You are on page 1of 9

Cement & Concrete Composites 54 (2014) 53–61

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Cement & Concrete Composites


journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cemconcomp

Modulus of elasticity and tensile strength of self-compacting concrete:


Survey of experimental data and structural design codes
Bart Craeye a,b,⇑, Petra Van Itterbeeck c, Pieter Desnerck d,e, Veerle Boel e,f, Geert De Schutter e
a
Faculty of Applied Engineering, Applied Engineering Laboratory for Sustainable Materials, Infrastructure & Buildings (MIB), University of Antwerp, Paardenmarkt 92,
B-2000 Antwerp, Belgium
b
HUB-KAHO University College, Association K.U. Leuven, Campus Dirk Martens, Kwalestraat 154, B-9320 Aalst, Belgium
c
Belgian Building Research Institute, Lombardstraat 42, B-1000 Brussels, Belgium
d
Concrete and Composite Structures Group, University of Cambridge, Department of Engineering, Trumpington Street, Cambridge, UK
e
Magnel Laboratory for Concrete Research, Department of Structural Engineering, Ghent University, Technologiepark Zwijnaarde 904, B-9052 Ghent, Belgium
f
Department of Industrial Technology & Construction, Faculty of Engineering and Architecture, Ghent University, Valentin Vaerwyckweg 1, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: To enable an overall view on the mechanical performance of Self-Compacting Concrete (SCC), a database
Received 1 November 2013 was constructed. Included within this database are informations with regard to: mix-design, fresh and
Received in revised form 29 March 2014 hardened properties. This dataset contains results of more than 250 papers, of researches conducted
Accepted 31 March 2014
worldwide on SCC during the last two decades.
Available online 13 April 2014
In this paper, an in depth analyses is provided on the modulus of elasticity and the tensile strength of
SCC. The SCC results collected within the database are compared with those predicted from the formu-
Keywords:
lations and existing models developed and validated for vibrated concrete (e.g. Eurocode 2 and the Model
SCC
Modulus of elasticity
Code (MC 90 and/or MC 2010)). The influences of different mix-design parameters (aggregate type, paste
Tensile strength volume, etc.) on the E-modulus and the tensile strength are analysed, and a more detailed view on the
Database performance of SCC, and the different models, is obtained.
Eurocode 2 Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Model Code

1. Introduction In the framework of the RILEM technical committee 228 on


‘‘Mechanical Properties of Self-Compacting Concrete’’ (TC-228
For more than 20 years, Self-Compacting Concrete (SCC) has MPS), the data from many research papers often include mechan-
been applied in the construction industry. In this period, a lot of ical properties, e.g. compressive strength, tensile strength, Young’s
research has been conducted with regard to the applicability, modulus, etc. Domone [1] and Holschmacher [2] have summarized
mix design, pumpability, durability, rheology, etc. of this self-con- mechanical properties based on existing literature. However, their
solidating type of concrete. Recently more and more research pro- studies were based on rather limited sets of data (due to non-avail-
jects dealing with the structural behaviour and the mechanical ability of larger sets of test results) and as a result did not include,
performance of the material have been carried out and reported. neglect or generalise the influence of some major parameters such
The knowledge with regard to the performance of SCC, in fresh as type of aggregate and paste volume. In this paper an extensive
and hardened state, is increasingly required for SCC applications. database, including results on fresh and hardened properties of
One practical question for practical engineers is whether or not SCC is developed from more than 250 journal and conference
the behaviour of vibrated concrete (VC) mixtures can be translated papers reported between 1990 and 2011.
to the properties of self-compacting mixtures. More specifically, if The results regarding the modulus of elasticity and the tensile
the relations proposed by existing design codes, such as Model strength (direct, splitting and flexural behaviour) of SCC obtained
Code (MC 90 and/or MC 2010) or Eurocode 2 (EC 2), originally from the database are studied.
developed for VC, remain valid and applicable for SCC.
2. Overview of previous studies on SCC

⇑ Corresponding author at: HUB-KAHO University College, Association K.U. 2.1. Database development
Leuven, Campus Dirk Martens, Kwalestraat 154, B-9320 Aalst, Belgium. Tel.: +32
53727170. Over 250 papers international journals were reviewed. Informa-
E-mail address: bart.craeye@hubkaho.be (B. Craeye). tion on the mixture proportion and design, the fresh concrete

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2014.03.011
0958-9465/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
54 B. Craeye et al. / Cement & Concrete Composites 54 (2014) 53–61

Nomenclature

Abbreviations fccub,i cube compressive strength of concrete, with cube side


EC 2 Structural Eurocode 2 (EN 1992) used for the design of i = 100–150 mm
concrete structures fccub,150,eq equivalent cube compressive strength of concrete,
MC1978 First Model Code with design recommendations for con- with cube side 150 mm
crete structures, version of 1978 fccyl,i cylinder compressive strength of concrete, with height
MC 90 Model Code, version of 1990 of cylinder i = 200–300 mm
MC 2010 Model Code, version of 2010 fccyl,eq equivalent cylinder compressive strength of concrete,
MFS type of superplasticizer: melamine formaldehyde sul- cylinder height 300 mm
phonate fck characteristic cylindrical compressive strength of con-
NFS type of superplasticizer: naphtalene formaldehyde sul- crete, cylinder height 300 mm
phonate fcm mean cylindrical compressive strength of concrete, with
PCE type of superplasticizer: polycarbolxylic ether cylinder height 300 mm
SCC self-compacting concrete, which has an ability to flow fct direct tensile strength of concrete
under its own weight, fill the required space or form- fct,fl flexural tensile strength of concrete
work completely and produce a dense and adequately fct,min lower bound value of tensile strength of concrete, appli-
homogeneous material without a need for mechanical cable for direct-splitting–flexural tensile strength
compaction fct,max lower bound value of tensile strength of concrete, appli-
SD standard deviation cable for direct-splitting–flexural tensile strength
VC vibrated concrete, which requires vibration to achieve fct,spl splitting tensile strength of concrete
adequate compaction or consolidation fct,spl,cub splitting tensile strength of concrete, determined on
cubes
Symbols fct,spl,cyl splitting tensile strength of concrete, determined on cyl-
Afl conversion factor for converting flexural tensile inders
strength into direct tensile strength Ec modulus of elasticity of concrete
Asp conversion factor for converting splitting tensile Ecm mean secant modulus of elasticity of concrete
strength into direct tensile strength

properties and the hardened properties of SCC is collected for the Pineaus et al. [6] studied the effect of paste volume and
SCC database, which contains a wide range of SCC types (e.g. Pow- W/B-ratio separately by using a mix design method based on
der-type SCC, VMA-type SCC, Combination-type SCC, etc.) [3]. The volumetric substitutions. By varying the paste volume between
collected information on the mixture composition includes water 359 l/m3 and 452 l/m3, an increase in Ec was found for decreasing
content, cement content and type (Portland, binary types, etc.), filler paste volume. The influence of the W/B-ratio on the modulus of
content and type (limestone, fly ash, blast furnace slag, silica fume, elasticity was found to be comparable to that observed on the com-
etc.), viscosity modifying agent content, superplasticiser content pressive strength.
and type (PCE, MFS, NFS, etc.), air entrainment content and aggre- A survey conducted by Domone [1] indicated that the difference
gate type, aggregate content and maximum grain size (Fig. 1). between SCC and VC in Ec is greater for concrete with lower com-
To be able to quantify the self-compacting properties of the pressive strengths. According to Klug and Holschemacher [7] the
mixtures, the consistency, work-ability, flow-ability and segrega- variation of the SCC results is smaller, causing all results to remain
tion resistance of SCC results of tests such as slumpflow, V-funnel within an acceptable band for design using Model Code (MC 90).
time, L-Box, U-Box, sieve segregation were also included into data- Therefore the common relationship between the modulus of elas-
base. The information on hardened concrete includes the compressive ticity and the characteristic compressive strength is still valid. In
strength, direct tensile strength, splitting tensile strength, flexural ten- the survey by Van Itterbeeck et al. [8] it is also found that Ec tests
sile strength, Young’s modulus and test age, adopted testing stan- results of SCC correlate well with those predicted by EC 2 and the
dards, and specimens sizes and type (cylinder, cube, prism, etc.). Model Code (MC 1978). For SCC as well as for VC a similar overall
Based on the data stored in the database, the influence of scatter was observed within this study.
parameters that may be of major interest to the user and designer,
e.g. water-to-cement ratio (W/C-ratio), water-to-binder ratio
(W/B-ratio), water-to-powder ratio (W/P-ratio), cement-to-pow- 2.3. Tensile strength of SCC
der ratio (C/P-ratio), sand-to-aggregates ratio (S/A-ratio), total filler
content, ratio of cylinder to cube compressive strength, compres- For the evaluation of the tensile strength of concrete, there are
sive strength development, etc. are retrieved. three well-known methods: (i) the direct tensile strength, (ii) the
splitting tensile strength and (iii) the flexural tensile strength
(3-point bending or 4-point bending). Due to the high degree of
2.2. Modulus of elasticity of SCC difficulty during execution, direct tensile strength tests are rather
scarce. EC 2 or Model Code (MC 1990 or MC 2010) makes it possi-
Due to the considerable contribution of aggregates to the over- ble to convert these test results from one to another. However, it is
all stiffness of concrete, it is often assumed that SCC – with its not quite clear whether these conversion factors can still be used
higher paste content – is characterised by a lower modulus of elas- for SCC.
ticity (Ec). Van Itterbeeck et al. [8] studied 6 SCC mixtures with limestone
Some studies [1,2,4,5] have reported that the modulus of elas- filler or fly ash, with W/C-ratio ranging from 0.45 to 0.61 and
ticity of some SCC mixes was lower than that of the VC mixes with C/P-ratio between 0.50 and 0.67. Their data indicates that the con-
a similar compressive strength. version factor Asp, for converting splitting tensile strength into
B. Craeye et al. / Cement & Concrete Composites 54 (2014) 53–61 55

Fig. 1. Structure of the database.

direct tensile strength, is slightly lower (0.84 ± 0.04) than the val- According to the study performed by Van Itterbeeck et al. [8] a
ues proposed by EC 2 and MC 1990 (Asp = 0.9) or by MC 2010 rather good prediction (small underestimation) of the splitting ten-
(Asp = 1.0). The conversion factor for bending Asfl (0.59 ± 0.10) [8] sile strength evolution can be obtained for the self-compacting
was also significantly lower than the proposed value of 0.69 of mixes made with Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC), using the
EC 2 and MC 2010. This study concluded that using the conversion model proposed by EC 2.
factors proposed by EC 2, MC 90 or MC 2010 might lead to an over-
estimation of the direct tensile strength. 3. Results and discussion
The authors of [1] found that the cylinder splitting tensile
strength of SCC falls well within the 5–95% percentile ranges of 3.1. Mix design parameters of SCC
that predicted by EC 2 for the predicted splitting tensile strength,
with the majority being in the upper half, and a few above the As the database contains results from more than 250 papers
upper limit. An explanation for this statement could, according to (and is still expanding), it can provide insights in SCC property
[8], be found in a possible underestimation of the used conversion ranges. Table 1 summarizes most of the mixture properties and
factor between cylinder and cube compressive strength, which proportions collected in the database. Besides the maximum and
consequently would lead to an overestimation of the tensile minimum values, the mean values, the 10% centile and the 90%
strength when utilising the equations provided by EC 2 and centile, and the standard deviations (SD) are also provided.
expressing the results in function of cube compressive strength, It can be seen from Table 1 that the applied cement, sand and
as is the case in [1]. coarse aggregate content of SCC are varying in a wide range, which
Anagnostopoulos et al. [10] studied the relationship between covers almost the entire ranges found for VC. With respect to the
the cylinder splitting tensile strength and the cube compressive W/C-ratio, values between 0.19 and 2.73 are observed with a mean
strength of SCC and VC mixtures produced with limestone and sili- value of 0.54 (SD = 0.19). The maximum applied W/C-ratio is rela-
ceous aggregates. The splitting tensile strength of SCC was found to tively high, but it has to be emphasized that, in general, also other
be slightly lower (with a decrease of 6–8%) than the splitting ten- types of binders are used. Different types of cement were used
sile strength of VC for mixtures with equal W/C-ratio, cement con- throughout the different studies: CEM I, CEM II, CEM III (according
tent and both containing quartz aggregates. The authors observed a to EN 197-1), ASTM type I and type II, CEM type GU (according to
similar splitting tensile strength for the SCC mixtures and the VC American standards), etc. The W/B-ratio recorded for SCC ranges
mixtures when crushed limestone aggregates were used. They con- from 0.15 to 1.33 with a mean value of 0.46. The majority of the
cluded that the tensile strength of SCC and VC mixtures with sim- mixes present a W/B-ratio between 0.3 and 0.7 (Fig. 2).
ilar W/C-ratio is predominantly influenced by the aggregate type Inert as well as puzzolan filler materials are used within the dif-
[10]. ferent studies. The most common materials being limestone, fly
A limited amount of test results can be found in literature on ash, blast furnace slag and silica fume, but also marble powder,
the evolution of the splitting tensile strength with concrete age. glass powder, rice husk ash, metakaolin, volcanic ash, granite pow-
These results can be valuable, e.g. for the evaluation of the early- der, etc. are used. Cement together with additions (fine-grained
age (thermal) cracking behaviour of massive concrete structures. inorganic materials: inert or nearly inert additions and puzzolanic
56 B. Craeye et al. / Cement & Concrete Composites 54 (2014) 53–61

Table 1
Applied ranges of mix proportion parameters of SCC.

Property Min 10% Centile Mean 90% Centile Max SD


3
Cement content (kg/m ) 83 250 360 490 700 89
Water content (kg/m3) 80 160 187 224 437 30
Sand content (kg/m3) 150 300 420 550 750 147
Coarse aggregate content (kg/m3) 275 410 535 625 1272 223
Powder content (kg/m3) 135 600 800 940 1190 107
Binder content (kg/m3) 283 650 820 1035 1740 93
W/C-ratio (-) 0.19 0.38 0.54 0.80 2.73 0.19
W/B-ratio (-) 0.15 0.33 0.46 0.63 1.33 0.13
W/P-ratio (-) 0.14 0.27 0.36 0.45 0.65 0.08
S/A-ratio (-) 0.10 0.37 0.50 0.60 0.81 0.09
Maximum grain size (mm) 5 10 16 20 25 3.8

Note:
Most common used types of chemical admixtures: MFS, NFS, PCE, lignosulphonate, acrylic copolymers.
Most common used types of binders: Portland cement, fly ash, blast furnace slag, silica fume, metakaolin.
Most common used types of aggregates: gravel, limestone, basalt, dolomitic, marble, quartzite, sandstone, recycled.

The most commonly reported being the slumpflow. The ranges of


25%
fresh properties as derived from the database are found in Table 2.
As can be seen, the reported slumpflow value varies between
20%
320 mm and 933 mm, with a mean value of 690 mm (SD = 60 mm).
Although concretes with a slumpflow value of only 320 mm can
Frequency [-]

15% hardly be called self-compacting, authors often claim them to be


self-compacting. The majority of the test results are within the
10% range defined by EN 206-9 for SCC as can be seen in the histogram
presented in Fig. 3a. Most researchers aim for a SF2 slumpflow
class. In the analysis of the hardened properties, special care is
5%
taken to include and analyse only those concrete types of which
the fresh properties qualify for a stable self-compacting concrete.
0% As a result only the SCC mixtures with a slumpflow value in the
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.55
0.60
0.65
0.70
0.75
0.80
0.85
0.90
0.95
1.00
1.05
1.10
1.15
1.20
1.25
1.30
1.35
1.40

range of 550 mm and 850 mm (slump-flow class SF1, SF2 and


Water-to-Binder ratio [-] SF3 [3]) are included in the analysis of the database (Fig. 3a). In
depth analysis of other fresh properties of SCC (e.g. V-funnel time,
Fig. 2. Histogram of SCC mix design properties, e.g. the applied water-to-binder
density, air content, etc.) is also performed, but the discussion lies
ratios.
out of the scope and content of this paper.

3.3. Hardened properties of SCC


or latent hydraulics) are called powder. As SCC often is composed
of larger quantities of powder than vibrated concrete, the observed In Figs. 3b–3e the histogram of the modulus of elasticity, direct
powder content of the mixtures within the database is also gener- tensile strength, splitting tensile strength and flexural tensile
ally higher. According to the database common powder contents strength respectively of SCC is presented. The majority of the mixes
for SCC mixes are situated in the range of 400–650 kg/m3. Further present a modulus of elasticity between 26 GPa and 42 GPa and a
analysis of other mix design parameters of SCC (e.g. mentioned in splitting tensile strength between 2.5 MPa and 5.0 MPa. For the
Table 1 and Fig. 2) is also conducted. For this study, dealing with direct tensile strength and the flexural tensile strength less infor-
tensile strength and modulus of elasticity of SCC, in depth discus- mation can be found in literature.
sion regarding mix design parameter lies out of the scope of the
paper. 3.3.1. Modulus of elasticity of SCC
Since the database includes a large variety of SCC mixes with a
wide range of paste volumes (paste volume range from 151 to
3.2. Fresh properties of SCC 709 l/m3) the results were first analysed in function of paste vol-
ume (see Fig. 4a). All results were expressed in function of an
In most studies the fresh properties of the mixture are charac- equivalent cylinder (diameter 150 mm, length 300 mm) compres-
terized by several measurements of the slumpflow, V-funnel, etc. sive strength (correlation expressed in (Eq. (1)).

Table 2
Ranges of fresh properties of SCC.

Property # Measurements Min 10% Centile Mean 90% Centile Max SD


Slump flow (mm) 1545 320 600 690 780 933 60
V-funnel time (s) 741 1.0 3.5 9.3 16.0 57.2 6.3
L-box ratio (–) 563 0.20 0.73 0.86 0.97 1.12 0.12
U-box (mm) 55 5 31 294 340 485 111
Sieve-segregation ratio (–) 141 0.20 2.24 8.35 15.51 29.30 5.4
Density (kg/m3) 469 1960 2250 2345 2430 2590 80
Air content (%) 488 0.4 1.3 3.2 6.1 12.8 0.02
B. Craeye et al. / Cement & Concrete Composites 54 (2014) 53–61 57

18%
SF1 SF2 SF3
16%

14%

12%
Frequency [-]

10%

8%

6%

4%

2%

0%
300
325
350
375
400
425
450
475
500
525
550
575
600
625
650
675
700
725
750
775
800
825
850
875
900
925
950
975
1000
Slump-flow [mm]
Fig. 3e. Histogram of SCC hardened properties: flexural tensile strength.
Fig. 3a. Histogram of SCC fresh properties, e.g. slump-flow values.

To convert compressive test results into the equivalent cylinder


compressive strength (with ratio of cylinder height to diameter
equal to 2) the following conversion factors were used, see Eq. (1)

fcub;150;eq  fccyl;100 =0:9  fccyl;110 =0:9  fccyl;150 =0:9ðh=d ¼ 2Þ ð1Þ


These conversion factors are based on an extensive study also
conducted by the means of the abovementioned database and pub-
lished in [12].
A study of the results might perhaps indicate a ‘slight’ influence
of paste volume, as indicated by the correlation curves constructed
for paste volumes below or above 370 l/m3. Nonetheless, the scat-
ter on the individual results is more important than the slight shift

Fig. 3b. Histogram of SCC hardened properties: modulus of elasticity.

Fig. 4a. Influence of paste volume on E-modulus (314 results).

Fig. 3c. Histogram of SCC hardened properties: direct tensile strength.

Fig. 4b. Influence of aggregate type on E-modulus without taking into account the
Fig. 3d. Histogram of SCC hardened properties: splitting tensile strength. correction factor according to EC2 (276 results).
58 B. Craeye et al. / Cement & Concrete Composites 54 (2014) 53–61

With:

 Ec the secant modulus of elasticity of concrete [psi].


 fc0 the specified compressive strength of concrete, in equivalence
to the characteristic compressive strength utilised in EC 2 (see
Section 5.3 of the ACI) [psi].

All results seem to conform to EC 2 predictions and fit well into


the bandwidth expected for the secant E-modulus according to the
Model Code (MC 1978: this code being to only document providing
information on the expected scatter range). The general conclusion
which can thus be drawn, based on the results for the modulus of
elasticity of SCC presented in Fig. 4c, is that E-modulus of SCC
seems to be very similar to that observed for VC, with an important
but similar scatter present on the results for both types of concrete.
Fig. 4c. Comparison of E-modulus results from database with Eurocode 2 provi-
Fig. 4d seems to indicate that the ACI 318-11 also captures the evo-
sions (314 results). lution between compressive strength and E-modulus reasonably
well, but seems to provide an underestimation of the absolute
value of the modulus of elasticity.

3.3.2. Direct tensile strength of SCC


For the evaluation of the direct tensile strength of SCC, a limited
amount of test results can be found in literature (25 data results
originating from 6 studies), mainly due to the complexity of the
test equipment and execution of the experiments. The test results
contained within the database are moreover obtained at different
concrete ages (14 days up to 90 days). Mainly, the shape of the test
specimens is cylindrical.
The correlation between the direct tensile strength and the
equivalent cube compressive strength is expressed, since for a
majority of the results within the database this cube compressive
strength is given. All the compressive test results have been con-
verted into fccub,150,eq by using the conversion factors mentioned
in Eqs. (1) and (4), based on an extensive evaluation of the data-
base [12].
Fig. 4d. Comparison of E-modulus results from database with ACI318–08 provi- fccub;150;eq  fccub;100  fccub;120  fccub;150 ð4Þ
sions (314 results).
According to EC 2 and MC 2010 the direct tensile strength fct can
recorded in function of paste content. As a result, the authors retain be derived from the characteristic compressive strength fck accord-
a certain reservation with regard to an impact (if any) of paste con- ing to Eqs. (5a) and (5b):
tent on E-modulus.
2=3
When analysing the results in function of the coarse aggregate fct ¼ 0:3  ðfck Þ for conctrete grades 6 C50=60 ð5aÞ
origin (Fig. 4b) a clear influence on the E-modulus cannot be
observed. It is even so that using the correction factors prescribed fct ¼ 2:12  lnð1 þ 0:1  ðfck þ Df ÞÞ for conctrete grades > C50=60
by EC 2 leads to an even greater scatter on the results. Therefore, ð5bÞ
further on in this section no conversion factors for type of coarse
aggregate utilised within the mix-design will be used. With:
In Figs. 4c and 4d the E-modulus results contained in the data-
base are compared with EC 2, MC 1978 and ACI 318-11 predictions.  Df = (fck + 8)/10 according to EC 2.
Note that the results were not compared with MC 2010 since, in  Df = 8 MPa according to MC 2010.
contrast with EC 2 and ACI 318-11, it provides information with
regards to the tangent E-modulus instead of the secant E-modulus. The lower and upper bound values of the tensile strength fct,max
The modulus of elasticity of concrete can according to EC2 be and fct,min may be estimated using Eqs. (6a) and (6b), respectively:
derived by means of Eq. (2): fct;min ¼ 0:7  fct ð6aÞ
0:3
Ecm ¼ 22  ðfcm =10Þ ð2Þ
fct;max ¼ 1:3  fct ð6bÞ
With:
To convert fck into fccub,150,eq Eq. (7) is used:
 Ecm the mean secant E-modulus of concrete. fccub;150;eq ¼ ðfck þ 8Þ=0:9 ð7Þ
 fcm the mean cylindrical compressive strength, measured on
cylinders with a diameter of 150 mm and a height of 300 mm. Fig. 5a provides an overview of the direct tensile strength
results contained within the database in function of their equiva-
Within ACI 318-11 another formulation can be found for the lent cube compressive strength. For this limited amount of data,
estimation of the modulus of elasticity, see Eq. (3): the results tend to follow the mean relationship proposed by EC
0:5
2 and MC 2010, especially if crushed coarse aggregates (limestone
Ec ¼ 57000  ðfc0 Þ ð3Þ or calcareous) are being used. On the other hand, the test results
B. Craeye et al. / Cement & Concrete Composites 54 (2014) 53–61 59

Fig. 5a. Direct tensile strength vs. equivalent cube compressive strength of SCC Fig. 6a. Splitting tensile strength (sample shape: cylinder or cube) vs. equivalent
mixtures and the effect of the coarse aggregates (CA) shape (25 results out of 6 cube compressive strength of SCC mixtures and the effect of coarse aggregates
studies). shape (crushed vs. uncrushed) (536 results out of 49 studies).

According to EC 2 and MC 2010 it is possible to convert the


direct tensile strength fct into the splitting tensile strength fct,spl
by using a conversion factor Asp, presented in Eq. (8):
fct ¼ Asp  fct;spl ð8Þ
With:

 Asp = 0.9 for all concrete grades according to EC 2.


 Asp = 1.0 for all concrete grades according to MC 2010.

The splitting tensile strength results are presented in Fig. 6a in


function of their equivalent cube compressive strength. The behav-
iour of cubes under splitting tensile stress tends to follow the mean
relationship proposed by EC 2 (for fccub,150,eq inferior to 40 MPa),
and the maximum range proposed by MC 2010. A linear trend is
identified between fct,spl,cub and fccub,150,eq (originating from one
study) which can be confirmed by a study of [9].
Fig. 5b. Direct tensile strength vs. equivalent cube compressive strength of SCC Although higher splitting tensile strength results can be
mixtures and the effect of C/P-ratio (25 results out of 6 studies). expected in case of cubic samples (10% higher values compared
to cylinders, according to EN 12390-6), this cannot be confirmed
by the data of Fig. 6a. A rather high percentage of the widely scat-
originating from mixtures based on uncrushed coarse aggregates
tered splitting tensile strength results of cylinders lay between the
(gravel) lay at the lower bound, between the 5% percentile range
5% and 95% percentile or maximum ranges (or even above) of EC 2,
and the mean value proposed by EC 2 and MC 2010.
and mostly in the upper half of the MC 2010 range. This might be
No significant effect of paste volume or filler type on the corre-
due to an improved bond between the paste and the aggregates in
lation between direct tensile strength and compressive strength
the self-compacting mixtures, as often referred to in literature.
could be found by means of the database, this observation could
Splitting tensile strength results of SCC using granite coarse
however also be due to the limited amount of data available in
aggregates lay in the upper half or above the ranges proposed by
the database. However, the effect of the C/P-ratio is noticeable
EC 2 and MC 2010 (Fig. 6b). When limestone or gravel aggregates
for the given results, as depicted in Fig. 5b. Self-compacting mix-
tures with C/P-ratio less than 0.75 tend to lay beneath the mean
values proposed by EC 2 and MC 2010. Due to the very limited
amount of data it remains however very precarious to draw any
definite conclusions. More experimental results are thus necessary
to obtain reliable information with regard to the direct tensile
strength of SCC.

3.3.3. Splitting tensile strength of SCC


For the evaluation of the splitting tensile strength of SCC, a con-
siderable amount of test results can be found in literature (608
data results originating from 60 studies) with concrete ages vary-
ing from 1 to 365 days. In the majority of the papers, the shape
of the test specimen is cylindrical (399 results, 43 studies) or cubic
(137 data, 6 studies). The correlation between splitting tensile
strength (of cubes and cylinders) and cube compressive strength
is given in Fig. 6a. Note that all compressive test results have been Fig. 6b. Cylinder splitting tensile strength vs. equivalent cube compressive strength
converted into fccub,150,eq by using the conversion factors proposed of SCC mixtures and the effect of coarse aggregates type (granite vs. limestone vs.
in Eqs. (1) and (4). gravel) (256 results out of 27 studies).
60 B. Craeye et al. / Cement & Concrete Composites 54 (2014) 53–61

are used, this is not the case, this data conforms well to the mean The determination of fct,fl by means of 3-point bending testing
relation proposed by EC 2. methods provides an overestimation of the flexural tensile
Further analysis of the database shows that there is not a signif- strength. Therefore, it is advised to use 4-point bending to obtain
icant effect of coarse aggregate size or paste volume on the corre- realistic values for the flexural tensile strength.
lation between splitting tensile strength and compressive strength. No noticeable influence of the shape of the coarse aggregates
However, according to [11] larger maximum size of aggregates and could be observed by means of the results within the database.
higher coarse aggregate volumes (thus: smaller paste volume) lead Also no significant tendencies were found with regard to aggregate
to higher splitting tensile strengths. The influence of C/P-ratio or type, paste volume, C/P-ratio, or filler type. Due to the very limited
filler type is negligible according to the results contained within amount of data it remains very precarious to draw any definite
the database. conclusions. More experimental results are necessary to obtain
It can be concluded that by using models proposed by EC 2 and more reliable information with regard to parametric influences
Model Code (MC 2010) for estimating the tensile strength of SCC, a on the flexural tensile strength of SCC.
safe and realistic approach is obtained.

4. Conclusions
3.3.4. Flexural tensile strength of SCC
For the evaluation of the flexural tensile strength of SCC, a lim- Self-compacting concrete is a relatively new type of concrete.
ited amount of test results can be found in literature (4-point Developed in the late eighties, literature concerning this topic only
bending: 27 data results originating from 4 studies, 3-point bend- boomed in the last two decades. Within this period the main focus
ing: 78 data results from 7 studies, all data have a ratio specimen of most studies was related to mix-design, rheology, durability, etc.
side/span length between 3 and 4). The correlation between flex- and less attention was devoted to the mechanical performance of
ural tensile strength and fccub,150,eq is given in Fig. 7. Note that all the material. However, most studies do include information on
compressive test results have been converted into fccub,150,eq by compressive strength and, in lesser amount, on tensile strength,
using Eqs. (1) and (4). and modulus of elasticity. As part of the deliverables of the RILEM
According EC 2 it is possible to convert the direct tensile TC228-MPS an extensive database was constructed, grouping
strength fct into the flexural tensile strength fct,fl by using the rela- results from more than 250 scientific papers dealing with SCC.
tionship in Eq. (9): Within this paper the modulus of elasticity and tensile strength
of SCC was evaluated by means of this database. The influence of
fct;fl ¼ max½ð1:6  h=1000Þ  fct ; f ct Þ ð9Þ
mixture parameters was closely analysed and the applicability of
According MC 2010 it is possible to convert the direct tensile current design codes was evaluated (Eurocode 2, ACI 318-11,
strength fct into the flexural tensile strength by using a conversion Model Code 1990 and 2010).
factor Afl, presented in Eq. (10): Following conclusions can be drawn with respect to the modu-
lus of elasticity of SCC based on this database:
fct ¼ Afl  fct;fl ð10Þ
 The modulus of elasticity of SCC seems to be very similar to that
With:
of VC, with an important but similar scatter present on the
results for both types of concrete.
 Afl = 0.71 (for beams with depth 200 mm).
 All results seem to conform to EC 2 predictions and fit well into
the bandwidth expected for the secant E-modulus according to
As could be expected, higher values are found for fct,fl in case a
the Model Code 1978. The ACI318-11 also captures the evolu-
3-point bending test is conducted: most of those results lay above
tion between compressive strength and E-modulus reasonably
the mean value and even above the upper range proposed by EC 2
well, but seems to provide an underestimation of the absolute
and MC 2010.
value of the modulus of elasticity.
When the 4-point bending experiments are considered, the
 One might argue that a slight effect of paste volume could
results tend to follow the mean value proposed by EC 2 and MC
be observed on the modulus of elasticity of SCC. However
2010 and all of the data are located between the upper and lower
with the wide scatter present on the results no definite con-
ranges proposed by the codes.
clusions can be drawn with regard to the influence of paste
volume on modulus of elasticity of SCC. There is no signifi-
cant effect of aggregate type on the modulus of elasticity
of SCC.

With respect to the tensile strength following main conclusions


can be drawn using the developed database:

 Due to the very limited amount of data for direct and flexural
tensile strength, it remains difficult to state whether the trends
conform with design codes such as EC 2 and MC 2010. More
experimental results are necessary to draw reliable conclusions.
 The results for splitting tensile strength seem to conform to the
relationships proposed by design codes such as EC 2 and MC
2010. The effect of aggregate type was noticed: SCC mixtures
with granite coarse aggregates lay in the upper half or above
the ranges proposed by EC 2 and MC 2010, which is not the case
Fig. 7. Flexural tensile strength (3-point or 4-point bending) vs. equivalent cube
for SCC mixtures based on gravel or limestone aggregates. No
compressive strength of SCC and the effect of coarse aggregates shape (crushed vs. significant effect of paste volume, filler type or coarse aggregate
uncrushed) (105 results out of 11 studies). size was observed.
B. Craeye et al. / Cement & Concrete Composites 54 (2014) 53–61 61

Acknowledgements use of self-consolidating concrete and the 4th international RILEM symposium
on self-compacting concrete. Chicago: Hanley Wood Publications; 2005. p.
863–8.
This paper is part of the work of the RILEM technical committee [7] Klug Y, Holschemacher K. Comparison of the hardened properties of self-
228 on ‘‘Mechanical Properties of Self-Compacting Concrete’’ compacting and normal vibrated concrete. In: Wallevik O, Nielsson I, editors.
(TC-228 MPS), whose contribution and dedication is greatly Proceedings of 3rd international RILEM symposium on self-compacting
concrete. Reykjavik: RILEM Publications S.A.R.L; 2003. p. 596–605.
acknowledged. [8] Van Itterbeeck P, Cauberg N, Parmentier B, Vandewalle L, Lesage K. Eurocode 2
predictions vs. mechanical properties of self compacting concrete. In: Khayat
References KH, Feys D, editors. CD proceedings of design, production and placement of
self-consolidating concrete (SCC2010). Montreal; 2010.
[9] Topçu IB, Uygunoglu T. Effect of aggregate type on properties of hardened self-
[1] Domone PL. A review of the hardened mechanical properties of self- consolidating lightweight concrete (SCLC). Constr Build Mater
compacting concrete. Cem Concr Compos 2007;29(1):1–12.
2010;24:1286–95.
[2] Holschemacher K, Klug Y. A database for the evaluation of hardened properties [10] Anagnostopoulos N, Sideris KK, Georgiadis A. Mechanical characteristics of
of SCC. LACER 2002;7:123–34. self-compacting concretes with different filler materials, exposed to elevated
[3] De Schutter G, Bartos PJM, Domone P, Gibbs J. Self-compacting temperatures. Mater Struct 2009;42:1393–405.
concrete. Caithness: Whittles Publishing; 2008. [11] Almeida Filho FM, Barragán BE, Casas JR, El Debs ALHC. Hardened properties of
[4] Brite-EuRam. Task 4-properties of hardened self-compacting concrete – Final
self-compacting concrete—A statistical approach. Constr Build Mater
Report; 2005. 2010;24:1608–15.
[5] Georgiadis AS, Anagnostopoulos NS, Sideris KK. Mechanical characteristics of [12] Boel V, Craeye B, Desnerck P, Van Der Vurst F, De Schutter G. Influence of
self-compacting concrete produced with different filler materials. In: De specimen shape and dimensions on the compressive strength of self-
Schutter G, Boel V, editors. Proceedings of 5th international RILEM symposium compacting concrete. In: Roussel N, editor. Proceedings of the 7th
on self-compacting concrete. Ghent; 2007. p. 611–8.
international RILEM symposium on self-compacting concrete. Paris, RILEM
[6] Pineaus A, Cabrillac R, Rémond S, Pimienta P, Rivillon P. Mechanical properties Publications S.A.R.L., RILEM Proceedings PRO 90; 2013. p. 596–605.
of self-compacting concrete – influence of composition parameters. In: Shah
SP, editor. Proceedings of 2nd North-American conference on the design and