.

Specimen Size Effects and Tensile Strength Test Method

Tensile Strength - % Compressive Strength

16%

14%
Splitting tension
12%
Cast cylinders ‐ ST ‐ 1 in bearing strip

10%

8%

6%
Cast cylinders ‐ ST ‐ 1/8 in bearing strip
4%
Direct  tension Adjusted tension

2%
Cores ‐ Vertical cast Cast cylinders ‐ vertical and horizontal cast
0%
0.0 5.0 10.0
Core Diameter / Prism Width - NMSA Ratio

Figure 7. Effect of test method on tensile strength as a percent of compressive strength.

Small bearing width in splitting tension test approaches the DT test values.

ESTIMATING PARENT TENSILE STRENGTH OF MASS CONCRETE

The following estimates are based from the test data of cores shown in figure 1 to show
fracture mechanics based adjustments to splitting tensile strength for NMSA and
specimen size with the ASTM C496 ST strength with a 1 in bearing strip width. Based
on the fracture mechanics parameters presented by scaling the Rocco 2000 relationships,
figures 8 and 9 are generated to estimate mass concrete parameters using the following
assumptions: (1) for a given compressive strength, doubling the size of coarse aggregate
doubles the reduced characteristic length lchl, and (2) for a given coarse aggregate size,

926 Dams and Extreme Events

decreasing the compressive strength from 5800 to 2900 lb/in2 increases the lchl by about
40 percent. Figures 8 and 9 include both the “practical range” (figures 5 and 6) by Rocco
for normal concretes and the CEB Model Code and “scaled up” curves proposed for mass
concrete.

Figure 8 also includes data from Li, et al for 1.6 in and 6 in NMSA mass concrete
mixtures using natural and crushed stone (Li, et al, 2004); one of the few examples of
large size testing for fracture properties. The lchl for the Li data is estimated as 20 percent
of the full characteristic length as a point of reference merely to show the scaled curves
appear reasonable. Using these scaling relationships, for typical mass concrete strength
levels 3000 to 6000 lb/in2, and NMSA from 2 to 6 in, the lchl could range from 35 to 67 in
(900 to 1700 mm). This is three to four times larger than conventional concrete. Based
on the fracture mechanics principals, large size aggregates could significantly impact
(overestimate) the ST test result of mass concrete.

Determining the fst/ft ratio for mass concrete is a two-step process. First, lchl is obtained
from the scaled curves for larger aggregate sizes and the average core compressive
strength, figure 8. Second, the fst/ft ratio is obtained using both the b/D ratio (based on
the 1 in bearing width for ASTM C496) and D/lchl ratio to factor in test method and core
size, figure 9.

Compressive Strength vs. Reduced Characteristic Length (lchl)
2500
Note: 
Li ‐ 0.2 x lchl calculated from Rocco a.7 with assumed values for Beta f

64 mm (2.6 in) and 128 mm (5 in) curves scaled ‐ i.e. lchl doubles as NMSA doubles

2000
Note: Rocco ‐ Practicalrange ‐ 50 to 450 mm.

Example:
American Falls (3 in NMSA) ‐ 3610 lb/in2 ‐ lchl = 35 in (900 mm)
Folsom (6 in NMSA) ‐ 4250 lb/in2 ‐ lchl = 51 in (1300 mm)
Upper Stillwater (2 in NMSA) ‐ 4690 lb/in2 ‐ lchl = 22 in (550 mm)
(60) Gerber (2.5 in NMSA ) ‐ 5425 lb/in2 ‐ lchl = 24 in (600 mm) 
(Li, 2004)
1500
lchl ‐ mm (in)

Folsom

American 6 in
(40) Falls
1000
Upper
Stillwater
Gerber 3 in
(20)
500
(Rocco, 2000)
2 in

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
(2000) (3000) (5000)
Compressive Strength ‐ MPa (lb/in2)

Figure 8. Projecting reduced characteristic length (lchl) (Rocco, Fig. 12a, 2000) from
compressive strength scaled to estimate values for large aggregate, mass concrete cores.

For example, the average compressive strength from four core investigations of varying
compressive strength and NMSA with good representative data is projected in Figure 8 to

Tensile Strength of Mass Concrete 927

estimate reduced characteristic length. The projected lchl ranges from 22 in to 51 in (550
to 1300 mm). Figure 9 is another scaled version of the Rocco data to extrapolate the fst/ft
ratio for the mass concrete cores. In this case mass concrete data falls completely above
the curves for the calculated D/lchl. An estimated D/lchl curve of 0.25 is added again by
scaling to generate a point of reference for estimating the fst/ft ratio for mass concrete and
the b/D scale is also increased to 0.25 by scaling (a 1 in bearing width and a 4 in diameter
core). A correction factor for converting splitting test data to an ideal or “true” tensile
strength is obtained by 1/ (fst/ft) ratio. It should be noted that the data is not adjusted for
other effects, such as crushed versus natural aggregate.

Rocco, et al,  (2000) Fig 6a ‐ with scaled D/lchl ratio
2
Dam (NMSA) (b/D, D/lchl) ‐ estimated fst/ft ratio Estimated
D/lch1 = 0.25
1.9

Gerber (2.5 in) D/lch1
1.8 (0.25, 0.17) ‐ 1.8

b D/lchl = 0.4
1.7 y= 0.95e1.78x
D

D/lch1
1.6
Upper Stillwater (2 in)  D/lchl == 0.5
fst/ft ratio

(0.17, 0.27) ‐ 1.4 y = 0.96e1.37x

1.5

(Rocco, 2000)
1.4
D/lchl = 0.7
Folsom (6 in) y = 0.96e0.91x
1.3 (0.08, 0.23) ‐ 1.2 
American Falls (3 in) 
(0.1, 0.28) ‐ 1.2
D/lchl = 1.4 
1.2
y= 0.99e0.4x

1.1
D/lchl = 3.0
elastic solution y = 0.99e0.28x
1
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35

Rocco ‐ Practical Range b/D ratio

Figure 9. Estimate of splitting tension / (direct) tensile strength (fst/ft) ratio of mass
concrete cores adjusted for D/lchl and b/D ratio for different size specimens (expanded
by scaling from Rocco, et al, Fig. 6a, 2000).

Tables 2 and 3 show average strength properties of mass concrete dam cores from several
programs with good representative data and correction factors for tensile strength based
on the fracture mechanics cohesive crack model, respectively. On average, the
adjusted/estimated tensile strength is about 25 percent higher than the average DT
strength and 35 percent lower than the average ST strength. It should be noted that this
may or may not be close to the DT strength as this should be considered a lower bound.

928 Dams and Extreme Events

 Table 2. Average parent strength properties of mass concrete drilled cores.

Core Test Direct Split DT % ST % Dia

Dam NMSA Comp ST/DT
Dia Age Tension Tension Comp Comp NMSA
in in year lb/in2 lb/in2 lb/in2
American 238 390 3610
3 10 13 6.6% 10.8% 1.64 3.3
Falls (4) 1/ (3) (11)
190 405 3290
Arrowrock 4.5 6 72 5.8% 12.3% 2.13 1.3
(12) (35) (36)
195 360 4250
Folsom 6 12 50 4.6% 8.5% 1.85 2.0
(3) (6) (10)
265 505 5425
Gerber 2.5 4 86 4.9% 9.3% 1.91 1.6
(33) (36) (40)
240 335 4760
Monticello 6 10 42 5.0% 7.0% 1.40 1.7
(2) (6) (6)
135 330 4710
Monticello 6 10 39 2.9% 7.0% 2.44 1.7
(5) (3) (3)
Theodore
236 460 5090
Roosevelt 4 6 1 4.6% 9.0% 1.95 1.5
(7) (8) (8)
Mod
Upper
240 460 4690
Stillwater 2 6 14 5.1% 9.8% 1.92 3.0
(6) (11) (11)
RCC
Warm 140 235 3040
6 6 48 4.6% 7.7% 1.68 1.0
Springs (4) (9) (28)
300 475 6160
Yellowtail 6 10 26 4.9% 7.7% 1.58 1.7
(4) (6) (2)
Average 221 404 4500 4.9% 9.0% 1.9 1.8
1/ (Number of tests)

Table 3. Estimated tensile strength of mass concrete cores adjusted for size effects.

Estimated
D/lchl
Direct Split Tensile
Estimated ratio Estimated
Tension Tension Compression b/D Strength
Dam lchl Figure fst/ft ratio
Parent Parent ratio Figure 8
Figure 7 7 Figure 8
correction
curves
s
lb/in2 lb/in2 lb/in2 in lb/in2
American
238 390 3610 35 0.28 0.10 1.20 325
Falls
Arrowrock 190 405 3290 59 0.10 0.17 1.60 253
Folsom 195 360 4250 59 0.20 0.08 1.25 288
Gerber 265 505 5425 24 0.17 0.25 1.70 297
Monticello 240 335 4760 59 0.17 0.10 1.35 248
Monticello 135 330 4710 59 0.17 0.10 1.35 244
Theodore
Roosevelt 236 460 5090 35 0.17 0.17 1.70 271
Mod
Upper
Stillwater 240 460 4690 22 0.28 0.17 1.40 329
RCC
Warm
140 235 3040 71 0.08 0.17 1.80 131
Springs
Yellowtail 300 475 6160 47 0.21 0.10 1.30 365
Average 221 404 4500 280
Percent
Compressive 4.9 9.0 6.2
Strength

Tensile Strength of Mass Concrete 929

Historical laboratory studies for tensile strength of concrete present additional data
supporting the size effect adjustments. Early direct tensile strength tests by the USBR
were performed using “dogbone” prisms (decreasing size from platen to the center) and
splitting tension tests with a 1/8 in bearing strip, b/D ratio of only 0.02. The NMSA was
either 0.75 or 1.5 in and the average compressive strength was very high, ranging from
6650 lb/in2 at 90 days to over 10000 lb/in2 at 1 year (Ore, 1983). Figures 8 and 9 would
indicate a lchl of about 10 in (250 mm), a D/lchl ratio of about 0.6 and the resulting
correction factor is essentially 1, no adjustment is necessary. The average tensile strength
for all tests was about 445 lb/in2, 5.4 percent of average compressive strength for the
direct test and 505 lb/in2, 6.1 percent for the splitting test. The direct tensile strength was
comparable to the splitting strength for horizontal casting and narrow bearing width.
More recent tests by USBR also demonstrate the size effect relationship. Recent
laboratory (vertical) cast specimens with 1.5 in NMSA crushed limestone aggregate had
the following average strength based on 10 to 30 tests: compressive strength – 5720 lb/in2
(10 tests), splitting tensile strength – 490 lb/in2 (20 tests), and direct tensile strength – 380
lb/in2 (30 tests). The following values are obtained from figures 8 and 9: lchl - 14 in, D/lchl
- 0.44, fst/ft - 1.27, and estimated tensile strength is 385 lb/in2, very close to the tested DT
strength (Robertson, 2011). The data from the laboratory studies may also explain the
apparent higher tensile strength of early age concretes with the same NMSA. For the
same NMSA, the early age compressive strength is less, and the lchl would be higher.
Thus, for the same size test specimen, the D/lchl ratio would be less and the resulting fst/ft
ratio would be higher.

It should also be noted again from figure 7 the splitting test and direct test converge at a
specimen size: NMSA ratio of about 7. This supports what Rocco; et al demonstrated
experimentally using the cohesive crack model for granite and mortar specimens (Rocco,
et al, 1998) . To completely eliminate size effects in the splitting tension test for the mass
concrete, the specimens would have to be about 7 to 8 times the NMSA, or about 3.5 to 4
ft in diameter for 6 in NMSA mass concrete!

The average tensile strength of cores and cylinders are plotted versus compressive
strength in Figure 10. The trend lines are weighted for the number of tests for each data
set. The un-adjusted splitting tension test results of mass concrete fit remarkably well
with the relationship proposed by Raphael in 1984. The adjusted values lie between the
ST and DT values and closer to the DT values. The adjusted tensile strength for 4000
lb/in2 mass concrete calculates to about 270 lb/in2. It should be noted this represents a
wide variety of test conditions, mixtures, NMSA, and test ages which makes the

930 Dams and Extreme Events

correlation coefficients extremely
Compressive  ‐ Tensile Strength Relationships of Mass Concrete Cores and Cast Specimens
800 Splitting Tension
Raphael, 1984
y = 1.7x0.66 y = 3.5x0.58
Average Tensile Strength ‐ lb/in2 700 R² = 1 R² = 0.38

600 Adjusted
y = 1.0519x0.6709
500 R² = 0.487

400

300
Direct Tension
y = 2.08x0.56
200 R² = 0.28

100

0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Average Compressive Strength ‐ lb/in2

Compression ‐ Direct Tension All Compression ‐ Splitting Tension All Raphael Calculated

Compression Adjusted Tension All Power (Compression ‐ Direct Tension All) Power (Compression ‐ Splitting Tension All)

low. Power (Raphael Calculated) Power (Compression Adjusted Tension All)

Figure 7. Average tensile strength versus compressive strength for splitting test, direct
test, and splitting test adjusted for size effects for mass concrete cores and laboratory cast
specimens.

DYNAMIC TENSILE PROPERTIES OF MASS CONCRETE

Do size effects also influence the static-dynamic tensile strength of mass concrete? The
dynamic properties of mass concrete are based on tests under varying strain rates from
sec-6 to sec-5 for static loading to sec-3 to sec-2 for earthquake loading (Bischoff and Perry,
1991). USBR tests related the loading rate to the quarter cycle peak of earthquake waves
ranging from about 2 to 10 Hz, resulting in failure times ranging from about 0.05 to 0.25
sec for compressive, DT, and ST tests. Jackmauh and Munoz reported on two studies
performed by USBR comparing dynamic properties of 4 in NMSA mass and 1.5 in
NMSA (wet-screened from 3 in NMSA mass) concrete (Jackmauh and Munoz, Draft
1987). In the first study, rapid DT strength of 12 – by 36 in specimens was compared to
static compressive strength of 12 – by 24 in NMSA compressive strength specimens for
two mass concrete mixtures cast vertically and cured for about 6 years under sealed
moisture conditions. No static direct tension or static or dynamic splitting tension tests
were performed. The rapid DT strength of the mass specimens is compared to the static
DT strength of mass mixtures from a previous (1983) study. The ST strength tests used
the ASTM C 496 (1 in bearing strip) compared to the 1/8 in bearing strip from the same
(1983) study. The second study compared the rapid splitting and compressive strength to
static compressive strength of 1.5 in NMSA, 6- by 12 in wet-screened cylindrical
specimens cast vertically. Again, there is no single data set comparing all parameters
related to tensile strength of mass concrete.

Tensile Strength of Mass Concrete 931

The rapid DT strength averaged about 7.1 percent of the average static compressive
strength in these studies whereas the static DT strength averaged about 5 percent of the
average compressive strength for comparable mass mixtures in the 1983 tests. Although
the studies used different aggregates, the average compressive strengths are comparable,
4470 lb/in2 for the rapid studies vs. 4960 lb/in2 for the static studies. It is reasonable to
assume the DT strength increases up to 40 percent under dynamic conditions compared to
static tests.

In the second study, the static ST strength of 1.5 in NMSA, wet-screened concrete
averaged about 465 lb/in2 and the rapid ST strength, about 550 lb/in2. This averages
about 11.5 and 13.5 percent of the average static compressive strength. The average
compressive strength increased about 30 percent, from about 4110 lb/in2 to 5300 lb/in2
for static to rapid loading, the rapid ST strength increased about 18 percent. Rapid ST
strength actually decreased as a percent of rapid compressive strength (10.2 percent).

It is important to understand moisture conditioning when performing both static and rapid
load testing. Saucier and Carpenter performed both static and rapid load DT strength
tests on 8 – by 16 in diameter cores drilled from laboratory test blocks of mass concrete
with 3 in NMSA and two compressive strength levels, 3000 lb/in2 and 6000 lb/in2
(Saucier and Carpenter, 1977). Tests were performed on saturated and air dried cores at
about 1 year age. For the 3000 lb/in2 mixture, the DT strength of saturated cores
increased on average 33 percent from 195 lb/in2 to 260 lb/in2 under a 5 Hz rapid load
rate, from about 6.9 to 9.3 percent of the static compressive strength. Air dried
specimens showed only slight increase in static to rapid DT strength, 235 lb/in2 to 250
lb/in2. It should be noted that the initial saturated strength is less than the initial air-dried
strength and the results show about equal strength for both under rapid loading. Air
drying increased both the static compressive and DT strength equally, about 20 percent.
Air-drying did not appear to decrease tensile strength as had previously been assumed.
Tarbox, et al reported higher increase from static to rapid load tests for compressive (20
to 30 percent), direct (30 percent), splitting (66 percent), and flexural (47 percent) tests.
Details of moisture conditioning and test methods for the data sets are no longer available
for comparison to investigate possible size effects.

Harris, et al reported ST tests averaging about a 50 percent increase from static to rapid
tests for saturated cores and about from 0 to 33 percent increase for air-dried cores
(Harris, et al, 2000). Additional tests specifically directed at moisture conditioning for
two dams show an increase in static to rapid ST strength for saturated 6 in diameter cores
(+ 56 percent), air-dried 6 in diameter cores (+ 36 percent), and 12 in air-dried cores (+37
percent) for a 4 in NMSA mass concrete with an average compressive strength of about
5000 lb/in2. Using the correction factors estimated from the cohesive crack model, the
adjusted tensile strength is about 330 lb/in2 for the 6 in cores and 320 lb/in2 for 12 in
diameter air-dried cores under static loading conditions. For the dynamic loading
condition, the 6 in and 12 in air-dried “adjusted” tensile strength averaged about 420
lb/in2 and 500 lb/in2; an increase of about 27 and 56 percent of the adjusted static
strength. For the lower strength (2020 lb/in2) Warm Springs Dam (81 years age) with 6
in NMSA, crushed coarse aggregate, saturated 6 in diameter cores increased 61 percent

932 Dams and Extreme Events

from static to rapid loading and air dried specimens decreased 3 percent. The saturated
compressive strength also increased about 35 percent, whereas the air-dried compressive
strength only increased 2 percent. The test data clearly shows that saturated test
specimens are likely to increase under dynamic load rates. However, the ST test was
quite variable for the moisture conditioning conditions studied.

ESTIMATING TENSILE STRENGTH FOR STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF

DAMS

This paper suggests a method to correct measured tension values from split cylinder test
results of parent (unjointed) concrete. An account is made for the crack initiation length
initiated by tension stresses. Using this method, an approximation for the tension stress is
found. Alternative methods to use the split cylinder test results without correction when
comparing, or using analysis methods are:

1. Assuring the tension values are compared to analysis results representing the
comparable stress state.

2. Using the split cylinder results with other data to form a failure surface for analysis or
analysis result comparison.

In 1999 (Harris et al., 1999), compared the results of static tension tests: the direct tension
test and the split cylinder test. The resulting average ratio of the two tests was
approximately 2:1. This is an expected result due to the biaxial stress state at failure for
ST tests and the uniaxial stress state at failure for DT results. Results from analysis can
be compared to ST laboratory values when compression stresses represent the larger
stresses on an element and tension stresses are smaller.

The second approach is to use split cylinder data with compression data to form a failure
surface. An example using the well-known Mohr-Coulomb relation is shown in figure
11. Because the material element contains stress components on two faces, the material
is in a biaxial stress state. The biaxial stress state has the maximum vertical stress
occurring at the center and decreasing to zero at the full diameter. Note the ratios of
vertical (compression) to horizontal (tension) stresses have an absolute value of 4, and the
ST/DT ratio (ST not adjusted) is about 2.6. Figure 11 helps represent one shear strength
model of the stress surface for evaluating multi-axial stresses. To confirm this approach,
laboratory Mohr Coulomb results obtained in the USBR laboratories using a high
capacity conventional triaxial testing device with multiple confining pressures, similar to
techniques used with soils, is shown in figure 12 for multiple test suites from two dam
sites. The approach of using split cylinder and compression data is overlaid on the
triaxial data. As can be readily seen in figure 12 the latter approach produces consistent
results with regard to cohesion, and friction angle.

Tensile Strength of Mass Concrete 933

 Figure 8. Split cylinder data and compression data used to form shear surface.

Figure 9. Comparison of measured Mohr Coulomb values from conventional triaxial

testing and estimated values using split cylinder test and compression test.

934 Dams and Extreme Events

 NEED FOR JUDGEMENT IN THE EVALUATION OF DAMS

The value to use for the tensile strength of concrete in the stability analysis of a concrete
dam is typically a dilemma. The direct tensile strength is different, and usually about
half the splitting tensile strength. The static tensile strength is less than the dynamic
tensile strength. Then there are the physical features of the dam that effect the tensile
stress such as stress concentrations at changes in geometry or at formed indentations
along lift joints exposed at the face of dams. Or, the tensile strength of the lift joint itself
that not only is a function of the concrete mix but a function of construction, joint
preparation, and placing techniques. Then there are internal stresses not accounted for in
structural analysis such as thermal induced stresses, shrinkage, freeze-thaw, and surface
weathering.

Fortunately, the stability of a concrete dam does not totally rely on the tensile strength of
concrete alone. Cracking of concrete is usually the start of a series of events of a
potential failure mode and not the failure mode itself. For an “intact” concrete dam to
fail the following sequence of events occur: 1) the concrete cracks, 2) the cracks progress
through the section, 3) the cracks and contraction joints form a removable block, 4) the
block slides, and 5) the block slides enough to cause a total 3D instability of the dam.
For a concrete dam with un-bonded lift joints, the first two series of events have already
occurred. The tensile strength along the joint is zero “cracked”. The lift joints are un-
bonded through the section of the dam “cracked through”. This is no big deal if the dam
is stable in this condition. There are many concrete dams that are stable with un-bonded
lifts or cracked concrete.

This paper raises some serious questions about the splitting tensile test. However, even
though there are uncertainties in the testing, there are numerous other uncertainties when
it comes to the tensile stress in the concrete. The bottom line should be to use good
engineering judgment when assessing the stability of a concrete dam, know and
understand the potential uncertainties, and do not rely too heavily on one strength
parameter to provide the ultimate stability of the dam. A conservative approach to the
tensile strength of concrete is suggested.

CONCLUSIONS

Size effects in tension testing of quasibrittle materials such as concrete are well
established. Although much of the laboratory testing has been demonstrated on plain
concrete with small NMSA, these size effects can be related to existing test data for mass
concrete cores to solve the question concerning of why the ST strength of mass concrete
is about twice the DT strength. The test data suggests that for mass concrete, the ASTM
C 496 ST test may overestimate the “true” tensile strength . Small diameter cores with 2
to 6 in NMSA may overestimate the apparent tensile strength by 40 to 80 percent and
should discouraged from use in tension testing. Ten to twelve inch diameter cores with 3
to 6 inch NMSA may overestimate the apparent tensile strength by 20 to 35 percent.

Tensile Strength of Mass Concrete 935

By scaling the cohesive crack model concepts to mass concrete, there is a means to adjust
the ASTM ST data for NMSA, compressive strength, and specimen size and arrive at a
better estimate of tensile strength. The DT strength test and closer to the adjusted tensile
strength for cores and cast cylinders using estimated reduction factors and is lower than
the ST strength. The size effects in the splitting tension test might be partially overcome
by adjusting the bearing strip width to specimen size for mass concrete for the ASTM
C496 test method.

The cohesive crack model also shows promise for adjusting the apparent tensile strength
for size effects under dynamic loading conditions. The limited test results available
indicate that a static to dynamic scaling factor of up to 1.5 appears reasonable for
saturated DT strength test specimens. This dynamic increase should not be used for ST
strength or for air-dried test specimens.

Although the data supports the concepts of size effects on tensile strength testing of mass
concrete, comprehensive investigations are lacking. Research should be conducted to
better estimate the fracture properties of mass concrete under controlled conditions with
varying size specimens to confirm these conclusions. A comprehensive research program
should first confirm estimates of fracture properties of mass concrete followed by
comparing static and dynamic testing of large and small size specimens for the same
mass mixtures to confirm size effects.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to recognize the USBR Dam Safety Program for funding much of
the research and development work to compile and analyze this data. We greatly
acknowledge the efforts of C. Rocco, G.V. Guinea, J. Planas, Z. Bazant, and M. Elices
for their substantial contributions in applying fracture mechanics to the splitting tensile
test. The authors would also like to thank Ken Hansen for his editorial review.

REFERENCES

ASTM International, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA,
2012.

Bažant, Z. P., 1984, “Size Effect in Blunt Fracture: Concrete, Rock, Metal,” ASCE
Journal, 110, pp. 518-535.

Bažant, Z.P. and Pfeiffer, P.A. “Determination of Fracture Energy from size effect and
Brittleness Number,” ACI Materials Journal, November-December, 1987, pp.463-480.

Carlson, Roy W., “Drying Shrinkage of Large Concrete Members,” ACI Journal,
Proceedings V. 33, No. 3, Jan-Feb 1937, pp. 327-336.

Carneiro, F.L.L.B, and Barcellos, A., Tensile strength of concretes. ILEM Bulletin, No.
13, March 1953, pp. 99-125.

936 Dams and Extreme Events

“Cooling of Concrete Dams,” Bulletin No. 3, Final Reports, Boulder Canyon Projects-
Part VII, Cement and Concrete Investigations, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 1949, p. 73.
Concrete Manual, A Water Resources Technical Publication, Ninth Edition - Revised,
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, 1992, pp. 726-731.

Dolen, T.P., “Materials Properties Model of Aging Concrete,” Report No. DSO-05-05, U.
S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Dam Safety Technology
Development Program, Technical Service Center, Denver, CO, USA, December, 2005.

Dolen, T. P., "Selecting Strength Input Parameters for Structural Analysis of Aging
Concrete Dams," USSD Annual Meeting, San Diego, CA, February, 2011.

Graham, James R., Concrete Performance in Yellowtail Dam, Montana 5 year Core
Report, U. S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, laboratory Report No.
C-1321, October 1969.

Hannant, D.J., Buckley, J., and Croft, J., “The effect of aggregate size on the use of the
cylinder splitting test as a measure of tensile strength,” Materuaux et Constructions,
RILEM, Vol. 6, No. 3, 1973, pp. 15-21.

Harboe, Edward M., “Properties of Concrete in Glen Canyon Dam – 20-Year Core
Report,” U. S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Report No. GR-85-12,
April, 1986.

Harris, D.W., Mohorovic, C.E., and Dolen, T.P., “Dynamic Properties of Mass Concrete
Obtained from Dam Cores,” ACI Materials Journal, May-June, 2000. Pp. 290-296.

Hillerborg, A.; Modéer, M.; and Petersson, P.-E., 1976, “Analysis of Crack Formation
and Crack Growth in Concrete by Means of Fracture,” Mechanics and Finite Elements,
Cement and Concrete Res., V. 6, No. 6, pp. 773-782.

Hillerborg, A., “The Theoretical Basis of a Method to Determine Fracture Energy Gf of

Concrete,” Materials and Structures, Research and Testing (RILEM, Paris), V. 18, No.
106, July-Aug. 1985, pp. 291-296.

Joy, Westin, Gerber Dam - 2009 and 2010 Concrete Coring and Laboratory Testing
Programs, Klamath Project, Oregon, Mid-Pacific Region, U.S. Dept. of the Interior,
Bureau of Reclamation, Technical Memorandum No. MERL-2010-22, October, 2012.

Li, Q., Deng, Z., and Fu, H.,” Effect of Aggregate Type on Mechanical Behavior of Dam
Concrete,”ACI Materials Journal, ACI, Detroit, MI, November-December, 2004, PP 483-
492.

Tensile Strength of Mass Concrete 937

Mather, B. and W. Tynes, “Investigation of Compressive Strength of Molded Cylinders
and Drilled Cores of Concrete,” Proceedings American Concrete Institute, V57, 1960-
1961, pp. 767-778.

Ore, E., Concrete Tensile Strength Study, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of
Reclamation, Report No. REC-ERC-81-5, Denver, CO, April 1983.

Raphael, J., “Tensile Strength of Concrete,” ACI Journal Proceedings, Vol. 81, No. 2,
March-April, 1984, pp158-165.

Riffle, H.C. and Smith, F.L., “Strength and Elastic Properties of Concrete in Flaming
Gorge Dam 10-Year Core Report,” U. S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of
Reclamation Report No. GR-13-76 February, 1976.

Robertson, J. Bret, “Unpublished Checked Data, Direct Tensile Strength Test Research,
U. S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Materials Engineering and
Research Laboratory, Denver, CO, 2011.

Rocco, C., Guinea, G.V., Planas, J., and Elices, M., “Review of the splitting-test
standards from a fracture mechanics point of view,” Cement and Concrete Research, Vol.
31 (2001), pp. 73-82.

Rocco, C., Guinea, G.V., Planas, J., and Elices, M., “Size effect and boundary conditions
in the Brazilian test: Experimental verification,” Materials and Structures, Vol. 32, April
1999, pp. 210-217.

Saucier, K.L., and Carpenter, L., “Dynamic Properties of Mass Concrete,” Dynamic
Geotechnical Testing Symposium, Denver, CO, ASTM STP. 654, ASTM, Philadelphia,
PA, June 28, 1977, pp. 163-178.
Tarbox, G.G.S., Dreher, K.J., and Carpenter, L.R., “Seismic Analysis of Concrete
Dams,” Q.51 R.11, 13th International Congress on Large Dams, New Delhi, India, 1979,
ICOLD, 1979, pp.963-993.

Tucker, J., “Effect of Dimensions of Specimens upon the Precision of Strength Data,”
Proceedings ASTM, V. 45, 1945, pp. 952-959.

Weibbull, W.A., “Statistical Theory of the Strength of Materials,” Proceedings of the

Royal Swedish Institute of Engineering Research, Stockholm, Sweden, V. 151, 1939, pp.
1-45.

Wright, P.J., “Comments on an indirect tensile test on concrete cylinders,” Magazine of

Concrete Research, No. 20, July, 1955.
Zheng, et al, “Direct Tension Test of Concrete,” ACI Materials Journal, Jan-Feb, 2001,
pp. 63-71.

938 Dams and Extreme Events