Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Structural Dynamics, EURODYN 2011 3323

Leuven, Belgium, 4-6 July 2011

G. De Roeck, G. Degrande, G. Lombaert, G. Müller (eds.)
ISBN 978-90-760-1931-4

Numerical Analysis of Standard Laboratory Concrete Strength Tests

Using Explicit Lagrangian Analytic Models
L. Javier Malvar1, Joseph M. Magallanes2, Youcai Wu2
1
Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center, 1100 23rd Avenue, Port Hueneme, CA 94043
2
Karagozian & Case, 2550 N. Hollywood Way, Suite 500, Burbank, CA, 91505
email: luis.malvar@navy.mil, magallanes@kcse.com, wu@kcse.com

ABSTRACT: Results from numerical simulations are presented that investigate the behavior of concrete samples under standard
laboratory strength tests. Samples include cylinder and cube specimens in compression and cylinder specimens for the splitting
tension test. Each of these tests is commonly used to derive fundamental material properties for concrete, i.e. compressive and
tensile strengths. Numerical models are developed for each of these tests using the finite element method and a recent release of
the K&C concrete material model. Quasi-static solutions are then obtained using explicit time integration. The results indicate
that the strength and failure modes for the compression tests can be highly influenced by the specimen shape and boundary
conditions, in particular for the cube test. It is shown that ASTM C 1231 appears to provide the best estimate of compressive
strength as a material property. The splitting tensile strength was confirmed to be slightly higher than the input tensile strength,
suggesting that the proper material property input should be slightly smaller than the ASTM C 496 value.

KEY WORDS: ASTM C 39, ASTM C 1231, ASTM C 496, compression, splitting tension.

1 INTRODUCTION The dependency on specimen size and maximum aggregate

Concrete is a material known to exhibit complex constitutive
behaviors including pressure dependency, dilatancy due to
shear, and tensile fracture, amongst others. A number of
studies have shown that constitutive models capable of
capturing these behaviors can provide accurate representations
of concrete structures’ response to extreme dynamic loads.
The validity of laboratory tests to derive fundamental material
properties, for example the unconfined compressive and
tensile strengths, become then critical to properly model the
behavior of concrete structures under static, blast, and impact
loads.
This paper presents the results of numerical simulations
investigating the behavior of concrete samples subjected to
standard laboratory strength tests using Lagrangian numerical
models. The purpose of this study is to determine the validity
of these tests in determining these fundamental material
properties. The study is limited to the common standard
compression and splitting tension tests, which are intended to
provide strength properties under no confinement. Tests
aimed at characterizing the high pressure mechanical
properties of concrete, for example triaxial compression or
extension tests, are outside the scope of this paper.
2 BACKGROUND
When designing concrete structures, compressive strength is
the fundamental concrete material property. To measure
compressive strength, specimens of various shapes and/or
sizes are used, even within single countries. However, past
research has shown that specimen shape, boundary conditions
(e.g. friction between the specimen and the loading plates),
specimen size, maximum aggregate size, and even direction of
placement can all affect the results from those tests. Hence
those tests provide us with a strength measurement which may
or may not be close to the fundamental property sought.
size [1-4], and on placement direction [2], have been
addressed elsewhere. Interestingly, those studies have
typically been completed without accounting for the friction,
which could have affected the correlations with specimen size,
for example. Since in practice specimen size is often limited
to standard 152-mm diameter, 304-mm tall (6-in diameter, 12-
inch tall) cylinders, or 150-mm (6-in) cubes, it was decided to
address the factors that would most affect those specimens,
i.e. specimen shape and end friction.
When comparing standard cylinders and cubes,
experimental evidence suggests that cube strength is typically
greater than cylinder strength, by a factor that varies between
1 for high strength and 1.54 for normal strength concretes [2,
5-11]. While early on constant ratios around 1.25 were
suggested, the influence of concrete strength was later
recognized [6]. Since high strength concrete would deform
less laterally, the resulting end constraints due to friction
would be lower, and end friction alone might mostly explain
why lower ratios have also been associated with higher
concrete strength.
L’Hermite [12], Hansen et al. [13] and Thaulow [14] related
the effect of slenderness to friction, and ratios of up to 1.32
were proposed. Hansen et al. [13] concluded that “friction on
the test surfaces of cubes, on the other hand, occasions an
artificial increase in the apparent strength.” Thaulow [14]
reported a quote by Bergstorm regarding the effect of lateral
confinement due to end friction: “The apparent strength
obtained from cube specimens is thus artificially increased,
and it does not correspond to the properties of the concrete
actually used in construction.” For cube specimens, Thaulow
also reported an increase in apparent strength of around 50%
when the end friction goes from a very low value (using a
plastic board) to typical friction under standard conditions. He
concluded that “the effect of friction is essentially eliminated
Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Structural Dynamics, EURODYN 2011
when the height of the test specimen is twice the least lateral
dimension.”
Indelicato and Paggi [6] specifically addressed the friction
coefficient, and found a cube compressive strength ratio from
1 for very low friction to 1.28 for a typical friction coefficient
of 0.6, mostly due to the high sensitivity of the cube specimen
to friction.
In a finite element setting, the concrete strength is input as a
material property to each element. Those elements can then be
assembled to reproduce the specimen used to derive the
compressive strength, be it a cylinder or a cube. For the finite
element model to be consistent with itself, the resulting
strength of the cylinder or cube test modeled should be equal
to the concrete strength which was input as a material
property. The main objective of the paper is to assess the
consistency of each test.
Another example is the splitting tension (or Brazilian) test,
where compression is used to generate failure by indirect
tensile stresses, and which is known to result in values that
exceed the direct tensile strength. CEB-FIP reports the ratio of
splitting to direct tensile strength as 1.11 [5]. Rocco et al.
report this ratio between about 1.05 and 1.25 depending on
specimen shape, aggregate size, concrete strength, and
plywood strip width [15]. For 25-mm (1-inch) aggregates,
cylindrical specimens, and increasing strengths from 30 to 80
MPa (4350 to 11600 psi) the ratio decreases from about 1.16
to 1.08, similar to the CEB-FIP value.
3 NUMERICAL APPROACH
3.1 Concrete Material Model
The K&C concrete material model was first released in 1994
[16]. This first version represented a significant overhaul of
concrete material model 16 in the Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory’s (LLNL) DYNA3D finite element
program. The upgrade maintained the decoupling of the
volumetric and deviatoric responses, with an equation of state
relating the current pressure to current and previous most
compressive volumetric strain, and a pressure-dependent
failure surface limiting the second invariant of the deviatoric
stress tensor. However, this upgrade (1) added a third,
independent failure surface based on a Willam-Warnke three-
invariant formulation (replacing the original two-invariant
formulation), (2) introduced a radial stress path for the strain
rate enhancement algorithm, (3) added a fracture energy
dependent strain in tension, and (4) fixed several
shortcomings in the original model. This first model release
also kept the original Prandtl-Reuss (volume preserving) flow
rule formulation, but this was later found inadequate for the
case of blast loading of reinforced concrete walls subjected to
significant in-plane restraints, since the absence of shear
dilation prevented the development of significant compressive
membrane stresses.
The second release of the K&C concrete model was
extended to include shear dilation (i.e., increase in volume due
to shearing) [17]. The associativity was specified by an input
variable, which allowed the model to be partially associative,
fully associative, or non-associative, and allowed for a more
accurate representation of the behavior of walls subjected to
in-plane constraints and out-of-plane blast loads. Release II
was extensively verified for uniaxial, biaxial, and triaxial
3324
stress paths in both dynamic and quasi-static load
environments.
In Release III of the concrete model an automatic input
capability was added to generate the data needed to specify a
particular concrete, several coding bugs were fixed, and the
strategy used in fitting the strain softening was modified [18,
19]. Automatic data generation can provide a complete default
set of 72 input parameters with knowledge of only the
concrete compressive strength and the system of units (this
model is in various codes, including Sandia National
Laboratories’ PRONTO3D as material 35 and PRESTO as
kc_concrete, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories’
DYNA3D as materials 45 and 65, and Livermore Software’s
LS-DYNA as material 72).
In the model, the maximum failure surface for concrete
(normalized with respect to the concrete compressive strength
f c′ ) is expressed as:
p / f c′
∆σ / f c′ =+
b0
b1 + b2 p / f c′
(1)
where
bi = parameters defining the three-parameters failure
surfaces
p = (σ1+σ2+σ3)/3 = pressure (positive in compression)
σ1, σ2, σ3 = principal stresses (positive in compression)
∆σ = 3J 2 = failure surface for the deviatoric stresses
J2 = (s12 + s22 + s32)/2 = second invariant of the deviatoric
stress tensor
s1, s2, s3 = principal deviatoric stresses
This equation captures failure for a variety of stress paths, for
example, on the compression side for the uniaxial unconfined
compression test and compression tests with various amounts
of lateral confinement. Similarly on the tension side, tensile
test paths are captured (e.g. for the uniaxial tension or triaxial
tension tests). However, only 3 stress path failures can be used
to define the 3 parameters in the formulation, and the other
failures will only be approximately satisfied. For example, if
the 3 following failure conditions are used:
• at p/ƒc' = 1/3, ∆σ/ƒc' = 1 (unconfined uniaxial
compression test)
• at p/ƒc' = 0, ∆σ/ƒc' = 3ƒt/ƒc' for pure shear (Malvar et al.,
1997)
• at p/ƒc' = 2.02, ∆σ/ƒc' = 3.68 (data point at high
confinement)
then (b0, b1, b2) can be taken as (0.3, 0.452, 0.072). On the
tension side, this equation is supplemented by the ratio of the
tensile to compressive meridian, which has been shown
experimentally to vary from 0.5 under tension to 1 at high
compression.
For axisymmetrical lateral confinement ƒℓ = σ2 = σ3 and the
pressure is
p = (σ1+2σ3)/3 (2)
and the failure surface for the deviatoric stresses
∆σ = σ1-σ3 (3)
Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Structural Dynamics, EURODYN 2011
Equations (1) to (3) can be combined to give a parametric
relation between σ1 and σ3
σ3 p 1 p / f c′  although the dimensions of the plywood bearing strips are
= −  b0 +  (4)
f c′ f c′ 3  b1 + b2 p / f c′ 
′ 10 mm wide plywood strips), as is the applied loading rate
σ1 p 2  
= + b0 +
p / fc  (0.70-1.40 MPa/min for the DIN standard to ASTM C 496’s
′ ′ 3 ′
fc fc  b1 + b2 p / f c 
(5)
This relation gives the maximum possible strength
enhancement σ1/ƒc' due to a normalized constant confinement
σ3/ƒc'.
3.2 Finite Element Models
Finite element models developed for each of the tests are
shown in Figure 1. The LS-DYNA commercial software [20]
was used. An unconfined compressive strength of 40 MPa
(5,800 psi) was used as input to the constitutive model. The
K&C concrete model internally determined the tensile
strength of the concrete to be 3.52 MPa (510 psi), based on a
relationship similar to that proposed by CEB-FIP [5]. In the
numerical model, the elements are integrated at a single point
for each element with viscous or stiffness-based stresses
introduced to control hourglass deformation while dissipating
little to negligible hourglass energy. For the compression
tests, a viscous-based hourglass was used, while a stiffness-
based hourglass was needed to minimize spurious hourglass
deformation in the split tension model.
The cylinder compression model (Figure 1a) uses a cylinder
that is 152 mm (6 in.) in diameter, and 305 mm (12 in.) tall.
The model is discretized using elements that are on average
10 mm cubed. The top and bottom faces of the cylinder are
prescribed boundary conditions that are either unrestrained
(i.e., allowed to translate freely in the plane of the cross
section) or restrained (i.e., not allowed to translate in the plane
of the cross section). The unrestrained condition is
representative of ASTM C 1231 [21], where neoprene caps
prevent friction, while the restrained case is an upper bound of
ASTM C 39 [22], where some restraint is usually present.
Compression is applied to the model by applying a constant
downward velocity along the axis of the cylinder to the top
nodes of the model at a rate of 1.27 mm/s (0.05 inch/s). Initial
simulations indicated that the results obtained using this
model were not sensitive to this applied loading rate, which is
faster than those specified in the ASTM standards, nor were
they sensitive to the chosen range of hourglass coefficients, at
least early into the post-peak response.
The cube compression model (Figure 1b) follows DIN 1048
[23], using a 150 mm cube specimen. The model, shown in
Figure 1b, has element dimensions that are 12.7 mm cubed.
Identical boundary conditions applied to the cylinder
compression model are applied to this cube compression
model, including the downward loading rate of 1.27 mm/s. As
for the cylinder, initial simulations confirmed that the results
from this model were not significantly affected by the applied
loading rate or the coefficient for hourglass control chosen, at
least until failure takes place.
The model for the splitting tension test uses a similar
152 mm diameter by 305 mm finite element mesh loaded in
3325
the radial direction of the cylinder as shown in Figure 1c. The
DIN 1048 and ASTM C 496 [24] specifications for this test
are nearly identical in the overall dimensions of the specimen,
somewhat different (ASTM C 496 specifies 3.2 mm thick by
25 mm wide strips while DIN 1048 specifies 5 mm thick by
1.8-4.2 MPa/min). For this model, a higher element
discretization is used in the finite element mesh, consisting of
6.35 mm elements on average, in part to help resolve the
localized stress distribution near the loading points. The
splitting tension loading is represented by prescribing a
velocity boundary condition to an elastic steel platen located
at the top of the cylinder, while another elastic steel platen
located at the bottom of the cylinder is held fixed. Two ASTM
C 496 shims were given elastic properties of plywood (Elastic
Modulus, E = 1,300 MPa; Poisson’s Ratio, ν = 0.10), which
directly contact the cylinder and the lower and upper platens.
The orientation of the cylinder was selected so that one
concrete element would contact the wood shims using a
segment-based contact algorithm; this avoided numerical
problems observed in earlier mesh designs which occurred
from contact surface “chatter” and excessive hourglass
energies in the concrete element immediately in contact with
the wood shims.
4 NUMERICAL RESULTS
4.1 Cylinder Compression Results
If the cylinder is compressed using platens at the top and
bottom ends that do not impart any lateral restraint (e.g. by
following ASTM C 1231), the vertical compressive stress in
the cylinder is uniform within the whole cylinder, at least until
the peak stress is reached. This is shown in Figure 2a, which
shows the cylinder model with a uniform fringe of vertical
stress near the time the peak strength is reached. The average
calculated stress-strain response is shown in Figure 3, which
shows that the unrestrained model achieved its 40 MPa
compressive strength. This model (and the test it represents) is
therefore consistent: the compressive strength used as input
material property for each element is reproduced in the
cylinder structural test. To assess the radial variation of stress,
4 integration points are chosen on a horizontal plane near mid-
height, at 4 normalized radial distances r/R (radial distance r
from the center divided by the radius R) of 0.10, 0.44, 0.70,
and 0.95. Figure 4a shows a uniform (normalized) stress-
strain response for all 4 points, at least while the cylinder is
stable (until just past peak load). Under compression, the
cylinder expands laterally but retains its cylindrical shape.
However, this unrestrained form of testing cylinders for
compressive strength is relatively recent (ASTM C 1231 was
first established in 1993). Typically, specimens are capped
(following ASTM C 617 [25]) and placed between grooved
platens with various amounts of friction that result in
transverse confinement at the top and bottom. This lateral
confinement at the ends results in the center of the cylinder
becoming stronger, a non-uniform stress distribution
(Figure 2b), and a deformed barrel shape. Figure 3 also shows
the calculated average stress-strain response for the perfectly
restrained case. A compressive strength of 41.5 MPa is
Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Structural Dynamics, EURODYN 2011
reached, which is about 3.65% higher than in the unrestrained
case. While this is slightly higher than the input material
property (40 MPa), the model is still mostly consistent,
indicating that the specimen shape had little effect in the
determination of a value that can be considered a material
property. However, Figure 4b shows that the stress-strain
response at the same 4 points along a radius near mid-height is
very non-uniform. The location near the center (r/R=0.10)
reaches a strength about 40% higher than the measured
compressive strength, whereas the location near the free edge
(r/R=0.95) started decaying long before the compressive
strength was reached. So, although both ASTM C 39 and C
1231 yield similar results, ASTM C 1231 appears to generate
a value slightly closer to an actual material property.
4.2 Cube Compression Results
Similar behaviors are observed in the cube specimens under
compression. If the platens at the top and bottom of the cube
do not impart any lateral restraint, the vertical stress is
effectively uniform (Figure 5a). The average stress-strain
response is shown in Figure 6, which indicates a peak strength
of 40.04 MPa for this unrestrained case. This test is consistent
and does yield a material property.
The DIN 1048 standard, however, does not prevent friction
at the top and bottom of the cube specimen, which can also
impart transverse end confinement. For a perfectly restrained
boundary condition, the numerical model shows sharp
gradients in vertical stress throughout the body of the cube
(Figure 5b). The average stress-strain response for this
restrained case is also shown in Figure 6, which indicates a
peak strength of 61.6 MPa, which is 54% higher than the
compressive strength input to the material model. This test is
not consistent, as its results are affected by the coefficient of
friction and can be very different from the material property
sought. This high calculated ratio is the same as the upper
bound of 1.54 for the experimental ratios indicated earlier.
Figure 7 shows the variation of stress radially at four
integration points selected on a horizontal plane near
midheight, at 4 normalized radial distances r/R (radial
distance r from the center divided by the distance R to the
corner of the cube, or 106 mm) of 0.08, 0.42, 0.75, and 0.92.
For the unrestrained case, the stresses were all uniform. For
the restrained case, the location near the center (r/R=0.08)
reaches a strength nearly 300% higher than the input
compressive strength. Similar to the results from the
restrained cylinder, the location near the free edge (r/R=0.95)
started decaying long before failure was reached.
4.3 Splitting Tension Results
The splitting tension model indicated crack formation along
the centerline of the cylinder in the direction of the applied
loading. Figure 8 shows fringes of the model’s damage
parameters at crack formation (Figure 8a) and prior to failure
(Figure 8b). The crack plane is made visible by the local
elements that have reached the maximum damage (2.0)
indicating a complete loss of cohesion. This is consistent with
results obtained experimentally (Figure 9).
The results from the splitting tension model, however, are
highly influenced by the coefficient used for the hourglass
control. The elements adjacent to the loaded ones are being
deformed into an hourglass mode, and it is necessary to
3326
prevent such deformation without using a significant amount
of the total energy. Figure 10a shows the normalized splitting
stress obtained from the model as a function of total
displacement of the steel platen for four selected coefficients
of hourglass control (0.02, 0.14, 0.22, and 0.24). The
normalized splitting stress was obtained by normalizing the
splitting stress, fst, by the input tensile strength, ft, where:
2⋅P
f st =
π ⋅l ⋅d (6)
and
P = Total computed load
L = Cylinder length = 152 mm
d = Cylinder diameter = 305 mm
As is indicated in Figure 10a, crack formation is initiated
around 90% of the normalized splitting stress, depending on
the coefficient used for the hourglass control (note from
Figure 10a that the curves obtained using each hourglass
coefficient have been offset from each other so that the
features of each response may be scrutinized individually.)
For the largest three coefficients, a brief unloading phase is
observed after crack formation that is followed by increasing
resistance to the applied loading. A peak normalized splitting
stress of 1.07 and 1.09 is computed with the largest two
coefficients, which provided very similar responses. As
indicated earlier the expected range would be around 1.08 to
1.16.
Figure 10b shows the ratio of hourglass to total energy,
EHG/ETotal. This figure shows that as the initial crack develops,
there is an increase in spurious hourglass energy while the
stresses are redistributed. At failure there is a large but
transient spike in the ratios, but this is of less interest as the
peak strength has already been reached. The lowest hourglass
energy yields a normalized splitting stress of 1.07.
Prior to crack formation, the horizontal stresses allow for
wide distribution of the vertical compressive stresses. After
cracking, the vertical stresses become more concentrated on
either side of the vertical crack. Figure 11 shows stress
contours in the horizontal (perpendicular to the applied
loading) and vertical (parallel to the applied loading) radial
directions of the cylinder just prior to the crack formation; the
horizontal stresses are primarily tensile while the vertical
stresses are compressive. Figure 12 shows stress contours
prior to failure, which indicate that loads redistribute around
the cracked material and little if any portion of the cylinder
exhibits horizontal tensile stresses after the crack forms.
5 DISCUSSION
5.1 Compression Tests
The compression results provide some insight into the
discrepancies observed in current standard compression tests.
These tests were shown to be highly influenced by lateral
confinement at the sample interface, especially with regards to
the uniformity of the stresses induced in the sample body.
Cylinder specimens provided a similar unconfined
compressive strength with and without lateral restraint (within
3.65%), while the restrained cube specimen produced a 54%
higher average compressive strength than was input to the
model. In actual testing applications using ASTM C 39 or
Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Structural Dynamics, EURODYN 2011 3327

DIN 1048, the friction coefficient will be somewhere in approximated as 90% of the splitting tensile strength [5].
between the unrestrained and fully restrained case, e.g. as Better correlations including effect of concrete compressive
evidenced by the deformed shape and failure patterns, i.e. a strength and maximum aggregate size were presented by
barrel shape for the cylinder samples (Figure 13), or corner Rocco et al. [15].
cracking for the cube samples (Figure 14). For the cylinder
specimens, the limited variation in the final strength and its
consistency with the material property input, make it a reliable
test for the determination of compressive strength. For the
cube specimens, the high variation in the final strength due to
end friction, and its potentially significant difference with the
input value for strength indicate that the strength value
measured may not be a characteristic material property.
5.2 Split Tension Tests
The results from the splitting tension model show that stress
distributions within the sample body are complex and change
after initial crack formation. It also appears from these results
that final failure of the splitting tension cylinder is induced by
compressive rather than tensile mean normal stresses. To (a) (b)
illustrate this, 4 integration points are chosen on a vertical
plane near the center of the cylinder, at 4 normalized radial
distances r/R (radial distance r from the center divided by the
radius R) of 0.00, 0.30, 0.60, and 0.95. The point at r/R of
0.00 is located at the center of the cylinder, where the crack
initiates, while the point at r/R of 0.95 is located at the
element immediately in contact with the wood shim; this latter
point does not crack (Figure 8). Figure 15 shows the
calculated stress paths in terms of normalized pressure (p/ƒc')
versus normalized von Mises stress (the von Mises stress
normalized by ƒc'). The failure surface for the K&C concrete
material model is also shown in the figure, which shows that
the three points closest to the center of the cylinder intersect
the failure surface under compressive (i.e. positive) mean
normal stresses. As reference, an ideal unconfined tensile
stress path is also illustrated in the figure. Consequently, the (c)
splitting tension test does not explicitly measure the direct
tensile strength of concrete, but instead, induces a biaxial Figure 1. Finite element models.
stress field that ultimately lead to failure of the sample.

6 CONCLUSIONS
Numerical analyses of compression tests indicated that
measurements using ATM C 1231 on cylinder specimens
reported the best measurement of compressive strength as a
material property. While testing using ASTM C 39 resulted in
a very non-uniform stress field within the specimens, the
strength value obtained can still be accepted a measure of
compressive strength (within 3.65%, which is itself in the
range of the reported within-test precision). Measurements
using cube specimens without end restraints (without friction)
would similarly yield an acceptable measure of the
compressive strength. However, measurements following
standard tests on cubes with possible end friction could result
in highly variable results that are likely not representative of
the actual compressive strength.
Splitting tension tests on cylinders appeared to yield a
tensile strength slightly higher than the input tensile strength.
This appears to match experimental data, whereby the (a) Unrestrained. (b) Restrained
splitting tensile strength is similarly higher than the direct
tensile strength. For numerical analyses the direct tensile Figure 2. Vertical stress contours in cylinders.
strength can be used as a material property, and can be
Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Structural Dynamics, EURODYN 2011 3328

61.56 MPa
41.51 MPa

40.05 40.04 MPa

MPa

Figure 3. Strength of concrete cylinders. Figure 6. Strength of concrete cubes.

(a) Unrestrained. (b) Restrained (a) Unrestrained. (b) Restrained

Figure 4. Lateral stress distribution at cylinder mid-height. Figure 7. Lateral stress distribution at cube mid-height.

(a) Crack formation. (b) Failure.

Figure 8. Damage before and after splitting.

(a) Unrestrained. (b) Restrained.

Figure 5. Vertical stress contours in cubes.

Figure 9. ASTM C 496 (Brazilian) test.

Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Structural Dynamics, EURODYN 2011 3329

1.07 1.09

(a) Horizontal tensile stress. (b) Vertical compressive stress.

Figure 12. Stresses prior to failure (ASTM C 496).

(a) Ratio of splitting to direct (input) tensile strength.

(b) Ratio of hourglass to total energy.

Figure 10. Modeling of splitting tensile strength test.

Figure 13. Damage contours in restrained cylinder.

(a) Horizontal tensile stress. (b) Vertical compressive stress.
Figure 11. Stresses prior to cracking (ASTM C 496).
Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Structural Dynamics, EURODYN 2011 3330

[10] Elwell, D.J., Fu, G., “Compression Testing of Concrete: Cylinders vs.
Cubes,” Report FHWA/NY/SR-95/119, New York State Department of
Transportation Special Report 119, March 1995.
[11] Malaikah, A.S., “Effect of Specimen Size and Shape on the
Compressive Strength of High Strength Concrete,” Pertanika Journal of
Science and Technology, Universiti Putra Malaysia Press, Malaysia,
Volume 13, No. 1, January 2005, (also available at
http://faculty.ksu.edu.sa/malaikah/Papers/Specimen%20size%20and%2
0shape%20effect.pdf).
[12] L’Hermite, R., “La Résistance du Béton et sa Mesure,” Annales de
l’Institut Technique du Batiment et des Travaux Publics, Vol. 114, 1950
pp. 1-19 (in French).
[13] Hansen, H., Kielland, A., Nielsen, K.E.C., Thaulow, S., “Compressive
Strength of Concrete – Cube or Cylinder,” RILEM Bulletin 17, 1962,
pp. 23-30.
[14] Thaulow, S., “Apparent Compressive Strength of Concrete as Affected
by Height of Test Specimen and Friction between Loading Surfaces,”
RILEM Bulletin 17, 1962, pp. 31-33.
[15] Rocco, C., Guinea, G.V., Planas, J., Elices M., "Review of the Splitting
Test Standards from a Fracture Mechanics Point of View," Cement and
Concrete Research, Vol. 31, 2000, pp. 73-82.
[16] Malvar, L.J., Crawford, J.E., Wesevich, J.W., Simons, D., "A Plasticity
Concrete Material Model for DYNA3D," International Journal of
Figure 14. Damage contours in restrained cube. Impact Engineering, Vol. 19, No. 9/10, 1997, pp. 847-873.
[17] Malvar, L.J., Simons, D., “Concrete Material Modeling in Explicit
Computations,” Workshop on Recent Advances in Computational
Structural Dynamics and High Performance Computing, USAE
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, 1996, pp. 165-194.
[18] Malvar, L.J., Crawford J.E., Morrill, K.B., “K&C Concrete Material
Model, Release III: Automated Generation of Material Model Input,”
TR-99-24, K&C Structural Engineers, Burbank, CA, 1999.
[19] Magallanes, J.M., Wu, Y.W., Malvar, L.J., Crawford, J.E., “Recent
Improvements to Release III of the K&C Concrete Model,” 11th Intl.
LS-DYNA User’s Conference, Dearborn, MI, June 6-8, 2010.
[20] Livermore Software Technology Center, LS-DYNA, 2002.
[21] ASTM C 1231, “Standard Practice for Use of Unbonded Caps in
Determinating Compressive Strength of Hardened Concrete Cylinders,”
Annual Book of Standards, American Society for Testing and Materials,
2000.
[22] ASTM C 39, “Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of
Cylindrical Concrete Specimens,” Annual Book of ASTM Standards,
American Society for Testing and Materials, 2001.
[23] DIN 1048 Part 5, Testing of Hardened Concrete, Deutsche Norm, 1991.
[24] ASTM C 496, “Standard Test Method for Splitting Tensile Strength of
Cylindrical Concrete Specimens,” Annual Book of ASTM Standards,
Figure 15. American Society for Testing and Materials, 2004.
[25] ASTM C 617, “Standard Practice for Capping Cylindrical Concrete
Specimens,” Annual Book of ASTM Standards, American Society for
Testing and Materials, 1998.
REFERENCES
[1] Bazant, Z.P., Xiang, Y., “Size Effect in Compression Fracture, Splitting
Crack Band Propagation,” Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE,
Vol. 123, No. 2, 1997, pp. 162-172.
[2] Yi, S-T., Yang, E-I., Choi, J-C., “Effect of Specimen Sizes, Specimen
Shapes, and Placement Directions on the Compressive Strength of
Concrete,” Nuclear Engineering and Design, Vol. 236, 2006, pp. 115-
127.
[3] Del Viso, J.R., Carmona, J.R., Ruiz, G., “Shape and Size Effects on the
Compressive Strength of High-Strength Concrete,” Cement and
Concrete Research, Vol. 38, 2008, pp. 386-395.
[4] Kim, J.K., Eo, S.H., “Size Effects in Concrete Specimens with
Dissimilar Initial Cracks,” Magazine of Concrete Research, Vol. 42, No.
153, 1990, pp. 233-238.
[5] CEB-FIP Model Code 1990, Comité Euro-International du Béton,
Thomas Telford House, 1993.
[6] Indelicato, F., Paggi, M., “Specimen Shape and the Problem of Contact
in the Assessment of Concrete Compressive Strength,” Materials and
Structures, Vol. 41, 2008, pp.431-441.
[7] EN 1992-1-1, Eurocode 2, “Design of Concrete Structures - Part 1.1:
General Rules and Rules for Buildings,” 2003, pp 27–37.
[8] EN 13791, “Assessment of In-situ Compressive Strength in Structures
and Precast Concrete Components,” 2005, pp. 7-8.
[9] Tokyay, M., Ozdemir, M., “Specimen Size and Shape Effect on the
Compressive Strength of Higher Strength Concrete,” Cement and
Concrete Research, Vol. 27, No., 8, 1997, pp. 1281-1289.