Materials and Structures/Matériaux et Constructions, Vol.
33, July 2000, pp 381-390
Round-Robin analysis of over-reinforced concrete beams –
Comparison of results
J. G. M. van Mier1 and J. P. Ulfkjær2
(1) Delft University of Technology, Faculty of Civil Engineering and Geo-Sciences, Microlab, P.O. Box 5048, 2600 GA Delft, The
Netherlands
(2) Joint Research Centre, ISIS-SMU, I-21020 Ispra (VA), Italy
Paper received: December 16, 1999; Paper accepted: February 4, 2000
A B S T R A C T
Following the Round-Robin test on compressive
softening, RILEM TC 148-SSC (“Strain Softening of
Concrete”, see [1]) has proposed a second Round-
Robin on the application of strain-softening data from
simple uniaxial compression tests for the analysis of over-
reinforced beams. The beams were tested at Aalborg
University in Denmark in 1996. The Round-Robin is
carried out in collaboration with ACI-ASCE committee
447 (“Finite Element Analysis of Reinforced Concrete
Structures”). The results of the beam tests have been
kept confidential, and researchers were invited to analyze
the beams given the compressive and tensile properties
of the concrete and the reinforcement. In total six con-
tributions were submitted, which were compared to the
exper imental results in a workshop at the 3rd
International Conference on Fracture Mechanics of
Concrete and Concrete Structures, in Gifu, Japan in
October 1998. In this report the outcome of the differ-
ent analyses are summarized and the results are com-
pared to the experimentally obtained peak loads, ductil-
ity and size effect.
1 INTRODUCTION
In model codes formulas and recommendations are
included for the stress-strain behaviour of concrete sub-
jected to uniaxial compression. Sometimes a bi-linear
diagram is proposed, but also more accurate formulations
appear based on the measured shape of the stress-strain
curve. The question is whether the information included
in the model codes is sufficiently accurate to warrant a
reliable analysis of reinforced concrete structures. The
demand for accurate constitutive models, not only under
uniaxial compression but under generalized triaxial stress
Editorial Note
Prof. Jan G. M. van Mier is a RILEM Senior Member and a Member of the Management Advisory Committee, as well as RILEM's National
Delegate for the Netherlands. He also participates as a Corresponding Member in RILEM TC EAS 'Early age shrinkage induced stresses and cracking in
cementitious systems'.
1359-5997/00 © RILEM
SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
R É S U M É
À la suite des essais croisés inter-laboratoires sur le
ramollissement en compression, le TC 148-SSC de la
RILEM a proposé une deuxième série d’essais croisés
concernant l’analyse des poutres en béton armé, basée sur
les résultats de ramollissement issus d’expériences faites en
compression simple. Ces expériences ont été effectuées en
1996 à l’Université d’Aalborg, au Danemark. Les essais
croisés inter-laboratoires s’opèrent en collaboration avec le
comité ACI-ASCE 447 (Analyse des structures en béton
armé par éléments finis). Tandis que les résultats expéri-
mentaux sont restés confidentiels, les chercheurs ont été
invités à analyser les poutres en tenant compte des proprié-
tés en tension et en compression du béton et de l’armature.
Au total, six articles ont été soumis et leurs conclusions ont
été comparées aux résultats expérimentaux. Cette compa-
raison a été présentée lors de la Troisième Conférence sur la
« Mécanique de Rupture du Béton et Constructions en
béton » (FraMCoS), qui a eu lieu à Gifu (au Japon) en
1998. Dans ce rapport, les résultats des analyses sont
résumés et comparés aux résultats expérimentaux, tels que
le chargement maximal, la fragilité et l’effet d’échelle.
as well has become an important issue since the introduc-
tion of numerical methods in engineering. The use of
finite element methods allows for a description of the
complete fracture behaviour of concrete structures. The
basic assumption is that the structure can be broken
down in a number of elementary building blocks. These
building blocks include the constitutive laws for the con-
crete, the steel and the bond zone between steel and con-
crete. Because concrete is a quasi-brittle fracturing mater-
ial, the constitutive laws should include a reliable fracture
criterion. The development over the years is quite well
known. Starting from classical strength of materials, via
381
Materials and Structures/Matériaux et Constructions, Vol. 33, July 2000
plasticity theories, we have now arrived in the field of
fracture mechanics. For tensile fracture, Hillerborg and
co-workers [2] proposed a variant to the well-known
Dugdale-Barenblatt plastic crack tip model [3, 4]. Instead
of using a constant yield stress over a frontal process-zone
of the crack tip, it was proposed that the softening behav-
iour measured in a uniaxial tension test should be used as
a closing pressure on the crack tip. However, the question
remains if the model is physically sound. Close scrutiny
of uniaxial tensile tests has shown that the fracture
process is dependent on the boundary conditions adopted
in the test [5]. A main characteristic of the tensile soften-
ing behaviour is that all tensile deformations tend to
localize in a narrow zone (ultimately a crack) after the
maximum stress has been exceeded. In 1984 Van Mier [6]
showed that a similar localization of deformations occurs
under uniaxial compression. This means that fracture
mechanics principles also would apply in compression,
but it is hard to imagine a shear band propagating and a
frontal ‘process zone’ with a closure pressure similar to
the compressive softening diagram. In fact, such an anal-
ogy with the tensile fracture model of Hillerborg, and the
plastic crack tip model of Dugdale/Barenblatt, would be
the logical consequence of the above line of reasoning to
arrive at an extension for the Fictitious Crack Model for
compression. Based on the observations by Van Mier [6]
a compressive model with localization was proposed by
Hillerborg [7] for computing the rotational capacity of
reinforced concrete beams failing in compression. The
model was extended by Markeset [8], and more models
try to incorporate the localization phenomenon in com-
pression.
To the authors’ opinion, fracturing of concrete is a
process that may take different forms in structures of dif-
ferent size and shape. The simple compression test
between rigid loading platens must also be regarded as a
structural test. Kotsovos [9] clearly showed that the type
of loading platens used in the compression test affects the
peak load and the descending portion of the stress-strain
curve. As mentioned, Van Mier [6] showed localization
of deformations through the dependency of softening on
specimen slenderness in uniaxial compression. The post-
peak stress-deformation diagram is independent of speci-
men length, as was confirmed by many others, e.g. [1, 10,
11]. Vonk [10] showed that the post-peak behaviour also
depends on the rotational freedom of the loading platens,
quite similar to the effect observed in tension [12]. Jansen
& Shah [11] extended the range of slenderness to h/d = 6
and demonstrated that with a specially designed control
system stable post-peak behaviour - irrespective of the
large energy release leading to global snap-back behaviour
- could be obtained. The independence of post-peak
stress-deformation diagrams on slenderness was con-
firmed even for these very slender specimens.
Among the first to establish a relation between crack-
ing and the shape of the stress-strain curve in compres-
sion were Hsu et al. [13]. A continuously increasing
crack density was measured in specimens loaded up to a
certain compressive level, and around peak-stress the
cracks started to form continuous patterns. It is argued
382
that this process also takes place in a beam loaded in
bending. The energy dissipation in the compression
zone must be similar to what happens in a concrete
prism loaded in uniaxial compression in a rigid testing
machine. The main difference is however that the
boundary conditions are relatively quite well known in
terms of boundary friction and rotational freedom of the
loading platens in the ‘simple’ uniaxial compression test.
In the reinforced beam this is not so much the case, and
some assumptions must be made about these effects.
Therefore making a proposal for a test method for mea-
suring strain softening under uniaxial compression
(including all the problems caused by localization in the
post-peak regime), must be accompanied by verification
analyses whether a new method would work or not.
Thus, the main question to be posed is: “How should a
compressive stress-strain diagram be measured to obtain the most
optimal result in structural engineering?” This is the main
reason for initiating the Round-Robin test [1] and the
current Round-Robin analysis on compressive softening
by the RILEM committee 148 SSC. From the results of
the Round-Robin test [1], it was confirmed that local-
ization of deformations occurs in the descending branch
under uniaxial compression. Moreover, it was confirmed
that the use of friction reducing measures, such as com-
binations of Teflon and grease layers between the speci-
men and the steel loading platens of the compressive test
machine lead to a constant compressive strength, irre-
spective of the specimen slenderness. However, when
friction-reducing measures are used, the post-peak
behaviour becomes more brittle, and the softening curve
becomes steeper. What is the effect of this on the out-
come of structural analyses? Tests with 0.25 ≤ h/d ≤ 2.0
performed by Van Vliet & Van Mier [14] showed that
the scatter in results decreased when longer specimens
were selected. The scatter band of the stress-strain curves
was more narrow for 200 mm high specimens than for
50 mm and 25 mm high specimens. The reason can only
be guessed. It should be noted however that a careful
specimen manufacturing method is essential to obtain
low scatter results in the first place.
The above overview indicates the reason for the
Round-Robin analysis on over-reinforced beams. It was
attempted to design a beam that would fail in compres-
sion. In this way an excellent bench mark would become
available to check whether the compressive strain-soft-
ening curve from either low friction compression tests or
from high friction compression tests (between steel
platens) would be the better choice for a new standard
test for measuring strain-softening.
In this paper a short summary of the Round-Robin
problem is given. The beam size and geometry, rein-
forcement layout, as well as the compressive strain-soft-
ening properties and steel properties are described. After
that a brief overview of the main results from the beam
tests is included. Next, a summary is given of the com-
putational models used in the six submitted analyses.
Thereafter the main results (i.e. peak loads, mid-span
def lections at peak load, size/scale effect on peak load,
and post-peak ductility of the beam) are compared to the
Van Mier, Ulfkjær

results from the experiments.

Finally, the consequences of
this Round-Robin on the
new test standard for com-
pressive strain-softening will
be debated.

2. SUMMARY OF
ROUND-ROBIN
PROBLEM
The experiments for the
Round-Robin analysis on
over-reinforced concrete
beams were carried out at
Aalborg University in
Denmark, [15]. Next to the
beam tests, uniaxial compres-
sion tests, uniaxial tension
tests and three-point-bend-
ing tests were conducted to
characterize the three mate-
rials used in the experiments. Fig. 1 – Schematic drawing of the beams for the Round-Robin analysis. The large beam is twice the
size of the small beam. In the Figure the dimensions of the small beam are given by (S), those for the
The different concretes were large beam by (L). The cross-sections are not drawn to scale. Note that the upper reinforcement is
a Normal Strength Concrete interrupted in the mid-span region to enforce failure of the concrete compressive zone.
(NSC), a High Strength
Concrete (HSC) and a Fibre
Reinforced High Strength Concrete (FRHSC). Beams
Table 1 – Compressive strength for the three different
of two different sizes were tested, namely a small beam concretes tested
with a span of l = 3600 mm, and a large beam with span
of l = 7200 mm. The cross-section of the beams was rec- Type of Boundary condition fc [MPa] (st.dev. [MPa])
tangular. The size was 100 mm wide and 200 mm high concrete in test
for the small beam and double that size for the large NSC low friction 22.75 (0.42)
beams. The beams were loaded in four-point-bending, high friction 24.28 (0.22)
as shown in Fig. 1. HSC low friction 117.74 (10.91)
The distance between the two loads was a = 600 and high friction 162.69 (7.17)
1200 mm for the small and large beams respectively. The FRHSC low friction 114.41 (4.43)
main reinforcement consisted of three layers of stranded high friction 130.12 (2.30)
wires (small beams) or ribbed bars (in the large beams).
Along the top of the beams also two bars were placed,
but these were interrupted at the mid-span region to To illustrate the effect of boundary conditions on the
enforce compressive failure in the concrete compression compressive stress-strain curves two diagrams for high
zone. Moreover, modelling the beam would be simpler friction platens (steel platens) and low friction platens
as well. The parts of the beam between the support and (Tef lon and grease sandwich between steel loading
the load were reinforced with stirrups to avoid shear fail- platen and concrete specimen) are shown in Fig. 2.
ure of the beams. The results of Fig. 2 are representative for all con-
The invitation to the Round-Robin analysis, [16], cretes tested. A higher strength is measured under high
contained all the information to carry out an analysis. friction conditions, whereas a more brittle behaviour is
The concrete and steel properties were included, as well measured under low friction conditions. For high
as the beam geometries. As the tests were intended for a strength concrete it was not possible to measure a soften-
comparison between compressive softening diagrams ing branch under low friction conditions; the material
determined under low friction and high friction loading was very brittle indeed and the test-control system
platens, stress-strain diagrams according to these two should be modified in order to capture a full record of
experimental conditions were specified. It was left to the the post-peak softening behaviour [11].
analyst to make the choice for the stress-strain diagram The tensile strength and fracture energy were
that was expected to give the best result. Table 1 shows retrieved from the uniaxial tension tests and the three-
the peak compressive strengths from the low and high point-bend tests. In Table 2 the tensile strength and frac-
friction compression tests on cylinders with 200 mm ture energies are listed. The modulus of elasticity of the
length and a diameter of 100 mm. steel reinforcement was 2.22 105 MPa, the yield strength

383
Materials and Structures/Matériaux et Constructions, Vol. 33, July 2000

Table 2 – Tensile strength and fracture energy

Type of type of test*) ft [MPa] (st.dev.) Gf [N/m] (st.dev.)
concrete
NSC UT 1.89 (0.33) 97.1
TPB 3.18 (0.56)**) 85.0 (11.9)
HSC UT 4.83 (0.47) 112.0
TPB 8.76 (1.10)**) 125.0 (45.1)
FRHSC UT 7.14 (0.21) -
TPB 16.7 (0.22)**) 3780 (400)
*) UT = uniaxial tension test; TPB = three point bending test;
**) indicates bending tensile strength.

was 650 MPa. More detailed information about the

material properties can be found in [15] and [16].

3. OUTCOME OF THE BEAM TESTS

Fig. 2 – Compressive stress-strain diagrams for NSC for high
friction and low friction loading platens, after [16].
in [15]. The main results are shown in [17], and for rea-
A full overview of the results of the beam tests is given
sons of completeness, the main load-deflec-
tion diagrams are gathered in Fig. 3 for
NSC (a,b for small and large beams respec-
tively), for HSC (c) and for FRHSC (d).
The displacement is the beam def lection
measured in the middle of the beam, the
load is the total load on the beam. The
beam tests were repeated three-fold; the
three lines in each of the diagrams of Fig. 3
show the individual load-def lection dia-
grams. It was not attempted to translate the
results to average curves. The large and
small NSC beams showed a rather ductile
behaviour in comparison to the HSC small
beams. In the latter case, the load-deflection
diagrams were almost straight lines up till
peak, after which a severe snap-back behav-
iour was obser ved. Only part of the
descending branch was measured for one of
the HSC small beam tests, see Fig. 3c. The
fibres in the FRHSC made quite some dif-
ference, and the ductility was improved
considerably in comparison to the HSC
small beams. This can be seen from a com-
parison of Figs. 3c and 3d. The peak-loads,
peak def lections, bending moments and
rotations at peak are all gathered in Table 3.
The results of Table 3 form the main mater-
ial for comparison with the submitted
analyses.

4. SUBMITTED CONTRIBUTIONS
As mentioned, in total six contribu-
tions were received, namely from Bascoul
Fig. 3 – Load-deflection curves for the beam tests on normal strength concrete et al. [18], Kang et al. [19], König et al. [20],
small beams (a), and NSC large beams (b), HSC small beams (c) and FRHSC Kotsovos [21], Légeron et al. [22] and Ožbolt
small beams (d), after [17]. et al. [23]. Légeron et al. submitted their

384
Van Mier, Ulfkjær

Table 3 – Peak characteristics for the beam tests, after [17]

Beam type Upeak [mm] Ppeak [kN] αpeak [mm-1] Mpeak [kNm]
NSC Small 21.55 16.92 1.69E-05 25.39
NSC Small 20.49 15.94 1.58E-05 23.90
NSC Small 20.96 16.37 1.65E-05 24.56
Mean 21.00 16.41 1.64E-05 24.61
FRHSCa 52.07 66.90 4.31E-05 100.3
FRHSCb 54.15 63.45 4.54E-05 95.17
FRHSCc 48.97 59.93 4.03E-05 89.90
Mean 51.73 63.42 4.29E-05 95.12
HSCa 57.25 54.49 4.39E-05 81.72
HSCb 52.88 55.48 4.29E-05 83.21
HSCc 57.04 59.18 4.64E-05 88.77
Mean 55.72 56.38 4.44E-05 84.57
NSC large 42.89 60.00 1.73E-05 90.01
NSC large 47.61 61.68 1.93E-05 92.50 Fig. 4 – Constitutive laws from the microplane model used by
NSC large 52.88 70.65 2.18E-05 106.0 Ožbolt et al. [23].
Mean 47.79 64.11 1.95E-05 96.17
the same as that in the surrounding concrete. In the analy-
sis successive equilibrium states are defined, increasing step
results at a very late stage when the experimental results by step the maximum concrete strain.
were released. Not everyone analyzed all the different Kang et al. [19] use a fibre beam element. Each beam
cases, but a clear view on several influence factors can be element is layered. The element is based on the classical
retrieved from this material. Moreover, König et al. sup- assumption that plane sections remain plane. Only half
plied some additional results after the workshop, which of the beam is modeled using four elements only. High
may be helpful in coming to a sound conclusion. First an accuracy and robustness is claimed for the approach that
overview is given of the different methods of analysis was used.
adopted by the different contributors, as well as the con- Ožbolt et al. [23] and Kotsovos [21] both use a com-
stitutive laws for compressive behaviour that were used. plete three-dimensional finite element code. Brick ele-
ments (eight-node solid elements) are used. Ožbolt uses
a code called MASA3, which uses the microplane model
4.1 Models used as constitutive law. Only one fourth of the beam is mod-
eled due to symmetry considerations. Steel bars are
All models used are based on some numerical modeled as truss elements. Kotsovos uses a model with
method. König et al. [20], used the so-called BDZ model 27-node brick elements. Steel is modeled by means of
(‘Biegedruckzonen modell’) in combination with the line elements without transversal stiffness.
Compression Damage Zone model of Markeset [8]. In
this (analytical) model localization in compression is
included by assuming different constitutive models over 4.2 Constitutive models for compression
certain parts of the compressed area. The damage zone
(unconfined), damage zone with activated transverse The data for the compressive stress-strain behaviour
reinforcement (or confined damage zone) and undis- were given in the form as shown in Fig. 2 for NSC. The
turbed zones (elastic) are distinguished. The model analysts were free to take any constitutive law that would
requires identification procedures for all the constitutive represent this material behaviour.
laws in these three regimes. Kang et al. [19] modeled the large NSC beam only.
Légeron et al. [22] have used two different approaches: They use the Kent and Park model [24] for the concrete
a curvature integration method (CIM) and a simplified compressive behaviour. A parabola from the origin to
finite element analysis (SFEM). In CIM, the concrete sec- the peak, followed by a linear softening branch until the
tion is divided into layers and steel is condensed in steel residual level of 0.2fc is reached characterizes the model.
layers. The moment curvature relation is determined by For larger strains the softening branch then follows a
calculating the depth of the neutral axis for a certain curva- constant stress. The compressive strength was taken
ture from equilibrium considerations. The SFEM is a from the low friction tests, namely fc = 22.75 MPa, at a
finite element program (EFICOS developed at LMT in strain at peak of 0.0014. The break point in the descend-
Cachan) that uses multilayer beam elements. Each layer is ing branch where the linear falling part joins the hori-
either a concrete layer or a homogenized steel-concrete zontal residual stress is characterized by the coordinate
layer. Plane sections are assumed to remain plane. (0.2 fc, εcu ). The value for εcu is varied in the analyses
Bascoul et al. [18] also use the finite element method from 0.00575, 0.008 to 0.10. A lower value implies a
with multilayered short elements. The moment-curvature more brittle behaviour.
relation is calculated under the assumption that plane sec- Ož bolt et al. [23] used the microplane model for
tions remain plane, and that strain in the reinforcement is concrete, [25]. The low friction results were used, and

385
Materials and Structures/Matériaux et Constructions, Vol. 33, July 2000
Fig. 5 – Constitutive laws for the CIM and SFEM models used by
Légeron et al. [22].
the resulting stress-strain curves for the three concretes
from the microplane model are shown in Fig. 4. A direct
observation is that the models for HSC and FRHSC
results are too ductile in comparison to the experimental
stress-strain data for these materials. Note that the high
strength stress-strain curves for high friction uniaxial
compression tests can be seen in Fig. 5.
Kotsovos [21] is not very explicit about the constitu-
tive equations used in his finite element code, and refers
to [26] only. Interestingly, however, he also presented
results from analyses according to the Eurocode. In these
latter analyses, he varied the ultimate strain of concrete
in the compression zone, i.e. from 0.002 to 0.0035.
Bascoul et al. [18] used, as mentioned, a multilayer
model. A uniaxial state of stress is assumed to be present
in each layer. The compressive behaviour is incorporated
Fig. 6 – Comparison of beam strength from the various analyses with the experi-
mentally determined peak loads.
386
by taking directly the stress-strain diagrams specified in
the invitation to the Round-Robin Analysis. Bascoul et
al. performed the analyses both for the high friction and
low friction compression results.
In the two models used by Légeron et al. [22], two
different constitutive models are used. In the CIM model
the stress-strain curve proposed by Cusson and Paultre
[27] is adopted. The stress in the ascending branch
depends on the strain following a power law. The
descending portion of the curve is modeled by means of a
formula of Fafitis and Shah. The parameters are directly
fitted to the given stress-strain data. In the SFEM analysis
a damage model proposed by Laborderie is used [28]. In
this damage model six parameters must be identified. In
Fig. 5 a comparison between the CIM and SFEM consti-
tutive laws and the high friction compression data is
given. Curiously a 0.95 correction factor was applied (the
complete curve was scaled) to account for the small size
of the specimens tested. Note that the size of the com-
pression zone in the beams should be of the same size of
the prisms for the uniaxial compression tests, in particular
for the small beams, but probably also for the larger
beams in an advanced stage of post-failure behaviour.
König et al. [15] use in their model the Eurocode 2
formulation for the ascending portion of the stress-strain
curve. The peak strength is the mean value between the
high friction and low friction test results. The strain at
peak is defined according a formula of Popovics from
1973. For the post-peak behaviour the CDZ model of
Markeset is used. After the FraMCoS workshop, König
et al. performed a number of additional analyses where
the low friction stress-strain diagrams and the high fric-
tion diagrams were used respectively. The results of these
analyses have been incorporated in this
overview as well.
5 COMPARISON WITH THE
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
The results of the different contribu-
tions are all given in the respective papers
[18-23], whereas the experimental results
are presented in [17]. For a first compari-
son a few data have to be considered only,
namely the peak load of the beams, the
deflection at mid-span at peak, the slope of
the softening curve of the load-def lection
diagram and the size effect of the large and
small beams of NSC. The additional results
of König et al. have been included for the
comparison of peak loads only.
5.1 Peak-loads and size effect
The peak loads could all be retrieved
from the papers submitted to the FraMCoS
workshop. In Fig. 6 the ratio of calculated
peak load (Pcalc ) over experimental peak load
Van Mier, Ulfkjær
ˇ
Fig. 7 – Size effect from analyses and experiments.
(Pexp) is shown for the beams made of three different con-
cretes, and for two different sizes. In general the predicted
maximum loads are within 15 % of the experimentally
determined maximum load. Exceptions are the results from
the analyses by Kotsovos. The reason is not clear because no
details were given of the constitutive model. Kotsovos var-
ied the maximum concrete compressive strain in so-called
‘code analyses’, and it was found that the beam strength
would increase considerably when 0.35% was selected
instead of 0.2%. The code analyses were closer to the
experimental (i.e., for the code analyses Pcalc/Pexp = 0.97,
0.91, 1.06 and 0.95 for the NSC small beam, the NSC large
beam and the HSC and FRHSC small beams respectively,
for 0.35% maximum compressive strain, see the encircled
data in Fig. 6). The results of Bascoul et al., König et al. and
Kang et al. are of interest because a variation of input para-
meters was studied. Bascoul et al. analyzed the beams both
for low friction and high friction concrete properties. It is
interesting to note that the low friction results always
underestimate the experimental results of the beam tests
(up to 15% lower), whereas the high friction results are up
to 16% higher. This would suggest, without being to hastily
by to draw conclusions, that the truth lies somewhere in
between of these two extremes. König et al. show the effect
of varying the compressive stress-strain diagram from low
friction and high friction tests as well. Their analyses show
the same tendency as was found by Bascoul et al. The beam
strength calculated with the high friction stress-strain dia-
grams is always higher than that found in the analyses with
the low friction compressive stress-strain diagram. Where
the results of Bascoul et al. show a more or less similar
increase of calculated beam strength for all different beam
combinations, the relative increase in the analyses of König
et al. is larger for HSC and FRHSC. Kang et al. varied the
slope of the compressive softening diagram. They found
that the peak load would be between 25% lower and 1.5%
higher than the experimental load on the large beams with
increasing ductility of the compressive softening diagram.
The peak strength was kept constant in the analyses.
387
Another general observation is that the
results for the beams made of the more
extreme materials HSC and FRHSC gave
the largest deviations from the experiments.
One of the reasons might be that the con-
stitutive laws in the models are based on
normal strength concrete data from past
experiments. The models might therefore
be less suitable for the new high strength
materials, but this is just speculation.
From a simple analysis, i.e. by applying
simple elasticity or plasticity theories, it
can be deduced that the strength of the
large beams should be four times as large as
the load that can be carried by the small
beams. From the experiments on normal
strength concrete a ratio of 3.91 was mea-
sured. This reduction is what normally is
referred to as size/scale effect. In Fig. 7 the
deviations found in the different analyses
are shown. In general the deviations are
within 10%, except for the SFEM analysis of Légeron et
al. [22]. For the conventional concrete it can be con-
cluded that the results are quite consistent, and most
models are capable of representing the scale difference
adequately. Of course it has to be seen how the scale
variation works out for different materials, i.e., the HSC
and the FRHSC. Note that relative results are shown
only. Fig. 7 does not imply that absolute values of failure
loads are correct as can be seen from Fig. 6.
5.2 Beam deflection at peak load
The deflection at mid-span of the beams at peak-load
is generally more difficult to predict. All the non-linear-
ities from tensile cracking and crushing in the compres-
sion zone must be captured adequately. The variation in
results is found to be much larger than for the strength.
Fig. 8 shows the results from the different analyses. The
deflection at peak from each analysis is plotted relative to
the experimental outcome. Obviously the average
deflection is taken from the experiments (Table 3), and
there is some scatter in those values as well. For the gen-
eral trend this is however not very important because the
differences are larger in the analyses. When we first con-
sider the conventional normal strength concrete, it can
be seen that most results deviate between 10% and 20%
from the experimental values.
The high friction results of Bascoul et al. [18] are in
slightly better agreement with the experiments than the
low friction values. Also the results of Kang et al. indi-
cate that the computational results improve when the
post-peak ductility in the compressive softening diagram
increases. In general it must be concluded, however, that
the experimental mid-span def lection is not very well
predicted by most models. Again, the largest deviations
are found for the new materials HSC and FRHSC,
which suggests that more work is needed to improve the
constitutive models.
Materials and Structures/Matériaux et Constructions, Vol. 33, July 2000
Fig. 8 – Comparison of deflection at peak load from analyses and experi-
ments.
Fig. 9 – Comparison of post-peak deflection w at mid-span from the analy-
ses and the experiments on small beams of normal strength concrete.
5.3 Ductility
In the present beams the post-peak behaviour is com-
pletely governed by the behaviour of the concrete in the
compression zone. The beams are highly over-reinforced,
and the strains in the reinforcement do not exceed the
elastic limit. Because the results were submitted in widely
varying formats, it was decided to retrieve from the dif-
ferent contributions the post-peak deflection at 75% and
50% of the maximum load. This post-peak deflection is
388
indicated with the symbol w, and the definition is
shown in the small diagram at the right of Fig. 9.
The smaller the difference between w at 75% and
50% of peak-load, the steeper the descending
branch. Negative values of w indicate snap-back
behaviour. A comparison with experiments was
made for the NSC analyses on small and large
beams only. The comparison was not made for
the FRHSC and the HSC because the compres-
sive softening diagrams for these materials were
not complete in the invitation to the Round-
Robin analysis [16]. As it turns out only the post-
peak deflection from the small beam analyses by
Bascoul et al. [18], Légeron et al. (SFEM) [22] and
Ožbolt et al. [23] could be used for comparison
with the experimental data. For the large beam
NSC analyses, also the results of Kang et al. [19]
could be compared to the experiments, but at
0.75 Pmax only. The small beam results are gath-
ered in Fig. 9, the large beam analyses in Fig. 10.
Let us first consider the small beams. On the
vertical axis the post-peak deflection w is plotted;
along the horizontal axis, the load levels at which
w is shown, i.e. 0.75 Pmax and 0.50 Pmax. A steep
increase between 0.75 and 0.50 implies a rela-
tively large ductility. Obviously the experiments
[15] showed a larger ductility than was found in
any of the analyses. The SFEM results of Légeron
come closest to the experiments. Ož bolt and
Bascoul predict a too brittle behaviour. In the
analyses of Bascoul the concrete compressive
stress-strain diagram was varied, i.e. both the low
friction and high friction diagrams (Fig. 2) were
used, but this had a minor effect on the predicted
values only.
The situation becomes more severe for the
large NSC beams, as can be seen from Fig. 10.
Again, the SFEM analysis comes closest to the
experiments [15], but Ožbolt and Bascoul pre-
dict an even more brittle response than was
found in the small beam analyses. For both com-
pressive diagrams (LF and HF), Bascoul et al. [18]
predict snap-back behaviour, i.e. w < 0. From the
analyses by Kang et al. [19] only values at
0.75Pmax were available. Their analyses showed a
larger ductility with increasing maximum strain
in the compressive softening diagram, which was
to be expected.
6. DISCUSSION: EFFECT ON NEWLY PRO-
POSED TEST STANDARD
The results can be grouped in four categories: (1)
peak load, (2) deflection at peak load, (3) post-peak duc-
tility, and (4) the shape of the load-deflection diagram. It
is not possible to select the ‘best’ analysis. All results have
some advantages and some drawbacks. Because the HSC
and FRHSC analyses proved to give the largest devia-
tions from the experiments, the discussion will focus on
Van Mier, Ulfkjær
Fig. 10 – Comparison of post-peak deflection w at mid-span from the
analyses and the experiments on large beams of normal strength concrete.
the NSC small and large beams only. The most impor-
tant conclusion which can be drawn from the HSC and
FRHSC results is that still quite some work is needed to
come to constitutive models with improved predictive
qualities for these new high strength materials.
For NSC the analyses of Légeron et al., in particular
the SFEM analysis seems to have merit. The peak loads
and def lection at peak are rather well reproduced,
although the latter exceeds the experimental value by
more than 15%. The prediction of the post-peak deflec-
tion is quite accurate for the SFEM model. It should be
mentioned, however, that a curious reduction of 0.95 was
made to the compressive stress-strain curve. The authors
mention that this was done because of the small size of the
prisms used for measuring the compressive softening dia-
gram. It should be realized, however, that the compressive
zone, especially in the small beam, is not very much
larger, and towards the end of the beam test even much
smaller than the dimension of the prism used for deter-
mining the compressive stress-strain diagram. The size
effect predicted by the SFEM method showed the largest
deviation from the experiments (Fig. 7).
The results of Ožbolt et al. [23] appear to be most con-
sistent. Their results always underestimate the experi-
ments, but the same deviations are found for all materials
and beam sizes. The largest deviations are found in the
deflection at peak load and the post-peak deflections, but
again the amount to which the experiments are underesti-
mated remains more or less the same.
Kang et al. [19], König et al. [20] and Bascoul et al.
[18] make an interesting variation of the effect of the
ductility in the compressive stress-strain diagram. A
more ductile compressive stress-strain diagram leads to a
higher failure load. Also the def lection at peak load
increases, and comes closer to the experimental out-
389
come. As far as the post-peak deflection is con-
cerned, however, the computed values are much
lower than the experimental data, both for the
HF and LF analysis. Thus, the results are not
decisive if it comes to selecting a standard for a
compressive softening test.
The results of the compressive Round-Robin
test by RILEM TC 148-SSC [1] indicated that
low friction loading platens would yield results
with a smaller scatter. From the experimental
point of view this would be sufficient reason
already to decide to use the Teflon sandwiches as
interlayer between steel and concrete. The reason
is that more accurate data would be preferred
against slightly higher costs. The costs for making
the specimens is larger not only because the use
of Teflon, but also because the specimens must
be ground flat and plan-parallel to a high degree
of precision. Perhaps this is already the main rea-
son for obtaining low-scatter stress-strain curves.
The results from the experimental Round-
Robin as well as the findings from this Round-
Robin analysis have been incorporated in the
new RILEM test recommendation for the mea-
surement of strain softening under uni-axial
compression [29].
From the analyses it can further be concluded that
quite some work is needed to come to good predictions
of structural behaviour, even for a ‘simple’ case as four-
point bending. Although large improvements were made
over the past decade, there is still room for further gains,
in particular when it comes to the applications of new
materials like high strength concrete and fiber reinforced
materials. Moreover, there is room for improvements at
the computational front. Kang et al. investigated some of
the computational issues involved with the beam prob-
lem. Changing the number of integration points in the
critical element had a large effect on the outcome
already. At the same time, the procedures for measuring
softening under compression for such materials must be
improved. Especially when snap-back behaviour is
expected, as for many of the high strength materials, a
critical re-evaluation of test procedures should be carried
out. For example, do we still need large specimens when
more homogeneous high strength materials are used, or
can the size be reduced to allow for a more simple
method of measuring softening?
Blind Round-Robin analyses like the present beam
problem are to the authors’ opinion an excellent tool for
improving the abilities of numerical tools and may indi-
cate the best possible standard test. The present beam
problem is a small step in the right direction.
7. CONCLUSIONS
From the Round-Robin analysis not only the abili-
ties of existing numerical programs to handle compres-
sive failure are elucidated, but the earlier obtained con-
clusion that a modification of the existing standard test is
Materials and Structures/Matériaux et Constructions, Vol. 33, July 2000
needed to measure the softening diagram of concrete
under uni-axial compression [1], seems more securely
founded.
The following conclusions can be drawn from the
results presented in this paper:
(1) Using conventional models for the uni-axial compres-
sive behaviour of NSC concrete, the peak load of over-
reinforced concrete beams loaded in four-point bending
can be ‘predicted’ with an accuracy of 10 to 15%.
(2) Predicting the beam deflection at peak-load as well as
the ductility proved to be more difficult and generally
larger deviation from the experiments is observed.
(3) In particular the predictions for HSC and FRHSC
beams seem hampered by insufficient knowledge of the
mechanical behaviour of these new materials. Most pro-
nounced seems the lack in knowledge of post-peak
behaviour.
(4) Overestimating the ductility of the compressive
strain-softening diagram leads to an increase of the pre-
dicted failure load and the deflection at peak load.
(5) In general the most consistent results are obtained
when stress-strain curves from ‘low-friction’ tests are
used. A lower bound for the beam strength and deflec-
tion at peak-load is found. Moreover, the ‘trend’ from
analyses with the same model of beams made of different
materials seems to be more consistent, although the dif-
ference is hard to express in solid numbers.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank all the contributors
who took the trouble of analyzing the beam problem.
Without their effort the improved insight in the use of
compressive softening diagrams in structural analysis
would not have been possible.
REFERENCES
[1] Van Mier, J. G. M., Shah, S. P., Arnaud, M., Balayssac, J. P.,
Bascoul, A., Choi, S., Dasenbrock, D., Ferrara, G., French, C.,
Gobbi, M. E., Karihaloo, B. L., König, G., Kotsovos, M. D.,
Labuz, J., Lange-Kornbak, D., Markeset, G., Pavlovic, M. N.,
Simsch, G., Thienel, K-C., Turatsinze, A., Ulmer, M., Van
Geel, H. J. G. M., Van Vliet, M. R. A., Zissopoulos, D., ‘Strain-
softening of concrete in uniaxial compression - Report of the
Round-Robin Test carried out by RILEM TC 148-SSC’, Mater.
Struct. 30 (198) (1997) 195-209.
[2] Hillerborg, A., Petersson, P. E. and Modéer, M., ‘Analysis of
crack formation and crack growth in concrete by means of frac-
ture mechanics and finite elements’, Cem. Conc. Res. 6 (6) (1976)
773-782.
[3] Dugdale, D. S., ‘Yielding of sheets containing slits’, J. Mech. Phys.
Sol. 8 (1960) 100-108.
[4] Barenblatt,G. I., ‘The mathematical theory of equilibrium cracks
in brittle fracture’, Adv. Appl. Mech. 7 (1962) 55-129.
[5] Van Mier, J. G. M., ‘Fracture Processes of Concrete - Assessment
of Material Parameters for Fracture Models’, CRC Press, Boca
Raton (FL), USA, 448 pp.
[6] Van Mier, J. G. M., ‘Strain-softening of concrete under multiaxial
loading conditions’, PhD thesis, Eindhoven University of
Technology (1984).
[7] Hillerborg, A., ‘Fracture mechanics concepts applied to moment
390
capacity and rotational capacity of reinforced concrete beams’,
Eng. Fract. Mech. 35 (1990) 233-240.
[8] Markeset, G., ‘Failure of concrete under compressive strain gradi-
ents’, PhD thesis, Norges Tekniske Ho/ yskole, Trondheim,
Norway (1993).
[9] Kotsovos, M. D., ‘Effect of testing techniques on the post-ulti-
mate behaviour of concrete in compression’, Mater. Struct. 16
(1983) 3-12.
[10] Vonk, R. A., ‘Softening of concrete loaded in compression’,
PhD thesis, Eindhoven University of Technology (1992).
[11] Jansen, D. C. and Shah, S. P., ‘Effect of length on compressive
strain softening of concrete’, J. Eng. Mech. (ASCE) 1 (1998) 25-35.
[12] Van Mier, J. G. M., Schlangen, E. and Vervuurt, A., ‘Tensile
cracking in concrete and sandstone: Part 2 - Effect of boundary
rotations’, Mater. Struct. 29 (1996) 87-96.
[13] Hsu, T. T. C., Slate, F. O., Sturman, G. M. and Winter, G.,
‘Micro-cracking of plain concrete and the shape of the stress-
strain curve’, J. Amer. Conc. Inst. 60 (2) (1963) 209-224.
[14] Van Vliet, M. R. A. and Van Mier, J. G. M., ‘Experimental
investigation of concrete fracture under uniaxial compression’,
Mech. Coh. Frict. Mat. 1 (1996) 115-127.
[15] Pedersen, L. H., Bundgaard, K. and Morch, T., ‘Numerical and
experimental investigation of compression failure of concrete
beams’, Graduation thesis, June 1996, 162 pp.
[16] Ulfkjær, J. P., Van Mier, J. G. M. and Stang, H., ‘Invitation to a
competition on modelling of over-reinforced concrete beams’,
RILEM Technical Committee 148-SSC “Strain Softening of
Concrete” and ACI/ASCE Committee 447 on “Finite Element
Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Structures” (1997).
[17] Ulfkjær, J. P., ‘Experimental investigation of over-reinforced con-
crete beams of three different types of concrete and at two different
size scales’, in Proc. FraMCoS-3, ed. H. Mihashi and K. Rokugo,
AEDIFICATIO Publishers, Freiburg, (1998) 1253-1260.
[18] Bascoul, A., Duprat, M. and Pinglot, M., ‘Load deflection dia-
gram of over-reinforced concrete beams’, in Proc. FraMCoS-3,
ed. H. Mihashi and K. Rokugo, AEDIFICATIO Publishers,
Freiburg, (1998) 1211-1222.
[19] Kang, H. D., Spacone, E. and Willam, K. J., ‘A study of com-
pressive failure in over-reinforced concrete beams’, in Proc.
FraMCoS-3, ed. H. Mihashi and K. Rokugo, AEDIFICATIO
Publishers, Freiburg, (1998) 1195-1210.
[20] König, G., Meyer, J. and Sint, A., ‘Round Robin analysis on
modelling of over-reinforced concrete beams - Calculation of the
load deformation behaviour of concrete beams with the BDZ
model’, in Proc. FraMCoS-3, ed. H. Mihashi and K. Rokugo,
AEDIFICATIO Publishers, Freiburg, (1998) 1241-1251.
[21] Kotsovos, M. D., ‘Round Robin finite element analysis of over-
reinforced concrete beams, Report, Athens University, (1997) 9 pp.
[22] Légeron, F., Mazars, J. and Paultre, P., ‘Prediction of the behavior
of over-reinforced concrete beams with two levels of simplified
approach’, in Proc. FraMCoS-3, ed. H. Mihashi and K. Rokugo,
AEDIFICATIO Publishers, Freiburg, (1998) 1223-1232.
[23] Ožbolt, J., Li, Y.-J. and Eligehausen, R., ‘3D finite element
analysis of over-reinforced beams’, in Proc. FraMCoS-3, ed. H.
Mihashi and K. Rokugo, AEDIFICATIO Publishers, Freiburg,
(1998) 1233-1240.
[24] Kent, D. C. and Park, R., ‘Flexural members with confined
concrete’, ASCE J. Struct. Div. 97 (1971) 1964-1990.
[25] Ožbolt, J., Li, Y. and Kozar, I., Microplane model for concrete -
mixed approach’, (1997) submitted to Int. J. Solids Struct.
[26] Kotsovos, M. D. and Pavlovic, M. N., Structural Concrete: Finite
Element Analysis for Limit-State Design, Thomas Telford (1995).
[27] Cusson, D. and Paultre, P., ‘Stress-strain model for confined high
strength concrete’, ASCE J. Struct. Div. 121 (1995) 468-477.
[28] Laborderie, C., Phénomènes unilatéraux dans un matériau
endommageable : modélisation et application à l’analyse de struc-
tures en béton’, PhD thesis, LMT Cachan (1991).
[29] Van Mier, J. G. M. and Shah, S. P., ‘Test method for measure-
ment of the strain-softening behaviour of concrete under uniaxial
compression, RILEM Draft Recommendation, Mater. Struct. 33
(230) (2000) 347-351.